My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/22/2002 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2002
>
2002 Planning Commission
>
10/22/2002 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:57 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 5:51:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2002
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
10/22/2002
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
some second floor numbers of 515 and 652. He indicated some of the numbers are close, such as 897 <br />on the Columbia lI, instead of 900. He said just about all of the second floor plans cause some <br />problems because they have chosen to have an open loft area. They could probably theoretically fill <br />that in with square footage if the board so chooses. He has a note that the Mastick I model, due to a <br />large front porch, does not meet the ininimum floor requirements. He said the porch takes out some of <br />the interior square footage and they do not count the porch areas. There are two other items not in the <br />letter. One is section 1136.08 which is improvements to conform requirements to the city engineer <br />and/or council for the construction material standard of pavement and utility installation. He will have <br />Mr. Griffith address that, but that is what gives them the power to enforce the engineering requirements <br />on private property. The other section that was not addressed the last time is section 1163.26 where it <br />indicates they shall be 75 feet from abutting residential properties. They are currently at 49 feet. They <br />split that access point on the road. They cannot get any farther away than 49 feet. That is not an issue <br />this board can address under the cluster category and make a recommendation on. It will have to go to <br />the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said as the board is aware, they have a lot more authority in a cluster <br />home development plan to go ahead and make a recommendation to Council, either for or against, <br />without the need to send a proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If Council should find with you <br />then there is no variance required for the issues. When the city developed the cluster plan in 1991, they <br />had never done one. They took some outside advice and they wanted to leave the board some <br />flexibility so it could address some of these issues. As these things change and grow, when we get <br />down the road, we're going to see things that we don't see today so they tried to make the code as <br />flexible as possible to give the board the ability to review each development individually. Mr. Spalding <br />asked if the proposed units are one and a half story units or two story units. Mr. Conway replied they <br />have both. Mr. Spalding asked if the two story units require 900 square feet on the first floor, and the <br />second would require 900 also. Mr. Conway indicated that is correct. Mr. Spalding asked how close <br />any of the units come to that standard. Mr. Conway said the Columbia lI is 897 on the first floor, and <br />the second floor is 643 due to the loft area. Mr. Conway pointed out square footage does not include <br />the loft. The other unit is 732 square feet with a first option of 478 square feet and a second option of <br />622, so that one is significantly lower than the 900 requirement. The story and a half was 1,039 on the <br />Mastick I and 1,256. The one was about 100 square feet lower, and the other roughly 100 square feet <br />more. The second floor units were slightly under at 483, compared to 575. Mr. Spalding asked for <br />clarification on the loft areas. Mr. Conway confirmed it is not useable space and the board has the <br />option to say fill it in and make it 900 square feet, or the board can say it likes the ambiance of the plan <br />and go ahead. Mr. Conway said all the other models are variations of the Columbia. Mr. Corsi <br />confirmed that. Mr. Conway said there are basic first floor issues with the I and II, with slightly <br />different second floor levels. Mr. Spalding said the one and half story units have 1150 on the first floor <br />and 575 on the second. That would be 1725 in total. Mr. Conway confirmed that. Mr. Spalding asked <br />if these units have close to that amount. Mr. Conway said one is 1,039 on the first floor and 483 on the <br />second. The other is 1256 and again 483 on the second floor. Mr. Spalding pointed out they are both <br />less then. Mr. Hreha asked Mr. Corsi if they plan to build all of the units and then try to sell them, or <br />will they build different units as models and sell them. It appears that in certain areas, they can only put <br />certain square footage. He wondered if they will put up a few models and then let the market determine <br />how they build. Mr. Corsi indicated that is a correct assessment. They will first come out and build <br />models they believe the market will react to. The market will then tell them what they want and they <br />will go from there with the units. They will probably build a total of 4-5 units at any one time with at <br />least 2 of those being models and 3 being specs because it is their plan that they should be selling those <br />specs based off of their models. They will react to the market as to what units they end up building. <br />Mr. Griffith, the Assistant City Engineer, said to date they have not received calculations justifying the <br />size of the detention system. Mr. Hreha asked if the engineering department is indicating that, based on <br />the size as they know it, is it bigger than necessary or smaller. Mr. Griffith indicated they do not <br />speculate on such things. Mr. Conway said it is really not a Planning Commission issue. It is an <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.