PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2006

 

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

 

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  

 

Eric Phillips and Rick Shortell

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

New Design Review Process

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the commission has already been through this once.  We are going through it again to make sure all our changes are made. 

 

Mr. Phillips stated the text highlighted in yellow is the changes that were made in the beginning and the green highlighted text is the changes the commission made on the first run through.

 

Commission started reading through the text.  Mr. Kraus stated in 1136.06 (b) it should start with “At least”, so the commission is not stuck and not able to review it sooner.  There should also be something to separate the code and guidelines since the guidelines don’t go to council.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated 1136.07 should reference 1136.09 somehow.  Mr. Yoder suggested deleting “approval,” and leave it.  Mr. Cunningham stated he would still like to have the reference to 1136.09.  Mrs. Bodey stated “Fast Track” should not be capitalized. 

 

Mrs. Bodey questioned why you need (b) 1 and 2.  She stated they don’t need to have their own bullets.  Mr. Kraus asked why you can’t just take off the “if found to be complete” or “….incomplete” and leave them as is.  Mr. Yoder stated if you do that (2) doesn’t make sense.  Mr. Kraus suggested taking out “the” and replacing with “incomplete”.

 

Mr. Phillips stated the first one will need something done with it as well.  Mr. Kraus suggested reversing (1) and (2).  Mr. Phillips stated he feels the positive should be before the negative.  In (1) the word complete is needed.  Mrs. Bodey stated it is implied.

 

Mrs. Bodey asked if the lawyers are going to be hung up on the itemization.  Mr. Phillips stated you can take it out.  Mr. Kraus suggested ending the sentence after applicant.

 

Mrs. Bodey asked why in (c) “application review” is after Appropriateness.

 

Mrs. Bodey stated 1136.09 (a) is too wordy.  Mr. Kraus suggested taking out “considered to be minor construction”.  Discussion held on how to reword it.  Mrs. Bodey suggested, “A fast track approval is appropriate for the following environmental changes:” 

 

Mr. Kraus stated he agrees with Mr. Cunningham that we don’t want the word including.  The zoning inspector has to make this decision.  They should have a straight forward list.  He stated he likes the way it was before.  Mrs. Bodey suggested, “The following environmental changes qualify for fast track review.” 

 

Commission decided in 1136.09 (a) (1) and (2) change “when” to “if”.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated we don’t have design standards for awnings, so if they are non compliant with the standards we do establish and they come in for a replacement are they going to be allowed to replace it as is.  Mr. Phillips stated once they take it down to replace it they will have to meet the guidelines. 

 

Mrs. Bodey stated in 1136.9 (a) and (b) are not parallel.  (a) is applicability and (b) should be procedure.  The procedure should be first.  Commission decided to title them as suggested and to delete the first sentence in (b) (1) and the first part of (b) (2).  Mr. Cunningham stated in (b) “shall be” should be “is”. 

 

Mrs. Bodey stated in 1136.10, the word “appropriate” in front of scale and in front of “design review board meeting” should be taken out. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated in 1136.10 (1) through (17) some of them apply only to new construction, such as (13).  Mr. Cunningham asked why the commission would not want to see the lighting if they are going to change it. Discussion held regarding (16).  Commission decided to leave it as is.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked where it was in this code that we are only looking at the facades.  Mr. Phillips stated it is back under environmental change.  Mr. Cunningham gave the example of the Short Stop on Fifth Street.  If they are going to redo the parking lot with lights, stormwater and everything, then we don’t have anything to say about the parking lot?  Mr. Kraus stated yes, we do, because it talks about exterior features and the parking lot is just that.

 

Mr. Kraus stated with 1136.12 he feels the commission should leave it as is, work with it a little bit and keep track of things we need to clarify or change and then do so.  He stated the same with demolition.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated in regards to roofs, how are they to be aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians.  Why are we singling out pedestrians?  Shouldn’t it just be aesthetically pleasing? 

 

Mr. Kraus stated under 1136.13 (a)(2), “The Board shall hire….” should be “may”.  Commission agreed. 

 

Mr. Cunningham asked in 1140.02 (a), what are the “certain land uses”.  Mr. Phillips stated it is defined later in the chapter. 

 

Mr. Kraus asked if it was necessary in 1140.03 (a) to have “in accordance and established in Chapter 1144,”.  Mr. Phillips stated the reason that was added is because it is referring to Chapter 1144 and it ties them together.  Mrs. Bodey asked why that section is titled “developments”.  Mr. Phillips stated there is a difference between developments and plats.  Mrs. Bodey stated developments are not defined.  Commission decided to take out the title word developments.

 

Mrs. Bodey asked in 1144.06 (should be 1140.06) what is the exterior plan application.  Mr. Phillips stated that is what the commission approved with the design review. 

 

Mr. Griffin stated we already decided that these are the standards that are in place now and to use them until we find something that doesn’t make sense.  Mr. Kraus stated the biggest change he was after was with automobile dealers, their display area does not count as parking.

 

Mrs. Bodey stated the car dealers in Dublin have landscaping.  Mr. Kraus stated that is why Roby’s and Nelson’s are here and not in Dublin.  Mrs. Bodey stated it looks better and if it looks better that’s what matters.  Mr. Yoder stated they will still be required to have the same number of trees they will just be allowed to place them in different areas as to not interfere with the cars. 

 

Mr. Phillips stated in 1144.03 he did not take out the professional experience requirements.  He stated the reason it was left in is because if there is any legal challenges, there should be someone with experience in this area. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated 1144.10 (a)(4), he would suggest changing it to “…should incorporate wall place projections or recesses.”  Mr. Phillips stated you are basically taking out the percentages.  Mr. Griffin stated as long as we have the ability to say what it is we want such as columns.  Discussion held regarding whether to change the “shoulds” to “shalls”. 

 

Commission decided to leave as is.

 

Discussion held on whether to change the 100 feet to something lesser.  Commission decided to change it to 75 feet. 

 

Mr. Griffin stated there is one more item the commission needs to touch on and it is not in these sections and that is signs.  He stated he doesn’t want to run into another Best Buy situation if it can be avoided.  Mr. Kraus stated the problem is that if they can make the case that it is part of their logo, our sign ordinance will not have the power.  Mr. Griffin stated he disagrees with that because they could incorporate their sail into a building of a different design so it is not outside of the general shape of the building.  Mr. Bergwall stated the Best Buy by Polaris is more that way.  Mr. Yoder stated isn’t that up to the city.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the other area in 1144 that has become a problem is the roof exposure.  Mr. Cunningham stated it is covered in here we just have to stand on it.  Mr. Bergwall stated all it says is it has to be compatible with the materials and color scheme.  Mr. Cunningham stated there is another section that talks about mechanicals being covered up.  Mr. Phillips stated it is on page 176EE (c).  Mrs. Bodey stated it needs to specify mechanicals in the title.  Commission agreed. 

 

Mr. Kraus suggested waiting to send this through council until the PUD is through. 

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:

 

Mr. Kraus – He stated he would suggest that all the planning commission members take turns providing the monthly report to city council as it was suggested in our joint meeting.  The major benefit to this is they get to know all of the commissioners not just the chairman.  Mr. Cunningham stated he doesn’t disagree but he feels the chairman still needs to go to the meeting because you want to make sure they know who to call.  He stated the other question is at what council meeting is this report going to be given.  Discussion held.  Commission decided to report at the second meeting of each month. 

 

Citizen made comments (could not make out on recording).

 

Discussion held regarding having a city planner and a comprehensive plan.

 

Discussion held regarding upcoming agenda items for regular meeting. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

Mr. Yoder made a motion to adjourn.  Voice vote was unanimous.