09/27/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 PAGE 8 be used in other areas, not just for their property; creating restrictions that are consistent with those in other districts, pointing out that a 20 story building can be set back 100 feet in the Mixed Use District: that in all other cities surveyed no setback was in excess of 100 feet; and advised that a 250 foot set back would have a larger impact andZin one instance, would restrict them to a 2 story building thus increasing land coverage by 70%, and reducing profit by 15% which would return 15% less to the city. He questioned if the City Planner had reviewed the ordinance,stating that no planner would support a 250 foot set back. He maintains that the setback cannot be viewed alone it must be viewed in conjunction with the required.50. foot mounded landscape buffer; and concluded that this ordinance must be consistant not only with other districts within the city, but with other communities, and pointing out that 100 feet would be reasonable, but they would be willing to compromise at 150 feet. Commission studied City Engineer Boyers schematic drawing of a 200 foot set back showing the 50 foot landscaped buffer, park.ing, aisles,mdian strip, sidewalk, and planting area. Mr. Morgan questioned if the ordinance as written would preclude a developer from building a one story building within the setback of a taller building, pointing out that it was not the intent of the Commission to prohibit this. Mr. Dubelko res.ponded that this is not cTear in the ordinance, but could be clar'ified. Mr. Skoulis reminded the Commission of the impact of the pictures of the' Corporate Center building.taken at various distances and he maintains that a new ordinance does not have to be consistant with ordinances written years ago. Mr. Morgan believes that the ordinance should be written to require a 4 foot setbaek for each 1 foot of height of the building, but with'a 100 foot . minimum setback, and that the language should be written in such a way that a lower building could be built within the setback of the larger buil:d.ing. Mrs. Traczyk believed that the 160 foot setback as written is satisfactory, considering the required landscape buffers and questioned if there would be any other property in the city which could acconmodate the more restrictive setback. Mr. Betts suggested that a compromise of a maximum 175 foot setback should be considered. In reference to other areas that could be rezoned to this classification, Councilman Ta].lon stated that the only time he could foresee a developer requesting this district would be when the request was from a residential zoning. Mr. Dubelko reiterated that the city did have the authority to initiate rezoning, and that lots which did not meet all the requirements of this district would be under the g-randfather clause. T. Morgan moved that the Planning Commission approve and pass along to the BZD Committee of Council Ordinance 88-75 as written by Assistant Law Director Dubelko in his letter of September 12, 1988 with the recommended changes as follows and only as they pertain to the schedule of minimum yards and setback dimensions for o.ffice use: strike out sections 1,.2, and 3, and put in that the rear and side yard setback of office buildings and accessory structures shall be a ratio of 4 feet of every 1 foot of building height and must include some language that would not preclude a building of less height being placed within the setback of the largest building, seconded by M. Betts. Mr. Betts stated that the setback of the highest building should be mediated, perhaps in the area of 170 to 175 feet. Mr. Dubelko suggested that the motion on the floor should be voted on. Roll call on motion: Morgan, and Gorris, yes. Betts, Bierman, Bowan, and Traczyk, No, Motion failed to pass. Mr. Betts stated he would prefer a maximum distance of 175 feet. Mr. Gorris questioned what would be accomplished since a lower building can be placed with the 200 foot setback and pointing out that a 44.foot building would be 175 feet away and any building higher than that would also be 175 feet away; he believes that this would be giving a developer an.incentive to build a 50 foot building.