12/15/1998 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONCERNING REGARDING PROPOSED GIANT EAGLE GROCERY STORE, `~` OR THE COMBINING TWO STORES FOR OVER 80,000 SQUARE FEET AT THE WATER TOWER SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER. 11-10-98 1. THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FOR THE WATER TOWER SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, PER THE OCT. 94. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BETWEEN GEQRGE PAPENDREUS THE DEVELOPERS REP. AND THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATED THP_T THERE WOULD BE A DEED RESTRICTION PLACED ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT NO STORE COULD BE OVER 80,000 SQUARE FEET. I DEFINITELY FEEL THAT THIS VERBAL CONTRACT SHOULD BE KEPT INTACT FOR THE LIFE OF THIS SHOPPING AREA SINCE THE DEVELOPER IS THE ONE THAT NEGOTIATED IT. THIS DEED RESTRICTION WAS ORIGINALLY AGREED TO BY MR. RUSTOM KHOURI OF CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, TOM HERBSTER AND MYSELF DAVE HOELTER. IF ANYONE SAYS THIS WAS NEVER AGREED T0, I WAS THERE, I WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO TESTIFY TO IT. THIS WAS A VERBAL CONTRACT PROPOSED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE DEVELOPER WITH SPECIFIC DETAILS IN ITS CONTENTS ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED. 2. IT WAS STATED BY THE DEVELOPER THAT THIS WAS TO BE A LOW-VOLUME UPSCALE, NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING AREA WITH NO EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION OR DELIVERIES AND THAT THE STORES WOULD NOT BE OF THE HIGH VOLUME TYPE. THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS ABOUT GETTING EMERGENCY VEHICLES THROUGH THESE MAJOR INTERSECTIONS IN ROUTE TO THE HOSPITAL AND EMERGENCY SITES {FIRES, ACCIDENTS, CRIMES, SCHOOLS). I FEEL THAT THE DEVELOPERS SELF STATED RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE KEPT INTACT BECAUSE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAVE NOT CHANGED. IN FACT WITH THE EXPANDED USE OF THE PINE SCHOOL LAND THIS WILL BECOME EVEN MORE ACUTE. 3. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ASKED FOR BY THE DEVELOPER IS: A. THAT THEY FOUND OUT THEY MISCALCULATED THE RENTABLE OF THIS PROPERTY; IT HAS NEVER BEEN TOTALLY FILLED, ONLY ABOUT 750. B. THEY ALREADY LOST ONE OCCUPANT WHICH HAS NOW LOWERED THEIR INCOME TO ABOUT 50o OF WHAT THEY CALCULATED. C. WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT, IF THIS DEVELOPER IS ALLOWED TO BREAK HIS CONTRACT WHAT'S TO PREVENT MANX OTHERS FROM DOING THE SAME. POSSIBLE EXAMPLES ARE: (1} THE DEVELOPER THAT HAS AGREED TO BUILD CLUSTER HOMES BELOW THE DENSITY LIMIT SET BY THE CITY THAN AFTER THE PLAN IS OK'D CHANGING THE SITE TO-PUSH THE PROJECT TO VERY LIMITS OF THE CITY. {2) THE DEVELOPER WHO AGREED TO HELP OFFSET THE CITIES EXPENSES INCURRED BECAUSE OF HIS BUILDING PROJECT. OR MAYBE THEY WILL APPLY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MONEY THAT THEY PAID TO THE CITY FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE AGREED UPON BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND CITY COUNCIL. CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT NOT ONLY AGREED T0, BUT IN MANY CASES VOLUNTEERED FOR THESE NEGOTIATED TERMS OF SETTLEMENT, BECAUSE OF THEIR HASTE TO ACQUIRE THE CITIES APPROVAL TO OPEN UNNEEDED RETAIL STORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN A CITY THAT IS WAY ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.