My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/24/1991 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1991
>
1991 Planning Commission
>
09/24/1991 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:54 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:42:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1991
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/24/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
4? • <br />development ca.n be one owner or a group of owners. He pointed out that there would <br />be a lot of different ownerships since the homes would be owned individually, and <br />the home owners association would own the common areas. Mr. Gorris pointed out that <br />Building Commissioner Conway had mentioned in his letter that the golf course taould <br />be a separate ownership, so apparently he had a concern. Mr. Skoulis stated that <br />the code calls for a minimun of 1,500 square feet per unit, and in the triplexes, <br />there is only 1,072 square feet in some of the lmits. He believed that this is the <br />size of an apartment, and did not believe this could be considered a single family <br />cluster home. Mr. Hill responded that, when the code was being written, they had <br />envisioned two dwelling units attaehed side by side and in that case the 1,500 <br />square feet would be appropriate, however, this is a tmique arrangement with which <br />he was not familiar, and in wliich 1,500 square feet might be excessive, the <br />smallest unit proposed is comparable to the minimum square footage required in a <br />"C" Residence District. Mr. Skoulis is also concerned because there are not two <br />separate exterior exits for each Lmit as required. Again, Mr. Hill stated that this <br />was based on two units attached side by side where there would be no problem <br />getting two neans of egress from each unit, and this is a new concept, but the <br />Building Commissioner has no problem with the arrangement of the stacked units and <br />he is the expert on the building codes which is based on life safety issues. He <br />reiterated that in this code the Comnission can recomnend reasonable modifications <br />to the Council. In response to Mrs. Hughes questions, Mr. Hill advised that the <br />child yield in this type of development.would be very small, citing that he lives <br />in a cluster development of 30 tmits, and in the past 14 years they ha.ve had only <br />one or two school age children. Mr. Bower stated that he did not have the figures <br />of their market studies, but their primary market is the empty nesters; there <br />would probably be some single people and professional couples with no children. <br />Originally, they had some smaller units in the triplex homes, but after some study <br />they increased the size, these sizes exceed anything that is available in a rental <br />district. They have built four-plex buildings with 1,200 square feet tmits which <br />are more than adequate. He stated that this design could not be stretched to allow <br />larger homes, and pointed out that a previously approved apartment complex had 800 <br />square,.foot units which are considered spacious rental units. He ma.intained...that <br />there are no developnents comparable to this proposal in the western suburbs and <br />believed this would be a bench mark for any that came afterward. Mr. Morgan <br />suggested that it might be helpful if the meribers could look at the four-plex <br />buildingso Mr. Bower responded that they are not actually the same concept, but <br />they are stacked tmits. If the Commission is concerned about setting a precedent, <br />he pointed out that 3.8 units per acre would be a nice precedent. Mr. Dubelko <br />clarified that the Law Department and the Building Commissioner had agreed that <br />this is a Single Family Use, not Multi-family. As far as the staclcirlg is concerned, <br />the Building Commissioner had determined that this does not meet the strict <br />interpretation of the code, and would need a variance by this Comni.ssion. Mr. <br />Conway clarified that the variance was required because of the stacking, not <br />because there were three units, and the buildin; codes would allow one exit from a <br />second floor of a residential.home, but the Zoning Code has stipulated two exits, <br />so the Commission would have to address this. Mr. Skoulis is concerned about having <br />dwelling tmits over garages in the event that a car might catch fire. Mr. ConNaay <br />advised that there would be fire separation between the garages, as well as between <br />the two units on the second floor. Mr. Orlowski questioned if the developer had <br />considered designing the Vista Homes in a different structure, as mentioned by Mr. <br />Thor.ias previously. Mr. Bower responded that they had been studying this for the <br />past year, and the Vista Home concept is necessary to make this work. He advised <br />that he had out bid several developers who would have destroyed the golf course and <br />constructed single far.?ily homes, and in order to make this work financially, and <br />keep the golf course, this mix is necessary. Mr. Orlowski questioned why they could <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.