My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/30/2002 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
09/30/2002 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:45:53 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 11:05:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
9/30/2002
Year
2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Public Hearing Minutes <br />Ordinance No. 2002-118 <br />Page 3 <br />^ As regazds to the question of increasing the size of the district from 5 acres to 20 <br />acres, a number of changes have been made to the district. Permitted uses have been <br />expanded, and a substantially different district than what was originally envisioned <br />with Mixed Use D has been created. It is his professional opinion that, given the <br />new nature of the district and the expanded nature of the district, a district of that <br />nature cannot be effectively developed on a 5 acre parcel. A lazger pazcel would be <br />needed to do it appropriately and effectively, and that's why the acreage was <br />increased. <br />Councilman McKay asked, with regard to Section 1149.03(dx5) I 4 which states that the <br />service use will have no adverse impact on the adjacent residential properties, who is <br />chazged with making this determination into this appeal process? Also, the term <br />"adjacent residential" properties should be changed to "adjacent residentially zoned" <br />properties. Developers should not be penalized for a resident occupying property located <br />within a commercial zoning azea. If you buy a piece of property zoned residential, you <br />ought to be expected to develop it residential and not ever change it. Mr. Smerigan said <br />he believes the section is being misinterpreted. An earlier comment suggested that <br />somehow or other the city is squeezing the potential developer or property owner and <br />limiting their uses and picking and choosing uses. It couldn't be any further from the <br />truth. Actually, the available uses to the developer aze being expanded. There is a very <br />long list of permitted uses in the district. But no list can include everything that could <br />ever come up. The answer to that is a provision that allows the Planning Commission to <br />add additional permitted uses within the district without having to go through a formal <br />rezoning process. Therefore, if a new use occurs that hadn't been anticipated and there is <br />evidence that the use creates no more hazm or no more adverse impact than any of the <br />uses that aze specifically permitted, then the Planning Commission is in the position to <br />add that use to the list. This is a way of actually expanding the list of permitted uses on <br />behalf of the developer. With regard to the residences, he would strongly disagree with <br />changing the language to say "residentially zoned" property. The Mixed Use District <br />permits residential uses within the district. If uses are going to be mixed, we want the <br />residential uses within the Mixed Use District to be protected from the other uses in the <br />district just like we would expect any residential uses to be protected from non-residential <br />uses. This is just a matter of not creating second class residential units or second class <br />residential citizens simply because their residence happens to be in a Mixed Use District. <br />We want to protect all residential uses, not just those that are in a residential <br />classification. <br />Councilman McKay asked for clarification on the restriction of the 10% buildable area. <br />Mr. Smerigan said the code has to do with building massing. Because this district is <br />intended to be adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods and because it's intended to <br />also have residential development within it, we talk about maintaining the scale and the <br />massing of the non-residential uses. No individual building can exceed 10% of the <br />buildable azea. That doesn't mean that you can't have multiple buildings that take up a <br />larger area of the site. It's anticipated that that's exactly what will happen. However, no <br />single structure should exceed 10% of the buildable area. <br />,:.. _ .. _ Man?wg0,w~ ... KKip!Y~PISFRC.cV F'FSM6Yt'/+s:1S*:A ti-~.' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.