12/14/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-_? - any lot. Mr. Tallon stated that the problem with the original ordinance was that the Planning Commission had stipulated a limit of an 18 foot vehicle and there were objections because recreational vehicles are usually much larger than 18 feet today. He noted that some of these ar.e now 42 feet. He agreed that 18 feet might not be realistic, but thought that some limit should be stipulated. R. Tallon moved to accept the Ordinance 92-58 as is, seconded by K. 0'Rourke. Roll call on motion: Tallon, 0'Rourke, Thomas, and Skoulis, yes. Mr. Orlowski, no. During the framing of the motion, Mr. Tallon explained that he would agree to this and it could be changed later based on complaints received, which is why this was changed in the first place. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Report on Cluster Zoning. Mr. Skoulis explained that he was concerned about the definitions in the Zoning Code under Seetion 1136.03 (a) and (c) and also the number of homes allowed on any one acre of land. This concern resulted after some members visited the Wittlatch Development in Strongsville which they considered to be too crowded. To stop that from happening in North Olmsted, they were considering limiting the number of homes that could be constructed on one acre without taking into account the acreage in the common areas. He further suggested that the development area should only be the area on which.the homes are to be located and the cluster area would be the entire area of the development. He has met with both the Building Commissioner, Mr. Hill, the planner who consulted on the Zoning Codes, and Assistant Law Director Dubelko. Mr. Hill believed that the cluster area and the development area should be one and the same and should be defined that way in the ? code. He further thought that a limit of less than 6 homes per acre would discourage developers from building cluster homes in the city and suggested that the Planning Commission could regulate the possibility of over crowding in a proposed development by enlarging setback requirements. Mr. Hill also maintained that the way the North Olmsted codes are written it would basically be impossible to have more than 6 homes per acre. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the Comnission did have the authority to require additional green space. Mr. Skoulis was concerned because he understood that the Strongsville codes and North Olmsted's were the same except that in North Olmsted there could only be 3 homes attached, whereas in Strongsville there could be 5 or 6 homes together. Mr. Hill believed that this limitation would automatically restrict the number of homes per acre. Building Commissioner Conway had reviewed the plans for the Strongsville development, and wondered if .it had received variances. He stated that North Olmsted's codes require that common areas be identified on the plans but these plans do not show common areas; and also North Olmsted's code requires that all buildings be set back 25 feet from a street or a common walk, and in some cases, these buildings are only 15 feet back from the sidewalk and 20 from the street. He stated that they have six units that contain 5 homes and twelve units that contain 4 homes which North Olmsted's code would not permit. He believed that North Olmsted's setback requirements would be adequate, but a developer,:has to declare common areas since the code requires automatic setbacks from abutting property lines. Mr. Skoulis pointed out that this development showed a drainage ditch as a recreational area. Mr. Conway stated that the Commission would have to decide if they.wanted a creek as open retention or if a developer would have to pipe it in. He suggested that the members might want to set standards for common area, such as a certain percentage of the land must be common area. He clarified that streets are definitely common area, and questioned what minimum widths would --? be acceptable for actual pavement. City Engineer Deichmann stated that the Viewpoint's right of way is adequate. In response to Mr. Thomas' question, Mr. 3