South Euclid Planning Commission Recommends Oakwood Rezoning
Public hearing before City Council to be scheduled
Photos
The South Euclid Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend rezoning the former Oakwood Country Club property from residential to commercial.
The issue now falls into the lap of City Council, which is expected to schedule a public hearing about the rezoning in the coming weeks before taking a vote of its own.
The rezoning was requested by First Interstate Properties, which wants to develop a mix of retail, residential and parkland at the site called Oakwood Commons. About 60 acres of country club land that falls within South Euclid was purchased by the company late last year. The company, which has also developed Legacy Village and Steelyard Commons, among others, plans to buy another 92 acres of club land that falls within Cleveland Heights soon.
Two of the five planning commission members addressed opposition to the rezoning before casting their votes, saying much of the naysaying was coming from non-residents. Cleveland Heights residents made up the majority of people who spoke against the development at a recent public hearing in front of the planning commission; however, even the majority of South Euclid residents who spoke at that meeting were also opposed, many saying they did not want to live near the big box retailers that First Interstate has said will open there.
“When we were looking at the opposition, it primarily did not come from people in our community, so I think that we’ve taken a long period of time to review this and to make sure we’re doing this right,” Planning Commissioner Tracie Zamiska said to the 14 people who attended the hearing.
Zamiska said the commission used the section of city zoning ordinance that deals with rezoning to make their decision. The code says that any zoning change must “adhere to the development plans and objectives of the city,” will “not be detrimental to adjacent property owners” and will “maintain the health, safety and general welfare of the community.”
Commissioner Jennifer West agreed with Zamiska, saying “probably about 98 percent” of the opposition was from outside of South Euclid.
“We really have looked at this from the standpoint of what is in the best interest of the community and the ideas of health, safety and welfare of our residents,” she said. “Speaking for all of us, we’re all very long-time residents for the most part and we love our community. It’s not a decision we made lightly.”
Even if City Council eventually approves the rezoning, a local organization has already promised to start a petition drive to put the issue before South Euclid voters. Citizens for Oakwood, an arm of the Cleveland Heights nonprofit Severance Neighborhood Organization, has opposed any development there from the beginning and originally tried to raise money to purchase the land and turn it into a park.
SNO President Fran Mentch said mailers were sent out to 4,500 South Euclid households asking them to call, email or fill out a form on a website built by SNO if they would agree to sign a petition opposing the Oakwood development. She said of the 74 responses received, only two opposed the idea.
One SNO supporter, Cleveland Heights resident Rick Adorjan, stood outside South Euclid City Hall before the meeting with a green sign that read, "Please Keep Oakwood Green." Adorjan said he's concerned about the greenspace that will be torn up to make way for the development.
"What I really think is that it would be good for the morale of the people here if for once our leaders didn't give into the power of the dollar," he said.
Richard Hollis
8:08 am on Friday, April 15, 2011
There is already an abundance of unoccupied retail. There is also an abundance of unoccupied housing. We ought to utilize what already exists before building more. I really feel that Mr. Schneider should have done more research before purchasing any of Oakwood to see what the people wanted. The cities involved look at the tax revenue, but sometimes there are things that are much more important.
One letter writer suggested that with the additional tax revenues, we would then have lower property taxes. I wonder what planet he lives on. The two are unrelated. Let's keep Oakwood green. No more retail is needed.
Jane Goodman
11:08 am on Friday, April 15, 2011
It's important that everyone judge this situation based on the facts and what is possible, not on how people think the world should work. "Keep Oakwood Green" is exactly what we're trying to do, just not ALL of it. The proposals would, in fact, keep half the whole property, and a third of the South Euclid section, green. People just refuse to understand that since we don't own the property, we have only two choices: commercial or residential.
More important than revenue? I'll try that line when I take my car in for body work. Cities are required by law to balance their budgets. Our expenses keep rising while income keeps dropping. So while this may not reduce taxes, without a significant source of new revenue our taxes would certainly have to rise. Our residents do feel that it is more important to have fully-staffed police and fire departments and 20 acres of greenspace than to have a bunch of new houses that don't add significant revenue and allow for no public greenspace at all.
We are not Cleveland Heights. We have a fraction of your wealth. We receive no benefits from people patronizing your businesses.
There is not, in fact, an abundance of unoccupied retail in South Euclid. Empty storefronts are few, and small.
If Oakwood doesn't have retail on the South Euclid portion the developer has promised to build more housing. That would, indeed, kill our chances of filling all that empty housing you mention.
Michelle Simakis
12:33 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Thank you @Richard and @Jane for logging in and taking the time to share your opinions. Our stories are enriched when readers and those involved in the decision-making process write their thoughts on controversial issues. I appreciate your following our coverage and writing such thoughtful responses. I hope others chime in — the more viewpoints represented here, the better.
Anne and George Karavantas
4:52 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
While I appreciate the fact that S Euclid needs to look out for their own interests it is also necessary for them to consider the entire area as well. What will happen to Oakwood will affect the communities beyond the borders of S Euclid. It is unrealistic to think the entire golf course would stay green but to put in big box stores at a time when corporations are rethinking size and costs is also foolish. In addition it does't seem that the developer has informed (unless privately behind closed doors) the commission who exactly will be leasing the retail space. Is it "if you build it they will come"?
Jane Goodman
7:11 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Dear Anne and George,
Yes, these decisions will affect surrounding neighborhoods and communities. We don't approach this lightly or without a great deal of due diligence. And we don't rely only on data from this developer but we talk to others in the field. In fact, throughout this region and the country retailers are seeking to locate in the middle of densely populated areas like this, rather than out in the exurbs. I believe that saving as much of this greenspace as possible is the best we can do. If that means sharing the space with one big store, several smaller ones and some new restaurants, it's a tradeoff I am willing to make.
Greenspace issues aside, (since half would remain green and, for the first time, become publicly accessible,) my question to you is this: Why are you so against this project? If the developer were proposing to put in small box stores would you be so upset? Are you saying that because you object to one potential retailer we should forego the project?
In the same way we can't require a builder to tell us who will live in a house before he's allowed to build it, we don't need to know what specific retailers or restaurateurs he has lined up. If one is a gigantic Walmart, so be it. Many of my constituents are thrilled at the prospect of being able to shop close by, or to go to a restaurant where they know their dollars are going to support the community where they pay taxes.
I invite you to move to South Euclid and become a stakeholder.
Joe Liptow
5:59 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Thank you Mr. Hollis for bringing some rational thought to this situation but you need a 2x4 when dealing with some of these officials.
Framing the choice as either HOUSING or COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT is wrong. It’s a clever tactic to discourage opposition and get city officials and the developer what they want. Another clever tactic is pitting Cleveland Heights Residents against South Euclid residents. If the land doesn’t get rezoned, or a referendum by the people is successful, then the proposed commercial transformation will be stopped. Creative ideas will surface. DuPont sided attached cluster homes or McMansions are not popular or necessary in our Mid-Western suburban grid layout. Fact is, Jane Goodman and her accomplices at city hall find it perfectly legit to promote raising taxes...err fees to collect our garbage n but they never thought to discuss a much smaller & temporary fee...err tax to Save Oakwood from the bulldozers and for our residents and future residents. It is short term verses long term goals. What a bunch of B_ _ _ S_ _ _! Fact is, Mayor Welo and company, after threatening eminent domain, got suckered into way overpaying for Cedar Center. Now they look to Mitch Schneider as the White Knight. I’m guessing the legal and administrative costs alone are astronomical. Gee, I wonder if anyone is tracking that.
Voters need to have a say on what is going to happen at Oakwood and then some……...
Joe Liptow, PE, LEED-AP, SOUTH EUCLID
Jane Goodman
7:32 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Joe, you know very well that we can't revisit the past, we can only learn from it. And we can only act on what is before us and make the best decisions we can for the future. To criticize decisions made before the economic crash changed everyone's financial situation is both unfair and unwarranted. And please don't put words in my mouth. As you know because you were in the meeting, we are considering charging for trash collection only after we reduce those costs as much as we can on the front end by increasing recycling and waste diversion.
No, we as Council didn't discuss raising a tax to "save" Oakwood (you can't save something you never had.) Adding more tax-exempt property to our community has to be considered carefully when your only real revenue comes from property taxes...when, in other words, you don't have enough commercial activity to bring in income taxes and CAT taxes. Cedar Center is a quarter the size of the proposed Oakwood Commons, and will provide some, but not enough, revenue.
It's so easy to criticize when you're not responsible for the outcome. It's much harder to have a city, or even just a quarter of it, depending on you to keep taxes down while providing necessary services. I'm truly stumped as to why it has to be all or nothing. Creative ideas did surface, but Fran & Co. didn't buy the land in time, Mr. Schneider did.
Anne and George Karavantas
7:39 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Dear Ms. Goodman, Where did you ever see me state I was opposed to ONE retailer. My position has always been clear that I am opposed to all retail development at Oakwood. My concern has been the effect more retail will have at Cedar Center North and all your just now filled retail along Mayfield in YOUR city. In addition I am concerned that all retail in both cities have been struggling with loss of population and income for those people that remain. The simple fact is there are only so many people with only so much money in the area. S. Euclid gives the appearance that they are only interested in recouping the money they foolishly spent on driving out viable tenants from Cedar Center Instead of remodeling the center. So what do we have? Wasteland!! By the way, I have lived on the border of S Euclid for 45 years and wouldn't consider moving to your city.
Jane Goodman
8:13 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Anne and George, I merely asked if that was your objection, because you said "big box". It's nice of you to worry about all of this. As for Cedar Center, it wasn't ours to remodel. You have to own it to remodel it. The city hadn't been able to get the owners of the 12 different buildings to do it in all the years, though we tried – someone had to remove the asbestos showering down from the upstairs ceilings, make safe the disintegrating theatre building, exterminate the vermin, among other things. Easy for you to say WE should have remodeled it instead of "driving out" tenants (not all of whom were viable.) To do that ourselves we would have had to buy all 12 buildings from all 12 owners and from all 47 parties (one building was owned by a trust with 30+ trustees) and then do the work. So...we DID buy all those buildings, and you can spread some of your criticism over the owners and tenants who received WAY more than the properties or their leases were worth since they hadn't invested a dime in improving them for ages. We removed the asbestos and the contaminated soil where the dry cleaner had dumped perc for decades, and here we are. I'll wager that if we'd left that center alone the whole thing would have been so bad that folks would be haranguing us to tear it down.
Anne and George Karavantas
8:43 pm on Friday, April 15, 2011
Ms Goodman whether or not the city could have used incentives to to improve Cedar Center instead of tearing all of it down is moot at this point. What is to the point is that developing Oakwood will impact Cedar Center North. There is no perfect solution to Oakwood but retail is not it. Residential would be preferable to retail only if it is not high rise. Any retail that would be built on Oakwood would be "the new kid " on the block for a few months and then there most likely be declining sales. Also I don't think you have thought enough about the increase in services you would have. Big box retail brings big theft problems and more policing. No matter how you control cut thru traffic on the side streets you are going to affect your citizens.
Jane Goodman
8:52 am on Saturday, April 16, 2011
Thank you again for your comments. I mentioned Cedar Center because you did. And yes, Oakwood will have an effect on Cedar Center...a good one. Cedar Center being a quarter the size of Oakwood Commons, they will accommodate different types of businesses, as a unified district of shopping, residences and restaurants from Cedar Road north to Oakwood. Even the developers involved see it as synergy, creating a bigger magnet for commerce. The folks who live between the two have the new park and the benefits of walkability, which new home buyers seek.
The Cost of Community Services for residential developments in this region is always higher than that of commercial developments. Especially with a shopping area that builds and maintains its own utilities, snowplowing, leaf pickup, tree planting and care, roads and security and doesn't send kids to schools but instead pays property taxes to those schools on more valuable property, income taxes on more people and businesses. Yes, there may be incidents that call for our city police to handle, but with on-site security to help that wouldn't be all our burden.
Obviously I'm not going to relieve your concerns or convince you that we've considered all these things. I hope your position now doesn't keep you from visiting the Commons should it be built.
Donna Lipson
7:39 pm on Saturday, April 16, 2011
South Euclid has the opportunity to do something visionary with Oakwood, something that will be a model
for other communities nationally. Residential and retail with green space: that's a really yawner. We need some
fresh new ideas. How about a whole development totally based on health and integrative medicine:
healthy restaurants, retail that focuses on wellness, beautiful trails and rock gardens suitable for meditation
(grass takes up way too much of our resources), a fitness center, massage therapy studio, etc. I'm sure there
are ideas out there that are really creative: let's hear them! Let's put Oakwood on the map. As Ralph Waldo
Emerson said ," Do not go where the path may lead, go where there is no path and leave a trail."
Jane Goodman
7:58 pm on Saturday, April 16, 2011
Donna, that would be great! If only we owned the property. But we don't.
Diane
8:11 pm on Saturday, April 16, 2011
Would have been a lot closer to that "great" vision if rezoning hadn't been approved. I, for one, will never shop there.
Joe Liptow
4:37 pm on Monday, April 18, 2011
Well, well, well Councilperson Goodman, we went from visionary ideas, to balancing the development with psuedo-greenspace, to we need the revenue, to WE DON"T OWN IT. Nice. Thanks for the apologitic capitulation.
I would like to quote the United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED Sustainable Site Credit SS-1. “Avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building on a site”. It goes on to list criteria where development should plainly not take place. Now it may be possible for the cities, the newspaper, Mr. Schneider and his global investors to twist the intent of LEED SS-1 in order to further the pro-development argument and maneuver a “spot-zoning” change of residential to commercial land but I think that’s gaining the system and inappropriate.
Finally, to the dismayed residents of Cleveland Heights: There are many in South Euclid who are scratching their head on this one and other "real estate" decisions that the recent administration has forced on us. Blaming the vacant homes in South Euclid on the economy is like strapping on the blinders or those rose colored glasses. Recent muni decisions and tactics have had an influence on the exodus. The Grand Oak Park concept that I and many others strive to realize would help bring 'em back.
Joe Liptow
4:45 pm on Monday, April 18, 2011
And another thing!
A less inappropriate way to develop and possibly kill 2 birds with one stone is to RE-develop
on the main streets. Take some dismal store fronts and 3-5 residential properties deep behind them and make something prominent on Mayfield or Ceder or Monticello or Green Roads. Destroying little odd patches of remaining greenspace is kind of like reaching for the EASY BUTTON.
Laura Luxenberg
9:06 am on Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I am a resident of South Euclid and am so dismayed about this project. It seems inevitable at this point but I desperately do not want "big box" retail and all that goes along with it here. I wish this community could think "out of the box" so to speak. It seems to me that the city and the developer are taking the easy way out. It would be so nice if what is coming could be unique, that would contribute to the culture of the community not dumb it down even further.
Will the green space be contiguous or just some areas around the runoff catch-ponds? What will the national retail do to our local businesses? What quality of jobs will these proposed big box retailers provide? Will they help to support the local soft ball teams? all the little things that locally owned businesses tend to do that makes for flavor, culture uniqueness of our communities?
And if it is a Walmart Super store as is rumored what happens to the space at Severance Town Center? more empty retail? I recently learned about all of the failed "big box" retail in Aurora-gigantic spaces standing empty, large asphalt parking lots....all of the negative environmental impacts that surround that.
Jane Goodman
11:23 am on Wednesday, April 20, 2011
To answer your questions, Laura:
This developer is the one who brings the "first" of new businesses to the area...most of the stores at Legacy were the first of their chains to come here. Yes, it would be nice to have a really unique development, and if we owned the property and were developing it ourselves we'd have a say in what businesses moved into it. But we don't, so we can't. The twenty-one acre greenspace in South Euclid would be behind the stores, adjacent to the West 5 neighborhood and the B-streets of Cleveland Heights. There would be an entrance and small parking area off E. Antisdale just west of Fenwick, and pedestrian/bike access from Maple or Blanche, and possibly from the twice-as-large greenspace proposed for the Cleveland Heights section. The two spaces would not be contiguous. Ours would be a neighborhood-scale amenity, as the residents requested. Less than a quarter of the greenspace would be the new wetland (nobody builds catch-ponds anymore, they build habitat-filled wetlands for stormwater management.)
Jane Goodman
11:33 am on Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Nobody can say what additional "national" retail might do to (of for, for that matter) local businesses. If you look at the local businesses that remain they are largely those whose products or services aren't duplicated by national chains...the bagel store, the hardware guys who actually fix things, the photographer who does bar mitzvahs, etc....or they are locally owned franchises (UPS store, MotoPhoto, Cold Stone)...or they are actually locally-owned national chains (Joann Fabrics.) The presence of Walmart at Severance didn't take business away from the Taylor Road or Lee Road stores, so why would more national retailers do so? There are a lot of national retailers we don't have here yet that many folks would welcome.
What kind of jobs? I can assure you that local small retailers don't pay any more than national ones. In fact, the mom and pop stores we all love are mostly that...mom, pop, and maybe a couple of part-time students. Restaurants, the same. (And by the way, Michael Symon is now a chain restaurateur, as is Zach Bruell. Melt is a chain. What's the problem?)
Yes, we'd expect that they'd support the local teams. And Home Days and other civic activities. That's a big reason I'm supporting bringing in new businesses. We haven't had that kind of corporate presence, and our local businesses are great about the sponsorship stuff but there aren't enough of them.
Jane Goodman
11:40 am on Wednesday, April 20, 2011
We can still have local flavor, uniqueness and local personality AND a lot of new jobs. I don't know who might move into Severance's Walmart if they move to Oakwood, but you don't know that some smart retailer won't grab up that space, either. Streetsboro and Aurora are totally different situations...companies want to move back here where the density of jobs and consumers is greater.
We as a city are in the situation we're in because for so many years we thought we could live off just property taxes and didn't need to renew anything. Now we know that a city that doesn't do new things, that lets fear that a few things might not be as wonderful as we'd hope overcome the will to try new initiatives, will rot on the vine.
What I am still confused about is this: Why is it so horrible to have BOTH revenue AND greenspace?
Anne and George Karavantas
4:28 pm on Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Laura, that is exactly what I have been saying. What S. Euclid does with Oakwood has far reaching effects for all other retail in the area. All they are looking at is how much tax money they can collect.and never mind what the residents want. From the discussion Ms Goodman has had replying to most of us it is clear that Council has made their decision even before they have had a public hearing. So much for listening to their constituencies. It is time for all S. Euclid residents to speak up on this matter before the bulldozer rolls over you.
Joe Liptow
7:05 pm on Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Was it a Byrd's song that had something in the refrain about a time to weep and a time to sow?
It be time to:
-develop Cedar Center.
-save Oakwood.
-replace some elected officials and appointees.
JL
Jane Goodman
11:04 am on Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Laura, Anne and George,
I speak here as myself, and not on behalf of all of Council. Someone needs to be here correcting misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and since this project, as well as Cedar Center, is located in the ward whose residents and businesses I represent, and since I know and can describe the environmental impacts and how this project is designed to manage them, and it's my constituents who would be affected and who have been carrying the tax burden, and who are the ones who have pushed for a neighborhood greenspace such as the one that would be created with this proposal, and most of whom understand ALL the impacts doing this or not doing this may have on their lives, I have been the one posting on this forum. If you think I'm not listening to my constituents you're wrong. The ones who support this don't feel the need to campaign on these forums.
Joe Liptow
8:13 pm on Wednesday, April 20, 2011
To quote Jane Goodman in a post or two above:
"We as a city are in the situation we're in because for so many years we thought we could live off just property taxes and didn't need to renew anything. Now we know that a city that doesn't do new things, that lets fear that a few things might not be as wonderful as we'd hope overcome the will to try new initiatives, will rot on the vine. "
There are a lot of people living off those property taxes and heading right out of the city after their shift to places out east that have parks like Oakwood could become. For me it's not about what you can "live on" but what service, effort and accomplishment I see put forth by the public employees. The livability of the area is kind of important as well. A real new initiative for this group that roosts up at city hall would be to save Oakwood. What their attempting now is passé and reminds me of the Cedar Center debacle. EMERGENCY, EMERGENCY, EMERGENCY......we need to act fast before the TREE HUGGERS take over.
Greg Ferreri
11:25 pm on Thursday, April 21, 2011
How can anyone who has driven past the wasteland of Cedar Center, or seen the floors of vacant space at University Corners, or the shoddy storefronts along Warrensville (with the exception of Batiste & Dupree -- a diamond in the rough!) possibly think that more retail in this area is going to solve any problems? This development will do nothing but exacerbate the vacancy problems in the surrounding areas. The plan is not in the best interests of anyone but First Interstate Properties, and it saddens me to think of the long-term repercussions of this deal.
Joe Liptow
4:28 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Amen!