PZ - October 17th 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission
Workshop Meeting Minutes
Oct 17, 2013
The Planning and Zoning Commission met in workshop session on Thurs, October 17, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room for a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Pro Tem Regan presided.
Present: Mr. Garry Regan (Chairman ProTem), Mr. Bill Marquardt, Dr. Sue McGrath, Mr. Paul Fikaris, and Mr. Vetus Syracuse
Also Present: Mr. David Hartt (Planning Director), Mr. Ted Esborn (Economic Development Director), Mr. John Marrelli (Building Commissioner), and Ms. Deborah Garbo (Secretary)
Absent: Mr. Jim Farmer (Chairman), Mayor Rinker, Mr. Nick Delguyd (Council Alternate), Ms. Diane Calta (Law Department), and Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer)
1. Zoning Code Amendments
Beta Drive Business District
Planning Dept Outline Modifications (Initial Outline 4/18/13)
Chairman ProTem Regan called the meeting to order. This is a workshop of the Mayfield Village Planning and Zoning Commission. We won’t be taking any votes. Chairman Farmer’s at a business function tonight. Ted & David, it’s your show.
Ted Esborn states I’m anxious to hear your feedback & discussion on the Aug 12th document.
David Hartt passes out a one page sheet; Zoning Code Amendments Summary of “Where We Are” dated Oct 17, 2013.
Dr. McGrath said in jest, I’m offended that you think we wouldn’t remember every step to this point.
Draft of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
August 12, 2013
David begins. We’ve been back and forth wrestling with this notion of amending the zoning code for a while. We had a formal discussion in April and identified these things we ought to look at:
- Considering limited modifications to the permitted use list.
- Permitting conditional uses for related retail.
- List each of the conditional uses. (I’m using conditional uses/special uses interchangeably. We’ll have to decide what term we want to use).
- Change the guidelines for the review criteria for special/conditional uses outside the code.
At the June meeting we gave you a cut of how we’re going to do that. We’re doing it within the structure of the existing code. As a result of that discussion, two additional things were added to the charge:
- Use tables instead of the narrative.
- Get rid of the Classes of Uses which were overlapping and conflicting with the general use list.
The document you have before you is a draft of doing all those things.
At this point, we need to make sure we’re on the path you want us to go on. If this direction is acceptable to this group, there are still other consistency changes we’d need to make in other sections of the code to jive with this:
- To Chapters 1149, Sections 1157.07 & 1157.08 to eliminate all the references to the “Classes of Uses”.
- To modify Section references that may have changed (needs to be checked) as a result of the proposed amendments.
- To establish standards and criteria for additional conditional uses.
When we went from the narrative to the tables, Ted & I picked up a whole lot of additional uses that we think are appropriate, and we deleted from each of the Use Districts. There was a broad range of things that were in there. So you’ll see lots of lines crossed out.
We made the first cut of making some broader wholesale changes to the range of uses that are permitted in each district. I think having these in table form helps us understand more clearly what is actually in the district.
Attachment 1 (Tracked Changes)
Draft of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
August 15th, 2013
Amendment 1 – Amend Chapter 1153 to delete the “Classes of Uses” that are redundant or unrelated to the range of uses that are permitted in each of the standard zoning districts. Any uses in “these classes” that continue to be appropriate are specifically added to the proposed use tables.
1153.01 DISTRICT AND ZONE MAP
Class A-1, Class A-2 and Class A-3 are o.k. to stay because they’re dealing not with the ‘use’ classes but with ‘area’ classes. This is part of the confusion with dealing with the code.
Mr. Marrelli suggests deleting U-2 Two-Family House Districts. I don’t know that there is one anywhere.
1153.02 CLASSIFICATION OF USES
David said this is deleting all the prose material related to the permitted uses and then recreating what we deleted in the establishment of the use tables for the 1157.01 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
David will take out the Two-Family House Districts in this table (pg 8).
We have an introductory to the table that explains what the “P”, “S” & “A” is and what this means if you’re not on the table. This is trying to minimize changes but still trying to put these tables within the structure of the existing chapters in the code.
Ted said this is why the three commercial districts; Motorist/Service, Office/Lab and Production/Distribution are in one table, because they were all in one chapter.
David said and also why the Local Business and Small Office District are in two separate tables.
Conditional vs Special Definition
Mr. Marquardt said I’d like to get a definition of conditional and special uses. What is the difference? Why were they separated in the past?
David wants to use just one term.
Mr. Marrelli said in our zoning code there is a list of uses that are considered special. Somewhere along the line, the conditional use became anything that wasn’t ever mentioned that the Board felt was close to uses already in that district.
Mr. Marquardt said it was supposed to be for a short period of time. From what I recall, the intent was for example; if the circus came to town, you had a conditional use for that operation for a period of time.
David said my view is you can use either special or conditional use for those things that aren’t permitted by right. Whichever term you use is o.k. Then you could say for those temporary uses of short duration i.e. a circus would be processed pursuant to the conditional use or special use procedures, but we call them ‘temporary uses’ so we’re not confusing them with those things that are of long term. The way this is written, the uses that aren’t in the schedule are either prohibited or they are determined to be similar uses as Planning Commission views them as substantially similar to a use that’s otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted even though it’s not listed. That’s tightening up hopefully more clearly what the role is for a use that’s not otherwise listed.
Mr. Marrelli asked David if he expanded the list of permitted uses to encompass some of the uses that we’ve done on a conditional use permit.
David replied yes.
Mr. Marquardt said all these statements of ‘substantially similar’ don’t say by whose finding.
David said that gets into another body of amendments we ought to consider. We tried to shy away from doing more than we had to, but it’s getting broader, and that is whether we look at and clarify some of the procedures that are not set forth for both uses that are permitted by right and similar uses and conditional uses so there’s better guidance. That’s a different level, but I’m o.k. with that, it just wasn’t part of the charge.
Mr. Marrelli said I was making those calls as the Zoning Administrator. It was sometimes an uncomfortable situation making that call.
Mr. Marquardt said it’s not clear with the wording that’s in there now being proposed.
David said under 1157.01 (e) Use not Listed in Schedule; I was assuming the role under (e) was the responsibility of the Planning Commission. You’d make that judgment.
Mr. Marquardt thinks something has to spell that out.
Mr. Marquardt moving on wants to know why (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) & (f) wording beginning on pg 7 is repeated for every section.
Ted replied because we’re trying to stay in the chapters.
Mr. Marrelli suggested using a key, a definition section that would apply to all districts.
David said we’ll keep the table in each chapter but put a smaller preamble that says; the designations in the table are pursuant to this, and we list it once.
Chairman ProTem Regan prefers having the letters of explanation repeated in each chapter. It has to be clear to somebody coming in with interest in any particular District.
Mr. Marquardt said but you don’t have to write (a) – (f) each time. Just reference it.
Chairman ProTem Regan wants it to be clear.
David’s got the picture re redundancy. I’ll clean it up.
Continuing on Page 7; Mr. Marrelli asked who decides what clearly incidental and subordinate is:
(c) Accessory Uses. A use that is clearly incidental and subordinate to a use listed in Schedule 1157.01 shall be permitted provided that the requirements of all other Village ordinances and this Code have been met.
Ted replied the Building Commissioner is the Zoning Officer.
David said we’re so torn between do we try to minimize the changes or do it right. Here’s a case if you do it right, we should be adding here the Village’s current interpretation of what constitutes an accessory use that’s appropriate that’s incidental and subordinate i.e. fences, swimming pools, tool sheds. We can list those here.
Dr. McGrath asked if we’d be re-writing the law by doing this.
Mr. Marrelli replied no. We’d be explaining what’s already happening.
David said anytime we’re adding or deleting, we’re changing the law.
Dr. McGrath asked if that’s o.k.
David said yes. This becomes an ordinance.
Dr. McGrath said I’d much rather do this now in general terms rather than when somebody is standing outside the door asking for a permit and we’re holding him back until we re-write this. We don’t want to do it that way. We want to do this proactively.
David will add in (c) the accessory uses that we think are typical in the Village.
1157.02 ACCESSORY USES
David said we’ve made no changes to the accessory use regulation. But now what I’m hearing is maybe these have to be looked at as well.
Back to Conditional vs Special Terminology
Chairman ProTem Regan asked which one we decided to use.
David replied I’ll use the term you want me to. I don’t want to use both. I’ll use one of those terms for those things that are what we call special or conditional that require different standards and different oversight from a permitted use. Then we’re going to use the term ‘similar’ use. Then it’s a ‘temporary’ use that requires conditional or special approval. What are you comfortable with, conditional or special?
Mr. Marrelli asked David if he absorbed the special permit section into the conditional use section. There’s a whole laundry list of special uses.
Ted said we’re talking about getting rid of those classifications in 1153.02 CLASSIFICATION OF USES.
Mr. Marrelli asked, how do you do that when they exist in your town already?
Ted said the U-5 & U-6 are our special permit uses. U-5 is for commercial. U-6 is for any district. This goes back to the original zoning code, listing out these uses that are out of the ordinary.
Mr. Marrelli said we can’t just ignore that they’re there.
Ted said when these U-5 and U-6 uses were put into the code, the enforcement section of the zoning code talked a lot more about the authority to grant these. Now the enforcement section talks more about conditional uses.
Mr. Marrelli said in other words, if the Illuminating Co. came in and said they’re buying the lot on the corner of Highland & SOM and they want to put a Utility Station there. They wouldn’t come in for a special use permit. They wouldn’t be a U-5 use any longer, they’d be conditional.
Ted said or could they still argue that it is a U-5.
Mr. Marrelli said that’s the question. It can’t be both.
David said regardless of what it’s been called before, we’re going to call it either conditional or special and it’s subject to oversight by you guys because it’s got unique impact and location and characteristics compared to what is permitted as a matter of right. So you can manage the scale, the size and the landscaping.
Mr. Marrelli said but the Utility Substation is in the tables. Ted apologized, you’re right, they’re in the table. John said make sure that doesn’t get lost.
Ted said as we make these changes, there are other sections that need to get cleaned up. Section 1149 is the enforcement chapter. It’s speaks to special use permits. It talks about this body’s authority to grant special permits for U-5 uses and U-6 uses. I think that goes away because we’ve got them listed as special uses in the table. Right now the special use authority is the links to those classifications.
David suggested we use ‘special’ use terminology rather than ‘conditional’.
Mr. Marquardt’s not convinced there’s a difference between them.
David asked, if we define it so there isn’t a difference, does it make any difference which term?
Mr. Marquardt said I’d like to know what the definition is. I’d like to get a clear understanding of what the differences are now and then determine which one we use or if we continue to use one.
Ted feels that John hit on it. Special use permits have traditionally been those that relate to one of those listed uses in U-5 or U-6. Conditional uses are not listed because they don’t fall into any category.
Mr. Marrelli agrees. It’s like if it’s not listed in the special use table and it’s not in the prohibited use section and it’s not in small office district as a permitted use or prohibited use, where does it go and how do you deal with it?
Mr. Marquardt asked, or do you deal with it?
David said there’s always the risk of having the permitted use list and a prohibited use list. The zoning tradition is that if we don’t say you can do it, you can’t. Therefore if it’s not listed you can’t do it unless you get a determination under some authority, otherwise it’s a permitted use. The problem with adding a prohibited use list is then you have a problem if it doesn’t fall on each list then you have doubt as to whether it’s a permitted use or a prohibited use because you’ve opened the doubt by having the prohibited use for this. Some communities want to have a prohibited use list for those awful egregious things like landfills, slaughter houses and junk yards. Anytime you put that list together, you run into problems if you don’t fall on either list. I’d like to get away without having a prohibited use list.
Mr. Marrelli said historically if it wasn’t in either list then it became in that gray area we call special or conditional use.
David said that’s what I’d like to try to avoid and say we’re going to list permitted uses, list special uses and then we’re going to give you a similar use authority, but that’s a very very narrower judgment than this broad; I have to consider anything that’s not on the list.
Chairman Pro Tem Regan said with all due respect Bill for years and to your credit, you’ve brought this up when we’ve dealt with these.
Mr. Marquardt said we’ve expanded conditional use to any darn thing that you want to consider which I think is not the intent of what’s in the code. It’s my feeling we’ve been essentially rezoning things at will.
Chairman ProTem Regan thinks this exercise goes a long way to clarify it. It gives any of us pause or opportunity to say; don’t bring this, it doesn’t fit.
Mr. Marrelli said I thought the direction was to expand the uses of the Commercial Districts.
David said yes and we have. Let’s move on.
Amendment 2 – Amend Chapter 1157 to amend the Permitted and Special Permit Uses for the Residential Districts and convert the uses lists to Tables.
1157.01 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Page 8; Table
David refers to the Use table. We’re going to take out Two Family House.
Mr. Marrelli asked what ‘truck gardening’ is.
David said before we get to that, we didn’t cross out, but I get a little concerned here, we didn’t cross out any municipal use, the notion that municipalities have more rights than private person. But this is saying that a municipal use from another community can come in and put in a service yard. This is saying Willoughby Hills could come in and put a service yard in Mayfield Village and circumvent the zoning. That’s the danger of being so broad about municipal uses because you’re talking about ownership you’re really not regulating uses.
Mr. Marrelli asked why we wouldn’t specify that it would only be the municipal use of the governing body.
David said I suppose you could but then do you really want to have the authority to put anything you want anywhere compared to the private sector?
Mr. Marrelli asked, otherwise how would we be putting this trail in all through these commercial and residential districts?
David said because you could list the appropriate uses regardless of whether they’re put in by you the parks or the County.
Mr. Marrelli said we’ve got our Service Garage and our Police Station in a Residential District.
David asked, do we want to change; “Any Municipal Use” to “Municipal Use of Mayfield Village”.
Mr. Marrelli suggests change to “Municipal Use of Mayfield Village”.
Chairman ProTem Regan said John mentioned truck gardening, but we need to talk about farming too. Are you aloud to run a farming business on your lot?
Mr. Marrelli said that’s one of the uses that’s been here since the 60’s that we’ve never dealt with.
Mr. Fikaris thinks truck gardening is bringing the stuff in from another location.
Mr. Marquardt said no. It’s growing and selling it at the same location.
- Gas wells
- Farming, Nursery, & Truck Gardening
Chairman ProTem Regan noticed gas wells on one of the other tables. Your comment is that if it’s not in here it’s prohibited. It can’t be prohibited, we have no say. Do we need a statement in this residential section that the State / Federal Law supersedes this?
David explained that it’s been relatively recent since the State pre-empted local zoning authority for gas wells. In Fairlawn, we put gas wells as a special use and a note saying; just in case the State rules change, we want the authority to regulate anything that falls through the crack because it’s State Law that they don’t address.
Chairman ProTem doesn’t want to dwell on this because it’s close to him, but the media has adopted this word they think is new ‘fracking’. It’s a very old word. That may be one of those cracks. You can drill a gas well in Mayfield but you can’t frack one here. This is prejudice on my part, I don’t like gas wells in residential neighborhoods. But the State & Feds are now debating about fracking.
Mr. Marrelli suggests a note in the enforcement section; If it’s something normally licensed by the State or Feds and becomes something that’s no longer licensed or enforced, then it would become a conditional use permit and the Planning Commission would address it. That’s like agriculture too, if somebody wants to build a huge farm and grow tomato plants, he goes to the Feds and gets an agriculture permit and we have no say so.
Mr. Marrelli thought the Feds superseded us on agriculture.
David doesn’t think so. You’re a Home Rule Municipality. You have the authority. I don’t think the Feds supersedes, it would be the State. If you’re a Charter community, you can regulate. We’d have to talk to Diane about this. I think we ought to list it now with a caveat.
Chairman ProTem notes it needs to state Gas & Oil Well, not just Gas Well.
Mr. Fikaris questions last item on the list, Water Tower. Is there something to control that? What are the specs I’d have to abide by, height & setback regulations?
David isn’t thinking private Water Tower. I’m thinking Cleveland Water.
Mr. Marrelli likes the fact that we’re going to be able to grant a conditional use permit through a vetting process vs it’s in the books so it could go anywhere.
David asked if the Village has problems now with ‘farming’.
Mr. Marrelli said no.
David said if you take it out, it’s prohibited. If people go overboard in terms of what they’re doing then the test would be if they’ve gone beyond what is normal growing in a residential area.
Chairman ProTem suggests leaving just the word ‘gardening’.
David suggests ‘gardening’ as an accessory use. Then the burden is if they’re going too far, you have to judge whether they’ve exceeded the accelerated authority.
Mr. Marrelli notes we had a resident in the Upper Forties who had a tree nursery on his property licensed by the government.
Mr. Fikaris asked if ‘farming’ could be interpreted as something other than agriculture. I hear it’s getting really popular.
Mr. Marrelli said chickens are getting really popular. They’re considered domesticated animals, like dogs & cats. We have a resident on SOM with a chicken coop.
Dr. McGrath said the chickens and urban farming’s a big thing in Cleveland Hts.
David agreed. The things that weren’t typically on residential properties now are. John, are you seeing any increases of this in the Village.
Mr. Marrelli replied no.
Chairman ProTem states Chicken Coops are very dangerous stuff. It carries all sorts of disease.
David said we need standards to say the percentage of the site used for ‘farming’ can’t exceed this, it’s got to be set back from the adjacent property line by this. The question is, are there lots big enough where we think this could be a problem?
Mr. Marrelli said yes.
David said we have to distinguish between ‘farming’ and ‘gardening’. I prefer you have thought through if it’s a conditional use, what is it that would make it acceptable? You’ve said by putting it on this list, that under certain circumstances we will allow. The burden on the Village is to say o.k., what are those circumstances when this would be acceptable. If you can’t come up with those circumstances, then don’t put it in there.
Chairman ProTem replied in a residential area it’s smells or it’s an infringement on the rights of your neighbors.
David asked, is infringement the distance from a property line, is it maximum size, is it the type of animals?
Chairman ProTem said our goal would be to say you can’t farm here. If you make it so broad to say it’s going to be an infringement, the hours of operation, the smells, the noises, the machinery, the danger of the animals.
Mr. Marquardt asked, if I’m growing tomato plants in my backyard is that a farm or a garden?
Chairman ProTem said a garden.
Mr. Marquardt asked, where’s the limits?
Mr. Marrelli said there’s another section in the code that talks about Home Occupation. It talks about permitted occupations out of your house, i.e. it doesn’t bring in traffic, no signs in the front yard, no retail sales, can’t hire people to come to your house. We can apply that Home Occupation standard to the ‘farming’ and/or ‘gardening’.
Chairman ProTem said if you want to grow tomatoes, put them in your pickup truck and take them to the Shaker Square Farmer’s Market and sell them, go ahead.
David asked about chickens.
Mr. Syracuse said look at gardening as an accessory use, it’s really just growing plants. If you take out farming altogether, gardening doesn’t include raising animals. We’ll make that a conditional use because it’s not listed. You don’t want a garden getting out of hand, turning an entire front yard into a garden, but that would fall under the Building Code as a nuisance condition. Get rid of ‘farming’ ‘nursery’ & ‘truck gardening’ altogether and list ‘gardening’ under accessory use.
Chairman ProTem said or just leave gardening as ‘P’ (permitted). If you want to make the provision for the other things, put them as accessory uses.
David said let’s move on to the Use list for Local Business District.
Amendment 3 – Amend Section 1165.03 to amend the Permitted and Special Permit Uses for the Local Business District and convert the uses lists to Tables.
1165.03 PERMITTED USES
Page 11; Table
David said in here we’re taking quite a few things out; Cemetery, Crematory, Golf Course, Greenhouse, Incinerator, Refuse Dump, Sewage Disposal Plant.
Mr. Marquardt asked what was added.
David replied nothing.
Mr. Marrelli asked, have you done a glance around town to see if there’s anything out there that isn’t listed in here that we already have?
Ted did a survey of all of Beta and listed out their uses.
Mr. Marrelli asked about retail stores.
David said the way this was written, we didn’t have that category of retail, you listed all the types of retail, i.e. clothing store. In a lot of zoning they’re just going to retail and then regulating outdoor storage, drive-thru’s, etc. If they’re selling a product and if it’s on the site that meets the zoning, whether they’re drawing from a long distance or little distance doesn’t really impact. Local business has changed. Local Business District initially used to have the small stores that served the neighborhood, i.e. grocery store, convenient store, cleaners, drug store, all little small neighborhood businesses. It’s ironic now because the local businesses are the big stores, the pharmacies, grocery stores. If you look at this list, we deleted the obvious, but there’s still auto repair, repair shop. The question is, should we put more stuff in? Should we be general about it? Should we be taking more stuff out? Remember, this list is for only about three properties in the Village.
Chairman ProTem said if we don’t list them, things like The Backyard Nature Co., Spirit of Clay & The Perfect Gift aren’t covered. Should we not have a catch-all of retail?
Ted said we do. We have retail sales broken out as you see there. Then there’s another provision that says any other retail neighborhood store, shop or service not listed above. It states that later on in the permitted use for this district. I wasn’t sure how to put that in this table. In any chapter you’ll see listing out of specific uses and later in the chapter you’ll see a catch-all.
David recommends using the term ‘retail’. We’ll simplify this by using some examples such as. Then make sure the district regulations are either regulating or not permitting those things like outdoor storage, drive-thru’s or things for which a car is being used differently than just parking on site.
Mr. Syracuse notes Auto Repair (major) & Auto Repair (minor) on the list. I think to elaborate, we should include what was scratched out on Pg 12 (D); Automotive services limited to lubrication and minor repair to tires, batteries, ignition and cooling system………..
David said even with that language, this would permit Midas Muffler, Conrad Tires, Jiffy Lube Stop.
Discussion ensued whether to take out major & minor and make it a Special Use.
Consensus is to put (D) language in and change from P to S.
Mr. Fikaris said Dry-cleaning is P and Laundry/Dry-cleaning is S. Which one is it?
David said that’s the way it reads now.
Mr. Syracuse asked if our BZA has the authority to grant Use Variances.
Mr. Marrelli said no.
Mr. Syracuse said Mayfield Hts is the opposite. I was on the BZA there. We would grant Use Variances but then we would run into a problem because we didn’t want it to run with the land. But we didn’t have the authority to permit conditional uses. We granted the Use Variance but had a restrictive covenant preventing it from going beyond that current tenant.
Mr. Marrelli commented that is how our conditional use permits work, it goes with the business. When that business leaves, that permit is gone.
Mr. Syracuse asked, so anything listed with an S in the tables will come through us? And we renew those every 2 years?
Mr. Marrelli replied correct. If we have no issues with them, they get renewed. That’s basically the Use Variance. To Bill’s point, we’re just granting variances all over.
Mr. Syracuse said but they’re temporary.
Mr. Marquardt said temporary for eternity.
Mr. Marrelli said if that use starts to morph into something else that becomes obtrusive to the people in the area, they can bring it to my attention. I have the authority to bring it back to the Planning Commission and say; conditions have changed and this needs to be looked at again.
Amendment 4 – Amend Section 1169.03 to amend the Permitted and Special Permit Uses for the Small Office Building District and convert the uses lists to Tables.
1169.03 USES PERMITTED
Page 14; Table
Ted said this is north of Wilson Mills and west of SOM.
David questioned, “Do you need this District”? You have an Office District already.
Mr. Marrelli asked what’s particular about this, compared to Office/Lab.
David said you have an O/L District but what could happen there is going to be more difficult to regulate the size of the property. There was a laboratory along Wilson Mills Rd. that was in a 4,000 sq ft building.
Ted said right now anything permitted in O/L is permitted in P/D. Everything’s pretty much medical on that north side of Wilson Mills.
Mr. Marrelli said medical might have been the dividing point in the past. We’re doing medical everywhere now so you might not need this second One-Story Office District. If there are no longer any differences, there’s no sense having the two Districts.
Mr. Marquardt asked if that would require a zoning change. If so, I have no objection.
Mr. Marrelli said it probably would. We’d have to make the case that it doesn’t change anything and that it just takes a District off the map.
Mr. Marquardt said you could make the case that medical is growing in the area.
Chairman ProTem asked how D.O. Summers got in.
Mr. Marrelli replied they’re a conditional use. Man’s Hair is on a conditional use as well. We still don’t know how the Veterinary Clinic got in.
Mr. Marquardt said it was deemed to be better than a gas station that was in there.
Chairman ProTem asked, if Austin sells, how would another restaurant come in?
Mr. Marrelli thinks Austin’s is non-conforming, not a special use.
Ted said that was Mr. Steak who went in under a special use. It seems like that District got created by a one by one property.
David raises a question. You’ve got D.O. Summers, Austin’s, the Veterinary. Shouldn’t this frontage be the Local Business District which permits offices versus the Office/Lab District?
Chairman ProTem said then it becomes a permanent opportunity for somebody to maintain a restaurant.
David said another problem with the two years is if a business likes Austin’s is really trying to sell, the question is, is the two-year rights an impediment to the sale?
Mr. Marrelli states another option; adding restaurants to the Small Office District as a permitted use.
David said we’re adding restaurants to the Office/Lab District anyway. I recommend getting rid of the One-Story Office District. Assume this is going to be the Office/Lab District and recognizing we’re doing some changes to the Office/Lab District.
Mr. Marrelli said based on the theory that the difference between Office/Lab and Small Office was medical.
David, referring to the list states the only two outliers are Community Centers and Funeral Homes which would not be permitted if we apply to the Office/lab.
David asked for a consensus to proceed.
Mr. Marquardt suggests taking another cut at this.
Amendment 5 – Amend Section 1173.03 to amend the Permitted and Special Permit Uses for the Motorist Service, Office Laboratory, and Production Distribution District and convert the uses lists to Tables.
1173.03 PERMITTED USES
Pages 16 & 17; Table
Ted said we’ve added to this list the conditional use permits that have been granted over the last 5 or 6 years such as Occupational Training (Koinonia Homes).
Mr. Marrelli said Assisted Living is on the list. Would Nursing Home be considered the same?
David replied probably not.
Mr. Marrelli advised deleting Employee Lunchrooms under accessory use.
Ted agreed. The accessory uses in this list were sort of strange, i.e. Off Street Parking
Dr. McGrath said you have Restaurant listed only under Motorist Service and it’s only as an accessory to a Motel.
David clarifies it’s also listed as a special use in the Production Distribution column.
Dr. McGrath asked, do we also want it as a special use in the Office/Lab?
Mr. Marrelli wouldn’t make it a special use in either one.
David agrees because we have very specific standards for restaurants on Pg 21 (a) Restaurants are permitted as a main use in the Office-Laboratory and Production Distribution Districts in compliance with the following:
- Have a maximum floor area of 4,000 square feet.
- Are located within a building so the restaurant does not comprise more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the first floor area.
- No drive-up or drive-thru windows are permitted.
David explains this is trying to say that we want the restaurants, we want the supporting facilities, but we don’t want a stand alone restaurant. This could work in an office building. The concept is we expand the flexibility but limit it so it doesn’t become restaurant row. We need to add the P to the O/L & P/D columns.
Chairman Pro-Tem Regan suggested continuing the rest of our Draft discussion at the next workshop in November.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.