PZ - April 17th 2014
Planning & Zoning Commission
Workshop Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2014
The Planning and Zoning Commission met in workshop session on Thurs, April 17, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center, Main Conference Room for a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Farmer presided.
Present: Mr. Jim Farmer (Chairman), Mr. Vetus Syracuse (Chairman ProTem), Mr. Garry Regan, and Mr. Paul Fikaris
Also Present: Ms. Diane Calta (Law Department), Mr. David Hartt (Planning Director), Mr. Ted Esborn (Economic Development Director), Mr. John Marrelli (Building Commissioner), and Ms. Deborah Garbo (Secretary)
Absent: Mr. Bill Marquardt, Dr. Sue McGrath, Mayor Rinker, Mr. Nick Delguyd (Council Alternate), and Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer)
- Zoning Code Amendments
Review Code Section “District Regulations”
Chairman Farmer called the meeting to order. This is a workshop meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. We have one item tonight regarding our zoning code amendments, particularly on District Regulations.
Review of District Regulations Hand Out Dated April 17, 2014
David Hartt begins. This is our first one of many meetings when we start to feed you revised sections of the code. The format and orientation of the sections are not fully developed, but we’re moving towards getting this in the format and structure of the new code.
We’ve highlighted in this document with big asterisks those sections that we think are the areas with the biggest policy issues. I’m going to give you a preview of why these areas were flagged and then open up for discussion.
We reviewed with you how we were going to structurally change the code, but never distributed a revised Table of Contents.
In the document you have, we’ve tracked changes from the existing code; we’ve struck out in red or we’ve underlined. But, if we relocated something and not changed it, we did not track that change. We just put it in another location. Otherwise, we’ll get blown away with tracked changes all over the place.
Table of Contents
TITLE FIVE – Zoning. We are dramatically expanding this section to include powers and duties and more elaborate procedures for virtually all the procedures i.e. development plan review, conditional use variances. Then we have the non-conforming section. We make sure we spell out what people are responsible for and what the procedures are.
TITLE SEVEN – Zoning District /Use Regulations. We essentially collapsed all the districts into three chapters.
Chap 1153: Districts Established. Classifications of Uses. This is kind of the introductory to the District Regulations.
Chap 1157: Residential Districts. We have all the Residential Districts collapsed in 1157.
Chap 1159: Planned Residential Development District. This more or less stays where it is. It has a format that’s relatively new, done within the last 10 years. But it’s not been changed to exactly correspond with the format that we’re applying for the 1157 and 1173 which is the collapsing of all the Business Districts in one chapter. We could modify the PRDD format, but not sure if it’s necessary to do that.
Ted Esborn said regarding the collapsing of the Business District, we had before three chapters on Business Districts; One chapter for Local/Business, One chapter for One Story Office, and then one covering Production/Distribution, Motorist/Service and Office/Lab. When I looked back at P & Z Minutes over the decades, it seems Local Business was the first commercial district in the Village. Next they added the north side of Wilson Mills, that’s the One Story Office. Then came the explosion of development on Beta Drive when the freeway went in and is when they added the other 3 districts. It was a little awkward and lopsided to have one chapter for one district, one chapter for another, and a third for these 3 districts encompassing most of the Village’s commercial land, so we collapsed those into one chapter for Business Districts.
David Hartt said as part of that collapsing, we did it with the Residential Districts and the Business Districts; trying to get all the regulations related to residential development in one section and all the regulations related to commercial development in one section. The exception to that is the signs and parking that still have their own separate Chapters. The reason we do that is because if you try to collapse all of that stuff, you’re repeating a dozen pages:
TITLE NINE – Regulations Applicable to All Districts
Chapter 1183 Off-Street Parking & Loading.
Chapter 1185 Signs.
TITLE ELEVEN – Environmental Regulations. We’ve taken all the Environmental Regulations, a lot of chapters, mostly new stuff. We don’t think they need a lot of changes. They’ll need some consistency changes to get the terminology correct. We put them all in one section because they previously were in the subdivision regulations and yet they apply for the most part to everything.
Districts Established; Classifications of Uses
1153.02 USE LIMITATIONS
David said there’s a provision here that says if I have a house that was built as a house and it all of a sudden happens to be zoned for another district, I can’t use it for that other use unless I change it so much it doesn’t look like a house anymore and it looks like a business.
My reaction is, if the public body changed that knowing that there was a house there and the re-use of the building meets all building code requirements, does the Village really care that it looks like a house? Example is Fisher’s Tavern or Pizzazz.
Do you really want to keep that provision?
Mr. Marrelli said 3 houses would jump on this and put in a Dentist Office, the 3 houses on SOM & Beta.
David Hartt said if that property ever got rezoned, it seems to me you’d be concerned about the impact. So if somebody was able to reuse the houses for business purposes, it would have a lot less impact in terms of traffic.
Mr. Regan uses the 3 SOM/Beta houses as an example. If the owners petition the Village and Electorate to rezone that commercial and the voters are willing to rezone that to commercial, whoever buys it should be able to do whatever they darn well please, should they want to use that house as a Dentist office.
David replied yes, if they meet building code. That’s the key thing. I don’t want to minimize the cost of using a house for business purposes, but it’s probably a lot cheaper than tearing it down and building a new commercial building of equal size. You’d have to sprinkle, you have exit issues, etc.
Mr. Regan asked if there’s any history as to why someone would make the statement that you have to change the building.
Ms. Calta replied somebody would probably argue that they’re grandfathered.
Mr. Fikaris asked about Dr. Eadie’s building on Seneca.
Mr. Marrelli said he’s a non-conforming use. There was a Dentist Office before we put our code into effect in the 60’s. He had to go to Planning Commission & Council to expand the modification. When you have a non-conforming use, you can’t make it bigger.
Ms. Calta thinking of an example where someone would want those houses to stay on SOM. Say it’s rezoned to commercial and they want to use that house for a Dentist Office (commercial use), but they don’t want to comply to the commercial code because it’s a residence.
Mr. Marrelli said then the Home Occupation Law kicks in. You can’t have it both ways. They’ll say it’s a house and come in for a sign in the front yard. Fisher’s Tavern has bedrooms upstairs that have been converted to file storage. If it’s a house, then it’s a house. If it’s a business, you can’t live in it.
David Hartt said that’s not what this says. It says I have to really really renovate that house so it doesn’t look like a house anymore.
“A building designed and occupied as a residence cannot be occupied in part or wholly for another use unless the building is redesigned to express the new function and reconstructed to the extent that it will fully accommodate the proposed use, and a lot occupied by a dwelling shall not be occupied by any other use permitted herein.”
Mr. Regan said the use and the conformance to the building code is more important than the appearance.
David Hartt said the irony of this statement is that you have recent commercial buildings built on Wilson Mills and Governors Village that were designed to look like houses. That’s the flip to this provision.
Ms. Calta said this is just “USE LIMITATIONS”. If you’re looking just within the residential classifications, is there a situation where part of it’s single family and part multi-family?
Mr. Marrelli doesn’t think so. I’m guessing when they wrote this, they were trying to keep the houses on main streets from being turned into businesses.
Ms. Calta said there’s a Dentist Office in Highland Hts. and they live there.
David Hartt said maybe we don’t eliminate this, but it gets modified two different ways. One is, if you start using it for commercial purposes, you can’t use it as a resident anymore. Second, if you’re changing the use of a building, regardless of what that is, you’ve got to make sure you meet all the building codes. David adds; “Unless specifically authorized”. Remember, the vision for the Town Center was mixed-use buildings.
(f) Schedule 1157.02 Permitted, Conditional & Accessory Uses
David refers to:
Group Residential. This is all new because of State & Federal Law, the courts have said you have to comply with these allowances. You have to allow an Adult Day Care Facility of less than 5 persons to be permitted in a residential district. Foster family home you have to permit. Residential facility for 6-8 persons (family home with disabilities) you have to permit. It gets iffy whether you have the authority as a municipality to consider those single facilities as a Conditional Use, recognizing that they have more people, they have more parking, and they need more buffering between themselves and adjacent properties. Therefore, it’s reasonable in my view to say they ought to be conditionally approved, go to Planning Commission for their site, not to deny them, but to make sure they’re managed correctly.
Ms. Calta said as they get bigger, the idea is it’s not a single family use anymore. Also, there’s different licensing requirements depending on the number of residents in the home.
David Hartt said I think we can skip over this now but we’ll have to get together and make sure we’re on the same page on this. I think it’s fair to say something close to this has to be added to the regulations.
Ted Esborn said before we move on, I want to make a point, because we’re getting into the actual District’s Chapters here. Each District Chapter is structured as such that first we talk about Permitted Uses then we talk about Regulations. We haven’t touched the Planned Residential Development Chapter that much because that was recently adopted. Chapters 1157 & 1153 especially is where we’re incorporating a lot of tables that the existing code doesn’t have. I’m glad we’re taking the District Regulations tonight because with the incorporation of all these tables, I think we’re going to be going back and revisiting and refining these tables. But that’s how each of these Chapters is structured.
Mr. Regan said I noticed on this list, you don’t have Oil/Gas Wells. I know it’s regulated by the State. I like things simple. If somebody reads this, they see it’s not listed, then it must not be permitted. I’m against this by the way, but I’m making a point.
Ms. Calta said there’s still an Oil/Gas Well section in here.
Mr. Regan said I know we have a section, but I thought we were condensing. Why isn’t it in the chart?
David Hartt said there’s a court case that’s supposed to be heard soon in Munroe Falls. They’re trying to take the zoning authority back.
Mr. Regan said we know that it’s been a contentious issue here as well.
David Hartt said we did an update in the city of Fairlawn the last few years. Obviously for the last 20 years or so, they like many communities, permitted gas & oil wells. We left the permission in there and put a note in to the affect that anything related to gas & oil wells and related facilities and site development that by chance or by changing the State rules falls out of the State prevue, we’re going to catch it. We’ll still grant the permit, but we’ll let the community decide how to buffer, etc within reason.
Ms. Calta said 1179.01 is the INTENT section of oil & gas wells. This might be the reason why we don’t list it as a permitted use in residential. It says:
“It is the intent of Village Council to ensure the safe operation of oil & gas wells and preserve the aesthetics and character of and within the Village. Toward that end, this Chapter has been adopted to supplement any State issued permits which authorize the drilling of any oil & gas well within the Village”. (Ord 2009-56).
Mr. Regan asked, what does that mean?
Ms. Calta said the State’s going to issue a permit and allow you to drill. We can’t tell you where to drill, when to drill, how to drill. You’ve got to comply with the State.
Mr. Regan said I would say it’s permitted and then reference 1179.01.
Ms. Calta said these are our codes that apply within our municipality. They’re not to be in conflict with the general laws of the State of Ohio. Oil & Gas is regulated by the State of Ohio. I consider it a general law. By allowing it in a residential district or any district within the Village, we’re not in conflict with that general law. I think it’s going to be controversial to be honest with you. By not putting it in there doesn’t mean that it’s not permitted. It just means that it’s governed by the general law of the State of Ohio.
Mr. Regan apologizes if he sounds argumentative, but it says under 1157.02 (e); “Any use not specifically listed as either a permitted principal or conditional use shall be a prohibited use in this zoning district and shall only be permitted upon amendment of this Code and/or the Zoning Map, or upon a finding that the use is substantially similar to uses otherwise permitted”. Why not or governed by State Law?
Ms. Calta said it’s a good point because I can’t think of others, but there probably are others.
Lot Requirements in Residential Districts
David Hartt said this is all the same regulations, just putting it in table format. The question is whether the Village wants to regulate in the Residential Districts maximum building coverage for the principal building and the accessory building or maximum coverage for the buildings and the hard surfaces. What has prompted this question is in communities with particularly smaller residential lots over the last 20 years or so, there’s been a lot more pressure to put bigger driveways, bigger patios, pools, cabanas. Some communities are saying we’ve lost the purpose of the softness and green we expected in these residential areas. We don’t want to regulate each component, but maybe regulate the maximum coverage so that we preserve some character that we want and some softness and some green that we expect. Your lots are ½ acre. Those are bigger, you might not feel that pressure. You might say if it isn’t broken don’t fix it. In some of the smaller lot communities, this is a big big issue.
Mr. Regan asked, do we say you must have a green buffer between properties?
David Hartt said that’s the side setback. The problem is we allow things in the rear yard. They can go fairly close to the rear property line. But we don’t regulate the same for a detached accessory structure or for a driveway, patios, pools, etc.
Ms. Calta thinks you have to put something in here that you can enforce easily. Or expand under the Accessory Uses.
David Hartt said you can go overboard on this too.
Mr. Marrelli agrees. I know places that are starting to regulate swing sets. How far do you want to go? Most of our houses have attached garages so we don’t run into the back yard parking which I’m grateful of because detached garages lend itself to paving the whole back yard. And we haven’t had anybody yet want to put in a 30 x 50 concrete basketball court in their backyard.
Mr. Syracuse asked, driveways where paving’s concerned, do we have any regulation on that now?
Mr. Marrelli said there’s a maximum width in our parking regulations.
David Hartt asked, can somebody put a pull-off parking area in front of the house next to the garage?
Mr. Marrelli replied we don’t regulate that.
Mr. Syracuse said that came up quite a bit in Mayfield Hts, especially on Ridgebury. They said they needed turnaround space. What it really was is they had kids who grew up and they wanted to park cars there.
Mr. Marrelli said you can’t police that. You end up with a parking lot in your front yard.
Ted Esborn wonders what the average Village residential lot coverage is. What’s a popular standard?
David Hartt said we’d have to do some calculations and look at aerial photos if you wanted to start to regulate this. In Shaker Hts, we allow 60% coverage of the rear yard.
Mr. Regan said I live in Kenwood. We have Deed Restrictions.
Mr. Marrelli said nobody enforces them so forget it. The Homeowners Association is supposed to be watching guard over that.
Mr. Syracuse said any kind of Deed Restriction would be by whoever created the Deed Restriction. The Homeowner’s Association that enforced that or put it in, it would come down to the Board of Directors for that Association.
Ms. Calta said sometimes those Homeowner’s Deed Restrictions are parallel. Speaking of oil/gas wells, there was talk about some of these Homeowner’s Associations putting in Deed Restrictions for the gas/oil wells as a way to circumvent.
David Hartt asked, can you have Deed Restrictions that go against State or Federal Law?
Ms. Calta replied, you can’t do something that would be discriminatory.
Revise Lot coverage, regulate maximum building coverage?
David Hartt said the question tonight is do you want us to look at adding something along these lines, or take the position that it’s not broken, let’s not overregulate the world.
Mr. Marrelli takes the position to deal with these things that go in the backyards, how many you can have and how big they can be.
David Hartt said if you try to regulate the size of everything, the impact to the community is how much coverage regardless of how I proportion it. I’d rather give the property owner the choice of how they want to use their allowance.
Mr. Marrelli said that means if you have a big property, you can go crazy back there. Right now if someone builds a deck and it’s off the ground they can’t be within 40’ of their rear line. Now, some of the lots that are 300’ deep, they can run that thing all the way out. I’ve dealt with the rules about; drive width, turnaround, patio size, putting curb on patio next to drive, etc. It gets so detailed and minute that to enforce these things you need 100 guys watching everything.
Ms. Calta feels with ½ acre lots, we’re not going to run into it quite as much. That’s not a legal opinion. But you’ve run into problems with too much stuff in backyards.
Mr. Regan said if you limit it to three things, somebody will put up a ferris wheel. I’d rather deal with the lot coverage. The old saying, a man’s home is his castle. Let him do what he wants.
David puts the accessory building issue into this thinking. Right now you regulate the size of an accessory building by the use. To me, the impact of an accessory building is the size of the building regardless of what legal use it’s used for. Secondly, if you approve a larger building because they’re telling you it’s going to be used for one of the uses for which the larger building is permissible, you have no way of monitoring or enforcing that in 20 – 30 years. I’d rather say we don’t care what you do with that building as long as it’s legal use. We really want to monitor the mass of that building and its impact on adjacent property.
Ms. Calta said not to bring up the past, but if you allow too much coverage, something like a pool house, something like a cottage would be illegal to occupy as a residence. It poses all sorts of safety concerns. But, how do we regulate that? There’s no way to be in somebody’s back yard 24/7 to see if they’re living in the pool house.
Mr. Regan suggests adding language as long as it doesn’t impact the zoning. I don’t think there’s any way to monitor what people are doing inside their homes, let alone inside their out buildings.
David Hartt said we don’t want to over regulate or over monitor what people can do. We want to regulate the maximum size of an accessory building with the presumption it’s going to be used for one of the accessory uses that’s listed, i.e. garage, tool house, pool house.
Mr. Marrelli said it’s written if it’s a tool shed, it’s 192 sq. ft. maximum. If it’s for tools and a vehicle, which would be a garage, then you add a driveway to store a vehicle it could be bigger because you can’t put a car in 192 sq. ft.
David said the problem is you’ve allowed a bigger accessory structure because somebody wants to put a vehicle in it. That’s an impact on the adjacent property owner. That’s now existing. The next owner comes in, retired folks, they don’t have the multiple cars and they use it as a big storage shed. In effect, they got licensed by saying they’re going to use it for one purpose. You can’t control that. Let’s just say you could have 2 accessory buildings. The total of the accessory buildings can’t be more than this number of square feet and one of those buildings can’t be more than this number square feet. Let’s say the two can be 550 but one of them can’t be more than 450, and the other can be 100.
Consensus: Hold changes for further discussion.
1157.07 ACCESSORY USES
David Hartt said a lot of codes say for residential you can have 25% building coverage. In most communities, regardless of lot size, the house never reaches that percentage. That’s not the issue. The issue is more with driveways, patios, and accessory buildings, the combined total.
Ms. Calta asked, is a patio considered an accessory structure?
David replied it could be if you’re concerned about the hard surface compared to the greenness and softness.
Ms. Calta thinks that has to do more with storm water.
Consensus: Hold changes for further discussion.
Permitted Accessory Structures in Front, Side & Rear Yards in Residential Districts
David Hartt said this section requires 3 parking spaces for a 2-bedroom apartment which conflicts with the parking district. Plus, it’s more spaces than the parking standard.
Ted Esborn notes there are no Two-Family areas on the map.
Mr. Marrelli said there’re a couple Two-Family houses, one on Wilson Mills that we know of next to the Deacon’s property, a non-conforming Two-Family, but no Two-Family District.
Consensus: Make consistent with the Parking Regulations.
FENCES; PERMIT; FEE
David Hartt said some of this language needs to be changed. Six feet is the max height and that’s o.k, but there’s a 25% openness requirement for board on board fences. I’ve got to believe that people have board on board fences in Mayfield Village that aren’t complying with that open space.
Mr. Marrelli said that’s so the wind can go through it without knocking it down. So far they’re complying.
David Hartt said the typical board on board is looking at it head on and it’s solid.
Mr. Marrelli said according to the manufacturer, they say that air space because of the staggering, gives you the 25% openings that you need. When there are big heavy winds, they’re not getting blown over.
David asked, are you o.k. with the 8’ height next to nonresidential? John said yes.
Mr. Marrelli states there is no good definition of where a side yard fence should stop in relation to the house.
David Hartt said unless you tell us otherwise, we typically say it stops at the front of the house.
Discussion ensued on the main building line, either front or back of house, a stopping point.
Mr. Marrelli suggests that get spelled out. So if your house is all the way in the backyard, and you have 20’ of usable rear yard, if you put a fence in, you can’t go past the house.
Consensus: Add language as to where a side yard fence stops in relation to the house.
1157.08 HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS
David Hartt said if you read this list of what’s permitted that we’ve crossed out and compare it with the regulations that you now have, some of them would and some wouldn’t comply. Main reason that some wouldn’t comply is because one of the provisions is that no physical storage, sale or transfer of goods is permitted from the premises. We have a problem because of; Crafts, Floral Arrangements, Gift Baskets. All of those things require delivery of something from the premises. By listing these uses, you’ve got a building conflict with the standard.
Mr. Marrelli thinks they wanted to say retail.
David said if somebody’s making pottery in their basement and going to sell them, they could sell them at retail.
Mr. Marrelli said they’re saying you can do retail if you do it by mail, phone or electronically.
David said this subject becomes a big discussion in every community we work in. The general notion now is to say we don’t really care what goes on in the house, what we do care is that it’s not causing any nuisance to the neighborhood. You’re really not going to monitor it, but if somebody complains, you have the standards to fall back on and say you’ve gone outside of bounds because what you’re doing is materially noticeable by your neighbor’s because of truck traffic, employees and commotion on a usual basis. You can’t say no trucks because any home can have a UPS or Federal Express truck. You can’t say no accumulation of cars because people have bridge and poker parties. You have to be careful to tie it to an abuse of an occupation and not just the normal fluctuations that flow with the house. We’re suggesting we get rid of the use list and we add to some of the standards.
Mr. Marrelli said if somebody makes an inquiry; can I do this in my house, and I go to the code and it’s not listed.
David Hartt replied that you say yes if you could operate it in a manner that’s consistent with this page here.
Mr. Regan said we know there are people who are very good bakers. They bake a birthday cake in their oven at home and you pick it up. My wife is a knitter with another woman. They go to yarn sales and buy all the yarns that’s available. That yarn’s stored in various places in my house. It’s for their own personal use, but eventually they take it, make something with it and might sell it. The bigger one is my wife runs an art program for Adults with Disabilities. We converted our basement into an art studio. Garry shows off his tied-dyed socks. They make tied-dyed socks in my basement. They don’t sell them there except incidentally when someone will say I saw you at a show, can I come over and pick up 8 pairs of socks? They make them there and then take them to a craft show.
David Hartt asked, how many people?
Mr. Regan said 10 Adults.
David Hartt asked, does your wife get compensated?
Mr. Regan said no.
David Hartt said that’s a volunteered service. That’s the problem with this home occupation thing because you have to be able to distinguish that what’s going on in the home for livelihood is so uniquely peaking at different times that it’s clearly unusual activity in a residential neighborhood. That’s hard to do.
Mr. Marrelli said unless you run into a situation where someone says there’s a full blown catering operation in somebody’s basement. That’s easy to track because as soon as you walk in, you see the commercial equipment.
David said the real problem with the home occupations has traditionally been Auto Repair, Landscaping & Lawn Mowing Services. That’s clearly equipment in the open, noise in the morning and the coming and goings.
Mr. Fikaris said my friend’s been in the insurance business for years and always had a company car. Now they’re shrouding the cars with graphics. I asked him how it impacts his home, parking it in his drive. He said they give them covers. It’s a rolling billboard. I think we’re going to see that more and more.
Discussion ensued on pros and cons of eliminating permitted home occupations list.
Mr. Regan said because of the rough economy there are a lot of people who have picked up that their abilities are marketable from home, whether it be from the internet. You mentioned eliminating:
(3) Sales. No physical storage, sale or transfer of goods is permitted from the premises.
If somebody paints, is a photographer or bakes cakes and somebody wants to buy one of their products, let them do it.
Mr. Marrelli thinks the permitted list is helpful because it gives people an idea of what you can do and frameworks anything that’s kind of like that. It defines how far they can go.
David Hartt said virtually every code we’ve done in the last 10 years, we’ve not been concerned about what it is, but concerned about how you do it.
Mr. Marrelli said but you can’t control how you do it.
David disagrees. You can. If they’re going outside these bounds, you’re going to know it because somebody’s going to complain.
Ms. Calta asked about section 1157.08 (b)(2) where it talks about the occupation is conducted wholly within the dwelling and any space used occupies no more than 300 sq. ft. of floor area, or…
Mr. Marrelli replies that only comes into play when I have to follow up on a complaint and I have to investigate.
Mr. Syracuse uses Landscape occupation for example of ‘storage of equipment section’. A landscaping company that starts to use all their landscaping equipment in their garage and now you can’t park your cars in the garage. You’re allowed to operate the company but you can’t use your accessory buildings for that purpose. You need to find storage somewhere else.
Mr. Marrelli said as stupid as this ordinance looks, it works.
Mr. Regan likes the idea of scratching the list and just saying how you must do it.
Mr. Marrelli disagrees. It has to be clear, more defined.
Ms. Calta said the question to answer is; “Can I do my lawyering, gift baskets and crafts within these requirements?”
Mr. Marrelli would like to maintain the list. I think it’s just a representative list of the types of businesses that you could do.
Ted Esborn understands John’s point.
David Hartt said the problem with home occupations, the more strict you are and the more definitive you are, the more people are going underground and violating the code.
Consensus: Maintain the list of Home Occupations Permitted.
1173.05 HEIGHT REGULATIONS
David Hartt said I’m not sure we’re going to resolve this now, but the question is what we do with the height of Accessory Structures in the Commercial District. There really aren’t a lot. We can say if they’re complying with the setback requirements for the Principal Building because it’s in the location of the Principal Structure. The height for the Principal Building is 35’. Is there a height limit now for an Accessory Structure?
Mr. Marrelli said we apply the 35’ to the secondary building as well.
Ted Esborn said there’s a provision that’s very general and says; no structure of any kind in any district over 35’. I think we need to think about the height of the Principal Buildings. Holiday Inn is talking about redeveloping. They asked about our height limit. I had to tell them it’s a height that’s significantly lower than their current building.
Mr. Marrelli said which they got probably through a variance.
Mr. Regan thinks we’d be opening ourselves if we change the height right now.
Mr. Marrelli concurs.
David Hartt said the only concern is if you want to be business friendly and the developer has choices and you put this hurdle in front of them that they have to get a variance, you’ve just put one more obstacle and give them one more reason to perhaps go to their other choice.
Ms. Calta said if you’re not on the freeway but you’re on Beta and you want to go above 35’, you’re tearing down a building. You’re redeveloping the whole site. That’s a pretty significant investment. They’re probably coming in for other approvals. The variance is just a small hurdle in the process.
Mr. Regan said this will not deter anybody with a big time dream.
Consensus: No change on 35’ height limitation for Principal Building.
1173.07 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
David Hartt said we’re going to add more definitive Landscape standards, i.e. buffering, screening, parking lots, and percentage of site that is ‘soft’.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.