01/08/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

work on the site. Mr. AssefF felt that the audience should be shown what has been done to accommodate the residents. 1VIr. Gillespie reviewed that the green space as well as all entrances are away from the residents. They have improved the site and if mounds are put in then trees have to be removed. Mr. Hreha indicated that the forester recommended that no trees be removed and to add trees to the area for the residents. Mr. Gillespie indicated that he would be willing to meet with the forester. Mr. Waken a resident is concerned with the increase in traffic that will accrue once the 40 units are built. There are currently traffic problems in the area now and this will only increase the problems. Mr. Wilson a resident voiced that he is concerned that placing mounds will cause flooding. He further questioned if the rent requirements would remain at $1,000.00 to 15,000.00 a month or had they decreased to $700.00 to 13,000.00 a month. The neighbors are concerned that if the rental price decreases it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. A ground sign has been mentioned however this is a col-de-sac so a ground sign is not really needed. Mr. Wilson would like to see the City hold the applicants to the codes. The buffng for the residents was better at the last meeting then what this plan shows. He feels that the proposal would be detrimental to the area. Mr. Koeth questioned why a ground sign would be needed. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the ground sign is for clarity of the development i.e. name and address. The ground sign will be constructed in good taste and fit into the lodge motif. Mr. Asseff suggested that if the site was not adequately identified the residents would get traffic they don't want due to lost drivers. 1VIr. Weber an abutting resident of 50 years suggested the first plans had greater distance and buffering for the abutting residents. The first plan had 5 identical 8 unit buildings which was better then the current one of 7 buildings. The first proposal had built in garages for each unit, which would improve the class of tenants. With 16 units not having built in garages it will decrease the safety factor and lower the caliber of tenants. He questioned how many units would be allowed if no variances were required and today's codes were met. Mr. C"rillespie remarked that if the owners constructed a high rise building so that no variances are required they are still allowed 40 units. Mr. Weber indicated that he would like to know how many units could be built on the site that are not high rises and require no variances. Mr. Gillespie suggested that if he went by the current codes the site is allowed 40 units so the owners either build 40 single units which require variances or one high rise which would require no variance. However, the owners are willing to spend more to make sure a higher caliber development is put into place and not just try to meet the city codes. Mr. Weber suggested that if he were looking for a place for his mother he would want a place with an attached garage to make sure she is safe. He questioned how many units vvould not have built in garages, as he believed that there would be 16 units without garages. Mr. Crillespie suggested that the current plans include more options and an additional five (5) guest parking spots have been added. Mr. Asseff questioned if the units that do not have attached garages would be rented out at a lower price. Mr. Gillespie answered "yes" they will have a garage with two (2) parking spaces just not attached. Mrs. Miller a resident of Kennedy Ridge came forward to voice that she was also concerned about the rental price because if they are low end rent it will draw lower class tenants. If you were paying, 15,000.00 a month for rent you would not want $600.00 rentals next to you. Mr. Waken questioned if the North Olmsted 1149.02 (minimum required area) code was updated since 1991. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the 1991 update was the current chapter used. Mr. Waken questioned if the size of the current lot was 3.38 acres and zoned mix use A. Under the current Planning and Zoning code it states that there is a"minimum requirement of 10 acres for Mixed Use A zoning". Mr. Dubelko explained that if the lot was non-conforming prior to the zoning being created then the City could not enforce the new regulations against the lot. The cunent lot was created before the City created the 10-acre minimum requirement therefore; the City of North Olmsted can not deprive an owner from developing their land by holding them to today's codes. Mr. Waken suggested that the rezoning of the area took place in the 70's some time so that a tennis court could be added to the site. Therefore, if the 10-acre rule was in place when the zoning