My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/13/2005 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2005
>
2005 Planning Commission
>
12/13/2005 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:46:25 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 3:57:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2005
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/13/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
walking path, and the consolidation of the generator and transformer with the rear service areas <br />was also shown. <br />The commission requested a retention pond; however the applicant proposes a dry detention <br />basin for stormwater storage rather than a retention basin which is permitted by code. The <br />applicants propose filling the bottom of the basin with cobble stones to avoid a marshy area <br />accruing. Additional landscaping was added to improve the visual quality of the basin. <br />Furthermore, the applicants are fully aware that regular maintenance is required to keep the basin <br />from accumulating silt and debris. <br />Some rriembers of the Commission felt that the applicant should provide a garage rather than a <br />carport but City codes do not require covered parking for this type of facility. The proposed <br />carport offers covered parking for residents and is designed to be architecturally compatible with <br />the main building. She believed requiring a full garage in lieu of the carport, would create a <br />significant financial burden on the applicant and future residents of the facility. <br />Regarding ground lighting along the walking paths which was discussed by both the <br />Commission and ARB it has not been included in this proposal due to the cost to install <br />underground lighting and the future development potential of the rear portion of the property. <br />The applicants believe that their residents would only use the walking paths during daylight <br />hours. <br />She advised that a number of variances are required some of which the commission previously <br />addressed as well as others not yet addressed: <br />Building Setbacks - were previously addressed <br />The generator was moved and sound decibels show 85 db, code limit is 65 db which will require <br />a noise variance and the Safety Director has submitted a memo requesting buffering be provided <br />to bring noise levels within code. <br />Parking - Current code requires 150 parking spaces plus guest parking if required by the <br />Commission. The applicant shows 140 parking spaces with 28 spaces landbanked. Current <br />legislation pending before Council will alter required parking to 126 spaces and the applicants <br />can choose to add guest parking. Under the pending legislation the applicant would meet the <br />new code if the Commission allowed the landbanking of 14 spaces. Therefore the Commission <br />needs to make a recommendation to the BZA regarding parking as the applicant started their <br />project prior to the legislation being introduced. <br />Dwelling unit size - Current code requires all units to be a minimum of 400 square feet in size. <br />The applicant shows a number of units which fall below the standard. Legislation is currently <br />pending before Council which would alter minimum dwelling unit sizes for assisted living units <br />from 400 to 350 net square feet. Council preferred setting one minimum standard net square <br />footage for each use. The only units in question for the applicants are the assisted living units. If <br />the commission chose to make their recommendations based on the new standards, she would <br />work with the Building Department to identify those units which would not meet the current or <br />new requirements. <br />A lighting plan was submitted but she is not sure if the new plan meets code. She recommended <br />the applicant be required to meet all lighting code requirements. <br />5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.