Committee advances comprehensive zoning-code rewrite; sends package to planning commission

Seven Hills City Council’s Plan and Zoning, Building and Economic Development Committee on Monday advanced a sweeping rewrite of the city’s zoning ordinances and voted to send the package to the planning commission for review and to place it on the council agenda for first reading.

Committee chair Phil Kariasis opened the meeting by saying the proposal’s goal was to move “legislation forward on updating the planning zoning codes of the city,” a work the committee and consultants said has not been comprehensively updated since the mid‑1980s.

The rewrite is a broad cleanup and modernization of the zoning code intended to streamline procedures, add conditional‑use provisions, and clarify several topics that have produced local disputes. The proposed ordinance bundles multiple changes: a Rockside Road PUD land‑use provision that would limit residential units to upper floors (no first‑floor residential in the Rockside frontage), new conditional‑use standards for activities such as day‑care and schools, updated professional home‑office standards, revised fence rules, and other technical updates. Committee members emphasized the package is intended primarily as an update and not a removal of existing uses; one staff member said the plan would generally not remove existing uses but would add certain new ones in some districts.

Why it matters: the rewrite affects the city’s development rules and day‑to‑day neighborhood regulations and sets the processes by which developers and neighbors get notice and protections. Committee members said updating the code will change how rezonings, conditional uses and enforcement are handled and could alter how certain corridors — especially Rockside Road and parts of Broadview Road — are developed.

Major discussion points

- Rockside PUD: Committee members and a resident asked whether the code change banning first‑floor residential in the Rockside PUD meant no single‑family houses could be built there. Council member Phil Kariasis and staff clarified the provision is aimed at encouraging commercial frontage along Rockside with residential placed behind or above commercial in mixed buildings; the current draft would permit upper‑floor residential in the Rockside frontage but not first‑floor residences.

- Fences and maintenance corridors: One of the longest debates focused on a proposed maintenance corridor between adjacent fences. The draft contains a two‑part offset that would result in roughly 24 inches of space between abutting fences in some cases (often described in the meeting as an 8‑inch offset for the original fence and 16 inches for the later fence). Several council members said that corridor is intended to allow access for mowing, weed control and upkeep; others said it unfairly shifts a land‑use burden to the later fence installer and could generate disputes. Jay Martin, the consultant who drafted much of the code language, said, “I have yet to come across a good solution for this issue,” and explained the committee tried to balance maintenance access, aesthetics and fairness. The committee agreed the fence provision needs further refinement before final passage.

- Professional home offices and commercial vehicles: The draft would allow a single vehicle associated with a professional home office but did not set a size metric. Council members asked for explicit limits on vehicle length, weight or advertising; several representatives said they wanted to prevent routine storage of large commercial trucks or trailers in residential driveways and to prohibit advertising/vehicle wrapping that would have neighborhood impact. Jay Martin agreed to add clearer language (for example, a length or weight limit and a prohibition on advertising) to distinguish modest home‑office use from on‑site commercial operations.

- Chain‑link fence prohibition: The draft also includes a prohibition on chain‑link fencing in certain contexts. That provision was flagged in discussion as having been agreed to by the steering committee.

- Conditional uses: Martin described the new conditional‑use framework as a standard tool that would add a public‑notice hearing and allow the planning commission to attach tailored conditions (for example, for day‑care centers and schools where outdoor activity and traffic are concerns).

Other business and formal actions

- The committee voted to refer the zoning ordinance package to the planning commission for review. The motion was made from the dais and seconded; the committee recorded affirmative roll‑call votes and moved the package on to the planning commission’s meeting for review.

- The committee also voted to place the ordinance on the council agenda for first reading pending the planning commission review; members noted the code will require three readings and a public hearing (the draft mentioned a January 28 public‑hearing window and projected a potential final vote in February if the review proceeds on schedule).

- Two separate pieces of legislation were introduced for placement on the council agenda: • A renewal with the Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District for MS4 stormwater review and inspections, proposed at about $16,850 for calendar 2025, to support erosion‑control plan review and construction/post‑construction inspections. Staff asked that council consider passing that item as an emergency to avoid a service gap. • Engineering services and limited construction administration for the 2025 road program, estimated at $125,000 plus reimbursables, to design and administer repairs on five streets (Marine Drive, Darrow Drive, Koonsa Drive, Grama Drive and Ridgeview Drive). The engineering staff said preliminary design and surveying work should begin soon to preserve favorable bidding timelines; council members asked why some streets (for example, Bonnier/Monroy was mentioned) were not included and were told the selection reflects the current pavement‑rating list and available budget.

What’s next: Committee members referred the ordinance package to the planning commission for review (the planning commission meeting was scheduled for the following day) and moved to place the ordinance on the next council agenda for first reading, subject to the commission’s recommendation. Staff and the code drafter agreed to return with refined language on fence offsets and professional home‑office vehicle limits before final readings.

Ending: Committee members and staff thanked the steering committee and consultant for the multi‑year effort to update the code; several said the draft is unlikely to be a final product and will be revised after the planning commission and subsequent council discussions.