05/13/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approved La-Z-Boy Furniture store). The motion was seconded by T. Brennan and unanunously approved. Motion carried. 2) Duke Realtv Investments Lot Split and Assembly Plat (Radisson Hotel). The proposal is to split and assemble (re-align the property lines) permanent parcel nos. 236-14-3 and 236-14-5 to accommodate the Radisson Hotel adclition. Location is the northeast corner area of Crreat Northern and Country Club Boulevards. Zoning is Mi}ced Use District entirely. Mr. Childs, builder, presented the proposal. Councilman McKay asked if the Piene Radisson Hotel sign on Biskind property along I-480 could be removed or turned off- He advised this sign is a hindrance to the residence in this area due to the glare of the sign. It was originally believed this was a temporary sign, but Mr. McKa.y noted this sign has been in the same location for years. Mr. Childs explained the sign was turned offtoday. He believed this sign can be addressed along with the future signage proposal. R. Tallon motioned to approve the lot split and assembly plat for the Radisson Hotel, the proposal is to split and assemble permanent parcel nu.mbers 236-14-03 and 236-14-05 to accommodate the Radisson Hotel adclition. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and unanimously approved. Motion carried. 3) Great Northem Properties Rezoning Request. This proposal is to re-zone approximately 25 acres of land located along the north side of Brookpark Road between Columbia Road and Great Northern Boulevard, from the existing zoning of Office Building District, to Multifamily Family District. Mr. Corsi, representing the owner, presented the request. He noted the previous plan to rezone to retail was denied by the planning commission and explained this multi-family proposal is an alternative plan which was suggested by their planing experts. He introduced Mr. Coyne, land use attorney, and Mr. Hart, a city planner. Mr. Coyne explained retail zoning is the most appropriate use for this property; however, this evening's meeting is only to address the Biskind request to rezone the property for multi family use. Since the retail request is in litigation he advised that only the multi family use should be addressed at this time and that none of the their representatives intend to comment on the previous submission for the retail zoning. He clarified that both a 2506 appeal and a declaratory judgment action were filed some time ago and the planning commission was not the appropriate forum to discuss the previous proposaL Assistant Law Director Dubelko concurred that the litigation is on-going and the only thing that should be discussed at this meeting is the proposal to rezone to multi family. Mr. Coyne stated that, in reference to the charter as it relates to multi family, there is a peculiar regvlation that provides a threshold, that once you have 20%, or more, of property zoned for multi family than it has to go on the ballot. Based on his calculations, Mr. Coyne did not believe this threshold has been reached with this submission. He explained a letter has been written to the law department regarding this issue, but no reply has been received. Mr. Coyne respected the process but believed the zoning should be addressed by the planning commission with a recommendation to the City Council. Such a recommendation, he believed, would be appropriate for the multi family zoning. Whether or not Council believed this should be placed on the ballot, he stated was irrelevant, as from a good planning and zoning standpoint, the planning commission has the prerogative to make the decision. Mr. Coyne respectfUlly requested a decision from the plauning commission but if the commission had to refer it to Council and Council has to refer it to the ballot, it would be appropriate. Mr. Coyne asked ifthe commission members had any questions. Mr. Dubelko advised that the issue of whether this proposal will have to go on the ballot was irrelevant to the