Laserfiche WebLink
lo '• ?. <br />could always seek a variance. He also questioned if some kind of time lim14- <br />could be included in the rezoning. Mr. Dubelko stated that this might be <br />possible, since it was upheld in the case of pole signs. Mr. Gorris is <br />concerned that this could cause a rush of development of strip centers, etc... <br />Mr. Bierman would like to see the retail corridor stopped, and does not <br />believe there are any 35 acres parcels available. Mr. Orlowski is concerned <br />because the riixed Use would allow some retail and developers would be <br />inclined to use their land in order to get the most profit. Mr. Thoma.s <br />explained that the only retail allowed would be tho5e that would service the <br />uses in the district, restaurants, book stores, etc. Mr. Dubelko clarified <br />that a referendum woiil.d be required to rezone to any district that allowed <br />Multiple Family, this would not be required in a more restrictive retail. <br />He also stated that imder Mixed Use with smaller lots you could ha.ve a large <br />number of one type of retail development. The members discussed rezoning <br />from Mixed Use versus a limited General Retail which could include <br />restricting the number of certain businesses, density, and even eliminating <br />some types of.businesses entirely. Mr. Betts does not believe there should <br />be any retail use other than those which might serve the primary uses. Mr. <br />Thoma.s stated that he was trying to encourage assembling property to develop <br />it for senior housing, multi-family, etc., with only supporting retail uses. <br />Mr. Dubelko suggested that perhaps a planning expert could look at the lots <br />and suggest some of the larger lots to one classification and the <br />surrounding snaller parcels to compatible classifications. This would have <br />to be done by an expert since it could be considered as spot zoning. Mr. <br />Mize, Biskind Development, (speaking from the audience) commented that in <br />order to attract more office use, the city would have to have a more <br />competitive tax base, or offer some inducements to encourage developers to <br />assemble property. Mr. Thomas believed that the members must come to a. <br />consensus as to what shoulcl be done. Mr. Morgan believed that something <br />must be done quickly, pointing out that a Mixed Use classification would <br />require a referendum, a limited retail district could be done more quickly. <br />In reference to limited retail, Mr. Dubelko stated it might be possible to <br />eliminate strip centers, fast food restaurants, etc. The Commission must <br />look at restrictions that can be defended in court as well as inducements <br />(greater density, lot coverage, and height). Because there are so many small <br />lots adjacent-to established businesses, Mr. Orlowski does not believe that <br />all the land can be zoned to the same classification. Mr. Mize offered to <br />study a section of the area that the Conuission chose in order to study it <br />fram.a developer's point of view and see what would be feasible. It.was <br />agreed that he wouTd look at an area on the north side of Lorain Road <br />between Elmhurst and Barton Roads. Mr. Mize believed that he could have at <br />least some information for the July 24th meeting. Mr. Mize further pointed <br />out several areas in the proposed zoning codes that were Lmclear or too <br />restrictive and could discourage development in the Mixed Use District. Mr. <br />Thoma.s asked that the members come to the July 24th meeting with some clear <br />cut, specific goals for the new classification or the rezoning of the west <br />end. <br />It was decided to take August as a vacation month. <br />XI . ADJOURIVMIIQT : <br />4 <br />J. Thomas moved to excuse the absence of R. Bowen, seconded by M. Betts, and <br />unani.mously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.