HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2000 Public Services Com. MinutesPublic Services Committee of Dublin City Council
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
Minutes of Meeting
Attending:
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair
Mr. McCash
Ms. Clarke, Planning Division
Ms. Readler, Law Department
Mr. Jones, Planning Division
Mr. Strayer, Building Division
Ms. Edwards, Community Relations Division
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
She invited staff to provide an update on the status of the zoning and building code
compliance issues with Mary Kelley's Restaurant and the Shoppes at Athenry.
Ms. Clarke stated that there has been some misunderstanding about the issues. Staff has
been reviewing this site in the context of the original building permit as they have a
temporary occupancy permit. Most of the contact has been via the Building division in
regarding to the outstanding building code issues. Mr. Talentino did meet on site with
the residents and the developer of the center to try to identify the other issues to be
resolved.
Mr. Jones reported that he visited the site today to view the status of outstanding items.
He sent a letter the property owner, Mr. Kelley on April 13, 2000 which outlines the
items to be addressed. These include:
1) the screening of the HVAC units;
2) the relocation of the satellite dish;
3) the projections through the roof to be painted to match;
4) an area to be designated for fire lane in the rear; and
5) removal of the multi -tenant sign located at the south entrance on Avery-Muirfield.
Mr. Jones added that he and Alan Perkins of WTFD met with Mr. Kelley on April 24 and
came to agreement about where the fire lane should be located and that the satellite dish
would be relocated. On site today, he found that none of the rooftop mechanicals are
screened except for the one at 7148 Avery-Muirfield; that screening is in place but not
painted; none of the projections through the roof have been painted out; and that the fire
lane was not established. As of '/2 hour ago, some painting of stripes is taking place, but
cars are still parked in the lanes. In addition, the satellite dish has not been relocated.
One other issue identified by the residents is that on the residential side of the fence
separating the Center from the residential is now being maintained fairly well, except for
two areas on the north and south end.
Mr. McCash asked about the status of the damage done to an adjacent neighbor's
landscaping during the construction.
Ms. Cusumano indicated that this has been repaired.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe established for correction of the
various items by Mr. Jones at his meeting with the developer in April.
Mr. Jones responded that the timeframe was approximately two weeks.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there was a follow-up document created as a result of the
meeting.
Mr. Jones responded that there was not — Mr. Kelley indicated at the time they met that
he had not previously been aware of these problems.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the status of the multi -tenant sign.
Mr. Jones responded that permission was given for this sign for a certain period of time,
but it was exceeded. He believes the sign has since been removed.
Mr. McCash asked about the typical time period for a conditional occupancy permit.
Mr. Jones responded that it is generally 6 months and is designed to get the tenant in the
building when there are no outstanding health and safety items.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the lanes painted today are in the proper location as
identified by Washington Township Fire.
Mr. Jones responded that they are not.
He added that there is a bolt on the fence separating the commercial from the residential,
and this latch is broken and needs to be fixed.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher then asked staff to provide an update on the status of Ordinance
68-99 which relates to the definition of an outdoor service facility.
Ms. Readler responded that Legal staff drafted an ordinance as a result of Mary Kelley's
request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor patio. The definition of outdoor patio
was unclear in the zoning code and this ordinance attempted to tighten up the definition.
Council referred it to Planning Commission in June of 1999. To date, it has not been
included on a P&Z agenda
Ms. Readler added that Mary Kelley's tabled their request for a conditional use based on
their belief that they did not need zoning approval.
Ms. Clarke clarified that they actually withdrew it, accompanied by a statement that they
didn't believe they needed a conditional use permit.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if outdoor seating has occurred at Mary Kelley's.
Ms. Clarke responded that with the exception of special events, she is not aware of any
other occasions.
Ms. Edwards stated that the special events permit did not grant outdoor seating service to
Mary Kelley's —the patio was to be used for overflow.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if overflow seating is defined within the ordinance.
Ms. Readler responded that it is not — outdoor seating is completely prohibited.
2-
She added that in any case, the ordinance would not apply to Mary Kelley's. They would
be grandfathered in under the existing Code.
Discussion followed about the existing Code and the amendment being proposed which
covers outdoor food service and will not be tied to an auto or drive through.
Mr. McCash stated that, in any case, the underlying development text prohibits outdoor
service for Mary Kelley's.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher then invited public testimony.
Farid Masri, 7061 Cavalry Court stated that the City has a previous history in regard to
outdoor patio service for such facilities as Donerick's Pub, BW3's, etc., and the City
should not change midstream and say the rules do not apply. He has appeared before
Council several times. The entire shopping center has caused nuisance issues for
residents. He listed the issues:
1) The gate is never locked and access continues to be a problem.
2) Some corners near the fence are not maintained well.
3) The outdoor speakers at Mary Kelley's were not part of the zoning approval; the
owner has asked that they be removed, yet they were used again during the Muirfield
Tournament. There was never approval of the speakers.
4) At the time of the original plan submission, certain areas were to be designated for
parking. The area behind the shops was to be for service access and maintenance
only, and restricted to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The applicant agreed to this condition.
However, this has not been enforced. Marcus Pizza runs their business from the back
of the building with loud traffic throughout the evening. Neighbors have called the
Police due to drag racing, litter, and operations of the service areas after 7 p.m.
5) The lighting issue also has not been taken care of.
6) Dumpsters are not kept closed.
7) The food odor is very strong.
He is very frustrated that the situation has not been resolved.
Gail Mowery Reynolds, 7079 Cavalry Court stated that the Board of Trustees of the
Civic Association is not pleased with this development. The shopping center is not a
good neighbor. She has lived in her home for 11 years, and was told when she bought
her home that Dublin has high standards and therefore the shopping center area would not
be a problem for adjacent residents. She is disappointed in what has developed at the
Center. The neighbors objected to an open patio when construction took place, but were
told it was only for separation and that a conditional use permit would be needed to use it.
After one year of complaints, the violations have not been addressed. Also, her husband
noted that a recent edition of Business First tells of a plan for an ice cream shop at the
center and that it will have outdoor seating. Hopefully, this is not true.
Anita Cusumano, 7082 Cavalry Court indicated that her neighbors have summarized
most of the issues. Her landscaping has finally been repaired after a long period of
3-
complaints. Her concern is with the units on top of the buildings which are not screened,
the fact that the stacks are not painted, and why the stacks even exist — other restaurants
in Dublin do not have them.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Dick Hammond and Keith Tumock of Mary Kelley's
are present tonight.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the process for notice of Code violations to the
parties as well as timeframes for compliance.
Mr. Jones responded that this case is different because the building is under a conditional
occupancy situation. The issues to be resolved under the conditional occupancy are
mainly building issues, and generally the CBO allows 6 months or more for them to be
resolved. The City is allowed by ordinance to accept a bond for the unfinished items to
ensure completion. If not completed within an acceptable time frame, the City can take
the bond and engage a contractor to perform the work. The conditional occupancy relates
to unfinished work for the mechanicals under the permit for Kafe Kanose. They went out
of business before the bond expired. Marco's Pizza is still under a conditional occupancy
as well. Zoning enforcement action is not initiated until after the conditional occupancy
is taken care of.
Mr. McCash asked if the conditional occupancy is for the tenants or for the entire center.
Mr. Jones indicated that there are outstanding issues for the center related to screening, to
the gate, and the landscaping. The light trespass is a separate issue.
Mr. McCash suggested that the City not issue temporary occupancy certificates or
building permits for other tenants until the underlying issues for the center are addressed.
Mr. Jones responded that this would be possible, assuming that there are no state
restrictions.
Mr. McCash stated that there is a distinction between a certificate of plan approval for
building items and zoning compliance for the City of Dublin. The tenants can obtain plan
approval, but cannot obtain building permits because of these other issues.
Mr. Jones stated that he has had discussion with the Building division pertaining to this.
Under the ORC, a home rule City has the right not to issue a building permit for
outstanding zoning issues. However, the Building division did not feel comfortable
withholding occupancy due to zoning issues.
Mr. McCash responded that issuance of a building permit requires plan approval as well
as zoning approval. The zoning approval is a local item, so he would assume that if there
are underlying zoning problems related to the center, the Zoning officer could withhold
zoning approval and therefore building permit issuance until they are resolved.
4-
Mr. Strayer noted that the Building code requires a platform to be built from which the
mechanic can service the HVAC equipment. Until that is installed, the final occupancy
cannot be granted.
The screening and the appearance of the screening is a zoning issue.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the restaurant has been open for 1-1/2 years — it seems
that the screening could have been completed by this time.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked what other zoning violations exist.
Mr. Jones responded that he has previously outlined these. The lighting is a separate
zoning issue. The speaker issue has not been investigated prior to this time.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the odor problem.
Mr. Jones responded that the zoning code has one sentence that pertains to odor, listed as
a noxious odor harmful to public. He does not believe the cooking odor would be
considered noxious.
In regard to the speakers, Ms. Clarke stated that when the final development plan review
was done, the area did not have outdoor seating and so there were no speakers in the plan
approved by the Commission. Therefore, there likely was not a condition in regard to
outdoor speakers. The expectation was that if outdoor seating were considered at a later
date, the speakers would be discussed at that time. They were not included in an
approval package.
Dick Hammond, Mary Kelley's responded that:
1) In terms of the screening, the plans were rejected a couple of times. Two months ago,
a plan was finally agreed upon.
2) The painting contractor was scheduled for last Saturday, but did not show up. The
painting is now being taken care of.
3) The Kafe Kanose items have not been completed because a bank is scheduled to be
the tenant at this point.
4) The fire lane painting is being done today along the curbs.
5) The no parking signs will be installed to prohibit parking against the buildings.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked him to confirm that by June 19, Council can expect a report
from staff that the painting of the protrusions and the fire lane painting are completed,
and that the no parking signs have been installed.
Mr. Hammond responded that he plans to have this work completed by tomorrow.
Mr. McCash asked if the cars parking in the back of the restaurant are employees, and if
so, are they told to park elsewhere.
Mr. Hammond responded that the employees have parked in the back for convenience
reasons. The striping of parking spots is a landlord issue, and when the landlord stripes
the lot, he will enforce the parking.
5-
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked who is responsible for the padlock maintenance on the
gates.
Mr. Hammond responded that the southern gate is near the Kinder Care facility and the
nursing home put up a gate at the other end. He assumes that the landlord is responsible
for these.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked him to respond in regard to the outside speakers.
Mr. Hammond stated that he never received any kind of notification that the speakers
should be removed. When they submitted their plans, the speakers were approved. He
was not aware of any issue with them.
He will review the approved plans. He noted that they do not use the patio speakers, but
only the ones in the front of the building.
Ms. Clarke agreed to review the approved plans and building permit for this item.
Mr. Jones asked him to comment on the satellite dish relocation into the eave so that it is
not visible.
Mr. Hammond responded that he will have this done by June 19 as well.
Mr. Jones noted that another issue is with the screening of the mechanicals on the pub
side of Mary Kelley's.
Mr. Hammond stated that he does not believe this was included in the plans; the plans
called for five units on top of the main building. If one unit is larger than the others are,
it could be an exhaust unit. If painting is not satisfactory, he will have it fenced in.
Mr. Jones commented that the definition of mechanicals is something located above the
roofline. Anything other than that can be painted in.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that by June 19, staff will be able to report to Council
that the outside painting, fire lanes, no parking signs, and relocation of satellite dish will
all be taken care of. The remainder of items relates to the landlord.
Mr. Masri stated that:
1) The odor is very offensive on busy evenings and the right filters would prevent this
He added that public nuisance regulations specify things which interfere with the
enjoyment of adjacent properties in Section 153.076.
2) In addition, some boards on the fence are broken.
3) The Marco's Pizza facility needs screening of the units in the ground.
4) Will the no parking signs be installed for the Marco's Pizza?
Mr. Hammond responded that the fire lane goes along the wall of the patio area He
cannot control the Marco's Pizza area.
6-
Mr. Jones clarified that his understanding is that Mr. Kelley had agreed to establish the
fire lane across the entire front of the site, as a fire would likely be fought from the front
and not the rear.
Mr. McCash stated that the issue of services after 7 p.m. needs to be addressed with the
landlord.
Mr. Masri added that if the landlord agrees to do the striping in the back, it should be
limited to what was shown on the original plan. The neighbors are still seeking
resolution about the issues with Marco's Pizza delivery vehicles.
Ms. Mowery Reynolds asked about the timeframe for the amendment to the zoning
ordinance regarding definition of outdoor seating.
Ms. Clarke responded that this item will be scheduled for P&Z at their second meeting in
July. The ordinance was never included on a P&Z agenda due to a lack of staff to review
the item.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her expectation is that the ordinance related to the
definition of outdoor service would be back for public hearing at Council in September.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked that the remaining issues with the landlord be put into
writing by staff and sent to Mr. Kelley.
Mr. Jones responded that this was sent to Mr. Kelley on April 13. After that time, the law
director sent a letter to Mr. Kelley, so clarification is needed about which department
would be in charge of this notification.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if timeframes were established in Mr. Smith's letter to Mr.
Kelley.
Ms. Readler responded that she doesn't believe the letter specified timeframes.
Mr. McCash stated that since the items in the letter related to the conditional use
occupancy for the property, a time limit should be specified for resolution, and no further
permits for tenant work should be issued until the zoning items are completed.
Mr. Jones stated that this would be beyond his scope of authority.
Mr. McCash asked Ms. Clarke and Ms. Readler to address this.
Ms. Clarke stated that it would seem reasonable to hold up permits for tenant
improvement for an overall site problem. Unless the Legal Department says it can't be
done, she would not have any problem with this.
Ms. Readler stated that legal staff has discussed this possibility. The only possible issue
would be a tenant who contracts for space in the building and is unable to use it because
of the landlord's issues with the City. They will research this item.
7-
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked that legal staff report back on this issue at the next Council
meeting—June 19.
Ms. Readler then briefly reviewed the recent correspondence between the legal
department and the property owner.
Mr. McCash asked about the lighting issue.
Ms. Readler responded that staff was informed that this item would be handled by the
architect, John Hurt.
Mr. McCash suggested that perhaps metal screens could be installed on existing lights to
address this problem.
Mr. Jones stated that he suggested that at an on site meeting. He would have no problem
with sending a notice of violation to the landlord, giving him 10 days to correct the
problem. Obviously, it sometimes takes longer than 10 days to have the problem
resolved because of the violation process.
Mr. McCash and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that the notice of violation regarding the
light trespass issue should be sent in order to begin the process at this time.
Mr. Hammond commented that he spoke with the company which installed the hood
system and the only solution to control the odor would be to install huge smoke eaters.
The cost would be about a minimum of $20,000 plus installation and maintenance. This
is not a viable option.
Mr. McCash suggested that they contact Wendy's to obtain information on their odor
control systems.
Mr. Hammond stated that they have done so. Wendy's told them that their system is
experimental and requires design at the outset.
Mr. McCash suggested that Mr. Masri provides the information on odor control systems
to Ms. Readler, and that Mr. Hammond meets with staff to discuss this further.
It was the consensus of the committee that Mr. Jones sends out the notice of violation
with a 14 -day period for compliance. This would result in compliance by June 22.
In terms of the after -hour delivery for Marco's Pizza, both the restaurant owner and the
landlord should be cited on this violation, with a compliance date ofJune 22.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that for the July 10 Council meeting, the packet
should include a report on what has transpired in terms of compliance for Marco's Pizza
and for the landlord.
Regarding the issuance of special events permits for Mary Kelley's, Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher noted that a future meeting will be scheduled by the Committee on the Chy-
wide special events permit issuance. The discussion will be broader than the issuance of
8-
permits to Mary Kelley's, and staff input is needed prior to the discussion. The
Committee will notify the residents of the date of this meeting when scheduled.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Clerk of Council
9-
10-