12/16/2025 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Law Director Gareau: Mr. President, Mr. President, can I go? Council President Brossard: Director Gareau. Law Director Gareau: Thank you. Just a brief response to Mr. Sapienza's, noting that there was the City of North Olmsted Land Reutilization Corporation has taken title to those nine acres of real estate. We are not marketing it. The Howard Hanna sign is on there. It's got nothing to do with us. It's probably been sitting there since before we took title to it. But we certainly can look into why it's still sitting there. I don't know. But you'd be surprised what happens on City property when no one is paying attention, I guess. But when we do find out about things like that, we'll take care of it. But the city has not actively engaged an agent to sell the property... so just to make that clear. Thank you. Robert Sharp: I'm Robert Sharp, S-H-A-R-P 25407 Butternut Ridge. I'm going to talk about some specifics here opposing this plan. Besides all the petition signatures and the signs and everything else, after the initial presentation by city officials and the developer, we studied the 2025 comprehensive plan. We found overwhelming specific documentation that the development is not compatible with the plan. Once we became familiar with the 2025 plan, it was stunning how weak the belief in compatibility was. A few general portions of the plan were used to justify adherence to the proposed project. We previously submitted these findings in a printed report to council. I have more copies if anybody needs additional copy. In the meeting on October 22nd, the city again presented their justifications. The Butternut Ridge apartments were used as an example of how the proposal fit into the neighborhood. Well, this is ludicrous. The apartments are not part of the historic district. They were built before there was a historic district. They don't enter exit onto Butternut Ridge and they were forced on us in place of Kmart. Another stunning statement was that the city owns a lot on the south side of Butternut and have no plans to develop that property. That's probably true. This is not comforting to the long-term residents of the street familiar with its history. And we've been told things like that in the past. I don't believe this is a statement that will stand the test of time into future administrations. In fact, I know it's not. There have already been attempts to develop the south side. If a developer is able to intrude on the north side, why would there be any concern about future impacts on the south? The second main document used to justify the plan is the Butternut Ridge historic district design guidelines. The first section of the overhead display used by the city is section nine, new construction. This clearly states the design goal of new freestanding buildings, as with additions to historic buildings is visual compatibility with the site setting and character of surrounding historic buildings through the use of modern materials by taking cues from surrounding buildings. By this very statement of goals, the current proposal is nonconforming. How are modern attached structures within the district compatible with the surrounding character? Well, they're not. It is, in fact, the exact opposite. Another portion in section nine states in part new buildings should remain sensitive to the surrounding character. Again, the 12-15-25 Council Meeting minutes Page 1.6