10/19/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/19/1999 agreement is not reached. He has not heard City Council ask what this is going to be. He would like to know what they are going to lose. He is not a lawyer, but feels they could go into court and ask for an extension. To him, this is quite a leap forward to give up rights as a Council and to hand it over to the Mayor to negotiate. He believes it should be held in committee and discussed, or at least Council should ask North Olmsted what they are going to lose if they can't get a continuance. Mr. Gareau commented that what North Ridgeville gains or loses is not a concern of his. It is a civil litigation that does not include North Olmsted. It is not the position of the City of North Olmsted to get involved in possible compensation or the takings law. Mrs. Kasler commented that she understands the ability to get a continuance; however, she is not the person who needs to get it. That is not North Olmsted's concern. Her concern, and her job here tonight, is to understand what she is voting on. She feels that she does understand it and feels comfortable with it. She knows what her future responsibilities will be with regard to this issue. Mr. Miller said he would echo Mrs. Kasler's comments in that Council is confident in the knowledge of what they are voting for. He does not feel they are giving up any rights at all. Mr. Limpert said Council was voting on whether or not to suspend the rules. On that particular vote, he thinks it was only fair to the guests from North Ridgeville to let them know tonight that they will get an up or down vote. He believes that justifies all the votes yes, and Mr. O'Grady is correct in voting no as he was not comfortable with it. Ed Calwell, 3333 W. 231 Street, said it seemed to him that when the presentation was being given, Council was against it. When the vote was taken, there was only one no vote. It seems to him that the citizens of the city haven't heard about this. President Saringer explained that this issue had been discussed during caucus. Because of time limitations and the fact that Council members still had questions to ask, it was decided to complete the discussion during the meeting. Council was asking questions so they would have a record of those questions and the responses. Mr. Gareau said that his understanding of this conversation tonight is that the road will either be positioned a hundred feet inside of North Olmsted or just on the border. The traffic impact, he would imagine, will be relatively similar, if not the same, given the fact that there are no intersections in between the two areas-the last 100 feet of North Olmsted on property that is not presently developed. He is comfortable in the fact that, having asked his questions this evening about uses and things along those lines, that the impact will be quite minimal. Mr. Calwell said he would like Council to have more time to think about this. He noted that the citizens of North Olmsted know absolutely nothing about this issue. Mrs. Kasler said Council understands that people who are affected, such as Aetna Door, will have an opportunity to express their opinions and make any objections in the future. This ordinance does not present that forum, but the next process will. Mr. Lambert spoke again saying he remembered when a plan to remove old buildings at the corner of Butternut Ridge got a "royal scrutiny" from Council, He said this was aflip- flop in attitude regarding land development where he does not believe the impact has been studied. He believes it should be taken to committee. Mr. Gareau took exception to Mr. Lambert's comments about the proposal for the Butternut Ridge properties. Mr. Lambert's comments are welcome, but perhaps he might want to be involved in the total process as he did not attend committee meetings or the Landmarks Committee meeting 14