06/06/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i?? • . Multi-Family (but developed residentially). It is stated that fifty feet is required at this point; however, their calculations showed that it should be 23.75 feet, and they could probably moved to the 23.75 foot setback. It was clarified that request number four should state `?no more than 86 units", not 68 as shown on the agenda. Mr. Bower advised that a previously approved multi-family apartment building had 156 units on this site, so the density being proposed has been reduced 50 units or approximately by one tlurd. Mr. Gomersall pointed out that they have increased the lot coverage. Mr. Bower agreed since the apartments were under one roof? but the two family development could be considered a more desirable use than apartment buildings, so they are asking for some indulgences of the sidelines and setback so they can make this work without totally ruiuing the economics of the property. They will elimiuate request number 6 since they can comply to those requirements. Regarding variance number 7, they do show a 25 foot setback to the garage, thus giving enough room to park a car in front of the garage. He clarified that the front setback of the building is 15 feet and it would be about 10 to 12 feet from the porch. He advised that they have built two family homes in a Multi-Family District previously in North Olmsted so there is precedence, even though it was not on this large a scale. He asked,that, if the board believed that the reduction in density makes sense, that the use for two family homes was more desirable than multi family, they vote positively on the requests. He noted that the biggest single variance is the 100 foot setback along with the use variance. Mr. Gomersall stated that the 100 foot setback might be the biggest in footage, but it probably was not the biggest objection to this plan. The neighbors came forward at this time. Mr. Wasmer, who lives across Mastic from the proposal, questioned the size of the units since previously it was stated that they would be 1,300 square feet. It was clarified that when the 660 square foot referred only to the first floor of the unit, and the that the 1,300 was the entire unit. Mr. Wasmer objected to Mr. Bower conaparing what North Olmsted should do to what other communities do. He noted that Mr. Bower did not name those communities. Mrs. Forrey, whose property backS up to this proposal, objected that the previous proposal had a 90 foot buffer with a fence along their back yards, now it shows 50 feet, and no fence is shown. She asked if all the trees would be left in the buffer and if there would be a fence. Mr. Bower agreed to a board on board fence in that area and they will try to keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Lynn would like fencing or a buffer zone with greenery. This issue will be discussed at other meetings. Mrs. Mino believes that this will devalue their property and is concerned about the additional traffic. She too also would like a bu.ffer zone and fence. Mr. Nicola asked why this was before the bbard since planning commission unauunously rejected the plan and thought this discussion was a waste of time. Mr. Gomersall responded that the planving commission had recommended that tlus board reject the variances, and advised that the members had received copies of their minutes. It was also explained to him that this board is completely independent of plamiing commission and will make its own decisions. Mr. Nicola stated that he is totally against the plan, and believed that putting up a building 15 feet from his back yard fence is ludicrous. He stated that he is opposed to both duplexes and apartments. In response to Ms. Boyle's statement that the developer has a right to develop his land; Mr. Nicola believed that he should land develop his land responsibly, not what the developer did at the golf course which embarrassed the whole city. Mr. Gomersall stated that this had nothing to do with this proposal. Ms. Toyama was concemed about the 40 feet setback from Brookpark Road, since she believed that the noise level would be too high and she objected to the 15 foot setback. Mr. Geiger believed that an apartment building would be less dense since the apartments only had two bedrooms, and since these units have three bedrooms there would have more people in the same area. He believed that there would be fewer children in apartments and there would be few places for children to play in this plan. He also mentioned the sewer problems in the area since there was drainage ditches. He was also concemed that this would eliminate the State ever putting in an eastbouud off ramp for I-480 as had been discussed. Mrs. Troibner stated that the amount of noise they hear from Brookpark is tremendous, and wondered if anyone would waut to live that close to it with those noise levels. She believed that bringing in this number of people in their secluded neighborhood would totally change it entirely. She maintained that tlus is a wetlands, regardless of what Mr. Bower said, and that much 7