01/06/2026 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 TO: NORTH OLMSTED CITY OFFICIALS, After the initial presentations 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 is. 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. In the meeting on October 22', the City again presented their justifications. The Butternut Ridge Apartments were used as an example of how the proposal fit into the neighborhood. This is ludicrous. The apartments are not part of the Historic District, they don't exit/enter on Butternut and were forced on us in place of Kmart! Another stunning statement was that the City owns the lot on the south side of Butternut and have no plans to develop that property. This is not comforting to the long term residents of the street familiar with it's history. That is not a statement that will stand the test of time. 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 on the overhead display used by the City is section 9 New Construction. This clearly states "The design GOAL of new free standing 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 non conforming. How are modern attached structures within the District compatible with the surrounding character? It is in fact the exact opposite. Another portion in section 9 states in part, new buildings should remain sensitive to the surrounding character. Again, the current proposal is far from sensitive to the areas character. Section 9.1 was then used to show compliance. The very first sentence should stop the development efforts. It states "the goal of new construction is visual compatibility". I cannot think of anything less compatible than putting these attached structures on Butternut. The section then states in part "Site design for new construction should take into consideration the alignment, orientation, spacing, massing, scale, and proportion relative to the framework of SURROUNDING BUIULDINGS". This proposal again just does not fit. Section 9.2 was then posted. All of the wording in this New Construction: Visual Compatibility section is contrary to the proposed development. In fact this section is better suited to argue against the project. Section 10, Site Design was then used. Again this states in part any site design should fit within the framework of surrounding buildings. This also is better evidence against the proposed development.