Laserfiche WebLink
that is to be introduced as a result of the Master Plan, Councilman McKay said he <br />would. Mr. Gerrity, a resident of Clareshire, complained about traffic and <br />questioned if the Moen traffic had been included in the traffic study. Mr. <br />Newberry stated that the traffic study was based on the city's best estimate of <br />projected traffic in the city, including Moen and the Butternut Ridge Apartments. <br />Mr. Orlowski stated that Nioen projected that they would have 250 to 400 <br />employees. Mr. Skoulis, representing the Park West home owners, stated that this <br />proposal was an abor.iination; would do nothing for the residents; would be <br />detrimental to the city; cause greater traffic problems; and noted that there <br />were residential developments on three sides of this proposal since their <br />development is on the other side of Brookpark Road. This wi.ll effect the quality <br />of life of the residents as well as their property values. He maintained that <br />this location is being foisted on the residents by the administration. He stated <br />that the Commission believes that there is no way they can stop this proposal. He <br />mentioned the proposed Westlake superstore where there was a 4 to 1 decision <br />handed down by the Supreme Court of Ohio, and he quoted Justice Douglas, one of <br />the judges, " The Planning Commission retains in any way and fully the right to <br />review the application for completeness and to accept or reject the development <br />based on that review." He called traffic surveys an essential factor in <br />determining impact on existing developments. In concluding, Douglas stated "that <br />the Mayor, the City Council, and -the Planning Commission have a responsibility to <br />all citizens of Westlake, not just to a developer." Mr. Skoulis asked that the <br />Commission keep an open mind on this and he understood that it was up to the <br />Planning Cormission and city officials to determine whether or not it was a <br />proper proposal for the area, not whether it was legal or not. He did not believe <br />that this is a proper proposal, neither did he believe that any resident of North <br />Olmsted would agree that this is a good idea and that there should be a Wal-Mart <br />in this location. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that Justice Douglas' <br />opinion was not the majority opinion and although he concurred in the decision, <br />he criticized the ma.jority for not taking into account the matters that were just <br />mentioned. The majority opinion was that Planning Commission had a duty to rule, <br />and was required to rule, within a certain period of time on the Super K-Mart and <br />was required to follow the laws that were in existence at the time. Justice <br />Douglas concurred in the decisiori, but believed that it was important to make <br />some statement concerning traffic impact and the statements that Justice Douglas <br />made do not reflect current law in the state of Ohio and Planning Cor.mission is <br />required to follow the law. Mrs. Schuler, a resident of Colebrook, stated that <br />the weather had kept at least 20 of their residents away from this meeting. Many <br />people at the last meeting had stated that they were going to move from Mastick <br />Road, Sunset Oval, Elm Road, not just the residents who live on Clareshire. She <br />too objected to the traffic and stated that based on 10,000 cars a day this would <br />add 3,500,000 cars a year the streets cannot sustain that. She begged the <br />Commission to fight Wal-Mart, like tidestlake is fighting K-Mart. She asked if they <br />had the right to sue the city, Mr. Biskind, and Wal-Mart if their property values <br />go down. Mr. Dubelko responded that anybody could sue anyone, but the Planning <br />Commission's duty is to protect their property so property values do not go down <br />but they cannot turn down a proposal because someone wants it zoned differently. <br />Once an application is made and a proposal conforms to the code, the Planning <br />Commission must protect the residents to the greatest el;tent practicable. She <br />again asked, if her property value went down because of this development, would <br />she have any recourse. Mr. Dubelko explained that if the City illegally prevented <br />a person from developing his land, the city could be held liable for any loss of <br />profits over the period of years that they Nvere wrongfully detained. He thinks <br />Westlake gets themselves into a lot of trouble by the way they handle <br />developments, and take up a lot of time in court in a loosing battle which costs <br />10