11/09/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

landscaping, fencing and things of that nature would have to be addressed by the Planning Commission when the proposal is submitted. An audience member made a comment about hearing that no one is going to want to build a house in that area that may be true based upon what the cunent owners want for the property. If the current owners of the property wanted to sell the property at a lesser cost then you could build homes on the sites. It is not whether a house could be built there or not but whether it fits the need of the current owner selling his property. It is not true that a house can be built on the property. Mr. Bohlmann agreed that homes could be built on the site, but that what a developer would have to pay to obtain the property and what it cost now a days to build a new home makes the likely hood of a developer wanting the land unlikely. He would have a hard time selling a home at today's prices right next to 1480 highway. Furthermore anyone that owned that property or any other property is going to sell the land for the highest amount of money he can get. The audience member suggested that was his point if the ordinance is put in place then the owner of the property can sell his property at a high price. Mr. Bohlmann indicated that parcel E was on the ballet a year or two ago and the residents turned that rezoning down by 8 to 2 and the City is now in court today and it doesn't look so good for the city. There is a judge that really doesn't care about what happens in North Olmsted and makes his decisions based on tax's he sees, it is better for the City to use their own authority to make their own decisions then having a judge downtown making them for the City. The likely hood of that happening here is strong because an owner can say that the current residential zoning is not feasible for the land. Therefore they want it rezoned to general retail business and the City can not keep that land owner from being able to develop his own land. An audience member suggested that that is why the City has to take their time with this to make sure it doesn't end up in court. Mr. Tallon indicated that he was going to cut the debating off now. Mr. Spalding questioned Ms. Feke as to what her experience was with regards to comparable situations to what RTA is proposing for North Olmsted, were the park and ride abuts residential neighborhoods. Ms. Feke indicated that there are two Westlake and Bay Village, which abuts residents and the only thing that, separates the park and ride from the residents is an active railroad track. In Fairview Park the park and ride is only 30 feet from a resident's home. Mr. Spalding indicated that he wanted a comparison of a site that was zoned residential and had to be rezoned in order to be put in place. Ms. Feke commented, that Fairview Park land was commercial but had been vacant for 15 years when RTA came in and placed the park and ride closer to the property line then what this park and ride would ever be in North Olmsted. R. Tallon moved to table Ordinance No. 99-139 -and ordinance 99-140 until the next Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission would like to ask Council to extend_ their review time as there is not a full quorum and the Planning Commission would like to address the ordinances with a full quorum. The board would like the RTA representatives to return to the next meeting and submit a proposal to the board addressing all the issues that have been discussed tonight. That doesn't mean that there has to be detailed plans but, RTA will address the diesel fumes, the sound issues, the landscaping and mounding, lighting, security, stolen cars which are all concerns of the Commission. Before the Planning Commission recommends the rezoning, they would like to know what the impact is going to have on the neighbors before they make their decisions. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and unanimously approved. Motion Carrned. _, ? 14