03/11/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approvals, rejections that the Planning Commission may be considering. Mr. Koeth voiced that the Planning Commission members agreed that a traffic study would have to be conducted no matter what. Mr. O'Malley suggested that since Planning Commission only has 60 days to make their recommendations to Council he would urge the board not to hold their recommendations for a traffic study to be completed. That would be something that Council or the City administration could accomplish and not be restrained to a 60 day window. The nature of a preliminary land use plan is so that the developer can get birds eye view of what might be approved in terms of a footprint. However that it is not an absolute right, but there is an expectation by the developer that when he returns with detailed development plans that are consistent to the preliminary plans that it would be approved. Mr. O'Malley discouraged Planning Commission from recommending a preliminary land use plan that is not consistent with the Mix Use D restrictions. Building department comments; Mr. Conway commented that his interpretation of the code regarding preliminary land use or what he has followed is use approval only. That does not include footprint of the buildings, size, or were the parking is located, as that has no baring on what Planning Commission is reviewing. The developer can present a drawing to the board, which could be 100% compliant, and the board could say we are going to approve 100% retail on this lot. Which is what the applicant is basically asking the board to do. Then the applicant can come back and have five more buildings on the site. This meeting is strictly to determine use only. The developer is presenting an argument that he wants 100% retail use on the land but he could develop buildings and have 50% retail and 50% of another use. He does not want the waters to get muddy by addressing what square footage of a building would be allowed or the setbacks of buildings or how big they are because that has not been reviewed. Zoning interpretation is not done until a development plan is submitted. Developers comments; Mr. Berryhill suggested it was their intent to work with the Planning Commission, residents, and the City to make sure the development of the land is done properly. They would like to develop the land in such a manor that is pleasing to everyone involved as well as be economically viable. They are open to suggestions as to what they can do to achieve some of the objectives that they set out to do, which is develop this piece of property in a manor of being a first class development. They would love to develop the land to the spirit of the code but the economy dictates what will work. There is no since in developing a white elephant that meets the code or law but does not function. They have had open dialog with the residents all along as well as a couple of ineetings and they understand their concerns, which they hope to address. He hopes that Planning Commission will see fit to work with the developer to create something that everyone can live with. They are not some unreliable company, he has to work with the city, and they are willing to put everything in writing as to what they will do. He has no problems backing up what he says. Board members: . Mr. Lasko suggested that Planning Commission understood everyone's concerns. There is a spirit of cooperation and as long as everyone is willing to continue to talk there can be a solution. He questioned the square footage of the Target in Avon Lake and Strongsville. Ms. Hall Suggested that both of the Target stores mentioned are the same prototype and are 125,000-square feet. The 125,000 square prototype is their smallest building. Mr. Hreha 6