05/13/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J commission's decision tonight. Mr. Corsi introduced W. Hart, a consultant planner, who reviewed the proposal from a plauning prospective. Mr. Hart explained his experience in the planning arena which included: preparing comprehensive plans for communities; working on zoning regulations; and assessing the appropriate zoning for various parcels of land. Although it was requested that the retail request not be brought up in this forum, in an attempt to put his comments in prospective, W. Hart advised, in February there was no market for office use and this Parcel E site was not suitable for o?'ice development. After reviewing the proposal from a planning standpoint, he believed the impact on the community, with those conditions that were placed on the retail development, would be no different than with an office development. At the previous meeting, the commission did determine that retail was not au appropriate use for this parcel of land. Mr. Hart believed the most suitable altemative was the multi family residential for two reasons: it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and this classification is consistent with the impacts that plauniug comuussion accepted when the property was rezoned for offices several years ago. He clarified both office use and multi family are classifications consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the request was merely to change from one zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan, to another classification consistent with the plan. Mr. Hart further advised the intensity of development that would result from this rezoning would be less than the intensity of development permitted under offices. Mr. Hart compared the office classification to the apartment classification and noted the following advantages to creating an apartment classification: the size of the floor area of the units would be about 60% of the gross floor area permissible under the office zoning; the number of parking spaces would be about 50% less with apartments; the peak hour traffic would be 50% less with the apartments; the height of the build.ings would be approximately 1/2 ofthe height ofthe offices as he believed the apartments would be limited to 35 feet for 3 story units or 2 1/2 floors with half a story below grade. To the best ofhis knowledge, Mr. Hart believed this proposal is in full compliance with the multi family zoning regulations and no variances would be required. He explained the option of lower density residential classifications as being appropriate or sound zoning for this site. In his opinion it is not reasonable to expect lower density residential for this property because: the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; is consistent with the impacts the city has accepted for this site by virtue of the office rezoning; it seems reasonable that equally positioned parcels should have similar development opportunities; the developer has had no offer from anyone expressing interest in lower density development on the site; and the units should be comprehensible in size to the residential existing in the area and would have to be more expensive than the existing residential property. With a lower density, there would be additional costs, one of which would be the screening from Brookpark Road to off set the impact of the street thus the lower density would not be feasible; however, tlris was not evaluated in depth since the higher density is compatible with the comprehensive plan. Finally, in reference to a lower density development, there are more feasible sites in the area for lower density developments. The audience was asked for their comments. Mr. J. Poffenberger, a resident, believed that iental apartments would bring more crime, would lower his property values, and bring less revenue to the city. He believed that single family or cluster homes would help maintain the value of the surrounding properties. Mr. Skoulis, president of the Park West Homeowners' Association, which abuts this property stated that their members have not made a final decision as to whether they are going to support this proposal until they get answers to some questions. He was not sure if his next question was appropriate, but if it was not, he suggested that the developers not respond. If this land were rezoned, would the pending lawsuits be withdrawn. Mr. Coyne stated that he had not discussed this as yet with the owner. Mr. Skoulis continued. Does the developer believe he would have reasonable use of his ]and if it were rezoned for multiple family units. The developers indicated that they believed that they would. If this land is rezoned for multi family, would the developer discontinue all attempts to have the properiy rezoned to retail use. Mr. Coyne stated that if the property is rezoned to multi family, it could be sold to a developer for multi family, but if that developer decided to ask for a rezoning, they would have no