02/01/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

remarks were not discernible. One neighbor kept repeating that no one was considering his property values. Mr. Purper advised that the residents had a choice, they had a 15 foot area for buffers, did they want the 10 foot in the back and 5 in front, or an 8 foot buffer in back. Neighbors indicated that that wanted all of it. Mr. Koberna would like to see a sketch of what is being proposed and suggested a special meeting. Neighbor again asked the board to consider his property values. Mr. Gomersall and Mr. Glazier discussed moving the building (was not clear). Mr. Morigello again mentioned Mr. Pfafrs trees. By eliminating the rear sidewalk there could be a 10 foot buffer in back. Neighbor still did not agree on rear buffer, one mentioned arborvitae and auother wanted a fence. Mr. Gomersall reviewed the changes: there would be a 10 foot buffer iu the back, the one drive on Fleharty would be closed, there will be a guardrail aloug Fleharty, a bus shelter will be installed in the 5 foot planting area, out of the right of way, the buildiug will be reduced by 20 feet at the east end to allow for a driveway, a variance will be required for the building setback, and variances for the landscape buffer in the front and in the . rear. One neighbor would like to see the revised plan before it is voted on. Several of the other neigltbors came forward in order for the changes to be explained again and Mr. Gomersall advised that the residents can always go to the Building Department to review the plans after they are revised and that the developers will have to go back to Planning Commissiou. A neighbor stated that a bus shelter for school children should not be right on the corner, Mr. Conway advised that there is a separate codified ordinance regulating bus shelters and tlus shelter would have to follow that ordinance. Mr. Gomersall clarified that the building was being reduced in size to allow for a driveway on the east, it was not bemg moved west. Mr. Conway <?. questioned the purpose of the guardrail since it was originally proposed when there was to be a driveway along that side of the building and the neighbors agreed that it would be better to place it in the back adjacent to the parking lot to the rear property.line. It was agreed that the bus shelter could be placed fiuther back on Fleharty. J. Maloney moved to grant Marjak Development Company's proposal for continuation of Olmsted Plaza at Flehariy and Lorain Road, their requests for variances: for a 25 foot front building setback variance; a 15 foot variance for the front landscape buffer; a variance for the 25 foot side yard (the remaining 25 foot is to be landscaped); and a 5 yard variance for the rear landscape buffer. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1139.07 (table); 1139.08(a); and 1161.10(a). Also to be included in this motion are the stipulations that the developer will provide a bus stop shelter on Fleharty side of the property which is to be set back a minimum of 35 feet from the front property line and in accordance with the codified ordinance and with Architectural Review Board approval; he will elinaiiiate the south entrance of Fleharty, will install a guard rail along Fleharty from the building to the south property line to prevent trucks from entering Fleharty; and will provide a 20 foot drive on the east side of the building for entry to the rear or south of the property. The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall, and unauimously approved. Variances granted. During the framing ofthe motion, it was agreed that the shelter should be moved back 35 feet from the front property line and included that the A.R.B. must approve the shelter and Mr. Mongello clarified that this will be a standard R.T.A. bus shelter. 6. Rose Mary Lopiccolo, 6748 Maplehurst-Drive Request for variance (1123.12). Request 6 inch variance for fence on a corner lot (already installed). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(f)(1). 7