Laserfiche WebLink
Memo re Request for Special Use Permit <br />at 731 Beta from Mayor Rinker 412-00 <br />Page 3 <br />' <br />Ste12 One - Special Use Permit: <br />-? While it clearly would be preferable that we have more time to deliberate, it <br />strikes me that the positive gains to be achieved here ouiweigh any negatives. The facts <br />appear to be as follows: an established orthopedic practice run by two professiorials <br />desires to relocate in 1Vlayfield Village; the physicians are not asking for any kind of <br />economic incentive, yet they are prepared to invest more fihan $300,000 in capital <br />un'Provements in order to set up shop; Mayfield Village has apparently established <br />enough goodwill in the marketplace that these doctors are prepared to accept the risk of <br />a finite, two-year Special Use Permit from the Village, while at the same time entering <br />into a layear lease with the landlord; the NovaCare operation has established itself <br />favorably over the last several years, and we are advised that a third of its business is <br />now dedicated to Mayfield Village senior ciiizens; the "one-stop shop" opportunity of <br />having both physicians and physical therapy services available to these seniors appears <br />very desirable and likely is good business as well as good service; the traffic patterns <br />are not likely to be unpacted appreciably, nor is there a conconlitant demand on <br />municipal services of any consequence. If the venture does not thrive, Mayfield Village <br />has realistically lost no investment. If problems do arise with the venture, the <br />regulation built into the two-year Special Use Perxnit affords the Village leverage over <br />the matter. If the venture thrives, we stand to gain in terms of revenue and increased <br />? services to many of our residents. (We thus should next look seriously to whether or <br />not,-and to what extent or not this type of commercial activity is and should be <br />promoted in some fashion. <br />Off Street Parking Ratios and Request for Setback Variance: <br />Please review the report of D.B. Hartt. His opinion strikes me as fairly made. <br />Please bear in mind that by its very definition and terms, the Special Use Permit sets no <br />precedent, but stands on its own. <br />Insofar as Mr. Hartt notes that the requested setback variance, on the other hand, <br />could stand as precedent, please also bear in mind that as a matter of practicality <br />another sunilar request would be forthcoming only if it made economic sense to the <br />property owner. In other words, the cost of having to expand a parldng lot and add the <br />necessary landscaping which would be a condition precedent to such variance are <br />significant enough that the setback change would likely not be requested except if the <br />particular location were itself in need of additional parking. I think it is fair to assume <br />that such a variance request would be directly proportionate to the economic vitality of <br />the property. I do not believe this question has posed much of a problem up and down <br />Beta Drive over the years. <br />In the last analysis, the circumstances of this particular Special Use Permit and its <br />accompanying setback variance request may be unique.