07/30/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V incorporate restaurant into the section. Mr.. Smerigan said he liked Mr. Dubelko's suggestion -of restaurants with full kitchen facilities but excluding..." and the rest would remain the same. He said the term "full service restaurant" has been successful from what he has seen. The industry itself uses the term. -He said (F) would riow read "full service restaurants but excluding places with drive- in facilities, and anyplace providirig daricing or entertainment". Mr. Smerigan said the other change was under illumination, where they added "streets" and changed "control" to "prohibit". Mr. Koeth asked if they should include the.lot line issue in that section. They agreed to add that the plans are to indicate that it should be zero foot caridles at the lot line. Mr. O'Malley asked Mr. Smerigan if an office building there could include doctors, .and dentists, as they are not specif cally listed. . Mr. Smerigan in dicate d t ha t C hap ter 1141 c o v e r s t h a t. Mr. O'Malle y. said that one section tends to authorize the Planning Commission to add to uses that are similar in character. He asked if this would be more in line with the variances that go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Dubelko indicated the Planning Commission has the authority to permit similar uses. Mr. O'1Vlalley asked if they contemplated the possibility of parking garages on the site. He wondered if it would be encouraged or prohibited, Mr. Smerigan said there is nothing that prohibits it and depending upon the nature of the uses, some kind of enclosed' parking would be typical. He pointed out there is a location in Beachwood with underground parking associated with the office building. It is a standard operation. He added that they really can't have class A tenant space without some protective parking in this climate.. He anticipated there would be the likelihood for some structured parking, depending on the mixed uses. Mr. O'Malley mentioned that market forces will dictate that. Mr. Spalding asked if they can have all utility services underground. Mr. Smerigan, said they could make that a provision. Mr. Dubelko said that is presumirig it is not elsewhere in the zoning code. Mr. Deichmann said it is in the code for buildings but he,does not believe it.is required on a private street. Mr. Smerigan said they -can add section (K) that reads _"all utility service must be underground." He said with underground service there are some appurtenances that have to go above ground. Mr. Deichmann said he believes the existing ordinance on underground service to buildings has a reference to the above ground devices. : Mr. Koeth asked for,input fromMr. Dubelko. Mr: Dubelko suggested two motions be made. Mr. Hreha asked for -feedback from the law department: He wondered if they are comfortable with-this. Mr. Dubelko said when they looked at the lot in the 1980's, they were looking at a development proposal that the owner had and they created a zoning district that fit with what was being brought to the lot. It fell through and they were left with a district that has .caused everyone heartache and concern ,and trouble. Now they are approaching it,correctly and looking at this land and desigriing it. correctly and appropriately: It serves the. purposes of the city to have a development there and do something with the tax base. It serves the interest of the property owner, and proyides protection for the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Koeth said he likes the fact that they areusing a transition zone. ?He said if they hold true to that for -any development that wants to come in there, that is something they°have to take a look at. They are in fact stepping down and accommodating the transition into the residential area. Mr. Hreha asked if there was a precedent for transition zones. Mr. Koeth said if there isn't, he would like to be the first to do so. He said that goirig:forward if there are other areas in the city that want to go with this type of Mixed Use D, it is the transition that they should be concerned about. They are meeting the needs of the developer and meeting the concerns of the residents. He added that the residents come first when they consider the planning. Mr. .Dubelko mentioned they are giving equal dignity to the property owners. Mr. O'Malley said that he believes the section on access managemerit falls short of specifically compelling the submission of a traffic study with the developer paying for the study. it talks around the need for a traffic study. He thinks it should specifically say a developer is required to submit it. W. Smerigan said they can specifically request it, as it is a requirement. He indicated it is common in other communities for a developer to put up funds for a study. The city hires a traffic expert to do the study and therefore is comfortable in relying on the results of the study. It 7