08/08/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

actually is almost right on the property line. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk stated there are no requirements for a sidewalk setback. Mrs. Lynn felt the board should not allow auy additional units than what is authorized by code. Mr. Wasmer, a Mastick Road resident, asked if the six foot fence will totally surround Mr. Bower's entire property. Mr. Bower agreed to install a six foot fence along all properties contiguous to single family residential land and pointed out exactly where the? fence is to be installed. In response to Ms. Boyle's concerns, Mr. Bower then agreed to include a fence along the properties abutting multi-family zones as well as the single-family, residential zones. Mr. Wasmer asked if the fence would continue along the driveways. In response to Mr. Wasmer's question, Chairman Gomersall stated that approval of this proposal would be contingent upon Mr. Bower installing the fence along the portions of the property this board has mentioned. Mr. Wasmer felt 2.5 cars per dwelling was too tight, and there should be more designated parking. Mr. Koberna explained parking accommodations are planning commission's jurisdiction, thus it is not up to this board to determine how many spaces should be required.. Mr. Barlik, a Mastick Road resident, felt Mr. Bower's fence could not be supported, as there is a drainage ditch, and the proximity of the fence to the sidewalk would impose a maintenance problem. Mr. Bower reiterated his plan is subject to approval by the engineering department. In response to Mr. Barlik's question, Mr. Bower agreed to take the residents concerns into consideration with regard to the sidewalk along the pie shaped area. Mr. Barlik felt the density would be a problem with regard to the drainage of the sewer system. Mrs. Troibner, a Clague Road resident stated if the line on the plan is correct, her property would be in a multi-family zone. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk suggested that Mrs. Troibner check with the engineering department to determine the zoning of her property. Mrs. Troibner stated there are two vacant properties behind her and then an apartment complex, which she feels is much more pleasing than this project. She clarified that this project resembles a low income housing project and would impose a burden on the surrounding neighborhood. In addition she stated, by moving tlus project closer to Brookpark Road, Mr. Bower is endangering the residents of this proposed ne` development. Mr. Mingus, a resident; felt the pool is much to close to the road and the roads are to narrow to accommodate a fire truck or moving van. Mr. Nicola, ? a Clague road resident felt that the fences will not stop the kids. He pointed out this project did not accommodate public transportation, school buses, fire hydrants, safety vehicles, etc. He stated there was not any room for a retention . basin. In response, Mr. Bower explained there would be an underground retention system which would be subject to the approval by the engineering department. Mr. Nicola stated in the past Mr. Bower's project was shot down, because it did not meet the cities requirements. In response Chainnan Gomersall clarified that comment is out of place, because this board judges each case separately. Mr. Durkin approached the board and questioned whether the granting of this variance would produce a spot zoning situation. Law Director Gareau stated that this would not be spot zoning, for the uses Mr. Bower is requesting are permitted uses within a multi-family district. He elaborated that single family, two family, cluster, and multi-family are permitted uses within a multi- family district. Mr. Durkin felt there are too many units on this plot of land. Mrs. Reale, a resident is concerned for the safety of her children because her driveway runs parallel to Mr. Bower's road. She estimated there is a distance of seven feet between her side door and Mr. Bowers road. Iu response to Mrs. Reale's question, the board clarified the term private road means the street will not be dedicated, . in other words the city would not be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Bower agreed to install a landscaped buffer between his roadway/driveway and Mrs. Reale's property line. Mrs. Reale felt tlus development would devalue her property and stated North Olmsted has enough rental property. Mrs. Catenell (Kostur), is concenied about the noise factor. She wondered if Mr. Bower would be successful with this project, as she felt there would be a lack of interest which would devalue the surrounding homes. She thavked 1VIi. Bower for cutting the grass, but is concerued that he will ni have the enough resources for the maintenance of this immense proposaL Mrs. Casedonte, a mast,., road resident stated, she is requesting that the variances be denied because the infrastructure of tlus 8