Laserfiche WebLink
law department advised the applicants that it is up to them to make themselves aware of the <br />North Olmsted City Codes. The applicant's attorney advised that they were fully aware of all <br />the North Olmsted Zoning Codes. <br />The following neighbors were present to voice their concerns IVIs. Sturgeon, Mr. Sturgeon, <br />Mrs. Bowman, Mr. Fritt neighbors aud Mr. Morcher the attorney for the apartment complex. <br />The neighbors voiced the following concerns; 1). Wish to have brick walls atop mounds not <br />board on board fences. Without a brick wall the apartment complex residents are in serious <br />danger from tlus site. 2). Concerned about existing drainage problems becoming worse when <br />applicants tie into the ah-eady flooding system. 3). Concerned about traffic flow and egress <br />layout. 4). Concerned about noise levels from the site. 5). Concerned that the green space for <br />condominiums will be unsafe for families without wall to buffer cars. 6). Neighbors are <br />conceined about the amount of light on site and from vehicles. 7). The owners of the laud <br />were told when the lot was spilt that the lot could not accommodate a restaurant and this is <br />the second restaurant they have tried to bring in. 8). The neighbors to the west of the site are <br />concerned about the traffic and lights into their homes. 9). Residents are concerned what size <br />trucks would be inaking the deliveries as semi's and tractors are not allowed on Clague Road. <br />The board invited the applicants to address the neighbors concerns. Mr. Gmuiing advised <br />that they could not address all the concerns because he was not keeping track or taking notes <br />of theu concerns. He advised that they would follow the law as well as North Olmsted's <br />codes. The applicants felt that they were going beyoud what is required by code to <br />accommodate the residents. The applicants felt that no matter what was placed on the lot the <br />residents would not be happy. They believe that they have the right to build a Dtwkin <br />Donuts on this site. Mr. Hreha voiced his displeasure that the applicants did not note what the <br />residents concerns are as the chairman advised them to do so, so they could address the <br />concerns once the residents were done. Mr. Hreha requested that the clerk provide the <br />applicants with a copy of all the residents concerns so when they return they can address each <br />of them. Ms. Ceserta reviewed that she met with Mr. Zergott and the residents and agreed to <br />add mounding in front of the existing fence and extend the fence to the southeast corner. Tle <br />board advised that they have not received any revised landscaping plans form the applicants. <br />Ms. Ceserta voiced that she submitted copies of the revised landscape plans to the city. The <br />board advised that the board will require to have a fence along the east property line as well <br />as the south. The clerk stated tliat she has never received signed landscaped plans from 1Vh-. <br />Zergott. The City Planner advised that Mr. Zergott did show her a landscape plans, which he <br />had wl-itten changes on but clid uot submit it to the City. She fiuther advised that the <br />applicants were ask to submit the changes but perhaps it was not clear. She advised the <br />board that if they felt the applicants needed to return to Architectural Review Board, they <br />should be veiy specific as to what is to be addressed. The board questioned if the applicants <br />were stating that the only use on the site if approved would be for Duvkiu Donuts and Baskin <br />Robins ice cream only. They questioned if the applicants were stating there would never be a <br />Togo's at any tvne now or in the future at this site. Ms. Caserta stated that was conect. <br />Discussion regarding truck deliveries took place and the applicants were advised that cui7ent <br />codes regulate deliveries may not be made before 7:00 am. or 7:30 am. Applicants indicated <br />that they would adhere to city codes. The applicants were also advised that due to the site <br />being so close to residential land there can not be a 24-hour diYVe-through. The Building <br />Commissioner advised that the applicants received the information regarding those codes <br />dealing with deliveiy and drive-through. Mr. Gunv.iug stated that they are aware of all <br />requirements in the City of North Olmsted's codes. <br />R. Koeth motion to recommend an area variance be granted with the following <br />recommendations: The fencing on south side 3 foot mounding the fence with mounding <br />2