03/26/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i? their basements for years. He noted that there are pumps permauently positioned on Gessner anc' Walter. He stated that these homes will be 50 feet from his pool with 1,000 feet of roadway in thE middle and believed that 31 new units will guarantee sewer and flooding problems since much of this area is underwater most of the spiing. The 2-1/2 story house that they intend to move is between 80 and 90 years old and will not be appropriate with the bungalows and ranches on Gessner. He stated that their lots averaged 3 homes per acre and they are going to pack 6 units per acre. Councilman Lind stated that a year ago he spoke against the Whitlatch rezoning proposal for cluster homes. He wondered why developers believed that they could buy property, lnowing what the property is zoned for, and ask for a rezoning. He is dead set against rezoning. He believed that tlus extreme northeastern portion of North Olmsted has severe infrastructure problems: deteriorating streets, inadequate storm and sanitary sewers, and putting in 30 units is going to exacerbate problems that the city has been trying to solve. He believed that the area from Columbia Road east has a preponderance of multi-family dwellings and he does not believe that they need another a multi-family or multi-unit development in this area. Many other neighbors, Ms. Novak, Ms. Bais, Ms. Redmond, Ms. Bethke, Mr. Perrell, Mr. Kline, Mr. Ray, R Nix, Mr. Kereky spoke against the rezoning. They believed that this proposal with this high density and extending the cul-de-sac would exacerbate existing problems, such as traffic and flooding, and the over crowding of Maple School. They were told that the flooding problems would be corrected, but that has not happened. They bought homes in North Olmsted to raise families, and wanted to stop multi-family and commercial development and asked that the Commission consider the existing residents. They were concerned since the lot onto which the large home is to be moved is only 110 feet wide and will crowd the adjacent homes. When the homeowners' association gave up the park, they were told that it was zoned for single family and believed it would be developed that way since such a plan had been presented previously. This type of development would lower property values. Developer wants ta increase density in order to make a larger profit. The whole neighborhood should have been notified oi this meeting. In response to questions, it was clarified that an underground retention system would be installed; that the code spells out who is to be notified, and the city cannot deviate from it. In response to her questions, Mrs. Wingenfeld, a resident of North Olmsted , was advised that 19 single homes would fit into this area. She spoke in favor of the development stating that many North Olmsted residents, who are empty nesters, were looking for this type of development in order to remain in North Olmsted. She believed that this type of housing would not generate a large number of children to impact the school system nor would it generate as much traffic as a single family development. She noted that the code was changed to allow cluster housing. Mr. Tallon agreed that there was a need for cluster housing in North Olmsted, and the master plan had designated areas where it was felt that cluster homes would conform. Unfortunately at this point in time, no one else seems to agree. Mr. Tallon advised that the developer did present a proposal that meets all the criteria for cluster homes on this property which is zoned for "C" residential. The commission is usually against rezoning in residential areas and tried to look at the surrounding properties in order to plan in a way that is beneficial to North Olmsted. Placing high density units on such a small parcel does present a probYem. He believed that this proposal was unique in that there was only one entrance/exit. R. Tallon moved not to recommend rezoning for Beaumont Place, permanent parcels 231-26-012, 015, & 089, property located to the west of the existing Beaumont Drive which is to be extended for this development, and that this property should remain "C" Residential. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan, and unanimously approved. The residents were advised that this proposal will probably go onto bzd committee on April 1, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. and that the residents should call the Clerk of Council to make sure it was going to be heard. 4