03/11/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hreha stated that there is no reason for raw land to require variances to develop the land. Mrs. Hoff-Smith suggested that if the applicant is suggesting that the only reason they are proposing these plans is to make it economically viable due to the owner's price. Then maybe he needs to reconfigure his price based on what the land is zoned. Mr. Hreha stated it is not the Cities responsibility to insure the owner's economic viability. Mrs. Hoff-Smith questioned if the applicant's research really found a greater need within North Olmsted for two story parking garages then office spaces. Mr. Berryhill commented that unfortunately to serve the parking requirements of the site fully developed they would need the parking spaces. Resident's comments and concerns; Mr. Skoulis the President of the homeowner's association came forward to speak for the neighbors. We are at a disadvantage as to what they are proposing, as they did not receive a copy of the documents Planning Commission received. The board has addressed much of what we the residents want to address. They do not want to discourage the developer as they are a very good company but we would like to work with them to develop the land in a manor that everyone can live with. The residents have been dealing with these issues now for 15 years. The developer implied that the judge said they could have 50% retail but that is not what the judge said. The judge suggested that mix use with some retail which is different from 100% retail. North Olmsted is already above the national average per square foot for retail spaces. North Olmsted does not need more retail and to request 100% retail on this site is not the answer. They need to use more imagination. They show a 90,000 square foot Target on one site plan and now a new plan submitted to Planning Commission shows 125,000 square feet and code does not allow a big box store for this parcel. The code states that big box stores can only be built within a specific area with specific dimensions that must be followed. Mr. Skoulis suggested he had the City's engineering department draw the circle to show where a big box store could be placed and this parcel was not within the circle. The city has paid a lot of money to create zoning for this land as well as the master plan and the city should stick to the mix use D definition. Mr. McKay Ward 1 Councilman reviewed that the Planning Commission as well as Council has spent a lot of time, money, and research too properly zone this land. The rezoning of this parcel took place less than a year ago and specific conditions were adopted and should be met. Now the developer comes in and wants to disregard the zoning of the land all together. The purpose of the zoning code is to have something in place that is agreeable to the citizens and the builders. It is not the right of the owner of the land to just come forward and say I do not care what the City or the residents want I will put what ever I want on the land. This applicant has made many promises tonight saying I wont do this or that if we can do what we want. However past practice has shown Planning Commission that a lot of developers will make all kinds of promises when they are trying to get their development approved, but do not live up to those promises once they leave this room. Mr. McKay urged the Planning Commission to deny anything that does not meet the current zoning requirements of Parcel E. Mrs. Diver the secretary for the association questioned if the board members had read articles regarding a landowner in Parma Heights building a city within a City on 34 acres. They are doing commercial, residential, public space and retail. The Plain Dealer February 16, 2003 regarding mixing up the mall with a town center with a verity of services. The newspapers show increasingly that people do not want big box stores anymore. It is more advantageous for the developer to make their money off a big box store such as Target then properly develop this land. The Judge stated in court, that the court was cogriizant of the undesirability of abutting retail 4