Laserfiche WebLink
The proposed regulations list speci�c standards for minimum area, buildings per lot and height <br /> and setback regulations. The I-OL District allows more than one building per lot for institutional <br /> development. Note that buildings adjacent to existing residential property must be set back a <br /> minimum of 40 feet. An institutional building may be as high as seven stories and 75 feet. <br /> One of the major changes regards signage. There are three sign categories: identification signs <br /> identifying the entire institutional campus; individual building signs; and way finding signs. <br /> Way �nding signs are a necessary element for directing the public to sites and services upon the <br /> institutional campus; however, Section XXV(the Signage Regulations)do not address these <br /> unique signs. The I-OL District permits such signs subject to certain requirements. <br /> Mr. Van Steenhuyse explained that Subparagraph 11 sets the parameters for City review of site <br /> plans for institutional development within the I-OL District. This subparagraph is intended to <br /> allow for most development within the overlay district to occur without further City review. As <br /> long as an expansion project meets the parameters listed, the development does not have to be <br /> reviewed by the Plan Commission and City Council. A project must be at least one acre in area, <br /> must be contiguous to, and therefore a natural extension of, the institutional cam us, and the <br /> P <br /> property must not surround a one or two famil residence on more than two sides. If a <br /> Y <br /> development project does not meet these requirements, the site plan must be reviewed by the <br /> Plan Commission and the City Council in the same manner that planned developments are <br /> reviewed. <br /> Finally, Mr. Van Steenhuyse noted that variances to the I-OL District requirements must be <br /> reviewed by the Plan Commission and City Council rather than by the Board of Appeals. This is <br /> because the I-OL District, by nature, already grants exceptions to the Ordinance standards. If the <br /> institution needs further exception from these regulations, it should be reviewed by the Plan <br /> Commission and City Council. <br /> Mr. Van Steenhuyse concluded by stating that staff recommends that the amendments to Section <br /> XX, creating the Institutional Overlay District,be approved. <br /> Concern was expressed by various Commission members regarding devaluation of properties <br /> adjacent to institutions. Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that if the proposed changes were adopted by <br /> City Council, institutions would have to show staff and the Commission their expansion <br /> boundaries. To have that information would be good for the neighborhoods. There would be <br /> heavy landscaping to protect individual property owners. <br /> Mr. John stated that although there are concerns the proposal is a very good idea for the campus <br /> and areas outside the campus although it seems to be stacked in favor of the institutions and <br /> against individual property owners. The result could be that the properties would be hard to sell <br /> to anyone except the institution and lenders would not make loans for roofs, etc. Mr. Van <br /> Steenhuyse stated that these situations could be occurring even now but the proposed district <br /> would allow us to know plans for the future and the scope of expansions. One major advantage <br /> is the removal of uncertainty and the constant revision to Planned Unit Developments. <br /> Mr. John asked if planning literature had been reviewed regarding districts such as these that <br /> were crafted and used over time to balance the institution and neighborhood issues to achieve <br /> orderly development. Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that there was research completed and most ' <br /> districts referenced the imposition of additional restrictions which was not iiiended here. Mr. I <br />