03/11/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , ? establishments to residential land use. The resident's position with regards to land use change of parcel E has been heard loudly and clearly by the court. Court documents further state, that "it will be the duty of North Olmsted officials to work with the planning corporations as done in the past to create a zoning plan that will buffer neighboring residents from unnecessary intrusion. Yet, permit development of parcel E for appropriate use some of which must include retail designation". She does not believe the judge meant 100% retail use. Mr. Poffenberger thanked the board members for their comments. Mr. Poffenberger felt that it was important for the board members to remember that issue "41" failed in November of 1997 by 41%. Issue "41" was to rezone parcel E to Retail. In today's economy, a big box store is not warranted. Super-Kmart on route 252 is closing and they have only been open for a few years. We have too many retail shops vacant now we do not need any more. Mr. Barnett an abutting parcel owner is concerned about what this will do to his property value. There is currently two properties for sale on Mitchell and Linda Drive, he believes that the reason the homes are for sale is due to how this land may or may not be developed. It is not just the looks that will effect the residential area economics is also an area to be looked at. No amount of buffering is going to help the residents abutting this property. He believes more homes in the development will be sold because of the lot. Mrs. Seaman an abutting neighbor voiced that for the record, Mr. Berryhill was incorrect when he stated they have a right to tie into the residential street (West View) that is not true. The applicants would only have that right if they developed parcel E as Residential. This type of development would not allow the applicants to tie into a residential street. She also wanted to thank and commend Planning Commission for the comments and concerns they addressed. Law department comments; Mr. O'Malley indicated that under 1149.07 preliminary land use Council has referred plans for Planning Commissions review and recommendations. Planning Commission has 60 days to submit their recommendation to Council. The developer has been candid as to what they want to place on the land however they are not at the point of discussing what establishments will occupy the buildings. The landowners have a constitutional right to develop the property they contested the reasonableness of the previous zoning classification and the court ruled in their favor. The Court requested that the City rezone the land, Council with the assistance of Planning Commission and the Professional Planner that was hired established what the City believes is a reasonable zoning classification. His recollection is that the developer was present for the meetings that took place and he believes that the Professional Planner met with the developers to try to accommodate some of their needs. The City took into consideration the expanding permissible uses on this lot to make it economically viable as it relates to the constitutionality of the zoning. Mr. O'Malley believed that Mr. Skoulis was correct, in his comments regarding his reference to section 1139.11 of the zoning code, which is a regulation for superstores. It puts a limit upon 100,000 square feet for any superstore as well as restrictions as to where a superstore can be located. He believes that that code restricts the construction of a superstore on this lot and they show a building 125,000 square feet. There are other regulation in the Mix Use D that addresses the issue of the building size and building massing. He is not sure if they need to analyze the footprint of the structure, as it might not be consistent with the Mix Use D zoning. The Mix Use D section included a provision that would allow the City to recommend a traffic study. He believes it would be appropriate for the City to study the traffic before the preliminary land use would be considered. Mr. O'Malley recommended Planning Commission make that recommendation to City Council regardless of any other recommendations, modifications or 5