05/13/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

so they did not want to co-operate with the community. Mr. Manning noted that in other proposals developers who come in with rezoning requests, come with detailed plans of why they want it rezoned, they already have an option, and a developer comes in with plans that are completed. He did not see that with tlus proposal. This property has been rezoned once, and it just sat. Now they are going through another rezoning, and they are not telling if they have a developer, if they are going to develop it, or what they are going to build. He stated that next year, they might come back with an office proposal and try to rezone it again. He believed this was a waste of time. If they had someone and a proposal, then bring it to the commission. Mr. Corsi stated that they were trying to determine viable uses, and alternative uses. They had come with retail before because the market was there, and the other viable use is multi family because that market is there. They did not come with a particular developer because they had been through that on the retail and there was considerable cost and expenditures involved. Other developers will not spend time and money getting this parcel rezoned, it would be up to them. Once they get it rezoned, there are developers who will build apartments and there is a market. It is easier to market the property if it is already zoned for multi-family. Mr. Mauning stated that, from tonight's discussion, the people seem to be respecting the idea of multi- family, however, last time they asked for a rezoning, everything was laid out, they presented a complete package. This time they are asking to rezone on nothing. Mr. Corsi stated that they are not asking to have a rezoning on nothing. The market is there, the vacancy rates for apartments in North Olmsted is 4%. There may be a flavor that multi-family is acceptable, but the developers will want it to be rezoned. He stated that few developers want to spend the money to get the property rezoned. Mr. Mauniug responded that if it were rezoned, and it was not developed, they would have to go through the whole proposal again. Mr. Coyne stated that this is a concept plan, just showing the footprint of the building and the density. The architectural board will look at this carefully when it comes before them, including landscaping and design. He cannot commit to who is going to build this, it may be Biskind and it may be someone else. What happened previously was unusual and they would rather be in that position if possible. At this point, they have not ironed out the issue of the ballot, if a builder came in with a nice multi family residential plan which is approved, and then they lose on the ballot. No one is going to spend $50,000 to $100,000 in architectural fees and have that happen. Mr. Herbster noted that when the Mayor stated that there was no possibility ofputting retail, Mr. Corsi and Mr. Coyne jwnped up like tliey were shot. He asked if they were planning to put in any retail at a1L Mr. Corsi stated that they were presenting a plan for multi-family, and they would not be presenting it if they were not plauuing to go forward with it, if it were passed. Mr. Coyne stated that he jumped up because of the opening comments that they wanted to avoid discussion about the law suit, and he thought it was starting to go that way. Councilman McKay asked Assistant Law Director Dubleko if it would be possible to limit the nu.mber of times a rezoning can be requested on a piece of pioperty. Mr. Dubelko did not tliink that would be a good idea, since an owner has a right to approach the city. There are some situations where if an owner is tiuned down for a building permit, he cannot apply for the same thing over and over again since it could be considered harassment. Cou.ncilman McKay responded that they had harassment here, and there was nothing to stop the developer from returning with a request to rezone back to office later. Mr. Dubelko took this opportunity to advise the commission of what they are here to hear and what they are here to do. This is a rezoning proposal, it is not an application to develop this land as multi family. He believed that the developer was merely trying to give the city an idea of what might go in if the property is rezoned, however, it is. not binding on the developer or the city. This is only a request to change the zoning on this property to multi family. The planning commission's charter responsibility when reconsidering a rezoning proposal is that this proposal is consistent with the master plan. Tliis plan is not even five years old and the commission is charged under the charter to act consistent with that plan, they must consider if they should change one parcel from what was decided to be retained as office; and an alternative choice is given for Mixed Use `D" in the case that office use did not work out. These are not equal choices,