My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/08/1991 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1991
>
1991 Planning Commission
>
10/08/1991 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:54 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:42:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1991
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
10/8/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
?, .. <br />?. <br />?-• w <br />current wetland laws, however the State of Ohio is looking at adding time <br />constraints and burdens to wetlands enforcement which will affect the price of <br />the property. The church would like to get the property rezoned, and then the <br />developer will come before the Corrunission with a development plan. Mr. Skoulis <br />asked if this proposal is a suggestion of what could be done, or is this what <br />Hermie Homes actually plans to construct. Mr. Grindell stated that this plan was <br />prepared by the church, but Hennie Homes is interested in putting in cluster <br />homes. He added that there is a duplex unit on the existing Matthew Drive which <br />is not owned by the church, and since the improvements are installed for duplex <br />homes, it would be difficult to change this area. He clarified that these would <br />be two story imits with the bedrooms upstairs, not second floor im.its. Mr. Gorris <br />noted that it appeared that the agenda was not correct. City Engineer Deichmann <br />responded that from what Mr. Grindell stated, they wish to rezone anly to Single <br />Family Cluster and Single Family. Mr. Grindell explained that the multi-family <br />area has been eliminated and that the agenda stated Mixed Use "B", when it should <br />have been "C" under the new code. The members studied the revised plan which <br />shows 3 Single Family lots on Barton Road and the balance all Single Family <br />Cluster. Mr. Grindell pointed out that much of the property would be close to the <br />freeway and the traffic noise. Mr. Gorris questioned if it were not typical to <br />have a specific proposed development when asking to rezone a parcel. Assistant <br />Law Director Dubelko advised that any property owner ha.s the right to request <br />rezoning on the basis that his property is zoned improperly, but the owner has to <br />demonstrate that the zoning classification is inappropriate. If he does that the <br />City has an obligation to rezone ito He stated that this is a difficult decision <br />on a large piece of land and it is the Law Department's opinion that the City has <br />to have a reasonable period of time, not rushing to a judgement that may be <br />inappropriate, but not delaying in a way tha.t is going to harm a property owner. <br />It is not necessary for the owner to present a proposal, but he would not be <br />locked into it if he did. Chairman Gorris pointed out that, if this is zoned <br />inappropriately, it was done so at the request of the current land owner. Mr. <br />Dubelko stated that this was 10 years ago, and circtanstances do change. Mr. <br />Thomas questioned what would be considered a reasonable period for the Commi'ssion <br />to determine the correct zoning considering that it took the owner 10 years to <br />decide that the land was zoned improperly. Mr. Dubelko stated tha.t there is no <br />specific answer to that, but advised that the City should proceed diligently to <br />protect the property owner's rights and cautiously to protect all the residents <br />of the City, and should be guided by the city planner si.nce the Commission is in <br />the process of formulating a master plan. Mr. Gorris stated tha,t since hiring a <br />planner had been suggested during the initial review, he took the liberty of <br />supplying this plan to County Planning. They suggested that this parcel be <br />incorporated as part of a focus study to be reviewed with the City plan. He <br />questioned if this could be considered a reasonable period of time. Again, Mr. <br />Dubelko ha.d no specific answer, but speculated that the focus study could be at <br />the forefront of the study. Mr. Grindell stated that they had originally agreed <br />to split the cost of a planner to study this proposal, and since time is <br />important, they would like to make this offer again to move this along. Mr: <br />Morgan noted that a planner has been chosen and only needs approval from Council; <br />but after it is definite who the planner is, this parcel could be brought to <br />their attention immediately. Mr. Dubelko believed that this would be <br />appropriate, since the planner will be hired shortly and the plan has to be <br />completed by June of 1992. Mr. Morgan stated that it might be possible to come to <br />a conclusion prior to the adoption of the entire plan, and if council agreed, it <br />might be passed earlier. He speculated that perhaps Ameritrust should be apprised <br />of this situation, in the hope they would agree. Mre Grindell would like it
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.