05/17/2005 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 5/17/2005 more definition than "suitable screen," and the Planning Director is working on such issues. Part of our master plan contemplates reviewing that particular issue to make sure these types of things don't happen. He understands why people get frustrated. A lot of it is our own fault because we have codes which were written 30 years ago and do not have proper definitions. He has never been this frustrated about a BZD issue in his time on Council. He understands the residents' feelings, but does not believe that he turned his back on the residents as suggested by Mr. Lambert. We tried very hard to work our way through these things. It's never easy. The developer has a right to come in and submit an amendment. He personally may not always agree with it and may struggle with it; but unfortunately, it is what it is. To the residents, he understands their frustration. But he also represents 34,000 people in North Olmsted. Sometimes you do what you do whether you like the consequences or not. Councilman Dailey said he agreed with Mr. Gareau. Council has not turned their backs on the residents. They have heard the residents' complaints and have had conversations with members of BZD, the Planning Director and the Law Director. Council has done their job. Councilman McKay said what concerns him most is the fact that the developer has the opportunity to come in and change his plans anytime he wants to do so. The city does not have that opportunity. With this agreemendunderstanding, the city gave up or went against one of their ordinances to permit a large (more than 100,000 square foot) store where Target is. If the developer is allowed to come in and change his plans, why isn't the city allowed to change their plans and say no, the store must be 100,000 square feet? The city requirements were a 50/50 saturation-50% retail, 50% residential. The developer came in and said he couldn't do that and wouldn't make money if he put in residential. He was allowed to pull out his residential. Why can't the city say that it should be put back in? It maybe the law and it may be in our ordinances, but it is highly unfair. And the people of the City of North Olmsted are taking the hit for it. Councilman Gareau said this was an unusual project because of its duration in time and it was almost designed by consensus. However, he is not sure that every time something was presented and taken back that the entire plan was re-worked. There were bits and pieces of various proposals still on there. For example, where as one location of the screen wall may have been good under one circumstance, it wasn't necessarily thoroughly reviewed from the development side with respect to another component of the project that came later in time. It becomes very difficult to build a project when you are trying to satisfy everybody. He thinks they tried to do that, and it failed and that's why there is some frustration on the part of the residents. Dan Dufala, 4466 West Ranchview Avenue, asked the Mayor and Service Director if they could patch the hole on Ranchview that the sewer department left more than three months ago. Barrels have become targets and have been destroyed several times. Mayor O'Grady said he would absolutely look into it. ® Margaret McKay, 5197 Columbia Road, said no one in this city has worked on the Parcel E project for over 17 years like her husband has. Recently she, Mr. McKay, several residents and a Channel 19 TV crew were in the area the day the contractor was told by 13