[ back ]
Gateway proposal takes different tack
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - July 23, 2008)
Gateway proposal takes different tack
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
A Chardon developer is switching gears as he seeks to bring a project that's being touted as a future gateway to the city.
Chardon's planning commission voted unanimously Monday to recommend that City Council place an issue on the November ballot to rezone 17.5 acres to C-1, commercial use, for the gateway project. The land is now zoned for residential development, or R-2.
The commission's action followed a recommendation by D.B. Hartt, a professional planner hired by the city to do a comprehensive plan update for the city.
The commission's recommendation differs from what property owner Rollin Cooke had sought for his 62-acre property. He had sought the city's support for C-3, more intensive commercial zoning, for eight acres of his property fronting Water Street (Route 6). He also sought an R-4 classification, or multifamily housing, for the remaining land, which now is zoned for R-2, or single-family housing.
Mr. Cooke said he needs the C-3 classification to allow him to build an 80,000-square-foot auto dealership and the R-4 zoning to allow townhouses, condominiums and a senior housing complex.
But commission members said they don't feel comfortable with rezoning the property as requested by Mr. Cooke. An attempt to obtain a motion to approve the rezoning proposal failed. Instead, commission members said the use of the planned-unit-development ordinances would better serve the city.
"I'd be much more supportive if it could be worked out within the framework of a PUD," commission member Andrew Blackley said.
Councilman Philip King, who serves on the commission, agreed. "I like the concept, but the city needs more say," he said.
The C-1 classification allows a maximum building size of 50,000 square feet, but PUD regulations could allow an 80,000-square-foot building with approval from council.
Commission member Kenneth Miller said that would be the preferred way of controlling development of the property. He said he likes the proposed development and believes it will be a benefit to the city. But he said he doesn't favor the rezoning.
Mr. Miller said, while he believes Mr. Cooke would follow through on his promises for the development, there is always the chance that something could go wrong. The land could end up in the hands of another developer, who may not have the same good intentions, he said.
"Bring it forward in the PUD, and it has my blessing but not under the circumstances you brought forward," Mr. Miller said.
After receiving reassurances that his project could be realized as he envisions under a PUD, Mr. Cooke said he would be willing to work with officials on that format. "It sounds like a PUD will work fine for me," he said.
Prior to the commission's decision, Mr. Cooke's representatives had argued that the C-3 classification would work better.
Richard Green, a real estate and business broker representing Mr. Cooke, said many of the city's C-1 areas, such as Chardon Plaza, contain numerous vacancies.
He said the C-1 classification would have a greater impact on Water Street, because it provides for retail development that would draw 2,500 vehicles daily. He said the auto dealership would only draw 85 vehicles each day. The greater traffic draw would likely require a traffic signal there, while the auto dealership would not, he said.
Mr. Blackley asked what guarantees the city would have that what is being promised would actually be built.
Mr. Green said an ordinance could be created to dictate what goes in there, and a "secondary ordinance" would essentially serve as a contract between the developer and the city.
Mr. Blackley said the same could be accomplished with the PUD ordinance.
Chardon Law Director James Gillette said the law does not provide for communities to do "contract zoning."
He said being too specific is likely to create problems for the city eventually. If the city dictated that only an 80,000-square-foot auto dealership is permitted, it would prevent any future needed expansions, he said. Or if the dealership fails, such specific zoning would not allow for a different use for the building, he said.
"The city can't be put in that much control over the use of a property," Mr. Gillette said.
Because the rezoning proposal offered by the commission would more than double the land sought for commercial development, Mr. Green asked whether Mr. Cooke could still build the auto dealership on a portion of the land and use the remaining commercially zoned land for residences.
John Sheehan, city planning and zoning administrator, said council has the power to allow a less intensive use, such as residential, within a more intensive use, such as commercial.
"The short answer is yes," Mr. Blackley said.
Mr. Green said, although city officials used the term "multifamily housing" for the development, the units, although attached, will all be individually owned. He said each area of housing will be in a gated community with internal open space.
[ back ]
