12/14/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with Mr. Basic. Ms. Wenger advised Chairman Koeth that code does not require residential developments to buffer the neighbor's property. Mr. Yager said that the survey drawings state existing 4' high wood rail fence to be relocated onto the property line. Mr. Hatsel said the 4 1/2'metal stock fence currently runs back to the creek, however, there are no trees on his property's side. Mr. Yager said it appears like there is 6' of buffer between the property line and his property. He also said there is no requirement for buffering. Mr. Conway reviewed that a residence is a non-conforming use in the light industrial zoning. Ms. Kay Given, questioned if they are located on the west side of where the homes are being built. Even though pine trees are planned for 10' apart, she is concerned that they will not be fully grown for 10 years. They have lived here for 26 years and feels that this development has been plotted between areas zoned industry and residential. She says it is not fair because the zoning has changed. Ms. Janet Doren, questioned what spot zoning is. She asked that her property be re-zoned the same as the property on both sides of hers which is industrial. Mr. O'Malley said it is not spot zoning as long as it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This is possibly the first of many parcels being reviewed for future zoning. Ms. Doren asked the Planning Commission to look ahead and keep consistent with the zoning. Ms. Given said there is anything but consistency with soccer fields, dumps, residential and businesses. She is not opposed to industry but is objecting to all the proposed homes. Mr. Urbaniclc said the way the zoning exists, now permits parking within 10' of a property line and a building within 20' of a property line. His intention is not to impact the area but make it more residential like. She would rather see industry but feels residential will cause all sorts of problems. Mr. Yager said the property has already been rezoned, but has not yet been adopted by Council. Mr. Yager moved to table the proposal with the following recoaaimendations: 1) Architectural Board of Review comments be addressed for the aesthetics of the units. 2) 1Vlanhole #7 and #8 be located further south to extend the buffer along Bradley dVoods as large as possible. 3) The drive is concrete as opposed to asphalt. 4) Walks are on both sides of the street. 5) The curbs are designed as straaght curbs. 6) Street lighting be designed and submitted. Pictures of mailbox lights be submitted. 7) Accept tlae cul-de-sac is larger than 500'. J. Lasko seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Mr. Koeth asked that the changes be made prior to next meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS North Olmsted g+'ire Station #2: The Fire Department presented and discussed site location options for the new fire station for the purpose of the Commission making recommendations to City Council. Assistant Law Director O'Malley indicated that Planning Commission received a memo from the Law Director that outlines their role in this process. The Commission is instructed to make a recommendation to Council to proceed with authorization for land acquisition based upon response time requirements and other needs. Ms. Wenger instructed the Board to remain broad in scope and to consider multiple options. Chief Klecan prepared a memo outlining requirements for response time. He indicated that since Station #1 has been moved east, it has resulted in quicker response time to the eastern section of 7