|
2) City of North Olmsted Assembly and Vacation Plat.
<br />The proposal, by the City, is to combine Permanent Parcel Nos. 232-11-15, 16, '
<br />17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 34, and 232-12-7, 8, 10 (the site of the North Olmsted'
<br />- Municipal Complex, southwest corner area of Lorain and Dover Center Roads) ?
<br />into one (1) parcel. The proposal also includes the vacation of North Olmsted
<br />Court which extends approximately 160 feet centerline distance southeasterly
<br />off Lorain Road west of Dover Center Road, and which was approved by Ord. 84-
<br />2. Zoning is split: Retail Business, General along Loruin Road to Dover
<br />Center Road, and B-Residence, Single abutting on the south along Dover Center
<br />Road.
<br />Mr. Gorris advised that the agenda item was not correct, but the notice that
<br />the adjacent residents received was correct. The original agenda did not
<br />state "Zoning is.split: Retail Business, General along Lorain Road to Dover
<br />Center Road,". Mr. Deichmann explained that this is mainly a housekeeping
<br />matter since Council had approved Ordinance 84-2 the vacation plat and the
<br />assembly plat had been drawn up, but there is no evidence it was ever signed
<br />by PlarLn;ng Commission. Mr. Thomas questioned why this had to be done since
<br />tho City is not bound by the Zoning Codes. Mr. Dubelko stated that this is a
<br />public improvement. Members are concerned since the. property is split zoned
<br />ancl in the past they have not been approving split zoned lots. Originally a
<br />new zoning classification for public buildings had been discussed but since it
<br />was not included in the proposed Zoning Codes, Mr. Dubelko believes that this
<br />property should be rezoned to one classification, perhaps residential. Mr.
<br />Deichmarm stated that North Olmsted Lwnber was, in fact, using their portion
<br />of the vacated North Olmsted Court. Mr. Manley, who lives on Dover Center,
<br />is concerned that they will lose their residential zoning when and if the city
<br />property is expanded since a jail has been discussed at another location and
<br />the Service Department will need to be increased. Mr. Dubelko stated that
<br />this would only be for the same lot lines, and his only concern was setting a
<br />precedent for others, but short of that he does not believe that there is a
<br />great concern if it is split zoned. Mr. Gorris clarified that the proposed
<br />zoning classification for public facilities was not pursued because of the
<br />coi-icern that although some public buildings would be acceptable to adjacent
<br />residents, there were others, such as a jail, that would be unacceptable.
<br />Building Commissioner Conway believed that the new code provides for these
<br />buildings to be permitted by Planning Commission as a conditional use. Mr.
<br />Dubelko stated.that no city has to atiide by its own zoning code, only by its
<br />charter; and they could assemble a split zoned lot. It was suggested that the
<br />property be divided in two lots at the zone line. Mr. Deichm.ann suggested
<br />that such a zoning could be considered in the proposed Master Plano J. Thomas
<br />moved to approve the combination of permanent parcel rnunbers 232-11-15,16,
<br />17,18, 19, 20, 28, 34, and 232-12-7, 8, 10 into one parcel and also to note
<br />that the parcel will then be split zoned and it should be addressed in future
<br />proceeding as to defining a new zoning classification to cover, public service
<br />facilities, such as municipal building, garks, recreation areas, and so on.
<br />The members then discussed making the property 2 parcels. Mr. Dubelko did not
<br />believe in creating two parcels on either side of the zoning line which would
<br />probably place the property line through the building. Mr. Gorris suggested 2
<br />parcels split by Olmsted Court. Mr. Conway stated that there would be a
<br />building code violation if there would be a property.line through the middle
<br />of the building. Mr. Thomas withdrew his motion stating that he believes that
<br />the property should be left the way it is until there is a new zoning
<br />classification and suggested that the city withdraw this proposal. Mr. Dubelko
<br />6
<br />0
<br />
|