09/27/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 PAGE 7 recommendations for changes to the Zoning Codes from the City Planner, Mr. Hill, which have been forwarded to members of the committee for their written com- ments, these comments will then be submitted to Mr. Hill. These recommendations deal w'ith the definition section of the code and Mr. Gorris stated that he found it helpful to compare them with the existing code and that respond•ing in writing would expedite the discussion when a meeting was called. Mr. Dubelko stated that he had a problem with studying the definitions prior to studying. the actual revision of the code and Councilman Tallon suggested that any questions pertaining to the definitions should be tabled until the pertinent section was reviewed. VII. NEW BUSINESS: No items. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS: Ord. 88-75: Chaizcnan.Morgan explained tha.t the proposed ordinance has been discussed for some time, the only issue at this time is the setback of the office liuildings when they are adjacent to residential property. He further explained that after_studying many areas in the city it was determined that: there are a few large parcels of land which the city could possibly initiate rezoning to this district; however, many lots were less than the required 200 foot width, but these lots could be rezoned to the Office Building District under the grandfather clause. There is the possibility that develo- pers would not request rezoning to this classification since requirements are far more restrictive. Mr. Morgan stated that any interested parties could address the Commission, but reminded them that the Commission is looking at the ordinance at this time, not a rezoning request. Mr. Skoulis, president of the Park jdest Home.Owners Association (their property abuts land that is proposed for rezoning to this district), questioned a"new paragraph under Section 1141.06-B, paragraph 3, which stated that the Commission can vary these requirements under certain circumstances, and also stated that the pro- posed 160 foot set back for a building greater than 45 feet high would be totally inadequate, pointing that the original setback was 250 feet. He maintains that this favors the developers rather than the residents and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to protect adjacent residential areas. Assistant Law Director Dubelko responded that this paragraph is consistent with several new ordinances giving the Commission more discretionary authority, pointing out that a developer could always appeal to the. Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to any ordinance in the Zoning Code. Asr. Morgan has no objection to deleting this paragraph. Councilman McKay verified that a hardship must be proved in order for the Planning Commission to grant such a variance, pointing out that this is a condition for the Board of Zoning Anpeals to grant a variance. He was advised that the same conditions would apply. In reference to the setback, Building Commissioner Conway advised that he has information from four cities: Lakewood requires a 5 foot setback or 1/2 the height of the structure, whichever is greater; Fairview Park has variable setbacks, requiring 75 feet for a 5 story building, 80 feet for 6 stories, 85 feet for 7 stories; Westlake requires a 75 foot green space; and Euclid allows only up to a 3 story structure which requires a 50 foot setback. Mr. Carlisle, representing Biskind Development who has property that is proposed for rezoning to this district, pointed out that the Zoning Codes are to protect all land owners, not just residents. He stated that there are several issues to be considered: creating a zoning classification which can