Laserfiche WebLink
Dialogue took place on the environmental status of the property. The city has completed and <br /> satisfied site remediation under the EPA. There is a covenant not to sue on the property. The <br /> covenant acknowledges contaminants within the soil and groundwater and provides restrictions <br /> on buildings as they build them on the footprint of the contamination. Vapor barriers and passive <br /> ventilation of gases are needed, along with air quality tests inside the buildings. These are signed <br /> off by the EPA. The remediation measures typically resolve 99% of the issues however it is <br /> always a risk to the developer, and it does represent a cost. The financial partners in the deal <br /> have been made aware of the issues by the developer. Environmental contaminants such as these <br /> are not an unusual condition. <br /> Councilmember Bullock advocated that the Curtis Block building be preserved. <br /> Chair Litten noted that the developer has stated clearly that full preservation of the building <br /> would equal their bowing out of the project, adding that is a real answer with which the Council <br /> needs to grapple. He stated he is amenable to a facade save so the city can keep on its current <br /> trajectory with the project. Mr. Litten concluded in saying he has toured the building, <br /> understands how it affects the site, provided support to a facade save, and gave councilmembers <br /> the opportunity to share their thoughts on the matter. <br /> Councilmember Baker recalled that the developer stated they would no longer be interested in <br /> the project if the Curtis Block building was removed from the project. Councilmembers disputed <br /> past discussion on that notion. Mayor George clarified that the developer would leave the project <br /> if the Curtis Block building was removed from the development site. <br /> Councilmember Bullock continued with his desired priorities for the project. He added his <br /> support for residential density,preparing the site for future development(specifically preparing <br /> the parking garage so a building could be constructed on it in the future), and screening the <br /> parking garage. He also wanted the city to explore whether the 75 parking spots required in the <br /> new parking garage for the Cleveland Clinic Family Health Center could be moved to another <br /> site to reduce cost and shrink the footprint of the garage. Director Leininger noted that the <br /> parking garage does not face any residents, to which Mr. Bullock responded he would like it <br /> screened anyway. <br /> Chief Storey volunteered to reach out to the Cleveland Clinic to discuss the 75 parking spots. <br /> Chair Litten noted that the city may want to consider the need to keep the 75 spots in the project <br /> if the Clinic agreed to move them, for the future flow of the development. Councilmember <br /> Bullock suggested that if spots were saved, the price of parking could be reduced. <br /> Councilmember Bullock asked what the budget was for the public square space. Director <br /> Leininger responded that it was well into the 7 figures, adding that his staff and the developer are <br /> still talking about the square footage and the high-quality finishes it will require. <br /> Councilmember Baker noted that the cost of the space is in its installation and in funding its <br /> upkeep/maintenance. Speaking from his experience serving on Planning Commission, he <br /> suggested advocating that maintenance be baked into the site's zoning. Councilmembers <br /> 6 <br />