04/22/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 22, 1986 PAGE 2 Mr. Hill, zoning and planning specialist, stated that their studies concluded that the entire parcel should have the same zoning classifi- cation, however single family would not be suitable because of the noise level of Brookpark Road; developing the 9.5 acre portion presently zoned single family would not be feasible because there is no way to integrate the entire area into the Park West Estates; single family housing abutting multi-family would be of a lower quality than adj'acent homes; if the entire area were used for multi-family units there might be up to seven buildings adjacent to single family homes on Mitchell, Linda, and Westview Drives with, in some cases, onTy a 75 foot separation between the buildings and the homes. They maintain tfiat the city woul:d benefit from the $610,000 in property taxes; $155,000 in munieipal income tax; and the additional 625 jobs created. This. area wouTd be a logical site for expansion-of Great Northern retaiT space. He eoncluded that the buf fering and landscaping planned would create more beauty and. privacy, for adjacent homes than any of the other possible uses. Mr. 0'Hara, representing the traffic planning firm of Barton Ashman, maintained that a, multi-family use would generate traffie at the same hours that the single family use wouid generate it and:the same residential streets would be used. He noted that the impaet on the residential area would be far less with commercial development since ingress/egress would be from Brookpark Road, not the residentiaT streets; that peak hours would be different; and that much of the traffic using the facility would be on the streets anyway: Turning lanes and signalization would. be provided. at the entrance which woiild lie opposite the Corporate Center entrance.. Mr. Kanareff, engineer, 'explained tfiat all utilities, storm?water re; ten.tion; drainage, and sewers would be totally independent from those of the residential area to the rear. Mr. Predenza, attomey, explained how the deveTopers intended to assure the home owners that by restrictive covenants that the buffer area will be created.and maintained and how the buffer can be used by the abutting owners by means of certain docu- ments and easement agreements which will be offered to those pr.operty owners. These documents will be properly recorded and such documents have been held valid and enforcable tiy the courts. Mrs. Watts submitted draft copies of these doeuments. In response to the Commissions questions, Mrs. Watts explained-that they are confident that they can obtain access- on Brookpark Road from the State with the Gity`s co-operation; that it would, be more likely to get the access for a'commercial use since the Zoning Codes prohibit using residential streets for commercial access (multi-family, eodes have no such res-triction); and the cost of such access could be borne more easily.by a eommercial development. She further advised that if they cannot get this access they would not go through with this project and might attempt to develop the property as multi-:family. Mrs. Watts stated that the addi:tional space is needed, in order for them to remain competetive, and if there was no need they would not be proposing the development. Mr. Gorris doubted'that "the eost for'.access to a multi-family complex should be a significant argument since the developer will be requesting a curb-cut for the Corporate Center. Mr. 0'Hara pointed out that since access to multi-family is allowed through residential streets the State might be less likely to grant it. Mr. Hill stated that there is no market at present for more multi-family units. Mr. Gorris pointed out'that in reference to a re- zoning request for property south of 1-480, the Regional Planning Com- mission had advised that there is an over abundance of retail propertv in the city. Mr. Hill responded that the Great Northern area is a