My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/18/1993 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1993
>
1993 Planning Commission
>
01/18/1993 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:20 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:14:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1993
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/18/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
members reviewed the sites and ha,d no other problems. Regarding the western end <br />of Lorain Road which has many different types of developments, Mr. Schultz stated <br />that at present there are no restrictions of the type of General Retail, and <br />actually Wal-Ma.rt would be permitted, this is why they have suggested a local <br />retail use, which would limit development. The members then questioned why this <br />area could not all be rezoned MixedUse "D". Mr. Schultz explained tha.t since <br />Mixed Use "D" requires a 5 acre pareel, and most of these parcels are smaller, <br />under their plan the larger parcels were Mixed Use "D" with the smaller ones as <br />local retail. This was a compromise to accomanodate the existing lot sizes. He <br />also suggested either modifying the size requirement of Mixed Use "D" or else <br />creating a new classification requiring smaller lots. The retail area could be <br />limited to 40,000 square feet and must be an ancillary use to the mixed u:se. <br />Build:i.ng Commissioner Conway clarified that the 5 acres limit does not mean that <br />one lot must be 5 acres; it i5 a minimt-rtn development size and there can be <br />separate owners in the development. He believed that it was the intent. of the <br />Planning Commission to have lots assembled and to elimina.te some of the bowling <br />alley lot. Mr. Schultz has a concern that this could open the city up to <br />litigation. He thought it would be best to offer some guideline or statement of <br />intent in the plan since it would take a while to draw up an amended Mixed Use <br />"D" or a new Mixed Use "E", or a combination of either of these and an ancillary <br />retail use. It was agreed that a siurunary would be mailed to the members by <br />January 29th and will be diseussed at the February 9th meeting. <br />N. NE6J DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br /> No items. <br />V. COPMTNICATIONS: <br /> No Items. <br />VI. COMMIITTEE REPORTS: <br /> No items. <br />VII. NEW BUSINESS: <br /> No it+ems. <br />VIII. OLD BUSINESS: <br /> No items. <br />IX. ADJOURNMID.VT: <br />The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. <br />? <br />? <br />, Chairman <br />B. <br />01i; <br />of Commissions. <br />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.