02/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

negative impact the dealership already places on the residents of Dewey Road. He would like to see the fencing along Dewey Road raised and the lights being added to have full cut-off shields. Mr. Maxim stated that although his property abuts the KIA property he has never received notification from the city regarding the proposal. When he purchased his home it was his understanding that the land now being proposed for parking and storing cars was going to remain in a natural state as a buffer zone for the residents. The current plans show the edge of the mound 3-feet from his property line. He is concerned that the mounds will drain into his yard. He is also concerned about the additional light spillage and that the number of trespassers that cut through the dealership onto his increasing. The current plans show that there will only be a 6-foot fence around the service building and along the outer edge of parcel #232-10-043. As his land runs at an angle to the dealership the lights shine into his yard and without a mound and with new lights being added to the area the light spillage will only increase. Ms. Wright from Porter Road asked if there would be mounding under the proposed fence along Porter Road and if the existing trees are scheduled to be removed. Mr. Suhayda stated there would be no mounding and he was not sure what trees would stay or go as he had not met with the City Forester yet. Ms. Wright is concerned that if the existing trees are removed with the house, and additional lights are added to the dealership the light spillage will light up the inside of her house worse than it already does. She has had to fence her yard in to block the commercial sites to the south and east side of her, but she has no way to block the spillage from the front of her property. Mr. Maloney read a note received from Ms. Hatton of Porter Road stating that she is against any expansion of the dealership or adding parking along Porter Road. She is concerned for the deterioration of their once quaint road and the growing intrusion by commercial developers. She has lived in North Olmsted for 70 years and the big companies have continued to plow through the area doing what they want and she asks that they be stopped. Applicant's response: Mr. Suhayda stated that they have had 3 informal meetings with City Officials, a few meetings with Landmarks, 2 meetings with the Architectural Review Board and 1 meeting with Planning Commission to try to work out what would be best for everyone. Although they are trying to work with everyone there is no way his clients can please everyone. Mr. Halleen stated that the City required the mound and fence change. He would not have received the occupancy permit if he had not followed the City's order. Mr. Rymarczyk believed the change was at the City Foresters request to protect the existing trees. Board members: Mrs. Diver aslced if the applicant would use some type of material on the outer side of the fencing along the west and north sides to further shield the residents. Mr. Suhayda stated that the Architectural Review Board requested the area around the service garage and along the north eastern property line, be fencing with green trees (evergreens) along the inside of the fence. Mr. Kula advised that the evergreens requested by the Architectural Review Board must be 6-feet tall and all the mounds and landscaping beds will be irrigated in accordance to City Codes. Resident comments: Mr. Maxim stated that the proposed mound which will abut his property was never given approval. The applicants are expanding and creating an environment which will no longer be residential. The neighborhood has had problems with the current lighting and enlarging the 5