08/02/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COTSIISSION AUGUST 2, .1988 PAGE 2 that developers would not request a rezoning to this district if this restriction remains, He also requested that the.Commission review their proposed amendment to Section 1141.07(C), which states that there.shall be no windows on the side. or sides of a building which directly faces residen- tial property. He believes that this should be more clearly defined since the purpose of the restriction was intended to be for a building placed on a long narrow lot which would have the short wa11 adjacent to the residential property. A1r. Carlisle, representing Biskind Development Company, stated that they believe such a district is necessary they did intend to rezone some property to that district, however, if these restrictions remain they doubt that they or any other developer will rezone to that classification. He presented graphs showino the varinus buffer and set back requirements of each district and pointed out that with a high rise building only a 100 foot set back is required. He also contends that an office use would be a more comnatible use to a residential use than any other use except residential since residents use their homes in the evening and on weekends when the offices are not occupied. He maintains that a 250 foot set back would be excessive and that set back in other communities vary from 50 feet to 150 feet, and that 250 foot set backs would render most properties useless. He further illustrated with the.graphs that the density of one story buildings would be greater than with the higher building which would have more open area. He contends that a 100 or 150 foot set back is more reasonable and would allow more flexibility. Building Commissioner Conway agreed that other communities that were studied did not have 250 foot setbacks, and that 100 feet to 150 feet were average. Mr. Skoulis, president of the Park West Home Owners Association, advised that they have been meeting with Biskind Development since their development abuts the land they intend to rezone to this classification. He maintains that there has been a misinterpretation of the 250 feet set back requirement in that they believe that no other buildings could be placed in this set back, thus a one story building could be placed within that 250 foot setback, Building Commissioner Conway stated that as this ordinance is worded he does not believe that a one story building could be built within the setback. Mr. Thomas does not believe that it was the Commission's intent to prohibit a one story building from being constructed in the setback. Mr. Gorris stated that the intent was to limit the sight line of the taller buildings. Even with this interpretation, PIr. Calrisle still believed that the 250 feet is unreasonable. Mr. Skoulis suggested that the Commission check the impact of a four story building from a distance of 150 feet at the Corporate Center. Councilman Tallon stated that this legis- lation would probably work with this large piece of property, but he doubts it would be suitable for other parcels. Assistant Laxa Director Dubelko suggested that the developer present a preliminary plan for this area, and reminded the Commission that the Mixed Use "B" District was created strictly for Christ The King Community, and it might be that this classification could be created for this parcel only. P4r. Carlisle stated that they have had several meetings with the home owners, and it was not his impression that they were dissatisfied with a 100 foot setback for a four story building. Mrs. Diver,.a resident, pointed out that the Fairview West Medical Building is.a -thzee story building (46..feet high, including the HUAC screen wall, and is set back 95 feet from Lorain Road and 165 feet from residential property, and that the_residents on -Mitchell Drive, including herself, would not be_ happy.with this size building 100 foot from the property line and believes that a 250 foot set back would be acceptable to the homeowners. In response to the Commission's questions, NIr. Conway advised that Section 1141.08 speci- fically states that the mechanical equipment is not included in the 50 foot