05/23/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

north and south sides. He indicated that the property owner on the adjacent land on the south side would be interested in receiving the excess land. Mr. Saylor indicated that the developers are presently involved in negotiations with the owner on the north to see if he would similarly be interested in the excess land, however, the property owner has not made a decision as of yet. He indicated that he had read a small article in the Sun Herald pertaining to this proposal from the last Planning Commission meeting. He indicated that drainage was discussed and is a big concern and the developers anticipate improving the drainage by installing property drainage of the Sub- division Street up to the City standards. The developers have made provisions to take all storm water into Westlake. The remainder would be conveyed in storm sewers in improved drainage into the City of Westlake where construction retention basins are located. He does not anticipate any problems with drainage. Mr. Tallon questioned if Mr. Saylor was familiar with the proposed relocation of Route 252. Mr. Saylor questioned if it was proposed. Mr. Tallon responded "yes." Mr. Saylor indicated that he is not aware of this and he questioned if it was identified journalized as a rightaway by the City. Mr. Tallon indicated it is a proposed rightaway for the City of North Olmsted. Mr. Gertsma came forward and indicated that he has talked to the State Highway Department in the past and he was told that they could do whatever they wanted with the land and they had no interest in the proposal. Mr. Tallon indicated that what is being discussed is a proposed connector between 1480 and 190, and that connector is in the best interest of the City of North Olmsted. The State of Ohio will fund the project if the City propose to it along with the proposal of Westlake. Mr. Tallon indicated it is a viable project. Mr. Gertsma indicated that two houses had been built on Gessner in North Olmsted. Mr. Tallon indicated that the area is residential used for housing not for street. Mr. Tallon indicated that if the houses are to be built in Westlake, make the access in Westlake. Mr. Gertsma questioned his rights to use his own property however he chooses. Mr. Tallon indicated that an owner has a right to develop his land. Mr. Saylor requests the Law Departments opinion. 1VIr. Dubelko indicated that a street is not a permitted use. He indicated that a street has to be accepted by the City, so it is a discretionary act by the City of North Olmsted for street purposes. Ultimately, recommendation from Planning Commission and Board of Zoning and Development is needed to accept the proposal. Mr. Saylor indicated that he understands that, but in the case of any development new rightaways are being constructed over land that is zoned for residential use. Mr. Tallon indicated that he had not said that it has not been done, but applicants can not demand that the City allow a street to be put in. Mr. Saylor indicated that the applioants are not demanding and that is why they are before Planning Commission to get approval. Ms. Oldenburg came forward and reviewed her concerns of increased traffic, safety of the children, drainage, and the landscaping to the rear of the property. She indicated that they would lose property taxes and have a road to maintain. She questioned who would take care of loss of trees that are damaged due to a new water table located closely to the trees. No further comments were made. R. Tallon motioned to deny Rosewood Estates Subdivision Number 6, Preliminary Plan - NOTE: That this proposal is related to the above agenda item number 1 and involves both cities of Westlake, and North Olmsted. North Olmsted Item: The proposal is to construct a dedicated street through permanent parcel number 231-19-017 intersecting Columbia Road and providing access to' a.proposed seven (7) sublot subdivision in Westlake. Current zoning within North Olmsted is B-Residence, Single Entirely, based on B-Residence Single Family is the existing zoning and is valid and should be maintained, putting a street in - that area could create a 11