12/02/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 ""r-; BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 2, 1987 PAGE 2 the chairman called other interested narties before the Board and administered the oath to: T. Perciavalli, Mr and Mrs. Hriczek, Mr. and Mrs: Garlock, A. Boguski, J. Kirtos, Mr. and Mrs. Borelli, L. Boepnle, Mr. and Mrs. Nolte, A. Lanpin-, and S. Hriczik, all condominium owners at Hyde Park; Mr. and Mrs. D. Herman; adjacent home owners;.and Mr. Mongello, architect and his associate, Mr. Schill, representing the developer. Mr. King, attorney for Realtek Industries, explained that this entire parcel was originally the site of a comprehensive development plan that was approved by the City of.North Olmsted in the late 1970's an d that Phase I, consisting of 120 apartments, and Phase II (H_yde Park.),consisting of 54 condominium units have been completed. The proposal to construct Phase III was submitted to the Planning Commission who referred it to the Board of Zoning Appeals since changes were rea.uested to reduce the size of the building from six stories which, based on the allowable density of the site, could have accommodated 154 apartment units to a three story structure with 54 anartment suites and also to change f_rom a 20 foot buffer, for which a variance had been granted previously, to a 10 foot buffer from the garages to the adjacent John Knox Church propertv. The develoner is withdrawing the request for the variance for the 10 foot buffer at this time. Law Director Gareau advised that whenever there is pfiase development in the'Mixed Use Distr•ict and a variance is granted on the master nlan,.that it would apply across the board for future phases of the developments, so the request for a variance for a 10 f.oot buffer was actually a modification of a variance previously approved.. Mr. King presented a revised site plan and explained-that as a result of a meeting with the cond'ominium owners the site plan,has been revised'so that the drives are buffered by landscaping to urohibit traffic from the proposed apartments from driving through-the condominium property (site plan did not show, the 20 foot side yard). Mr. Rosenthal, spokesman for the condominium associa= tion, stated that the modification of the drives and buffers is not the only concern of the owners. He pointed out that the governance of the condominium was only turned over to the unit owners on November 17th. _A meeting was held'with the oianers and developers-to discuss the plans and there are several areas of concern.on which they would like some written agreements and/or detailed nlans such as: landscaning, parking, outdoor lighting plans, location of dumpsters, roadways and buffering, signage, color scheme; as well as commitment not to-use the name "Hyde Park" for vhase III: agreement to change existing sign which now reads "Hyde Park.Apartments"; commitment that there would be no children and no pets in apartments, determination of financial obligations of the develoner and the condominium as nertains to road mainte- nance and snow removal since Hyde Park will be between two of the develoner's anartments; and would like the developer to be limited to 42 units in this development as is svecified in Section 21, paragraph H, of the Exu andable Condominium Provisions. Because the board has only had two weeks as a governing body, they are requesting that the variances lie denied until thev can come to some agreement with the develoner on the above issues. Law Director Gareau advised that if the Board rejected the varianee on the basis of these items, they would be violating State, Federal, and local law, and pointed out that manv of these issues will be addressed by the Planning Commission during the normal approval process. This Board must address the project on the various provisions of the code as it deals with variances, and does not have the authority to address many of the association's concerns. The only variance requested at this time is to construct a three story build- ing instead of asix s-tory building. Mr. Rosenthal stated that they wanted. the Board to be aware that there were many resolved problems. Mr. Gareau • t