02/09/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ Y In table 8-2, any recommendation that the Planning Commission made that differed with those of CoP.C.'s, has been included under the Acceptable Alternative/ Additional Future Lane Use column. Other issues discussed previously include: site 22 (the Sherwi.n Williams parcel):both the Recommended Future Land Use and the Recommended Zoning Change is now Office Building District; site 23 will remain Single Fami.ly; on parcel 30 the Acceptable Alternative Future Land Use was listed as hotel/office, but after some discussion it was decided that this probably was in the wrong box and should be under parcel 31, the site of the Moen Office building. Assistant Law Director Dubelko recommended that, since the uses of parcels 31 and 32 were determined by the courts, the actual zoning should remain as it is now. It was decided'to footnote the chart that this zoning was mandated by the court. Building Conun.issioner Conway questioned if they were recommending Single Family ior the entire parcel number 43 since it is presently zoned General Retail for the first 500 feet (facing Lorain Road), and Single Family in the rear. Mr. Schultz explainea that the primary use was for single family, however the Acceptable Alterriative Additional Future Land Use states Retail /Service /Office would be in the front. Mr. Dubelko has a problem with a split zoned parcel since the courts 5eem to allow expansion to the retail portion and this would encourage a developer to attempt to use more than the 500 feet for. retail. Mr. Schultz believed that would be covered under their recommendation that the city should avoid rezoning to a non-residential use where a parcel abuts residential on more than 2 sides and also the local existing conditions set a president in that the entire Lorain Road corridor zs General Retail at present. It was suggested that these parcels could be rezoned to N1ixed Use "D" with the ancillary retail use being allowed along Lorain Road. Mr. Thomas pointed out several parcels that have similar conditions, but some of these, specifically parcel 44, would not have enough area to create the buffer required in Mixed Use "D". Mr. Schultz believed that since the no zoning change was recomnended this would not be a problem, the first 500 feet could be developed Retail/Service/ Office as the Alternative with the.balance of the parcel remaining Single Family. 14r. Conway suggested that this could be clarified with a footnote. Mr. Schultz believed that the total document must be considered, not just the chart, since other sections would explain the situation. After.much discussion it was decided that the Recommended Zoning Change on these parcels could be Mixed Use "D". He presented the proposed zoning map whieh included the suggestions made at the last meeting: the area beyond Stearns Road up to the C.E.I. lines shows the new zoning of Mixed Use "E'-" or modified Mixed Use "D" which does not require 5 acres parcels. Also the triangular -area on the east side of Columbia Road, north of 480, and parcels 41 and 51 are now recommended to be Multi-Family. Mr. Tallon questioned why the Best or Primary Recommended Future Land use did not always coincide with the Recommended Zoning Change, specifically parcel 19 which shows the best use would be for outdoor recreation or open space and the recommended rezoning as Single Family Cluster. Mr. Schultz stated that there are discussions under way on this parcel to use it for a recreational area, but if that does not materialize, the property could be developed for cluster homes. Mr. Tallon believed that would be creating a high density use in a Single Family "A" district. Mr. Schultz stated that this property could be developed for Single Family "A", however there is a Single Family Cluster zoning classification, but few areas zoned for it. He mentioned page 15 of the summary in which one of the goals stated was to provide for a wider variety of housing types and densities to ensure an adequate housing supply for all residents, the city should designate areas to be rezoned for a.modified Senior Residence District and for Single Family Cluster Zoning Dist.ricts. After some discussion it was decided that parcel 19 should remain zoned as a Single Family "A" District. In reference to the 4 11?__ -.