04/17/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 4-17-00 Page 8 neighborhood and if we can put it to better use, I am for it. I'm not too sure I want to be a hypocrite in changing the design of the Park-the Industrial Park--not the mall--the Park. There is a reason why it is 100' and 75' and if we change it, we will change it for everybody. Somebody wants it changed. I don't. Dr. Parker said I thullc the idea of looking at that area and trying to evaluate where it has been, where it is and where we would like it to go is probably a good idea. I believe that every now and then you must look at properties and see how you must upgrade. I am not against bringing soineone in to look at that area. Unfortunately, it doesn't time out right for what they are requesting. I would personally rather see us do that first and evaluate the use of this area, potential uses and changes in the topography, what is the effect of changing the setback of all these properties, what type of impact would it have on traffic and on the aesthetics or on the make-up of the tenants before making changes. I am concerned that if we make an exception here we are setting a precedent (while we can say we will change our mind and go back) it is not so easily done after the fact. I am worried that we are putking the cart before the horse and I don't want to see us have to change later on because we decided we made a wrong decision and I don't want to see us set a precedent that might affect all the other properties without us thinking about what we are doing. I thought there were a lot of good points in the memo from Mayor Rinker. It made me think about that whole area and how it is made up. I have a problem at this point approving it. 1Vot to say I wouldn't approve this after having.a greater background and knowledge of what we want for this area. I think at this point it puts us in a bind a little bit. Mrs. Mills said who is to say that other businesses would want to change. Dr. Parker said who is to say they won't. I am concerned that once we start changing setbacks that we will have to start changing setbacks for everyone. We don't yet know the effect of that for that whole area. We doai t know what we will end up with. We have always gone into all of our projects the first time to plan them out and decide what we want to happen there and how we would like to change before we start making decisions or changes. That is what concerns me because these are things that hold up in courts of law. I'm not saying that it is not a good idea; I just feel we need to look at it. I feel bad that it doesn't work out well for their timing and for their planning, but unfortunately the responsibility we have is for the long-term picture of Mayfield Village. Mr. Buckholtz said unlike most times I think that what Dr. Parker said was pretty well stated. In Caucus I thought it sounds very sensible. I still think that it may be. But I also agree that we have to look at a lot of developments that are coming down the pike. I was almost wondering if it would be inappropriate to ask if we could define what we are talking about with the difference in setbacks. If we made a setback variance of a certain degree, does that mean that any setback of any type is automatically acceptable anywhere