12/06/2005 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 12/6/2005 Residence Center setback is 35 feet or 1 %i times the height of the structure, whichever is greater; (3) Pazking and drives setback is 20 feet. The (c) Rear Setback (1) Senior Residence Center is changed to 35 feet or 1 '/z times the height of the structure, whichever is greater; (3) Parking and drives 50 feet. In (d) the Planning and Design Commission is given the ability to recommend reduction of the side and rear yard requirements under certain situations. - Section 1138.08 Dwelling Size, (b) Multiple Family Residences, the language was inconsistent previously, it was brought forward by the Planning Commission, and again was discussed in committee, that independent living unit minimum size would be 450 net square feet and 350 net square feet for assisted living units. Language was changed in (c) with respect to residential nursing homes: "Dwelling unit size shall be governed by the requirements of the Ohio Department of Health as set forth in the applicable provisions of Chapter 3701-17 of the Ohio Administrative Code." - Under 1138.10 Parking Regulations, it indicates in (a) now that for purposes of 1138.03 (a) (1), two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit-it used to say that only one was required. It also indicates the parking field criteria for how big the pazking surface would be for staff has been changed. For independent units under Section 11.38.03 (a) (2), one pazking space shall be provided for each unit plus one parking space for each employee of the largest shift to try to keep down parking spaces that are unnecessary. There was a change in (c) for assisted living units permitted under 1138.03 (a) (2), again with the largest shift language added. - The last proposed amendment from the Planning Commission and City Council committee was under 1138.14 Amendment to Plans, (a), which will now read: "If such amendment is in substantial agreement with the approved development area site plan, it shall be reviewed as an amendment by the Planning and Design Commission. (Councilman Gareau noted that anywhere in the legislation where it references Planning Commission, it should be changed to Planning & Design Commission.) Councilman Gazeau made a motion to accept the amendments and amend Ordinance 2005-95 regarding Chapter 1138 for all recommendations just referenced with the exception of those changes referenced in 1138.03 (b) Conditional Uses. The motion was seconded by Councilman Barker. In answer to a question by Councilman Tallon, Councilman Gareau said he planned to make a sepazate motion regazding whether the conditional use issue will remain in the legislation. Roll call on the motion to accept the amendments as presented with the exception of those referenced in 1138.03 (b) Conditional Uses: Gareau, yes; Bazker, yes; Orlowski, yes; Ryan, no; Tallon, yes; Nashar, yes; Miller, no. The motion passed with five yes votes and two no votes. Councilman Gazeau made a motion to amend Ordinance 2005-95 by removing from the legislation 1138.03 (b) Conditional Uses. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tallon. A lengthy discussion ensued. Councilman Ryan said be believed Conditional Use belongs in the area of zoning, and it should be excluded and considered as a separate question. He requested the President of Council divide the question and the portion