CITY OF MAYFIELD HEIGHTS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES
November 23, 2009
The Committee of the Whole was called to order at 6:05 P.M. by Council President Michael Ballistrea.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Michael Ballistrea, Mr. Anthony DiCicco, Mrs. Donna Finney,
Mr. Ronald Kobunski, Mr. Sam Mercurio, Mr. David Sasak
(arrived 6:15 P.M.), Mrs. Diane Snider.
ABSENT: None.
Also present were Mayor Gregory Costabile, Law Director Leonard Carr, Director of Finance/Clerk of Council Robert Tribby and Deputy Clerk of Council Lisa Benedetti.
In the audience was Planning Commission members David Zimmerman, David Dugovics and Jack Gallucci, David Hartt, the City's planning consultant, and Director of Building Tom Jamieson.
Mr. Ballistrea stated the reason for the meeting was to discuss the proposed mixed use district, which had already gone through three readings and a public hearing. Since there were questions and concerns, this meeting was scheduled. Planning Commission members and David Hartt were invited to attend. Mr. Ballistrea did not receive any questions from Council prior to the meeting.
Mr. Mercurio asked Mr. Hartt to state the positive factors of this type of district and any possible negative effects.
Mr. Hartt explained that it is structured as a new zoning district, so it is another tool for the City to use. The primary purpose was to help facilitate redevelopment at a higher density in areas where it is harder to fill or where there is obsolescence. It would also give a sense of place, to tie in with the Master Plan conception. Private developers would not be likely to redevelop property that already has buildings on it without allowing a higher density. This district would create an opportunity and would allow for mixed use development inclusive of residential areas for people who would like a different lifestyle than a single family home. If it is confined to the locations where the City expects it, then he does not think there is a down side. It is designed with a step down in floor areas between the highest buildings and the residential properties adjacent. He believes there is adequate protection.
Mrs. Snider stated she is still concerned with encroachment into residential areas, even if it is just one house. Mr. Hartt replied that the City could grant a size variance to the project size, if this should occur. This new zoning classification, will not encourage encroaching upon residential districts. If the property were purchased, then it would have to be rezoned prior to the overlay being submitted and approved, as the mixed-use is an overlay of zoning already in place. The amendment recommended by the Planning Commission was the most restrictive and mandates the zoning be U-4 and U-4A only.
Mayor Costabile added that there were already checks and balances made a part of the proposal between the Planning Commission, Council and Mayor's office before the additional restriction on the zoning classification was added.
Mrs. Finney asked for clarification of Chapter 1180.03(b) regarding the expansion over the minimum of seven acres. Mr. Hartt explained that this would allow additional proposals to an original seven acres. Mayland is a good example as that is approximately 15 acres and someone may not want to initially redevelop all 15 acres. They could start with seven and then if it works well, add on with smaller parcels, if it is contiguous and cohesive. So a project could be done in phases.
Mr. Ballistrea described a mixed-use area where his in-laws live to give an idea of what a mixed use setting may represent. They are in a senior assisted living type development. It is in a park like setting. Next to it is an area with regular uses, such as restaurants, small shops etc., but it is all one parcel. It is beautiful and the seniors love it as it is within walking distance. He continued by giving a scenario in the City; take the Schnurmann Luther House parcel and put it with the Eastgate area. Mr. Hartt further expanded on it by citing an example of possibly taking one building from the Crocker Park development that has mixed uses in it. It would fit this district. There is also an area in Hudson. Mr. Hartt reminded Council that this would not take away any existing development rights, but would enable this as a possibility. It gives the City the maximum leverage to only approve something, if it is for the good of the City. The existing underlying zoning still allows the property owner to do something even if the overlay is not approved.
Mr. Kobunski commented that the biggest fear is that this would be used on Cedar Road. Mr. Hartt stated that this zoning classification does not encourage such a use. Further, the Planning Commission added the most restrictive option of the four he had compiled for the underlying zoning, so this district cannot be used on Cedar Road at this time. However, someone could ask for rezoning there, but that could be done with or without this new district in place. Mr. Kobunski stated that there was a request for a bank there at one time. Mayor Costabile stated that was closer to the Chmura property. Mr. Ballistrea added that it was denied and that property is all zoned residential. Mayor Costabile stated that this type of proposal protects against encroachment. The City wants to follow the Master Plan and allow for more natural buffering. The City also needs more vibrant retail and since most of the retail space is shallow, building upward would help.
Mr. Hartt commented that the existing U-4 sites are so small that there cannot be new development on the site and increased buffering, if it stays on one level. This proposal would allow for more floor space, with mixed uses and buffering.
Mr. Mercurio asked if there were a number of municipalities that already have this type of district. Mr. Carr mentioned that Lyndhurst did it with the Acacia Country Club property to allow different uses. Mr. Hartt stated South Euclid did it also on the north side of Cedar Road.
Mrs. Finney inquired, using Mayland as an example, what is the difference or advantage to having this district instead of a property owner submitting plans under the current codes? Mr. Hartt replied it would be the number of variances needed to do what this district would allow. In order to allow this type of district, it is better to give more tools to do it instead of impediments. Mr. Carr added that there might be a prospective buyer for a property and if this were in place rather than a more narrow use, the likelihood of the purchase would be greater. Mayor Costabile stated that it has been suggested that the City could wait for a developer to come forward with an idea. By putting this type of district in place, the City is being proactive and making it more appealing, so developers may look at a property because of this instead of passing it by.
Mr. Ballistrea inquired if Section 1180.02(a)(13) covers assisted living. Mr. Hartt replied that the last sentence states it covers a range of needs, so yes, it would include all levels. Mr. Carr added that the first sentence also includes elderly or handicapped. Mr. Ballistrea stated that Section 1180.03(b) sounds like several owners of several properties could be involved. What happens if a property is sold and that new owner no longer wants to be part of it. Mr. Hartt said that typically there would be one person who would want to purchase any property involved. Most likely they would have an option to purchase if the plan is approved. The current owners would all have to sign off on the plan in order for it to be approved. Mr. Ballistrea was more concerned if the development was already built. Mr. Carr stated that he did not think a real estate investor would try to pull out of something that is already built. Why would they do that.
Mr. Ballistrea further clarified by stating, that the ordinance allows for multiple owners. If the implication of the ordinance is to only have a principle owner or corporation then a consolidation of multiple properties would be necessary and there really wouldn't be separate ownership parcels. Mayor Costabile mentioned that the district does not get approved until there is some sort of consolidation. Mr. Hartt further stated that then the City would deny a subdivision. It would be in violation of all zoning concepts. Mrs. Snider asked him to use Mayland and the Boneyard Restaurant as an example. There are several different owners for the parcels and some tenants have long term leases. Would an owner with the biggest parcel have to go to the other owners and get their consent for a plan. Mr. Hartt stated there would have to be an option to purchase, then that person would come in with an application for the plan, but the other property owners would have to sign off on the application. Then once the application is approved, the person would exercise their option to purchase the other properties. Before any building permits were given, the Building Department would verify that the person was indeed one owner of all the properties in question. Mr. Jamieson added that before approval is given, there would have to be a lot consolidation and that has to be with one owner(s). Mr. Hartt stated that this is no different than any development or redevelopment of several properties. Mr. Ballistrea stated that there is a three story minimum height for the district. Why is there a minimum if a developer may want to come in and build one story over more acreage. Mr. Hartt replied that would be against what the City is trying to do with this district. This is an enabling part of the code, not preventative. That person could do that type of development under current codes. Mr. Carr added that the purpose also is that it would be more economically feasible to go vertical, rather than spreading out. Mr. Hartt reiterated that this is fostering the opportunity for economic development.
Mr. Ballistrea informed everyone that the ordinance pertaining to this district would be taken off the table and placed on the Council agenda for a vote this evening at the regular Council meeting. Mr. Ballistrea inquired if Council had any other questions or concerns. There was no further discussion.
Mr. Ballistrea adjourned the meeting at 6:48 P.M.
Approved: Respectfully submitted,
Michael Ballistrea Lisa A. Benedetti, MMC
Council President Deputy Clerk of Council