11/25/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PRD Meeting 11-25-02 Page 25 Mrs. Cinco asked, do you want that on a first reading in December? Mr. Samac said since nothing is going to change, it'll be pretty similar to this, but I will just maybe clean it up-there's a couple of mistakes in here that we'll clean up, get a copy back out to you, if you want to talk about it again at Caucus next Monday or whenever you choose.... Council President Buckholtz said that's fine, but what I was going to suggest is that we go around the horn and I was going to put the new guy on the spot, Bill Riter, who has been following a lot of this stuff from the Committee perspective, and just to say, not taking a straw poll, but I mean, how do we feel as a body? I'm not really putting you on the spot, I am just saying everybody--Dr. Parker, you are leaning towards a more restrictive in many cases-do we have any sense of where we are individually on what is written assuming Bernie makes the changes that we are all talking about here. Are we, you know, the setbacks... Let's look at that the easiest thing to look at are the specific items that P&Z voted on because there was a vote, there is discussion we can look and then they're easy to grab at those. But then again, I am saying, the ordinance as a whole, the zoning category-does anybody want to [comment.] Mr. Riter said I found, when I kind of ran through it real quick, I found the ability to get 50% credit for the unbuildable property to be very, very good if they could fit those 6 units on the existing acre within the current codes. I thought that that was a really good thing and that could tie in some of the natural benefit of the property that exists there. I guess, at this point, I am leaning to a 4-acre lot size. The sideyard setbacks, etc. I have no problem with. I think the parking is right. I don't like the whole concept of defining a family but if the Law Director feels it needs to be in there... Mr. Marrotte asked, can I speak to that issue? Mr. Riter said yes. Mr. Marrotte said on page 5, there is a homeowner's association, item 4, it says all units must be owner occupied. And under the definition of "family" it says live together in a dwelling unit as anon-profit, housekeeping unit; 3 people of either or both sexes, that's a little bit confusing to me. Mr. Samac said I think that that just very simply means that you living in Mayfield Heights being the owner of a unit here in Mayfield Village cannot rent it out period. If you're the owner in fact and you live there with your girlfriend and your brother-in-law or someone that is still considered a family under the provisions of this section and it parallels what IRS says, so it's still just a family. Or, you as the owner and you have 2 college students living there as boarders. That's still--- Mr. Marrotte asked, you don't think one precludes the other?