My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/12/2006 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2006
>
2006 Planning and Design Commission
>
07/12/2006 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:46:32 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 4:35:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2006
Board Name
Planning & Design Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/12/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
i <br />Wenger to review each of the permitted uses, accessory uses and conditional uses which would <br />be allowed. <br />Copies of the ordinance were passed out to audience members so they could follow along as the <br />Planning Director reviewed each of the uses permitted and conditionally permitted within the <br />proposed district. For development review purposes, the Planning and Design Commission <br />would only be required to review proposals for uses which are non-residential. General retail <br />businesses and cluster developments are not a permitted use within the new district. <br />Mr. Yager said that within ltocky River along I,ake Road there have been industrial buildings <br />removed and replaced with developments which have homes priced up to a milliori dollars. The <br />developments have small 5 unit buildings no higher than 3 stories abutting up against railroad <br />tracks and gas stations and the, homes are moving fast. Other areas are doing the same such as <br />Kensington Square and Beachcliff Row. He questioned if those types of developments would be <br />allowed within the new district. He also voiced a concern in restricting parking areas to the rear <br />of sites and felt that side yard allowances should be looked at as well. <br />Ms. Wenger said that those types of developments would be considered multi-family residential <br />and the City Charter limits zoning for multi family residential so tliat new development could <br />only be approved though a referendum, which means being placed on a ballot for voters' <br />approval. She does not support the referendum provision in the Charter, but does not want every <br />Residential Office development subject to referendum. Mr. Yager questioned if other cities <br />required voter approval and if not he suggested the city research other communities to find out <br />how they create their multi family districts as the type of developments he mentioned is the way <br />of the future. He believes that city needs to be flexible in the way they develop in the future. <br />Mr. Lasko said that once or if the ordinance is adopted the city and its committees will need to <br />look at what other sections of city codes would have to be readdressed, updated or modified to <br />accomplish cohesive zoning districts. Ms. Wenger reviewed that althougli the area along <br />Barton/Bradley was looked at when creating the proposed district it does not guarantee any <br />specific parcel will be rezoned Residential Office District if the ordinance is adopted. She <br />thought Mr. Yager's idea of higher density residential may be applicable in otfier areas of the <br />City. Mr. Bohlmann said that he felt the Stearns Road corridor would be a good location for.the <br />type of development Mr. Yager was referencing. <br />Mr. Malone asked if the design guidelines were taken into consideration when the proposed <br />district was created to ensure there was continuity between the two. If the ordinance is adopted <br />with tlie 3:1 slope mound it would create the need for variances based on proposed lot width <br />requirements. Ms. Wenger said that the maximum mound requirements were added to ensure the <br />residential character of the district was maintained. If the Commission wants section <br />1142.07(b)(2) to not include a required ratio, she would support the change. <br />Mrs. Meredith pointed out that the ordinance was not rigid with respect to rear parking <br />requirements if side yard parking is desired an applicant can go before the Planning & Design <br />Commission for approval. She believes that the proposed ordinance was very well thought out <br />and well written. <br />Ms. Boyle said she was confused as to why a nursing home would be allowed as a conditional <br />use. Ms. Wenger said that currently any subdivision or residential area within the city allows <br />nursing homes as a conditional use but assisted living is under a different zoning. Ms. Boyle <br />would prefer assisted living ?over nursing homes. Ms. Bacik referenced an area in North <br />Ridgeville that she thought was comparable to the proposal for the Barton Road area which has <br />offices and homes next to each other. Mr. Bacik questioned if the uses listed under conditional <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.