My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/12/2001 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission
>
06/12/2001 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:42 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 5:16:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2001
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
6/12/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
evergreens to make a solid buffer so the lights could not penetrate into the rear yards of the <br />neighbors. <br />R. Tallon motioned to approve Alexander's Restaurant of 30850 Lorain Road their proposal <br />which consists of adding an outside storage area and expanding existing parking lot. The <br />north lot line mounds should be heavily increased to make sure no lights will go through the <br />fence. Applicant is to meet with the City forester for approval for the existing mounds and <br />evergreens. If forester does not approve the proposal is not approved. The motion was <br />seconded by S. Asseff and unanimously approved. Motion Carried. <br />NOTE: DTTE 'I'O A TECHNICAL ERltQ?R FROlVI THIS POINT ON THE NdINUTES <br />ARE TRANSCfl2IBED FltOli'I THE CLERKS NOTES OlaTLY <br />5. Hennie Homes Inc.; 264-07-025 (Cook Rd). <br />Proposal consists of condominiums, 40 duplex buildings - 80 units. <br />Note: This proposal is contingent upon final zoning approval. <br />Chairman Tallon called all interested parties forward to review their proposal. Mr. Zwick the <br />Architect for Hennie homes came forward. Mr. Zwick reviewed that Council was currently <br />in the process of zoning the site, single family cluster entirely. Mr. Tallon questioned if the <br />engineer was familiar with Mr. Conway's letter dated June 5, 2001 (see letter attached to <br />back of these minutes). Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that two car enclosures are required for <br />each unit and the brochures submitted differ from what the plans show. Mr. Zwick <br />commented that they would be building identical units as they did in Cinnamon Woods on <br />the north side of the road and they do not have quest parking there. Mr. Tallon indicated that <br />the letter states the size of the structure proposed does not meet the minimum square footage <br />required by today's code. Mr. Zwick suggested that only the 1(one) story Jasmine did not <br />meet the square footage requirement. Mr. Ryinarczyk remarked that neither the Cinnamon <br />nor Jasmine met the square footage required. Therefore, they can not be built on this site. <br />Mr. Zwick again indicated that they built the same condominiums right across the street in <br />Cinnamon Woods and were aiven variances. Mr. Tallon indicated that that was a different <br />board, but this board will make a recommendation to them. Mr. Tallon questioned common <br />parking places. Mr. Zwick suggested that there would be three extra parking places. He <br />again repeated that they would just be repeating what was done at the Cinnamon Woods site. <br />Mr. Tallon indicated that he was offended by the applicant presenting plans, which do not <br />meet today's codes. The land is undeveloped and all the applicant continues to say is that it <br />will be like the other site we developed. There is no reason that this proposal can not meet <br />all of today's code requirements. The owner is to make the structures fit on the site meeting <br />today's codes. The site utilities are not shown on the plans nor are there any streetlights <br />shown. Mr. Zwick suggested that each unit would have 4(four) outside lights i, e. one post <br />light on front lawn, two coach lights on either side of garage and one on the porch. Mr. <br />Asseff questioned if the condoininium owner was responsible to maintain the lights. Mr. <br />Zwick suggested that it is, up to the condominium owner to keep the light on at night and <br />replace the lights as needed. Mr. Asseff suggested that there would be different size light <br />bulbs used up and down the streets. He then questioned who would enforce the lights being <br />left on at night. Mr. Tallon questioned if the rear wetland parcel was considered the common <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.