Laserfiche WebLink
? - ? <br />? <br />street, now ca.lled Kings Way, must be dedicated and the name will be changed. Mr. <br />Skoulis questioned the three units whieh do not conform to the rear setback <br />requirements. Mr. Grendell explained that a letter has been presented to either <br />the Building or Engineering Department stating all units will have at least the <br />50 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the 0]msted Township line since there is <br />ample room to rearrange them and also that all buildings will have a 25 foot <br />front setback, a 15 foot side setback, and a 50 foot setback to any adjacent <br />single family area. Mr. Gorris questioned if the only mounded buffering adjacent <br />to the freeway was in phase 7. The buffering was discussed privately with the <br />members. A few points were clear: the mounding would be up to 6 feet high with <br />trees or a fence on top; mounding wnuld be about 12 feet wide depending on the <br />location; and the main road would be dedicated but the side streets would be <br />maintained by the condominium association. Mr. Elliott, representing Hennie <br />Homes, clarified that there would be 100 watt, high pressure sodium C.E.I. street <br />lights to comply with the North Olmsted standards along the dedicated street; an <br />the private streets there will be individual 6 foot high post lights (controlled <br />by a photostat) in front of ea.eh tmit. A drawing of the fixture was submitted. <br />City Engineer Deichmarm advised that the retention plan is still under review, <br />but he is not aware of any problem with it. rir. Grendell ad.vised that there would <br />be sidewalks along the dedicated road, but not on the private roads. The <br />dedication plat has not been presented and it was pointed out that the Commission <br />had to consider this a private street. Mr. Grendell responded tha.t the proposal <br />could be.approved as it is, and they could return with the dedication request. <br />Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that some provision should be made for the <br />separate parcel so that the awner wuuld ha.ve accesso Mr. Grendell responded that <br />the owner did have an easement alorig z,T-ith the deed. He further agreed to give the <br />City an easement in order for them to:provide,.services to that owner, and advised <br />that these services are being provided now. Mr. Grendell was given a copy of the <br />forester's report and reiterated that they would be working with the forester to <br />save trees and will replant trees when they have to remove any. They want a <br />Cinnamon Woods, not Cinnamon Plains or Flats. In reference to the type of owners, <br />he explained they would probably be the empty nesters or young professiona.l <br />couples. The size of the uni.ts has been increased; the ranch which was to have <br />been 980 square feet will now be approximately 1,180 or 1,200 square feet, and <br />the story and a half will now be between 1,400 and 1,600 square feet; there will <br />now be two car garages, and basements will be optional, the two story unit has <br />not been changed. It was clarified that each unit would be increased about 200 <br />feet over what was. originally proposed. These plans have not been totally <br />completed, but Mr. Elliott explained that a kitchen nook would be added, living <br />room, and bedrooms would be increased. Chairman Gorris would like to see the <br />revised plans. The developers stated that they would stay with the first <br />proposal, if changing it would delay the approvals. It was agreed that the <br />revised plans could be presented to the Commission for comparison prior to the <br />B.Z.D. meeting and it would not delay the project. Mr. Thomas would prefer to <br />ha.ve sidewalks an the non-dedicated streets considering there will be some <br />children using school buses. Building Commissioner Conway cautioned that the <br />setbacks were masured from the drive and/or the sidewalks, so if sidewalks are <br />installed, the setback would be increased. Mr. Bowen did not believe sidewalks <br />would be necessary considering the amount of traffic on the cul-de-sacs. Since <br />there is only a 25 foot front setback, the developers would prefer not to ha.ve <br />sidewalks, but the owners could request that the association provide pick up <br />areas. They intend to construct on the developed street first (phase 1) and then <br />go to phase three next, and want to start as quickly as possibly since they have <br />had a tremendoUS response from the comnunity. R. Bowen moved to approve the <br />6