07/30/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

consensus that the one that is the best possible fit is the. Mixed Use D. But as a result of the way it is presently written, and the fact that there is no development plan, there needs to be some modifications to the district so it will work most effectively. One of his concerns with using the Mixed Use district is that you have a district written around the concept that you would in fact be rezoning to a specific development plan that was submitted to you.. There would be negotiations. When the district is put on the books, it is put there with the plan that then contains a lot of criteria that would govern the eventual development of the property, which aren't necessarily articulated'in the ordinance itsel£ Since they are placing the zoning classification on the property without the plan ,. in place, the kind of wide open zoning that doesn't include criteria because that is done as part of the planning process, it is somewhat problematic. He has attempted to adjust this district to make it a better fit for Parcel E, and also so it can be used as a zoning district without the plan,initially so that the city has some assurances and the adjoining property owners have assurances that the development plan will be appropriate and not negatively impact their property. He said one advantage is this district doesn't exist anywher.e on the map so that by changing the current text for , Mixed Use D, they are not affecting any property that is already out there. They have more freedom to make adjustments to this district than any other. He indicated he will go through each section and explain his thought process and the recommended changes. The first section he is recommending an amendment to is section 1149.02, which deals with the minimum area requirement. The current requirement in Mixed Use D is 5 acres. He said giveri the way they will be structurina the district and the parcel they are dealina witli, he believes that is too small to accomplish what they are suggesting with this district. His suggestion is the minimum acreage should be 20 acres. This is consistent with the size of tlie parcel and it gives them some assurance since they don't have a plan that if they place the zoning classification on the property that they have a development of sufficient magnitude in terms of scope that it makes sense. In section 1149.03 it deals with permitted uses. One of the things he added in the introductory paragraph in that section, under subsection (d), is the requirement to have at least two of the principle categories of usage represented on the site. The idea is this is intended to be a mixed use district. One of the problems he sees in some cases around the city is that there are mixed use districts that really don't have mixed uses. There is a single use on the property and that was not the intent of the district. He thinks it was their consensus from the last work session that the property really should have a combination of uses on it and be a mixed use district. That is consistent with the direction that came from the court. Normally this would be handled in the planning process. They do not have a plan so he is suggesting they use lanb age that requires at least two of the principle categories of uses. The subsections (1), (2), (3) aren't changed. He said he believes subsection (4) was a typo because in the regular office building district 36 ft. high is allowed, and later in_that very section when it refers to height for office buildings it shows 36 ft. In the one section it shows 30 ft., so he believes that was just a typo. In subsection (5) it deals with local retail uses and.he is suggesting that we make several changes that are consistent with what makes sense in terms of the results of the litigation and the directives from the court. His first concern is that they get into a description at the bottom about uses that are serving local and neighborhood needs. That is a very difficult thing to begin to document. They would be better off identifying uses that they find acceptable and those that are not, as opposed to getting into a discussion about what the service area of a particular use is. He suggested eliminating that languaae. Another significant concern was retail as only an ancillary use to the other uses. Criven the fact that they had the property zoned as a total office district and the court rejected that concept as unconstitutional, and if they are truly going to do mixed use, then it must be mixed. Retail is a use that has an equal status with the other uses. If they try to treat retail as only ancillary or secondary, they will find themselves in difficult straits. That doesn't mean that they can't put controls on it but he thinks if they define retail as ancillary it is a very vague situation. His suggestion is that they eliminate the reference to retail as ancillary and instead deal with the uses that are permitted and deal 2