11/11/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11, 1986 PAGE 2 He believes that it is a positive thing th at the developer has come b ack with this change in response to the peoples concerns. Mrs. Kordish pointed out that Westlake seems to be able to control new construction in their city. Mr. Carlisle stated that this post modern type architecture was new but could be seen in other areas and even in Ohio, specifically in Beachwood. B. Gorris moved to refer the Biskind Development Company proposal to change the exterior materials and colors on the previously approved Great Northern Mall expansion to the Architectural Review Board, seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1) Developers Diversified Rezoning Request The proposal is to rezone.a portion of the northwest corner of the Butternut Ridge Road-Relocated SR 252 intersection from Single Family Residence "A" to Retail Business, General, District. The rezoning affects permanent parcels 236-11-011, 236-11-010, 236-11-009, 236-11-018, 236-11-008, 236-10-033, and 236-12-010. The total area of land to be rezoned is 42.7497 acres. City Engineer Schaller explained that property is located between re- located SR 252 on the east, 1480 on the north and the side and rear property lines of residential lots and the Butternut Ridge Cemete.ry facing Butternut Ridge Road. Mr. Don Krantz, architect, explained proposal to rezone this parcel of slightly more than 42 acres from Single Family Residence "A" to General Retail Business, advising that they own 29 acres and have an option on approximately 13 acres. They had requested rezoning twice previously (to General Retail in 1978 and to Mixed Use and Motorists Service in 1983) and explained that they are requesting rezoning again because of the completion of relocated SR 252. They are asking for the General Retai-l zoning since this will allow them more latitude in developing the,property. Their proposed development will include two department stores, a small food court, convention and meeting facility, a hotel, and two office buildingsi(one 2 story and one 3 story for a total of 90,000 square feet). It is their contention that no cate.gory of residential use is appr.opriate for this land because of its proximity to the interstate with the resulting noise, fumes, and the possibility of unsafe conditions for. the residents. They are estimating that the tax revenues from this complex would amount to $300,000 from property taxes, $300,000 from income taxes, and $2,000,000 from county sales tax. Mr. Gorris questioned what•type of studies were made to determine that the property.could not be developed residentially since there is new housing being constructed along many freeways. He pointed out that land was purchased as residential property and the first request was to rezone 22 acres, and now it is 42 acres. He also.stated that the Regional Planning Commission had previously advised that this property was suitable for residential development and that such rezoning. should not be granted in view of the over abundance of commercially zoned property in the City and questioned just what had changed. Mr. Krantz responded: numerous studies had determined that the constan t himm of traffic, dirt, fumes, specifically carbon monoxide, would be detrimental _ to residential use adjacent to freeways; th at noise b arriers had been constructed on freeways adjacent to residential areas; that Regional