Laserfiche WebLink
CI'I'Y OF NORTH OL1VdSTED <br />"TOGETHER WE CA.N MAKE A DIFFERENCE!" <br />PLAN1oTING COMMISSIOIV <br />MaNU'I'ES - I)ECElVIBER 11, 2001 <br />IN COUloTCII. CHAMBERS <br />7:30 F.M. <br />1. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman R. Tallon called the meeting to order at 7:40pm. <br />PRESENT: Chairman, R. Tallon, Board members; K. O'Rourke, W. Spalding, T. Hreha, C. Allan <br />and S. Asseff. <br />ALSO PRESENT: City Engineer; P. Deichmann, Asst. Law Director; J. Dubelko, Asst. <br />Building Commissioner; T. Rymarczyk and Asst. Clerk of Commissions; S. Solomon. <br />ABSENT: Board member; R. Koeth. <br />H. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF IVIlNTJTES: The Plannina Commission minutes dated <br />November 13, 2001 and November 27, 2001 have been submitted for approval. <br />R. Tallon motioned to accept the Planning Commission minutes dated November 13, 2001 as <br />written. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding and was unanimously approved. t4.pproved. <br />R. Tallon motioned to accept the Planninj Commission minutes dated November 27, 2001 as <br />written. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and was unanimously approved. Approved. <br />T.H. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />1. Kennedy Ridge Townhomes; 236-17-005 & 015 <br />Proposal consists of 40 new Townhomes with Access via Kennedy Ridge Road. <br />Note: Variances are required. This proposal was tabled at the 11/13/01 Planning Commission <br />meeting. <br />Chairman Tallon called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Scott Gilespie, <br />Vice President of NRP G1-oup of Cleveland, came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Gilespie <br />indicated that he is back with a revised plan. At the last meeting the board was concerned with <br />some scale and issues of setback. The revisions inake the plan less crowded as it might have <br />originally appeared. They have taken the same concept of the same group of buildings and <br />they've done some scale difference on a few of the buildings. He showed the board members the <br />new building type. What they've done is reduced the scale of the buildings. Part of the <br />discussion at the last meeting was, the bigger the building then the greater the setback. To go <br />with a smaller scale building, which they have done, reduces the amount of setback, which <br />allowed them to open the development up in the center. They are still proposing 40 homes with <br />40 garages. The town homes have the attached garages and the garden homes have 1 garage per <br />unit located throughout the site. Their total setback at the previous meeting was about 115 ft. if <br />you added them all up. They are now down to 60 ft. total, which is about half. There will be <br />some variance issues that they will still need to ask for. They have developed a plan that <br />accommodates the vast majority of setback requests that they were asking for before are now <br />gone. They scaled the buildings back and he thinks that the building designs are very attractive. <br />Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if the variance on the driveway has anything to do with the turn ratio. <br />Mr. Gilespie replied that the variance deals with the proximity from corner of the building to the