09/24/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State (ODOT) and the. state indicated that it would take 3 weeks they have filled out all the forms and they suggested that by the time everything is worked out with the city the permit would be ready. Mr. Koeth questioned the distance between the cluster homes; which face each other. Mr. Stephens suggested that there is 50-feet between the fronts facing each other. Mr. 5palding remarked that just ha.ving a few trees here and there is not enough to buffer the heighbors from the site. Mr. Stephens remarked that the neighbors want the trees and area to remain the same. Mr. Spalding suggested that the applica.nt's meet with the city forester to get his impute. Mr. Stephens suggested the fencing along 1480 was a good idea. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if all the utilities - would be underground. Mr. Stephens indicated that all utilities would be underground. Mr. Spalding questioned if there would be an underground water sprinkling system. Mr. Corsi commented that there would be irrigation. Mr. O'Malley commented that it is the responsibility of the association to pay for the garbage pickup and removal. The City of North Olmsted does not service private streets/roads. Mr. Koeth invited the audience members to come forward to speak. Mr. Kovack form Broadview Heights questioned how the roads would be cleared for snow removal. Mr. Koeth indicated that the snow plowing is the responsibility of the association: Mr. Kovack. suggested that the home near the street entrance will be left unmarketable by this development. Mr. Hcharboneau from Columbia Road reviewed that many neighbors met with the applicants and do not want a fence erected on the site. The detention basin will be dry so that is not a problem. Tho, owners have promised to take care of the water problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Golya the son of tlie owner of 4881 Columbia road requested the board make the developer be consistent to the area i.e. single family, apartments and same use as surrounding property. Mr. Koeth suggested.that the resident speak to the developer and request they address his concerns. Mrs. O'Rourke advised the neighbors to get a letter from the developer regarding what they have stated they will do for.them. Mr. O'Malley reviewed tha.t Planning Commission has 60 days to make recommendation to Council the 60 da.ys expires 9-25-02. He,recommends that'the Planning Commission request additional time from the applicant or Council. If tlus board is going to refer the board to other boards then there is not enough time. Mr. Koeth asked the applicant for an extension.of time to review the proposal. Mr. Stephens stated that it sounded like Planning Commission was ready to vote and if Council needs more time they will extend the time limit. Mr. Koeth remarked that -Pla.nning Commission needs additional time to review the plan. Planning Commission will send the plan to the Architectural Review Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals and then return to Planning Commission one last time. 1VIr. Corsi sta,ted they are prepared to extend the time needed to send plan to Architectural Review Board then return. R. Koeth motioned to forward the proposal on to the Board of Zoning Appeals with recommendations on the variances which were addressed as follows: The building setback be approved. The rear yazd setback approved. The floor plans aze o.k. The parking should be looked at to include more visitors parking. A board on board fence along the entire length of.property, which abuts 1480. There should be more planting/landscaping along the east side of the property. A photometric plan and cut sheets of the light fixtures is to be submitted. A safety report and forester report is needed. The additional visitor parking spaces should be placed between buildings 20,. 21 and 31. The Architectural Review Board is to review the site and the applicants are to follow their recommendations. Mr. Spalding suggested removing the parking near Columbia Road. Note in the framing of the motion the applicant requested a review of the motion. The clerk read allowed the motion and during the review Mr. Spalding changed his yes vote to no as he strongly feels the amount and size of the parking spaces are grossly inadequate. The Architectural Review Board is to address the additional parking space for the interior units. J. Lasko seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion; K. O'Rourke, J. Lasko, C. Allan, T. Hreha and R. Koeth "yes", W. Spalding "no". Motion Carried. _ Mr. O'Malley suggested Planning Commission give their thoughts regarding tlie width of the streets as well as the above ground detention basin and the use of,asphalt instead of concrete for the Engineer as he voiced concerns regarding those issues. Mr. Stephens indicated that they do have an above ground dry detention basin and 23-feet back to curb back to curb width. However, the Engineer suggested 25-feet and code requires 28-feet. Mr. Koeth indicated tliat the Board recommends the streets be 25-feet wide back to curb back to curb and approve the above ground detention basin. The only concern with the asphalt is that the association-has to mainta.in the streets. The code of the city must be followed for the construction of the street there must be cement bases. 2. Speedway; 26516 Lorain Rd.: 3