02/14/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the vegetation would have to be removed. This handout shows how they propose to do that. Also, it was true that he and Mr. Whitlatch were both employed by Regional Plauuing Commission, but he does not share Mr. Spaulding's conclusion that this would fall under spot zoning since this zoning classification falls under a Single Family district, and current development standards always include cluster development portions directly adjacent to single family subdivisions. He mentioned what they had proposed to help the flooding problenas and they had been given a charge at the first meeting that they would have to do something about this and he believed that they had responded to that in a meaningful way. The members discussed their recommendations to Council regarding rezoning. Mr. Dubelko advised that the code section 1136.13 requires that the Commission evaluate the plans and any reports furnished to them and provide Council with a detailed report and recommendations with respect to their plan. The code does not require the Commission to make a specific recommendation about a rezoning, but he believed that it should be included in their recommendation. He clarified that this report must include in the findings as to whether or not this plan complies with the regulation standards or criteria prescribed by the code as well as any recommendations that the Commission would make for modification, but it does not necessarily have to be in writing. The members discussed the motion. R. T'allon moved regarding the Bridgeport Village proposal (Whitlatch & Co.), I'roperty bounded by the rear property lines of lots on West 231st Street on the east; by back land on the north, and by properties located on Clague Itoad, 'I'ree Lane, and Woodview and Sharon Drives on the west. Access will be from the north side of Lorain Road between Clague Road and West 231 Street, with a gate on to Woodview Drive. Proposal to construct a Single Family, Cluster development of attached or detached residences, that the Commission recommends to City Council, as required by our code that, after studying the proposal presented by the Whitlatch Corporation, the Commission concurs that the company has presented an engineering program for water retention for both sanitary and storm sewers, however it has to be noted that the development does not meet all the specific requirements of Section 1136 in regard to the size of the units and the setbacks from the common areas for the gazebo's. With regard to the rezoning of the property, this Commission recommends to the City Council not to rezone because of the weakness of the infrastructure pertaining to flooding and we ask that this be addressed by Councal since it is a major concern for this Commission as far as future developments are concerned and it would clearly not be in the best interest of the city to rezone. We would also like to state at this time that the Whitlatch Coaporation has been an excellent developer to work with, have done everytlung that we have asked them to do; and have tried to present a proposal that would benefit the City of North Olmsted, as well as themselves, and for that we would like to thank tlbem. We would also like to thank the residents of the area for showing the concern to take the time to come to these meetings which we realize can be very difficult. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller, and unanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items. V. - COIVIMUNICAT'IONS: Ord. 95-20: The members discussed the ordinance which would regulate murals in the city. Mr. Miller asked if Councilworrman Saringer if there were any major problems with the ordinance when it was drafted. 8