PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

MEETING OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2006

 

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.   

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Don Bergwall, Ken Kraus, Roger Yoder, Alan Seymour, Paula Bodey, John Cunningham.  Pete Griffin – absent.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Phil Roush, Tammy Penhorwood, Michael Warner, Jenny Snapp, Tim Long, Dave Bible, Steve Stolte

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Planning Commission Meeting – December 5, 2005- Mr. Seymour made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. 

 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:  None

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS:

 

Mr. Cunningham stated Mr. Stole will be speaking under this item and since he is the only one, he made a motion to move the Citizen Comment section until after Old Business.  Voice vote was unanimous.

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Zoning Amendment- 14145 SR 4 – 119.8 acres – zoning change from AR to R-2/R-4 – filed by Glen Dugger (Tabled from Dec. 5th)

 

Mr. Cunningham stated Mrs. Penhorwood has received an e-mail request from Mr. Dugger for a continuation of this until next month.  Mr. Kraus stated he is under the assumption that he will be refilling for a new rezoning once the new PUD legislation passes.  Mr. Roush stated he has asked for a meeting with himself and the Mayor to discuss how he is going to proceed with this.  Mr. Kraus stated assuming Council approves this legislation on Jan. 26th it will go into effect at the end of February, and I think if he submits anything prior to the referendum period it will be under the old regulations.  He stated he feels it should be tabled until March.  Since there is the acceptance step, we should be able to have him file prior to the new code as long as Planning Commission does not accept it prior to the new legislations.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated there is no acceptance stage.  Mr. Cunningham stated if the new legislation passes then they would not need a zoning change. 

 

Discussion held regarding what steps they would need to go through. 

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to table this until the regular February meeting. 

 

Mr. Bergwall          Yes    Mr. Cunningham    Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes   

Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mrs. Bodey Yes    Mr. Yoder   Yes   

 

Approval of Final Plat – Chestnut Park – filed by David Walker, ME Companies (Tabled from Dec. 5th)

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the commission received a copy of a letter that was faxed from council, Timothy Long, asking that this item be tabled for the next several months. 

 

Mr. Long stated they are in the process of selling the development to another developer and part of their conditions is that they have a chance to look through the engineering before we go any further.  I would think in a month or two they would be able to go forward.  I would like to table this back until March and hopefully by then we would be able to finish the Phase 1 of the Final Plat.

 

Mr. Seymour asked when the Final Plat was filed.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated she believes the Final Plat was filed in March for the April meeting.  Mr. Seymour stated it is not a big issue, but we just want to keep an eye on the 2 year deadline for construction.  Mr. Roush stated he is pretty sure that the 2 year deadline doesn’t start until after the Final Plat is approved. 

 

Mr. Kraus asked if the proposed buyer is planning on following the plans as they are now.  Mr. Long stated he is not aware of any changes they are planning to make. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated at the request of the developer, the Final Plat for Chestnut Park be tabled until the regular April meeting. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated this is for Final Plat approval.  The final plat that is going to be proposed to be approved is going to be different in that the names of the sub divider and so on are going to change.  Can we approve a modified final plat without it being resubmitted?  It should be updated, filed and then approved.  Mr. Kraus stated he would think they could file an amended Final Plat because they are minor changes.  Mr. Bergwall stated currently the drawings of record that the commission received for review have the key information on it as required, we need to somehow formally validate that the new information and the new person responsible is going to comply and endorse everything that was provided prior.  I just want to make sure we have it established as to what we are going to approve as a final plat.

 

Mr. Seymour stated any changes that were made as a result of the preliminary plat we would expect that to show.  Anything else is sounds like it would only be referenced to changes of names and addresses.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the point is we won’t have a set of drawings and a responsible individual that match.  Mr. Seymour stated the plat should come back with those revisions on it. 

 

Mr. Cunningham    Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes    Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mrs. Bodey Yes    Mr. Yoder          Yes    Mr. Bergwall          Yes   

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS:

 

Mr. Stolte stated he is here with Mrs. Jenny Snapp, the director of planning for LUC.  He stated Mrs. Snapp and he met with, Mrs. House, Mrs. Davies and the Mayor came in later and we talked about the city rejoining LUC.  He stated some of this is going to be his thoughts.  When I look at he planning activity that is going on in Union Co. and the City of Marysville, and look at what we spend combined on Economic Development, which is about $150,000 per year.  Between the city and county on planning activities we spend about $30,000 per year.  If you look at Dublin, they have an Economic Development department of 3 people and a planning department of about 25-35.  We are in reverse.  It’s not saying Dublin is right, it is just a benchmark.  I do not feel we put enough money into planning.  I am not against what we spend on the economic development.  LUC is an organization that has been around for 35 years.  The counties and the cities all had a seat on the committee and participated.  The old director of LUC spent several nights here with the planning commission for a period of a few years developing the subdivision process for the city.  In that period of time there was a tremendous amount of input from LUC into the city.  That involvement reduced somewhat to helping with changes, then when the previous came on board he made the decision that the city was not going to be a member of LUC anymore. 

 

Mr. Stolte stated over time all the members of this organization (LUC) did not take the time to tell LUC that it needs to be changed to meet the current needs of everyone.  When the previous administration chose to pull out of LUC it seems that it was the wrong thing to do.  The right thing to do would have been to make a greater commitment to them and say you are not meeting our needs anymore, let’s sit down and identify what is important to us today, what needs of ours are not being met and what can you do to become an organization to meet our needs.  It is important for the City of Marysville to be at the table and be a player there and help change the organization to meet your needs.

 

Mr. Stolte stated he would like to get input from the Planning Commission as to what planning needs do you see that are not being met.  Looking at the To Do List on the agenda, there is a start of things that someone could provide assistance to you to help you accomplish them.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated one of the things the commission has looked is visioning.  One of the pieces is as we make decisions as the city grows, the impact beyond our scope of prevue needs to be considered but we don’t want to step on anyone’s’ toes.  If we could get an entity to help us to deal with the aura area around Marysville, it would be a lot better. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated along time ago, the city along with Paris Township put together a planning guide for the northwest, south and east, which helped with the way SR 33, is today.  We have talked about doing that again, but we need help with that.  The city does not have the staff to do this.

 

Mrs. Bodey stated she knows nothing about LUC.  What is it?  Mr. Stolte stated it is a legal entity that has existed since 1968.  Mrs. Snapp stated it is membership based and the funding comes from the memberships.  The counties and cities pay a per capita fee.  She stated she is the director of planning and there are two part time staff members.  Based on the needs of the members we would like to see the staff increase, but we also need some input as to how to do that.  She stated we traditionally work on subdivision and zoning regulations.  We are required by law to review the zoning for the unincorporated areas.  We are additionally, the subdivision platting authority for the three counties.  We also write comprehensive plans. 

 

Mr. Cunningham asked what the planning staff was for Urbana and Bellefontaine.  Mrs. Snapp stated Bellefontaine does not have a planning staff, most of their stuff gets run through their engineering department similar to what is done here.  Urbana has just hired a full time planner.  Bellefontaine tends to use our services more.  Although it is an informal review, they send all of their zoning amendments, annexations and revisions to their zoning regulations to us. 

 

Mr. Yoder stated what we really need is some professional human resource assistance with what we are looking at.  Has there been any type of discussion as to what we might do to help fix this.  What if we shared a full time individual for planning between the city and county?  Mrs. Snapp stated there have been some initial discussions between the county and the city, maybe through our office.

 

Mr. Roush stated when he first came here is about he time the previous administration dropped LUC.  They then joined MORPC and maybe saw Marysville leaning more towards the central part of Ohio rather than the rural areas.  He stated there has been discussion about having membership with both LUC and MORPC.  Our MORPC dues are substantially lower than that of LUC.  MORPC dues are about $8,000 and in order to join LUC it would be about $14,000.  What the administration has done for this years budget is put $5,000 in for LUC dues.  The hope is to have a different due schedule for the cities to help offset the amount of services we receive. 

 

Mrs. Snapp stated she is not sure how the MORPC services work.  Do they come to your meetings?  One thing I do is go to township/municipal meetings several times a week.

 

Mr. Kraus stated what is the difference in the services we receive from the two programs.  He stated Mr. Stolte has a valid point, if LUC needs to morph into something else to meet our current needs, then maybe some of the burden is on us to help that happen. 

 

Mrs. Snapp stated they have taken on a very large visioning process.  What we would like to see is the cities have a seat at the table talking to us about how we need to proceed and what type of fee structure needs to occur to make this work for everyone.  There is no doubt that most of the work we undertake is for townships, but how do we reach to the municipal partners to help them as well.  Also, what type of staff to we need to fill those voids. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the commission struggles everyday with the fact that we do not have the support we need within the city.  We truly need a city planner and planning staff.  He stated he spoke with the new member of city council and she was stunned that we do not have a city planner.  He stated he understands the big issue is money. We should sit down and have a discussion about this with Mr. Stolte, Mrs. Snapp, and have MORPC there.  Let them know what we need and see how they can provide it to us versus LUC.  MORPC is a large entity and deals with large cities, how much personalization do we get from them. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated the first issue is defining what our needs are, we have a list of things in front of us but we can’t put our finger on exactly what we need.  We have a resource available to us, and the question is how can we take advantage of an experienced knowledgeable resource at our fingertips.  They are asking how can they help us and we need to tell them.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated on a personal note what we need more than anything is a comprehensive plan specifically for Marysville. 

 

Mrs. Snapp stated one of the advantages to having a seat at our table is that you get feed back from all of the different members as to what is working for them and what is not.

 

Mr. Kraus asked if LUC has given consideration to an alternative membership status. 

 

Mrs. Snapp stated they have thought about that and that is why they are going through the process they are right now.  This is also why it is important for Marysville to have a seat at the table, to give us feedback.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he would like to suggest sitting down with the administration and talking about our needs.

 

Mr. Roush stated in 2003 the full time city planner left.  The money that was going to the city planner is now going to the chamber of commerce for economic development. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated what is lacking is the value marketing link.  What is it that the city planning commission can do, what can MORPC does, what can you do, what is done on a state level?  You answer those questions and then take the 'To Do List' and see who can help us where. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated Marysville is in a unique spot.  We are on the northern edge of the Central Ohio region and the southern edge with LUC.  It makes sense to be part of both.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated if we put forth the $6,000 for MORPC and another $14,000, compared to the $58,000 we had when we had a planning staff, it seems like a drop in the bucket to get some real return on our investment.  I would like to continue this conversation with City Council so they are aware of the issues we are having. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated if you look around the community, Milford Center for instance continues to struggle and they have a main sewer artery coming to Marysville and we are seeing growth coming from that direction.  There needs to be an examination in that direction to make sure that it develops in the right way. 

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Rules of Procedure

 

Mr. Cunningham stated there was a discussion at a previous meeting regarding creating some committees to handle the foot work for some of the ‘To Do List’ items.  He stated Mrs. Penhorwood spoke to Mr. Aslaner to clarify that we are able to appoint Ad Hoc committees; we just need to add it to our Rules of Procedure.  Mrs. Penhorwood has presented to us some suggested language.  He stated he feels the language looks really good.

 

Mrs. Bodey stated it says the committee meeting must be advertised 48 hours in advanced, is that newspaper advertisement.  Mr. Cunningham stated yes.  Mrs. Bodey asked if it had to be in a public place.  Mr. Cunningham stated yes, it has to be open to the public. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated in the language it states single unusual instance, a lot of what we are talking about it to get more work done more efficiently.  Mr. Cunningham stated that is the wording Council uses; it is not in our suggested wording.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the awkward part is with as many things we would like to tackle and as few of us as there are, if two of us want to work on something and have to meet in a public place is binding.  If all you are going to do is prepare some information to bring before the group at a public meeting where the decision is going to be made, why is it necessary. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the public record lay is pretty specific.  There is no way around not having it as a public meeting.

 

Mrs. Bodey stated she would like to follow up and find out, because we are not City Council.  Mr. Cunningham asked Mrs. Bodey if she needed further clarification because we had asked Mr. Aslaner for his input and to clarify if we could create committees and whether or not they are public meetings. 

 

Mrs. Bodey stated the memo is from Mrs. Penhorwood and not from Mr. Aslaner.  I just want to make sure there is enough due diligence has been done on our specific request rather than defaulting to the way things have always been done.

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated she talked to Mr. Aslaner and told him exactly what the commission was looking for and this was his response.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the same thing happened at the stated level.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he has information he is going to propose on HOA’s, so does that make it wrong because it was not worked on in a public setting.  Mr. Cunningham stated one person is not a meeting.  Mr. Bergwall stated so he can’t talk to another commission member regarding my thoughts without it being publicized.  Mr. Cunningham stated two people can have a conversation, but you can not hold a meeting. 

 

Mr. Yoder made a motion to add the language to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure adding the word “the” to the very beginning and changing “addresses” to “addressed”.  Voice vote was unanimous.

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:

 

John Cunningham – He stated he met with Mrs. Sellers, the new City Council member, and talked about the new PUD legislation that is now before City Council.  I also offered to speak to the Manufactured Homes Commission, they are looking at the letter and information we received from Chief Johnson, and so I will be bringing back information on that request hopefully by the February meeting.

 

Alan Seymour – On the ‘To Do List’ what can we take off.  Discussion held regarding what can be taken off and what everything is.  

 

Don Bergwall – I have  started putting information together regarding the HOA’s and e-mailed it to Alan and John for preview.

 

Roger Yoder – He stated he subscribes to the Planning Commissioners Journal and here is an issue where they talk about HOA’s.

 

Paula Bodey – None

 

Ken Kraus – None

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

Meeting was adjourned.