03/14/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?44 2) Sunrise Development (North Olmsted Industrial Park): , The proposal is to subdivide Sublot 4-A of the Sunrise Development Assembly Plat (Recorded Volume 242, Page 81 Cuyahoga County Map Records) into two (2) sublots. Location is the south side of the North Olmsted Industrial Parkway. Zoning is Limited Industry - Industrial Park Entirely and neither proposed sublot conforms to Zoning Code requirements. Mr. Dyer, Sunrise Development, presented the plans to split off 2 parcels about 1 acre each in the Industrial Park. One parcel will contain a small warehouse and it was clarified that there would be two non-conforming lots. Mr. Dyer advised Mr. Manning that they had buyers for both lots, but there were only plans to build on one of them. He explained that they had been getting more and more requests for smaller parcels recently. Mr. Puzzitiello, representing the owner of the warehouse, presented a picture of a similar building and explained that there would be the possibility of add.ing on to the 4,800 square foot building later on. Mr. Manning is concerned about having several small buildings and believed that it could hinder development of larger businesses. Mr. Koeth noted that there was a similar type bu.ilding on Bagley Road which had several small businesses in it and did not think it would be appropriate in the Industrial Park . The members discussed the proposal among themselves and were concemed about breaking up the land for a lot of small businesses. Assistant City Engineer McDermott explained that the usage would clictate what amount of variance that they would need since there are d.ifferent requ.irements on both frontage and square footage for a warehouse or office, but they will need a variance regardless. The developers will have to declare what type of business will be on each lot. Mr. Puzzitiello stated that there will be an office in the warehouse. Mr. Tallon advised that there could be an office, but the main use would be a warehouse. Mr. McDermott stated that a warehouse required 250 foot of frontage and two acres so this would be a massive variance. Assistant Law Director Dubelko believed that the city made a legislative decision to require a certain frontage and acreage in Industrial Districts, if there is something wrong with those requirements, perhaps Council should look into changing them. If the city might be inclined agree to a variance, he believed that a definite proposal should be submitted and then it could be approved contingent upon the variance being granted for the lot. Once the city subdivides and a non-conforming lot is approved, it would be difficult to deny building proposals. They should bring their proposal before the Planning Commission first and get approvals subject to a variance being granted. Mr. Dyer believed that it would be better to make a determination that one acre lots would be a suitable size since a plan could be approved and a variauce granted but the proposal might never be developed. Mr. Dubelko agreed that this should be a legislative decision, not a variance because a variance is based on a hardship created by the unusual conditions of the land, the only hardship here would be that our code is too restrictive. Based on these comments, R. Tallon moved that the Sunrise Development (North Olmsted Industrial Park) proposal to subdivide Sublot 4-A of the Suurise Development Assembly Plat into two (2) sublots be denied Mr. Dubelko clarified that this has to be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation that it be denied. Chairma.n Tallon restated his motion. R. Tallon moved that the Sunrise Development (North Olmsted Industrial Park) proposal to subdivide Sublot 4-A of the Suurise Development Assembly Plat (Recorded Volume 242, Page 81 Cuyahoga county Map Records) into two (2) sublots. Location is the south side of the North Olmsted Industrial Parkway. Zoning is Limited Industry - Industrial Park entirely and neither proposed sublot conforms to the Zoning Code with the recommendation that this proposal be denied since in essence it is eliminating what the city as a whole did in setting aside this land for those purposes and the Commission strongly believes that if it is more feasible to develop . _ 8