Laserfiche WebLink
„ka?lj testified at the trial that the area is heavily surrounded on three sides by retail and,that is why,Parcel-E <br />must be rezoned retail use. 1VIr. Koeth voiced that there was only a minimal amount of retail on two sides <br />-: of the parcel. Mr. Fisher suggested that the judge's mandate is to rezone and consider the recommendation <br />; from the County Planning Commissioners, which is mixed-use (D) and currently there is no land within the <br />? City of North Olmsted that is zoned mixed-use (D). Mr. Fisher believes that I'arcel-E would be best served <br />by rezoning the land retail use, which is one of the economic engines of North Olmsted: The big box <br />ordinance that Mr. Skoulis inentioned was before Judge Porkony.and a well-qualif ed Planner, by the name <br />= of David Heart,, who testified that Parcel-E is well within the circle for big box stores. Mr. Fisher <br />mentioned that he, received a copy of the resident's packet just before the meeting started which only has <br />the final page of the court ruling. The packet also included many pages of the Carnegie Management <br />Development Company web site, which show golf courses, major retail stores, Coble` Stone Shopping <br />Center, and Melrose Office Park all of which has been developed by Carnegie. There are no objections <br />that Carnegie Management and North Olmsted Land Holdings are discussing the development of this land. <br />Carnegie Management would like to develop Parcel-E by placing a Target store on the site, which is a big <br />box store. Target is a well-established store and would bring many entry-level jobs to North Olmsted and <br />should be considered. The office business district required significant buffering and landscape protection, <br />which was somewhat, negotiated with and supported by abutting residents. The same type of protection <br />can be legitimately imposed as Planning Commission makes its recommendations to Council, which must <br />enact an ordinance to rezone. It is unconstitutional to rejulate liquor sales as was suggested, as that is <br />regulated by the state. Deed restrictions are also unconstitutional. The constitution piovides that private <br />property_ rights shall be held inviolate and deeds without the consent of the property owner would be <br />construed as a taking. The Biskind family is a responsible family and has always solicited input from the <br />residents, City Administrations and always acted in the best interest of the City. Despite Biskind's good <br />intentions, they have been sued over election laws and cited for tree cutting violations, both of which were <br />thrown out of court. Mr. Biskind has suffered as a result of this process and even though he has moved out <br />of the area, he is interested in the developinent of Parcel-E. The owners are not talking four story <br />buildings. They wish to have a Target store with significant buffering, landscaping and traffic signals that <br />? will work to control the increase in traffic flow. They would like the Planning Commission to approach the <br />rezoning with an open inind. It is the intention of the North Olmsted Land Holdings to secure a rezoning <br />that is constitutional, lawful, and protects everyone's rights to make sure they do not have to go back to <br />court. There were concerns voiced regarding drainage. As with any proposal that comes before Planning <br />Commission, drainage plans are submitted for approval. This site would be no different. The property <br />owner and his representative are available to answer questions and work cooperatively to approach this in a <br />sensible business-like manner. They would ultimately lilce to receive a result that would be satisfactory. <br />Mr. Barnett of Linda Drive caine forward. Mr. Barnett indica'ted that the court suggested some retail and <br />the owners perceive that as a Target store. A Target store will require the entire parcel be retail. His <br />property directly abuts this land in question and he is interested in what will happen to the property values <br />of the homes. Wal-Mart to the south of this site has a brick wall with mounds and has problems with <br />house-keeping issues. It seems a moderate solution to this would be what the court has recommended, a <br />combination of office, retail and.mixed-use. This could take advantage of the greenery, which the property <br />currently maintains. There is an abundance of wildlife currently living on the site such as possum, dear, <br />gray fox, rabbits and raccoons. If a Target is placed on this site, the ability to maintain some kind of <br />balance within the community will be totally lost. Mr. Barnett believes that this is strictly a monetary issue <br />for the North Olmsted Land Holding Gompany. The residents realize that there is sorne retail there. <br />However, to suggest that the property can only be utilized as retail because of the existing Wal-Mart Store <br />is false. He hopes that the Planning Commission explores all opportunities to ensure this property is <br />developed in a manner that everyone can be proud of. The rear of a Target store is where the problems <br />would be located. The delivery trucks, dumpsters, and refuge trucks would create continuous noises at all <br />hours of the day/night. The rear neighbors are the ones that will be impacted the most regarding how this <br />? land is zoned and what it will do to the property value in their neighborhood. A Target store is not the <br />answer they are looking for. <br />3