07/30/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. o' retail because it kind of follows up on the business of the mixed use and the fact that they want to have more than one use on the site. He said that given the Iist of categories of uses, they realize when lining those uses up, some are more profitable than others. He added they don't want to put everything in one basket. The whole idea is to have a mixed use that is a transition district. Given the fact that the retail use has that potential, they put an extra limitation on that so it will not over- power the site. To say it cannot be more than 50% retail, they are saying at least 1/2 the use of the site must be something else. In terms of compliance with the directive from the court, they have provided an opporiunity to use this property for a variety of uses, 5 major categories of uses, with a retail component that can take up to 50% of the square footage of the site. This is a legitimate retail component. It also means a true mixed use site. In fairness to the landowner, he can use the site in a variety of ways but within 'certain perimeters. Mr. Smerigan said he believes the perimeters are consistent with reasonable and appropriate standards for the Commission to apply. Mr. Smerigan indicated he tried to anticipate everything that makes sense while at the same time making sure they are being appropriate, reasonable, and fair-handed in_ the way they deal with this. They want the property to succeed as a development and be a good neighbor when it is there. He believes this criteria will make that possible. He said the last change that he has deals with another provision for subinittal for Mixed Use D. The only difference between that and a submittal for (A), (B), and (C) is the inclusion of all the property within 1,000 feet of the district. He does not see the basis for doinD that. It is an extra burden for the developer for the (D) district. To be diligent in both directions, he suggested using one set of preliminary development plan criteria for all four mixed use districts. This parcel should not be singled out for any special treatment that might be considered adverse by the developer or the court. If they do all this, they have been fair and even-handed about this parcel. All the items included are reasonable and appropriate from the standpoint that they are things that they should ]egitimately be looking at when considering a development within the City of North Olmsted. They are standards that if he were doing a development plan to the property, he would do them anyway. It is now built into the text. They are essential elements to ensuring that whatever coines forward will be consistent with the purpose and intent of this district and be of such character that it fits with the transition zone. It is a very important piece of property and there are some very disparate uses on the other side of it. It really needs to make that link. Mr. Hreha brought up the extreme example of a use of 90% office versus 10% retail and it not being fair to any group. He mentioned the sale of food and the concern about bars on the site. He asked if it is defense-able if they put something in there that states 5 1 % of the business has to be food when it comes to a bar, or at least some percentage. That would preclude someone selling 90% alcohol and an occasional bag of chips and would encourage those restaurants they were thinking about. Mr. Smerigan said they could do that and there are communities that do it that way. There are always administrative issues with enforcement. Mr. Koeth said if they put a number to it, they would somehow have to spot check the business. Mr. Dubelko asked what else aside from restaurant would be appropriate in (F). Mr. Koeth said they could only have a beverage store. Mr. Smerigan said they are trying to get away from the idea of bars or clubs. They can put in language that is prohibitive but then they have to define more and have the issue of proving what it is. Mr. Dubelko suggested using the term "full service restaurant." Mr-. Smerigan inclicated it is still a difficult situation. He has seen a situation where there is a requirement for a full service kitchen, and one gets put in that never gets used. He said it is difficult to control. Mr: Hreha said he does not want to keep a fine restaurant out of that location. Mr. Koeth asked if they have the right to keep a bar from going in. Mr. Dubelko said the issue is can they exclude an establishment that sells liquor. He does not believe they can in a commercial area. Mr. O'Malley said the state can issue the liquor permit. He added the state can issue a permit to a restaurant and require kitchen facilities. Mr. Smerigan said there is a fine line there. He said the fact that there will be no entertainment will be helpful, along with the fact that there can't be speakers outside. It is not a site for outdoor use. Mr. Koeth asked if they should 6