Code would be updated from $100 to $150 to remain consistent with the provisions of state law.
Mr. Jacques advised Council that the proposed text amendment updates should be reviewed for consistency purposes with the Zoning Code, the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, and the interests of the city of Oakwood as a whole.
Mr. Stephens asked how the off-street parking requirements will be enforced.
Mr. Jacques shared that city staff will assist the business owner to determine the appropriate location for parking, and to ensure that a proposed business has enough parking available to meet code requirements.
Mayor Duncan opened the public hearing.
Marissa Ford, 124 Acacia Drive, shared that she would like to bring a small Pilates business to the Shops of Oakwood to benefit the health and wellness of the Oakwood community. As the Code is today, her business is not currently permitted. She asked City Council to consider updating the Code to benefit the community.
Mike Ford, 124 Acacia Drive, shared that he fully supports his wife’s Pilates business. He believes that the Oakwood community would benefit from having more fitness options.
Mayor Duncan closed the public hearing.
A copy of the ordinances, having been placed on the desks of each member of Council prior to introduction, were read by title and introduced together because they are related and Council conducted a single public hearing to consider them.
Vice Mayor Byington explained that the first ordinance is the one that updates the list of uses within the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning district. The second ordinance makes those same changes within the Community Business (CB) zoning district. The third and final ordinance is the one that clarifies the wording for provisions relating to a setback requirement and the permitted yards for certain mechanical equipment, and also makes the penalty provision consistent with state law.
Thereupon, it was moved by Vice Mayor Byington and seconded by Mrs. Hilton that the second reading be waived and that the ordinance be passed tonight.
Upon call of the roll on the question of the motion, the following vote was recorded: