07/27/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

upon the concept of spot rezoning. A good point that Councilman Gareau makes is it is not important at all from a legal viewpoint that the Comrnission makes a decision to rezone or not rezone based upon the desires of the residents. Overall he feels that the Commission tries to give the benefit of the brake to the residents in this City. More importantly each of the Commissioners have taken an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Ohio and of the constitution. The important function in respect to a rezoning issue is looking at the land itself as to whether or not it is properly zoned, not whether the neighbors want it rezoned or not, but whether or not it is proper to have these particular parcels in a residential classification. Mr. Dubellco indicated the point Councilman Gareau raised is a valid point that these lots are vacant lots. It is a little bit different when you have a use of those lots and it is an on going use with a structure. When you have vacant lots they should be looked at as, one whether or not the present zoning relates to the health, welfare and safety or the community, and secondly whether or not the existing zoning classification depriLes the owner of all economically viable use of the property. The Commissioners need to look at the parcels of land and make a determination whether or not the City by keeping the parcels in a residential classification is depriving the owner of all economically viable use. This raises the issue of rvhether a developer will likely come in and build homes on these lots or not. The Commission needs to be comfortable with the decision to keep the parcels in the residential district. Mr. Dubelko informed the commission that he had reviewed a case in which that the City of Monterey had delayed the development of a certain parcel of land in Monterey until the State of California finally purchased it. The developer sued the City and won a large monetary award based upon the temporary taking which occurred while the City refused to allow development of the property. While our situation is different, Mr. Dubelko believes that the commission should keep this case in mind and should focus on the question of whether, from a health, safety and welfare perspective, it makes sense to keep this land residentially zoned. Mr. Koeth questioned if the proposal could be paralleled with parcel E because that would be doing the same thing. Mr. Dubelko answered no. We believe that, as a City, we've looked at that parcel carefully and hired experts who have reviewed our zoning decision and agree with us that one, the office district classification relates to health, safety and welfare and furthers the legitimate governmental interest in providing a bufFer between the retail properties to the south and the residential properties to the north. Our exerts have also opined that parcel E may be developed profitably for office use. The Commissioners have to ask themselves the same question here. These are vacant lots. Can they be developed for residential purposes. Mr. Koeth indicated that, that would be the question the Commission would have to ask Mr. Halleen, has he ever offered the lots to a developer to build homes. Councilman Gareau suggested he didn't have that information. Mr. Koeth indicated that if the rezoning was granted to sub Lots 4 and 5,1VIr. Halleen will be back before the Pla.nning Commission to extend the zoning boundaries to include sub lots 1 and 2 while fixing parcel 44. Councilman Gareau indicated that sub lot 1 was not owned by Mr. Halleen and that it was a vacant lot owned by someone else. Mr. Koeth indicated that the decision would still have to be made whether parcel 44 will remain both retail and residential or if the retail would be expanded to cover the entire parcel. Councilman Gareau indicated his understanding of parce144 was that the zoning line goes right through the existing building, there is a choice of either rezoning the entire parcel residential or commercial. Mr. 'I'allon suggested that the line would just need to be readjusted and as more than 3/4 of the lot is commercial it is going to have to be commercial, which he doesn't have a problem with. Mr. Spalding suggested there could be another use for the parcels that were zoned residential such as apartments, which would buffer the two sites. Mr. Tallon indicated that the two residential lots were class A lots which are very useable. Mr. Brennan suggested the lots could be ta.ken into consideration for the millennium project, where by the federal government gives grants to Cities to buy vacant land and turn them into neighborhood parks like Lakewood is doing. He suggested the mood of the City was that there was more than enough commercially zoned property in North Olmsted. He commented that Mr. Halleen had quit a few options, he could take out the three existing buildings and develop the building Councilman Gareau has suggested he wants to build without claiming the two parcels. It would just be a matter of moving out a couple of tenants and getting rid of the buildings that are eyesores and building something new. He suggested that he would 8