07/30/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

consistent with the conversation at the last meeting. His preference is that the building slide forward on the property closer to the street. If it is more forward on the site, and encouraged to be forward in the development plan, a bigger buffer can be created. This is consistent with the fact that this is a transition district. What is on the south side of the road is the more intensive uses. Any structures closer to those more intensive uses can be pulled from the residential uses which are further to the north. Buildings will be allowed to be closer to Brookpark, but where it is adjacent to 1-2 family resident districts it must have the 75 ft. setback. The language about setbacks is written as if there is a plan. His suggestion is to have very specific setbacks that reinforce the transition nature of the district and create that separation from the residents. He does not think it would be appropriate for the adjoining property owners to look at a code section that says that when a developer comes in with his plan that the Commission might at its discretion reduce that setback. It would send the wrong message to the residential neighborhood. If they have a certain setback in place and it's in tact, the residents can count on the fact that it will, in fact, be the setback. The current regulation has no specific parking setback. Since they don't have a development plan they need to establish something because.the first set of setbacks were for structures. He suggested that off-street parking be 25 ft. from the street right of way, which is consistent with other districts. It has to be 50 ft. from residential property. This falls into the next section, which deals with residential buffers. He said they should have a larger building setback and a smaller but substantial parking setback. He is suggesting that those required yard areas that abut 1-2 family residence districts has to be improved with mounding, fencing, walls, hedges or other types of vegetative material to cr.eate some sort of visual screen or buffer. This is his answer to the fact that they don't have a plan that shows this. They are mandating that that 50 ft. becomes a,screened, buffered ar.ea. A standard is there that must be met since they don't liave a plan now. °This is important when it comes to protecting those adjacent residential properties and it allows the Commission and Council to do their due diligence in terms of making sure the use on this property does not adversely affect the residents. They are do'ing that by building in a buffer requirement where the city can review the accuracy of that buffer as part of the plan review process. Mr. Spalding asked about the addition of single family residence. Mr. Smerigan said his concern was they are pulling the orientation and focus of the district to the south, creating a ring and buffer around it. His concern was the separation between the uses within the district and those outside it and how this district relates to those around it. Within the district if there were single-family homes, there would be things that need to_ be done to protect that. There would be some self-interest in that and the neighbors don't enjoy that same self-interest. What they are doing is doing the city's job, which is providing protection for the adjoinina property owners and giving the developer the maximum flexibility to develop the property. Mr. Smerigan pointed out that the next section deals with height. The reason he changed the elderly housing height was simply to make it match what is in the elderly housing district. He didn't see a significant reason for treating it differently from the district that was set up for elderly housing. They created standards and it didn't make sense to have a different set of standards here. He added that the same thing happens in the density section where he simply went back to the densities that are regularly permitted and plugged them in. He suggested keep'ing the height and densities that are standard in our regulations already. Mr. Spalding mentioned a high rise apartment across the- street from the site. Mr. Lasko commented that building is not in the transition area. Mr. Smerigan indicated the south side of the street is the intensive use area. He said the apartment building is appropriate where it is across the street. He then added there is a step down to the transition area. He said he added a number of things in this section. He added a provision with regard to illumination. This is a municipal concern as light pollution is an issue. It is important that the lighting is done in such a way that they control the spillage across boundary lines. He said having big buffers helps in that regard. The light sources need to be shielded. He suggested that a lighting plan that shows fixtures, location, and lumen levels, be provided as part of the detailed development plan. Mr. Spalding pointed out that they 4