Laserfiche WebLink
there was a nursery road in that area, most of the tall trees were further into <br />the site. The forester had no objection as to what had been done. Councilman <br />McKay stated that what was approved was a class building, and it would appear <br />that they do not have the money. He asked that the plan not be approved. Mr. <br />Bowman, who lived within 6 houses of the project, stated he was not notified of <br />the meeting. He originally thought that there was to be a park on the lot next to <br />Butternut Ridge. Mr.. Gorris clarified that, by court order, that area is limited <br />to recreational use for the complex. He further explained that since his parcel <br />does not abut the property no notification had to be sent, but he would notify <br />him if there were any other heaxingsm Mr. Trevillian, the developer, stated that <br />they presented conceptua.l drawings, they were not trying to pull a fast one; he <br />believed that they compiled a definitive design. Some things do occur inevitably <br />with the evolution of working drawings and that is what happened with the site <br />plan. The relationships of the buildings are the same, the distances of the <br />setbacks, with one exception, are the same, but the error of the boundary gave <br />the appearance of a significant change. They did work closely with the Fire <br />Department and Building Commissioner and believed tha.t the adjustments that were <br />required were administrative changes, rather than PlaxLn;ng Commission issues. The <br />architectural changes were also an evolutionary thing; and they were unable to <br />get them drawn quickly enough so permits were obtained based on the original <br />plans. Yet, as previously stated a complete set of working drawings were <br />roof, and in some cases they were made because of dollars, but maintenance and <br />aesthetics were also issues. The roof trusses were getting to be an engineering <br />nightmare. They plan to keep the development and believe they are offering a good <br />product and do not think these changes will hurt the rent structureso Previous <br />developers could not get backing from financial institutions, but because of <br />their reputation, they had no problem. This is a financial hardship. Mr. Orlowski <br />stated that this new proposal barely meets minirm,m code standards, the Commission <br />approved the original proposal which far surpassed the code. Mr. Gorris reminded <br />them that they went through the entire process, and now they are cominv back with <br />drastic changes. Mr. Trevillian responded these things evolve, he did not believe <br />these were drastic changes, in fact, he would also like to change the colors <br />because they have found another color scheme that would be preferable. Mr. Crabs, <br />a resident, questioned if the retention basin is above or below ground. Mr. <br />Trevillian clarified that part of the retention is underground and part will be a <br />pond, the hole that is there now was over-excavated, it looks bigger now than <br />what it will be and it will be feneeda Mr. Ulisse, a resident of North Olmsted, <br />objected to the changes. Mrs. Kurzenberger, a neighbor, stated she was not <br />notified of the original project because she was 3 homes away from it. She was <br />not even. aware that there had been court action on this property and objects <br />because these ehanges will affect her property and she stands to lose as well as <br />the developer. Mr. Gavin urged the Commission to vote on the two items <br />separately, pointing out that the site plans were presented and permits were <br />issuede He requested that the architectural changes be referred to the <br />Architectural Review Board for their input. Mr. Conway verified that he had <br />received the revised site plan. Mr. Larson, who is adjacent to the property, <br />would like a fence installed to separate the properties since he is sure that <br />students will be cutting through his yard to go to school, because it would be <br />much longer to go around to 252. In response to Mr. Morgan's question, City <br />Engineer Deichmarm_saw no problem with the relocation of the detention system. <br />Mr. Conway pointed out the wrought iron fence around the detention pond on the <br />plans. The members are concerned because the plans show that the detention basin <br />will be touching the sidewalk. Mr. Neff stated that the large scale grading plan <br />6