02/11/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

at best, and when Wal-Mart was placed to the south, any potential for office development was negated completely. There are about 22 acres of viable office sites between Country Club Boulevard and I-480 and in tlie interchange area. He concluded that Parcel "E" is not a reasonable site to be considered for office use for the reasons that have been indicated. He noted that a retail use was identified as an acceptable alternate land use for this parcel in the North Olmsted Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there is a definite need to strengthen the retail economic base of North Olmsted considering the competition of 5outh Park Center Mall. There is a market for this retail development and two traffic studies indicate that, with this development, there will be no change in the level of service at the intersections and there will be no lessening of the operating conditions of the roadways. He concluded that that are no benefits to the present zoning since there is no market for office, but the benefits from the retail development will be cousiderable. The revenue benefits will amou.nt to almost $750,000 per year aud will provide about new 510 jobs. He reiterated that the same commitments for office district buffering and landscaping will be incorporated in this plan. Another important consideration is that the only access to that development will only be Brookpark Road. He stated multi family on this parcel would make sense since the parcel is surrounded by on three sides by multi family, but the benefits to the city would not be nearly as great as retail, and he doubted that there would be access from Brookpark Road, since it would be possble to extend Westview Drive and there could be access onto Columbia Road. Mr. Corsi introduced 1VIr. D. B. Hart, and listed his credentials; he advised that Mr. Hart will respond to the concems that were raised at the last meeting. Mr. Hart advised that he reviewed this development independently from Mr. I?'ill, but he does concur with his conclusions regarding suitability of this site for o?'ices. He maintained that these conclusions were true before Wal Mart was constructed, and Wal Mart fiuther eroded the potential for office on that site. He stated that Biskind had tried unsuccessfully to achieve development under the current zoning. In view of tlie fact that there is no market for offices on the site, he believed that'the Home Depot proposal with the development restrictions proposed, has less impact on this site than an office development. Normally off'ice development is used as a transirion between retail and residential, however, considering the restrictions that have been discussed and assuming that they are put in place he believed that this development will have less impact than office development since the transitional intention that is expected through office development is achieved with this retail: since access will be on the opposite side from the residential with no commercial traffic on residential streets; maximum floor area of this development will only be 40% of what is permitted under the office classification; the percentage of the site committed to parking and building will be less than under tlie office option, the height will be one floor as opposed,to four floors with office development. He reiterated that the landscape setback would far exceed the retail requirements or would equal or exceed the office requirements for office setbacks. He noted that two or three acres of additional buffer has been provided for this as would have to be provided under the present zoning regulations. The loading areas would be. enhanced by additional screening wall immediately adjacent to the load areas. The peak hour traffic generation on the weekdays on the adjacent roads and the key intersections would be no different with the retail development than it would be with the office development and the level of service at the key intersections is equal to or better than with the office option. Responding to a question raised last fall,- in his experience, there is no evidence that retail has more service cost requirements or. crime on a per acre basis than offices. The concern that once the property is rezoned, all the restrictions that have been discussed can be ignored and the property can be developed with anythmg that complies with the zoning regulation, is not true, since the developers have agreed to a contract which 'will contain all those restrictions which must be complied with. If there is no market for office and if this parcel is not developed as retail, the logical step-down would be the multiple family option. This zoning would allow 12 units an acre or approximately 300 units on the site 3