PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Cunningham, Don Bergwall, Alan
Seymour, Pete Griffin, Pat Soller, Roger Yoder, Ken Kraus.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Page, Myron and Pricilla Gallogly, Phil Roush, Brian Palmer, Greg DeLong and Tammy
Penhorwood, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning
Commission Special Meeting –
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion Passed.
Planning
Commission Meeting-
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN COMMENTS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Approval of Amended Preliminary Development Plan – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering
Mr. Roush stated
since the last meeting the revised preliminary development has been presented
and is okay. He stated because of the
amendment to the preliminary development plan, it is going to require the
applicant to file a variance. This is
because of the change in the street layout.
The new proposal has the street in the condo section coming out onto SR
736 which creates non-compliance in the drives being 1000 ft. apart. He stated the only other thing is in the code
of regulations in article II it talks about the membership area. It states “The Oaks HOA hereinafter shall
include lots 1-51.” It should be changed
to reflect the appropriate City lot numbers.
Mr. Page stated
they can change those numbers and have it reflected before they make the copies
to send to City Council.
Mr. Bergwall
stated on the topic of the request for the variance, I was one of the folks
that was vocal about the original concept of the 1000 ft. and the code
requirement for that. I would like to
state that the 1000 ft. is appropriate in the code and there are many cases in
which that would need to be enforced to the letter of the code. Given the request and the circumstances
surrounding this particular piece of property, I am in favor of the request as
written.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he believes the variance needs to be addressed as a separate action.
Mr. Seymour made
a motion to add the variance request to the agenda. Voice vote was unanimous.
Mr. Seymour
stated there are 3 variance items. Mr.
Cunningham stated it is one variance request with 3 supporting items.
Mr. Bergwall
made a motion to approve the request for a variance regarding section 1107.101
on the spacing between entrances on SR 736.
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr. Yoder Yes Mr.
Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Abstain
Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion Passed
Mr. Yoder made a
motion to approve the amendment to the Preliminary Development Plan as
presented.
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr. Soller Yes Mr.
Kraus Abstain Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes
Motion Passed
Approval of Final Plat – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering
Mr. Gallogly requested this item be tabled until the regular
meeting in March so Council will have time to approve the Final Development
Plan.
Mr. Seymour made
a motion to table the Final Plat approval of the Oaks until the regular meeting
in March at the request of the developer.
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Soller Yes
Mr. Kraus Abstain Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion Passed
OLD BUSINESS:
Recommendation to City Council – Final Development Plan – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering –
tabled
Mr. Yoder made a
motion to recommend the approval of the Final Development Plan for The Oaks to
City Council.
Mr. Yoder Yes Mr.
Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Abstain
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion Passed
Approval of Street Trees – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering – tabled
Mr. Griffin stated he met with Mr. Gallogly and they came up with a list of street trees which
are included on the plan.
Mr. Gallogly stated
he would like to thank Mr. Griffin for his time and expertise on this matter.
Mr. Griffin stated we picked some varieties of
Oaks keeping in mind how they would react in various conditions.
Mr. Bergwall made a motion to approve the
street tree plan as presented on the Oaks Final Development Plan sheet four.
Mr. Soller Yes Mr.
Kraus Abstain Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion Passed
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Commercial/Industrial Subdivision
Signage regulations
Mr. Cunningham
stated there were discussions at the November 29th meeting and we
had pretty much come to a consensus on how we would like for these regulations
to read.
Mr. Kraus stated
he does not see any reason for this to not go to council unless there are
concerns or comments at this point.
Mr. Cunningham
stated it is important to adhere to what we have in a code. The variances that have been requested on the
signs should be the last resort.
Therefore we need to have something in the code to address it.
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to forward the proposed legislation to City Council.
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr. Soller Yes
Motion passed.
Mr. Cunningham stated this legislation has
been run by several people and I think we have general support.
Mr. Kraus stated he did not get a chance to
talk to Mr. Zimmerman directly. He
stated he left a copy with Mr. Handler, but with the holidays I was unable to
get with him.
Mr. Seymour asked if the City Planner had a
chance to review it and what his thoughts were on it.
Mr. DeLong stated he had some questions. One was regarding the lot size, why is the
minimum 5 acres? Mr. Kraus stated in
looking at the government uses and what the city has used property for, any
kind of building or structural use, parking or vehicular area, the five acres
seemed to be a minimum. Schools anymore
want 15 acres. It gets away from zoning
a single lot, like the county building, which might not make a whole lot of
sense.
Mr.
DeLong stated if the minimum is set at 5 acres and this zoning is applied to
the
Mr. Cunningham asked if we reduced the
requirement to 2 acres do we think there would be any issues with it?
Mr. DeLong stated he compared it to our heavy
manufacturing district and the minimum requirement for that is only one
acre. It seemed that the 5 acre minimum
requirement was a lot.
Mr. Kraus stated the 2.193 acre property is
under common ownership with the adjacent property and for zoning purposes it
would be considered one lot. Part of the
purpose of this is to make it difficult without changing more than just uses,
without having to go through some processes.
The 5 acres creates a little bit of an obstacle that they are going to
really have to want to do it and the governmental agency is going to have to
really want this use if they want the change.
Mr. Soller stated his understanding is the
intent of this district is to protect the larger government lots that would be
something that would be sought after by a commercial developer. A smaller lot size would need to be protected
for government purposes as opposed to a larger lot size.
Mr. Kraus stated a smaller lot size might be
more desirable and a governmental agency might want to split off a two acre
corner for a fast food place. This would
be more difficult for them to do that.
Not only would they have to get a change in zoning to apply the use but
maybe also have to deal with lot size.
This would make it possible for a change but it wouldn’t be easy.
Mr. Bergwall stated if you change the five to
two acres, you have the potential to protect more property in the future.
Mr. Kraus stated it is probably not a major
item. The largest lot size we currently
have in the code is one acre. Two acres
is probably not unreasonable.
Mr. Griffin asked what the down side would be
to having the smaller acreage.
Mr. Kraus stated he is not sure there is
one. He stated he is not really opposed
to dropping the requirement to two acres if that is the consensus.
Mr. Soller asked why it wouldn’t be dropped
to one acre to match heavy manufacturing.
Mr. Kraus stated one acre for heavy
manufacturing is probably too small as it is.
Mr. Seymour stated he is not sure the size is
truly significant. He stated the
significance is the purpose of the district itself.
Mr. Griffin stated the purpose it to make
sure that someone doesn’t go and sell off a piece of property and put it to
some other use. The permitted uses are
the key and as we go along we need to make sure we review the permitted uses to
make sure we are heading in the right direction.
Mr. Soller stated he would prefer to submit
legislation that conforms to the lots that are already there, which would
include the 2 acre minimum requirement.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to forward the
proposed legislation to City Council with the change of the minimum lot
requirement to two acres.
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Soller Yes
Mr. Kraus Yes
Motion passed.
Historic District Zoning (Residential) –
Non- conforming lots of record zoning
Mr. Cunningham
stated he is not completely sold on the necessity of this. It is to ease the apprehension of having to
take development or improvements to the BZA.
Mr. DeLong
stated he struggles with this legislation.
He stated there is probably a need for it but doesn’t necessarily agree
with it.
Mr. Soller
stated after reviewing the legislation he is against establishing this Historic
District because it is so hard to define the properties. There is already a process in place to
request a variance, which is BZA, and we should let that process take its
course.
Mr. Bergwall
stated the work done, while it may not be a necessity, was a step forward. If we can put things in the code that reduce
the need for people to go to BZA, which clear up some of these matters, then it
is worth doing. Anything we can do to
encourage people to make improvements and develop some of the older home sites
is an encouragement incentive.
Mr. Kraus stated in any future references we need to take out the
word district, because we are not establishing a new district. We are not drawing a line on the map and
saying within this area you have the extra benefits. The criteria is
simply narrow lots or small lots, the majority of which are in the older part
of Marysville. He stated he is not aware
of any in new developments in the last 20 years that would be small enough to
fit these criteria. To draw a line on a
map and create a district that would allow all the properties within the
boundaries to have the benefits would not be justifiable. I think the maps that have the lots
highlighted which fit the criteria, show how difficult it would be to define a
boundary. It is a step forward. As Mr. Bergwall mentioned, it takes away
impediment in the mind of the homeowner.
The Zoning Inspector is not sure this legislation is needed. However, it can’t hurt to have it in the code
and if it is never used, no damage done.
If it is used and it helps people get garages and improve properties
then we’ve done a good thing. I don’t
see a down side to approving this.
Mr. Yoder stated
when this was first introduced the concept was to streamline the process and
make it less intimidating for the property owners. While it is not perfect, it is good
legislation and I’m in favor of it.
Mr. Roush asked
if the commission needs to rename the title of this topic to make it less
confusing and get the word district out of the title.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated the title on the chapter of the proposed legislation is Exceptions for
Non-conforming Lots of Record.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated at the last special meeting there was a discussion about the
driveways. The question was about the
10% grade requirement. She stated that
part was taken directly from the current code.
If the commission desires to change it in the proposed legislation, it
needs to be changed in the other chapter so the code is not conflicting
itself.
Mr. Kraus stated
what was discussed and the change I made was for it to read, “Driveways shall
be not less than one foot from the side lot line.” We dropped all reference to the grade.
Mr. Cunningham
asked if it can be safely deleted from the other section of the code. It is in 1109.16. He asked Mr. Roush how it would sound if
1109.16 was changed to say, “Driveways shall be not less than 3 feet from the
side lot line and shall be constructed according to the standards set forth in
the standard construction drawings of the city.” Mr. Roush stated that sounded good.
Mr. Seymour
stated the Historic District is a protected district. He stated while the best intentions are here,
and I did initially support it, I think the additional process is
important. I think the BZA gives us that
opportunity for review of changes. The
other reason, I am not for it now is, our code gets thicker and thicker with
stuff. This item probably doesn’t add
sufficient value to our code.
Mr. Palmer stated he looked at it and this may be something that
applies to the old area of 5th, 6th, 7th, and
8th Streets, between Grove and Dunham Streets,
Mr. Kraus stated
in response that scenario went through my mind.
In looking at Barhaven I don’t believe there are any lots that would
qualify. I don’t know of any lots
created after 1977 that would be less than 50 ft. wide or 5000 square feet at
least for residential purposes. You are
going to be limited to the older areas of town.
I don’t think your concern would be an issue. If there is one odd lot somewhere that would
be less than 5000 square feet, why shouldn’t that one lot be
allowed to do something different without having to go through BZA?
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated there may be some current areas because if you look at the OR
regulations, which allow residential, the minimum lot requirement is 3600
square feet with a minimum frontage of 50 ft.
So there could be something built on an OR lot today that would receive
the benefits of this legislation. The potential
is there.
Mr. Kraus stated
that raises the question that maybe the minimum lot size requirement is not
right.
Mr. Griffin
stated he wanted to remind everyone that we did not initiate this topic. This was brought to us by a realtor. They have a reason of their own, because they
may benefit from this change. It was not
brought to us by an ordinary citizen who was concerned about their own lot
size, it was not brought to us by any member of administration, it was brought to us by someone who could benefit from
changing the rules because they own some property that could be affected by
this. As Mr. Seymour has pointed out, I
don’t see that this can benefit a whole lot of people. My question is are
we trying to do something that we shouldn’t be worrying about right at this
moment until it becomes a problem of greater magnitude? We have a City Planner who has looked at it
and is questioning it from the standpoint of a planner.
Mr. DeLong stated he read the letter reasoning why this request is
being proposed. The letter stated quite
often that it is to clean up properties.
We are worrying about someone being able to build a garage to store
their kid’s toys and store stuff in it but by code we allow people to park
their cars all over their yards because we don’t include parking areas in our
lot coverage calculations. Most
community’s lot coverage maximum is around 60% where ours is 25% but we only
include anything under roof. My opinion
is that if the concern is to clean up the city, let’s look at the lot coverage
issue instead of someone wanting to build a garage. I don’t see the need for people wanting to
build a garage as prevalent as this. I
think cleaning up the lot coverage language is something you are going to see
quick results from. Someone can put
gravel all over their yard and park their cars on it and we can’t do anything
about it. What looks worse, kid’s toys
in the yard or a bunch of cars parked all over the yard?
Mr. Kraus asked
if there is a need for both. Mr. DeLong
stated he believes the lot coverage issue would make an immediate impact.
Mr. Cunningham
stated on that type of issue, it is something that we would very much like to
have recommendations on. One thing we
have found as a commission is that we have made our greatest progress when we
have something to react to. When we have
district language, we make significant progress on it because we have something
to look at.
Mr. DeLong
stated coming into this community, the first thing I noticed was the lot
coverage and signage size. They are the
visual impacts people will notice coming into a community.
Mr. Cunningham
stated tonight we have before us language on Exceptions to Non-conforming Lots
of Record.
Mr. Kraus stated
we should get a sense from all commission members where they are on this topic
and if there is not a consensus then table it for further discussion.
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to table this item until the next scheduled special meeting.
Mr. DeLong asked
if there was anything the commission wanted staff to look at.
Mr. Cunningham
stated on our To Do List there are items which we have designated in which we
would like the City Planner to take a look at.
He stated he would like to request that we set up a special meeting here
in the near future to sit down with Mr. DeLong, and Mr. Palmer and Mr. Roush it
would be appreciated if you could be there too, and talk about a vision of
planning and fine tune the To Do List.
He stated what he would ask for from Mr. DeLong is that you look at how
we got where we are at and if you could look at the To Do List and come up with
some recommendations and general discussion.
Mr. Cunningham
stated right now there is a motion to table this until the special
meeting. Voice vote was unanimous.
Planning
Commission decided to hold a special meeting on January 18th.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Don Bergwall –
He stated he read through the material and he is glad we will be discussing
visioning and more in the way of a comprehensive plan. I think we should be taking advantage of the
slow down we are going to see as far as new development, as far as to do more
in the way of long term planning and the items on the To Do List. I would be anxious to hear more, when we talk
about planning, relative to the impact of the recent vote on the water rates
and if it is going to effect future approvals.
Another item for those that are involved in the Design Review, in
driving around and looking at things I was involved with, in the past, I look
at Infinity Bar & Grill and that building sits too low on that site. I look at the new Best Buy building and it
sits too high, I don’t understand how we get to those points.
Mr. Cunningham
stated you bring up a good question; the
Mr. Bergwall
stated he remembers the owner talking about it and us quizzing about drainage
issues and yet, we somehow didn’t relate it to road height. Mr. Roush stated it does drain to the ditch
towards the railroad.
Mr. Seymour
stated when we do our reviews that is an engineering issue and we trust that
the engineering is being done appropriately.
Mr. Bergwall
stated he remembers the discussion with Best Buy and the idea of having a
connecting drive between the lots of Home Depot and Best Buy. Obviously, they ignored that recommendation
and the way they positioned the building, it would be a very awkward incline to
make the drive.
Mr. Roush stated
there is actually a connecting drive area shown on their sight plan. It is in front of the building and will
connect with the Home Depot parking lot.
He stated he will be talking to them about why they haven’t opened it
up.
Mr. Seymour
stated the argument was Home Depot had their parking lot and it is their
responsibility to maintain, and they did not desire the connection.
Mr. Roush stated
they do show the connection on the approved plans.
Mr. Kraus stated
on Infinity, as long as it drains properly and the storm system works, its
position to the road is not an issue to us.
Pete
their
landscaping plan is complete. Mr.
Griffin stated he wants to make sure it gets complete because right now it
looks horrible.
Roger Yoder - None
John Cunningham –
He stated he doesn’t like signs. We need
to take a look at establishing minimums.
I will be going to the next BZA meeting as a citizen and saying that I
don’t think they have the authority to grant this variance for the
Alan Seymour –
He stated in reference to the visioning item that is on our To Do List. The idea behind this was in the fast moving
areas of the community, if we could do a better job of getting out in front
because we are always reactionary. The
Mr. Griffin
stated that also includes the 120 acres that is across from the new school
system on State Route 4.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he wants to be clear, because we have a comprehensive plan. My complaint as a planning member is that it
does nothing for me. I want to know what
a realistic plan is and what are the steps that we need to
take to get to that point.
Mr. Seymour
stated under the title of Discussion Items on our agenda, should we add Action
Items to the agenda. It gives us more
liberty to act on the items in that category.
Pat Soller- He stated the planning commission should consider low
income housing. The non-conforming lots
are typically lower priced homes. That
type of housing is also beneficial to the community. Right now low income housing consists of
apartments or mobile homes. The other
comment is on HOA’s. It seems as though
the majority of the PUD’s will be including HOA’s and I think we should
accelerate that legislation. Another
item is in the downtown area. It was in
the paper that one of the developers had to rip out their sidewalk because the
Ken Kraus- He stated he ran into Vic Steinfels
a couple of weeks ago and the idea came up again about having an assisted
living facility in the condo portion of the GalburyMeadows development. I don’t know what the right answer is to
address that other than to maybe under the new PUD legislation for that section
only, to allow assisted living facilities.
I raise this question to the planner so he is aware of it and can think
of what the alternatives might be. This
issue may be coming back to us and we need to know how best to proceed.
Mr. Kraus stated
regarding the comments on the visioning, it originally started with just the
visioning of the planning commission. I
think it is critical to have some public meetings with the people in the
affected areas and get their input. As
far as BZA, I will be there, but I think my only comment will be that by the
applicants own admission they don’t meet the requirements for a hardship and
therefore you have no choice but to deny the request.
Mr. Kraus stated
he thinks the city is just at the tip of the iceberg with things being slower
and everything is going to break loose before we know it.
Mr. Cunningham
stated before the meeting is over he would like to make a motion to add 1109.16
to the agenda. Voice vote was unanimous.
Mr. DeLong asked
the commission to leave open the dates of Jan. 25th and Feb. 8th
because he has ODNR coming to the City Council meeting to give a presentation
regarding the Emerald Ash Borer and the impact it can have on the city.
Mr. Cunningham
made a motion to amend 1109.16, by deleting the verbiage from the first word
“Have” to the “10% and forward the legislation to City Council.
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr. Yoder Yes Mr.
Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:35.