04/14/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v North Olmsted. The intent of the original Mixed Use zoning was to achieve a viable regional office development that would be supported by ancillary hotel and service activities. The Corporate Center and Great Northern Shopping centers are outstanding developments, but he speculated that the Moen Corporation might not have chosen this parcel because of the proposed three restaurants (shown on the preliminary plan), and instead chose the southwest quadrant of the interchange. This northeast quadrant is a key area for development because of the location of I-480, the proximity of the airport and the relationship of land uses but it should be reserved for an hotel or office facility; this proposal will set a precedent for a restaurant use or retail development. He did not believe that these facilities have been integrated raith the total development scheme of the Mixed Use development. Nor did he believe that taking a 6 acre parcel and allocating 3 restaurants for a portion of it showed careful planning and organization. He recommended that the Gonrnnission re-evaluate both the preliminary and detailed development plans. Mr. Gorris questioned page 3 of the report which would indicate that the members disregarded the Assistant Law Director's advice. Mr. Hill responded that this information was talcen from the minutes of the January 14, 1992 meeting, wherein Mr. Dubelko had stated it might be difficult to make a judgement-on the integration of a restaurant into the development plan when the other areas have not been identified. Mr. Dubelko agreed that this was correct. Mr. Koury, owner of Chester'-s, explained that eighteen months ago before buying property for his restaurant, he was shown the master plan for the area which was basically all office buildings from which his business could draw. Actually he would ha.ve preferred this parcel for his building, but was told tha.t this land was too valuable for a restaurant. He maintained that putting in three free standing restaurants does constitute a restaurant row at North Olmsted's front door. He has talked with almost all the owners of sit-down restaurants who agreed that the City should hold to the original master plan. Mr. Tallon reminded him that the original master plan for the Corporate Center was amended to allow his restaurant. He responded that putting restaurants on this parcel was expedient, and asked how the Commission could justify it. Mr. Weaver clarified tha.t his client and the other owners were not asking that no other restaurants be built in the City, they were maintaining that this area must be integrated to work successfully. Mr. Wolf, Tony Roma.'s, reiterated wha.t Mr. Koury had said about being shown a master plan with office developments. 'ifiao yeaxs ago his business went down 12% and last year .6%, and he believed this is due to the saturation of restaurants in the area, _ and -plaeing restaurants instead of offices in this area would be taking away fron his clientele. Mr. Rogalski, Pizzeria Uno, agreed. Mr. Gavin, attorney for Biskind Development Company, stated that a preliminary plan was approved last.Janua.ry.showing the restaurants, and now the detailed plans are being proposed. He poir-ited aut that Mr. Koury had hired the attorney arid the city planner as well as contacting the other restauranteurs, and pointed out that Mr. Koury had sent a letter in Jariuary complaining that he was burdened by certain deed restrietion which he wanted elim;nated. He.made-it very clear that he did not like the new restaurants but previously had not been concerned before about them putting in a competitor, however the letter goes on "if you insist on mving forward with.your proposed rezoning and amendment to the master plan and do so without objection from me then I want to get rid of my deed restrictions". Mr. Gavin believed that the Comanission should lmow where Mr. Koury was coming from. He further:stated that because Mr. Koury saw a master.plan that had'been changed many times, it was.ridiculou.5 to think there was an obligation not to change. What happens with this property is dictated by the maxket; and this area along the perimeter in a highly.visible area should not have two, or even three, restaurants is not reasona.bl.e, and eventua.lly the offices will 8