10/12/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i . ? the driveway. If neither were possible it would be up to Council whether or not they would want to concur with the I'lanning Commission. The motion evas seconded by R. Koeth and unanimously approved. 1Vlotion Carried. 2). Fairview Corporate Center; PP# 237-23-024 Proposal consists of re-zoning to commercial office for construction of ancillary parking, detention basin for adding office parking in Fairview Park. Chairman Tallon called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Mr. Conway commented that the proposal would be pulled from the Engineering items and moved to Buildings as the Law Director and the Mayor would rather see lot remains under the current zoning and that, the applicant address variances that would be needed to do that. W Tallon indicated that the Fairview Corporate Center proposal would be moved under Building Department Request and the issue of rezoning will be removed. Mr. Lidden, with the Fairview Office Associates came forward to present the proposal. Mr. Lidden indicated that their firm purchased the lot from Odot and the majority of the land is located in Fairview. Park and that only 1.8 acres was in North Olmsted. The North Olmsted property is currently undeveloped and does not have access to a road, as Brookpark road is a highway owned by Odot. Fairview Offices would like to create an office park within the City bf Fairview and be allowed to use the lot located in North Olmsted for a few parking spaces and an above ground water retention basin. The retention basin is proposed as a dry basin and the rest of the property would remain as green space. The owners would be willing to under go any type of deed restrictions the City of North Olmsted feels is necessary. The property could not be developed other than keeping it as green space. The perimeter will be heavily mounded and heavily landscaped with trees, which would be a nice welcome to North Olmsted. The dry retention basin is because of the amount of water that flows into the 1480 lines would make it hard to maintain water for any length of time. From a safety standpoint it is better to keep the retention dry. Mr. Tallon questioned if Fairview parks parking space requirements were the same as North Olmsted's. Mr. Conway suggested that he was not sure what the landscaping setbaclc was for Fairview Park. 1V1i-. Lidden indicated that landscape setbacks were 25 feet for Fairview Park. Mr. Conway commented that a 25 foot landscape buffer around the perimeter is what the City of North Olmsted requires so that would be fine. He questioned what the landscape buffer requirements for the rear of a lot was. Mr. Lidden indicated that it was a 10-foot setback requirement. Mr. Conway commented that the applicants would need a 15-foot variance according to North Olmsted's codes. In theory where the dotted line sepaxates the properties there should be a 25-foot landscaping buffer there, as that is the limits of the property a variance would be required. The applicants would also need a variance for accessory use without having a main use, as there is no main development of the parcel. The applicant would need a 15-foot variance for buffer of the rear, a 25-foot variance for the side, and a variance for accessory use without a main use. Mr. Tallon indicated that the board wanted an underground retention not an above ground and the Engineering department will give the applicants the requirements. Mr. Koeth commented that he would also like an underground retention system for safety issues. An unidentified audience member questioned the exact location of the site. Mr. Tallon reviewed the location and no further comments were made. 13