Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'I`wo residents were concerned about what was being discussed, since there was much <br />noise in the background, and they were invited to stay up front and listen. <br />Mr. Skoulis had discussed with Builcl.ing Commissioner Conway his ideas for <br />changing the Cluster Home requirements so that no more than 6 units would be <br />allo«ed per developed acre, without considering the acreage of the common area. <br />Mr. Skoulis would like this changed because of the Wittlatch Development which he <br />saw in Strongsville which appeared to be croaded. Mr. Conway believed i:his would <br />impede development and noted that the "C" Single Family district allowed 5 homes <br />per acre. He suggested to Mr. Skoulis that the distance between tmits and <br />setbacks could be increased. There is also 'some confusion in the code regarding <br />the definitions. Mr. Skoulis believed that the development area is only the area <br />of the homes, and did not include the common areas. Mr. Conway stated that the <br />development area included the entire development, common areas and recreational <br />areas, not just the homes. Mr. Skoulis believed that this must be clarified. <br />After some discussion with Mr. Dubelko and Mr. Conway, it was decided that <br />perhaps the development in Strongsvilie received variances and did not follow <br />their code which is the same as North Olmsted's. Mr. Skoulis is goi.ng to check <br />with Mr. Iiill, the plarmer for Strongsville, who also helped write the North <br />Olmsted`.code,. <br />Regardinb the Instructions for Filing, NIr. Thomas questioned why buildings less <br />then 12,000 square foot were exempt from submitting a grading plan. Mr. Conway <br />clarified that there was also a stipulation pertaining to the amount of grade <br />change for which grading plans would be'required. N',r. Thomas is concerned about <br />developers presenting hand-drawn, informal plans. In reference to the Ice Cream <br />Parlor original plans, Mr. Thomas believed that the plan submitted to the Board <br />of Zoning Appeals did not show the driveways accurately. Mr. Thomas would like <br />the Board of Zoning Appeals to see the final plans showing the exact locations. <br />Mr. Conway will do this, but reminded Mr. Thomas that there was input from the <br />Engineering Department. Mr. Conway is concerned about requiring architectural <br />plans for snal.l, independent businesses. Mr•. Gorris agreed that the driveway on <br />all the Ice Cream Parlor plans was not accurately presented until the final <br />drawings were submitted. Mr. Thomas realized that the variance cannot be changed, <br />but he would like B.Z.A. to see the final plans. <br />Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the Halleen court case has reached a <br />compromise on the front setback. The Board of Zoning Appeals has approved it, and <br />Mr. Conway questioned if this should be sent to the Architectural Board for the <br />landscaping. <br />Regarding the rezoning required for the Master Plan, Mr. .Dubelko would like to <br />rezone along property lines on the front lots and allow the developer to request <br />rezoning for the back land property to avoid having split zoned lots. The members <br />would like the Sherwin Williams lot rezoning submitted as soon as possible. <br />? <br />, <br />B. <br />4