PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF
MONDAY,
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Alan Seymour, Ken Kraus, Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, John
Cunningham and Don Bergwall. Paula Bodey was
excused.
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Steve Kelly (Bear Creek Capital), Justin Jehn (K4 Architecture) and Clerk Barb McCoy
OLD
BUSINESS:
New Retail Shopping Center
(Best Buy) – north of Home Depot on Coleman’s Crossing Blvd. – filed by Bear
Creek Capital, LLC (tabled from January 11th)
General Note:
The commission complimented the improvements that were returned to the
board. More brick over all, many
trees
between the highway and building to shield the less attractive building
rear; a third group of handicapped
parking spaces were added; improvements to the front Best Buy portion to look
more like the rest of the front; improvements to the sides and rear to look more
like the rest of the building and more attractive on the highway side. Also,
more split face block rather then smooth faced block. They were disappointed that the blue
"sail" was not reduced in size to fit within the best buy building face.
Steve
Kelly representing Bear Creek Capital reviewed the resubmitted site plan,
including landscape plan and revised elevations. It was noted that the handicapped spaces
were revised to show two additional spaces for the middle unit for a total of
three locations. The landscape
plans are being submitted for Shade Tree Commission’s
review.
Mr.
Kelly stated that research has shown that the City of
Mr.
Griffin noted that Home Depot’s property line has Chinese Elm trees (lace bark
elm).
Mr.
Kelly stated the finished floor for this building will be 5’ below existing
mound. Will be
approximately 5’ higher than Home Depot’s building.
Board
members concurred it should be noted for record that a driveway between Home
Depot and Best Buy is desired.
The
exterior elevations details were reviewed with it being noted that the Best Buy
building has split face CMU at bottom; Sequoia brick above split face CMU; EIFS
to match brick above brick; oyster shell in color EIFS and then Monastery brown
EIFS. Cannot get Best Buy to
deviate from the blue sail but reversed it on the building. The brick columns have been added. The brick is an oversized utility brick.
Discussion
was held on the color of mortar joints.
Mr. Kelly stated it would be the gray, natural color. Board members agreed that would be
better than trying to match the brick.
Mr.
Bergwall noted the new drawings have some items omitted that should be included
from the original drawing dated
Mr.
Jehn stated the square on the brick columns intended
to be custom cast stone by boral brick, color
natural. This is an item that needs
to be included on the drawings dated
Discussion
held on possibility of the blue “sail” being able to be removed and the front
façade of the Best Buy building being remodeled if they should ever close their
business. It was noted according to
Codified Ordinance 1144.08(d), any structure that has been approved through the
Design Review process shall be subject to the provisions of the Design Review
chapter for any subsequent exterior improvements or
construction.
Mr.
Kelly continued the review of the side and rear elevations noting on the rear of
the back of front facades will be painted “oyster shell” to better blend with
the building. The mechanicals will
be painted the same color.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he still thinks mechanicals are still a concern from the rear
elevation along US 33. Would suggest screening around three sides closest to the road
versus painting.
Mr.
Kelly stated he is not opposed to screening but the purpose of not having a
parapet is that the effect is more of an architectural feature than
screening. Feels paint is best
approach. Feel it is excessive cost
after what they have done to rest of building.
Mr.
Seymour stated parapet would also shield rubber roofing. Discussion held concerning members’
preferences for parapet. Members concurred parapet across back would accomplish
screen. Members individually were
polled on their preference for a parapet – Mr. Bergwall stated yes, but would
agree to screen equipment; Mr. Griffin stated yes, prefers parapet; Mr.
Cunningham stated yes, wants parapet; Mr. Kraus, yes but would agree to
screening equipment only; Mr. Seymour stated yes, wants parapet; Mr. Yoder yes,
wants parapet. General preference
of Design Review Board – wants parapet.
Discussion
held by Board members of importance of getting to the point where the buildings
meet the Design Review ordinance.
It was noted that the Board should consider revising Chapter
1144.10(a)(4) where it states facades greater than 100’ feet in length should
incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least 3% of
the length of the façade and extending at least 20% of the length of the
façade. In cases like this building
based on quality of material and location of building, the board is waiving this
requirement.
Mr.
Kraus made the motion to
approve this building with the following items noted:
·
Using
elevation drawings dated
·
Waive
3% per 100’ rule based on quality of material and location of
building
·
Encourage
City to allow trees to be planted on property along US 33
·
Relocate
a few trees to rear of building on left
·
Encourage
very aggressive action with Home Depot for joint access between
properties
·
If any
dumpsters, enclosure to be constructed of split face block
·
Horizontal
band above doors to be EIFS to match brick
·
Parapet
to hide lower part of HVAC units and to hide roof
·
Complimentary
color to match bay cream split face CMU
·
Paint
HVAC units oyster shell
Question put, stood:
Mr.
Yoder Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Kraus No (opposed to parapet) Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Bergwall Yes
Suggestions
made to review handicap parking regulations and the 3% issues in the Design
Review Code.
NEW BUSINESS:
Amendment to Legislation - Changes
to Chapter 1145, Planned Unit Development - currently on council
agenda
Mr.
Cunningham stated the commission passed a resolution forward to city council to
amend chapter 1145. At the second
reading, which was the first meeting for the new council person Leah Sellers,
she raised the concern that in the current wording of the statues that we have
sections 1145.14 where we talk about criteria for recommendations by Planning
Commission. Toward the end of the
language we have 1145.21 we have criteria for approval by Planning
Commission. Mrs. Sellers was
concerned because there is a slight difference between the two. In 1145.21 (4) was an additional
component which reflects having to base any deviations on zoning districts in
1137. Mr. Cunningham stated Mr.
Kraus came up with recommended changes.
Mr.
Cunningham stated if you look at the e-mail from Mrs. Sellers, it shows what
changes were discussed with her.
The first was a cross reference to be added to the front page of “Ohio
Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 3”.
The second item was to add to section 1145.01 (b). She suggested adding a nine and
ten. Nine to be: “To develop land
in an orderly, coordinated and comprehensive manner that is consistent with
accepted land planning, landscape architecture practices and engineering
principles.” Mr. Cunningham stated
what this would give us would be addition leverage if we were to say no to a
specific item or the PUD. Number
ten to be: “To pursue the housing and economic development goals of the
city.” Mr. Griffin asked if we had
goals. Mr. Cunningham stated there
are the CHIP and CHIS plans and the comprehensive plan.
Mr.
Cunningham stated Mrs. Sellers also suggested conforming 1145.14 to .21 with the addition of:
in (3) “The streets and thoroughfares proposed and affected are suitable
and adequate…” Mr. Kraus stated he
changed it a little bit.
Mr.
Seymour asked if they were looking for comments. He stated back in the addition of number
(10) in 1145.01, he has a problem with the word “goals” because it implies there
is something documented somewhere.
Mr. Cunningham stated there is.
Mr. Seymour asked if there was something to pursue the housing and
economic development goals. He
stated he feels that word can be replaced with something better. Mr. Cunningham suggested strategy. Commission agreed.
Mr.
Cunningham stated back to 1145.14 and .21.
Mr. Kraus changed the wording to read “streets and thoroughfares proposed
within the PUD and those outside the PUD that are affected are suitable and
adequate….” Mr. Bergwall asked what
the commission is going to do when they are not suitable. Mr. Cunningham stated then you say no to
the development.
Mr.
Kraus stated he thinks the biggest issue here is for things like, what is the
time frame for getting a turn lane in and so on.
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1145.21 (2) and (4) were basically the same. What I am suggesting is that we combine
the two.
Mr.
Griffin asked if the commission is complicating things by trying to make
amendments to the code when it is already through a second reading. Would we be better off to say we want to
move forward with what we already have and then come back and if we find it
makes sense to rewrite it then we can.
Mr. Cunningham stated was going to be his point to Mrs. Seller’s
suggestions. I don’t think it is
going to go through if we don’t make some accommodations. I was going to make the suggestion to
make the suggestions Mrs. Sellers requested originally. As far as the other items she suggested
changing, I don’t agree with them.
Mr.
Cunningham stated Mrs. Seller’s suggestion to 1145.05, in which she stated
doesn’t make sense to her; it is how it is currently in the code. In 1145.10, Mrs. Sellers question why
the city should pay for the notice.
Mr. Cunningham stated this gives the city control of what goes in the
paper. In 1145.15, Mrs. Sellers,
stated she wants to strike the last sentence because the language could gear a
developer up for litigation against the city. The last sentence in 1145.15 is, “If the
PUD is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated by city council
for the record.” Mr. Cunningham
stated if council does not state the reason for disapproval, how are they going to be able to fix it.
Mr.
Cunningham stated Mrs. Sellers goes on in her e-mail that she would like to add
to 1145.15 the following: ‘Disapproval by City Council shall terminate the
process. Another zoning amendment
application pertaining to the land included in the disapproved application shall
not be accepted within one year from the date of disapproval, unless there has
been substantial change to warrant reconsideration.’ He stated what this does is not allow
this to be zoned anything. Mr.
Seymour stated it leaves it too open ended. Mr. Cunningham asked why a year. Mr. Kraus stated it only terminates the
process if the applicant does not agree to make the changes requested by
council. Mr. Yoder asked what the
intent of the one year delay is.
Mr. Seymour stated we don’t want to play hard ball.
Mr.
Kraus stated as Mr. Cunningham mentioned, these items were not discussed. Mr. Cunningham stated his suggestion is
to go to city council and state we are willing to make the changes as we
discussed, and we are more than willing to take the other suggested changes back
and consider them. However, we
would like to get this current proposed language in place and then we can tweak
it with the other changes after approval.
Mr.
Seymour stated the commission has heard comments that the commission makes the
system too complex and our desire now it to not make it complex.
Mr.
Kraus stated he disagrees with Mrs. Sellers on 1145.22. The whole intent is for the applicant to
go to council one time.
Mr.
Cunningham stated in 1145.18 she wants the commission to report back to them and
tell them there are these non subtenant changes. He stated the commission’s records are
public; they will be able to look at a copy of the minutes.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he knows of at least one council person who is not comfortable
that they are only getting one shot at this. Mr. Kraus stated council has always has
just one shot.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if Mrs. Sellers can make the recommendations for change and
council amend it themselves and move on with the process. Mr. Cunningham stated yes.
Mr.
Cunningham asked if the commission should make a motion as a group to agree with
Mrs. Sellers suggested amendments and as a group defer on consideration of her
subsequent suggestions. Mr. Seymour
stated that he would rather have it in a general consensus form.
Discussion
held on how the commission’s opinion on these changes will be presented to city
council.
Commission
set next meeting for Feb. 2nd to continue discussion on the new
design review process.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
All
commissioners declined comment.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting
was adjourned.