09/10/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, .? on the west end of Lorain Rd., Dale Schmidt. 1VIr. O'Malley said that at that time he counseled the w Planning Commission on its obligation to abide by the recommendations of the master plan and also not limit itself to the proposal before it. Obviously, this applicant, if he had an understanding with his neighbor to his east, might be proposing to rezone his neighbor's land to single-family cluster as well. The Planning Commission is not limited by this applicant's land. Perhaps the whole thing should be single-family cluster'but that is what the board needs to explore. Perhaps the single-family residence that front Columbia Rd. all the way to I-480 should also be considered for rezoning. He cautioned the board that this plan is only a hypothetical, it is not in any way binding. If the rezoning is granted, the applicant is free to change the plan. Naturally they would come back before the board and they can scrutinize issues such as frontage and running traffic onto Columbia Rd., the configuration of the road and the stub streets in relation to neighboring properties and the future development. Certainly traffic is a relevant consideration. This property owner doesn't have access to Brookpark Rd. but neighboring properties do. He studied the master plan to prepare for the meeting and unfortunately has to report that it appears a mistake was made by the regional planning commission when they did the master plan in 1992. It was addressed in what is referred to as Focus Area A. They noted there may be wet lands on the property. They did address the issue of access to Brookpark Rd. and described the benefits and detriments of Brookpark remaining a limited access highway, and at that time talked about the possibility that I-480 is a limited access highway, that perhaps Brookpark did not need to be. They also made reference to neighboring parcels and indicated in the master plan they believed the parcels to be owned by the same owners as the Jamestown Apartments. Mr. O'Malley said he does not know if that is still the case. They described this neighboring property owner having access through. a single lot on the stub of Grace to the south of Brookpark, and linking to two large parcels, some of which have frontage on Brookpaxk Rd. to the north and east of this developers property. That is where the master plan seems to be in error. They have in Chapter 8, future development of remaining undeveloped lots, in Table 8-2 they have described this area as Lot Number 41. In map 8-6, they throw the property owner's land in together with the neighboring lands to the east. They describe it as undeveloped Lot Number 41, and the mistake is they believed the existing zoning classification for this lot and the neighboring lands to the east to be single- family cluster at that time, which is very inaccurate. They noted the possible wetlands and referred to a master plan of 1973 that mentioned townhouses and garden apartments. They provided additional information that vacant parcels fronting on Columbia and Brookpark Rd. exist. They describe the best or primary recommended future use as multiple residence. An acceptable alternative for future use was listed as senior citizen housing and the recommended zoning change to multiple residence district. The City Council is not bound by the inaster plan but the Planning Commission is, by charter, bound by it, notwithstanding the fact that it appears to be in error. Mrs. O'Rourke asked if Mr. O'Malley is then saying the board can't change it. He indicated that is correct; they can't change it to single-family cluster because the master pian has it as multiple residence. He said the board can recommend to City Council that single-family cluster be considered and that the master plan be revised. Council can revise the master plan and do the single-family cluster, but he encouraged the board to continue in its effort to try to broaden the scope of its reference. Perhaps the regional planning commission that did the master plan assumed that the entire area,was single-family cluster and that it should remain. He said not just this parcel but the neighboring, undeveloped parcels to the east. Mr. Koeth said part of the issue is to get _ input from the person who owns that other parcel. They need to get feedback as to what his plans are. Mr. O'Malley said, at least in 1992, the regional planning commission was under the impression that this neighboring parcel might be developed with access to Grace Dr. and they considered the possibility that both this land and neighboring lands to the east might have access onto Brookpark Rd. instead of Columbia or Grace. Mr. Allan said it sounds like the case with Parcel E, and it may be wise to have a work session and discuss it through a bit further. Mr. O'Malley said they can request the assistance of a planning director again, and there is-some input that the building department might be able to provide in terms of comparing and contrasting the features of these various zones: The law department can provide assistance as well. There are certain features and characteristics of a single-fainily cluster versus single residence. As he reads it, a single-family cluster is designed to accommodate a traditional single-family 10