Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 5/18/2004 <br />Council President O'Grady; Mayor Musial, Law Director Dubelko, Directors Cheryl <br />Farver and Kim Wenger. The committee discussed an amendment to the preliminary <br />land use plan which was first approved in June of 2003. The amendment that was <br />brought before the committee dealt with the switch in the balance of the retaiUresidential <br />component of the original land use plan to a retaiUoffice~community center use, which <br />was now being proposed. This is a Mixed Use D District. Mr. Berryhill, representing <br />Carnegie Management, explained that this is the latest of many versions which had been <br />submitted to the Planning Commission over the course of the past year. Some would say <br />there has been more than ten differeirt re-worked versions of that same plan. It was <br />decided that once the balance of the project was switched from a residential component to <br />more of an office component with the elimination of residential, that it was necessary to <br />come back and amend the plan as contemplated by the ordinances. What motivated <br />Carnegie Mgt. to amend the plan were concerns with the residential component of the <br />plan which was asecond-story residential use with a parking garage in the back. Those <br />were visual concerns which directly affected the adjacent property owners as well as <br />some noise concerns. There was also a concern on the part of the developer that to <br />actually make this combined residentiaUretail project work, you would need to reach a <br />certain level and density of residential use which originally was not proposed but then <br />was later added. At that point, stories had to be added oirto the buildings-some being <br />three stories and even four stories was discussed at one point. The concerns of the <br />adjoining neighbors became first and foremost and the impact that that would have on <br />their homes. Also discussed were multi-family maintenance concerns-loading, trash, <br />etc., and the need for the parking deck, which was an approximately $1.5 million cost to <br />the project just to accommodate the residential use. An office center is now proposed, in <br />addition to the two areas which will be used for office use. The community center which <br />is proposed is one which will be available and open to the community to use with the <br />exception of a charge for private parties. The square footage of the community center is <br />10,000 square feet. Mr. Berryhill explained that that community room would be <br />managed by Carnegie Mgt. & Development. It is not associated with the City of North <br />Olmsted. City Planner Kim Wenger questioned the deviation by removing the residential <br />component of the project and specifically that it was sold to the city as an attractive <br />feature which would be used to support the incidental retail-people living on site, <br />shopping on site, high-quality residential facilities combined with a high-quality <br />commercial use. Mr. Berryhill countered that he no longer believed that to be necessary <br />to support the Parcel Eproject-focusing on what he believed to be the "regionality" of <br />the shopping center and the fact that it would draw from a large area and not try to limit <br />itself to a narrow group of residents living within a confined area. Mr. Gareau noted that <br />this had gone full circle. When the issue first came to be years ago, any retail on the site <br />was opposed. It was then rezoned to Mixed Use D. The preliminary land use plan then <br />became a retaiUresidential use, and now it has come all the way back around to more of a <br />retail use with office and no residenial. Because the litigation issue with Mr. Biskind, <br />the property owner, is still out there and there is a potential damage claim that remains on <br />the table, Mr. Gareau requested there be assurances given to the city by Mr. Biskind, the <br />owner of the property, that with this amendment to the preliminary land use plan there <br />will be a waiver of claim for damages in the future and a settlement of the entire issue. <br />Although Mr. Berryhill and Dr. Khouri were not able to give that assurance because they <br />7 <br />