PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2007
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, Roger Yoder, Ken Kraus. Pat Soller – Absent.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kevin Klingler, Dan
Miller, Dennis Schulze, Meg
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning
Commission Meeting – January 2, 2007 – Mr. Griffin made a motion to approve the
minutes as presented. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion Passed.
Planning
Commission Special Meeting- January 18, 2007- Mr. Bergwall stated there is a
minor item on page 8, third paragraph from the bottom, it should be “move” not
“more”. Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion Passed.
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN
COMMENTS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval
of Final Plat
– Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co. – tabled from 11-6-06
Mr. Dennis Schulze stated financing is not an
issue, it is the initial investor. We
have been making progress and have had several meeting over the last couple of
weeks that have been very promising.
Basically what we have is $4 million is financing from the banks. We have everything to go as far as the
platting. What we need is the initial
investor. We had someone out of
Mr. Kraus stated the last time you were here there was talk about
changing the phasing of the project and the number of lots it has in it. What is the status of that? Mr. Schulze stated as far as reducing the
number of lots in phase one, it is still a very good possibility. He stated there initial idea of having 40
lots in the first phase was unrealistic.
They need to be more in the 20 lot area.
In the condo segment, they have come up with an interesting possibility,
which is the inclusion of an assisted living facility. They may be coming back to present to you
this idea.
Mr. Kraus asked if that would require
rezoning. Mr. Schulze stated no because
it is a PUD. Mr. Kraus stated in that
case it is under the old PUD code in which the permitted uses are those of the
underlying zoning district and I don’t think assisted living facilities are
included in the AR zoning.
Mr. Schulze stated what we may do then is go
ahead with the old plan, put the people off on the assisted living facility,
because we think that will stand on its own.
We can do that after the single family and the condos. We can come back separate and ask it to be
amended to include the assisted living.
Mr. Kraus stated something you may want to look
at is to look at redoing a PUD under the new system for just that portion. Mr. Schulze asked if they would have to start
at the beginning for that. Mr. Kraus
stated yes.
Mr. Schulze stated that we think the assisted
living is a plus for the project and so we have no problem coming in with it
separately. It is not a nursing home
facility. It is for the individuals who
were used to being in the condos and now they need a little more help. They would have the use of the club house and
the picnic area.
Mr. Bergwall stated the change from the condos
to the assisted living is a big change.
If you are going to do that, the proposal should be submitted as soon as
possible, so everyone can comprehend everything.
Mr. Schulze stated like Mr. Kraus stated, this
really has to start from scratch and we understand that.
Mr. Cunningham stated you are then asking that
this be tabled until when. Mr. Schulze
stated he hopes March 5th will be sufficient. I will know better after the meeting I have
this Thursday.
Mr. Kraus asked when the filing deadline was
for the March agenda. Mrs. Penhorwood
stated this Friday, February 9th.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to table the Approval
of the Final Plat for Galbury Meadows be tabled until the regular meeting in
April at the request of the developer.
This is with the understanding that all revised drawings are in hand for
regular packet distribution.
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr. Yoder Yes Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion Passed
Mr. Schulze
stated he just wanted to let the commission know that the Chestnut Park
developer may have a buyer for the project and we may be starting over and be
coming back in front of the commission.
NEW BUSINESS:
Zoning
Amendment
–
Mr. DeLong stated he submitted a letter to the
commission which basically outlined the subject property in relation to the
comprehensive plan. The comprehensive
plan does call for commercial office use in that area of the city.
Mr. Dan Miller stated when they first looked at
this property one of the uses Mr. Marshall was looking at putting in was a
warehouse. We decided as a transition
from warehouse to residential that it would be a better use to put in an office
complex. In doing that we found out that
the existing B-1 property was a little too small. We entertain using one of the R-2 lots to
create a more of a softer transition from the office use to the
residential. With that we came up with a
U shaped plan which keeps the parking in the middle and away from the residences. The buildings will be one story, wood
construction and the fronts will be the residential character of the
neighborhood. We will have mounding and
screening to the residential on the South side.
We feel it is a good use to bring more businesses and offices to the
downtown.
Mr. Seymour stated there is B-1 to one side and
R-2 to the other. So this would not be
introducing a new zoning to the area.
Mr. Miller stated they were happy to see Mr.
Marshall do something different instead of putting the warehouse in as he
originally planned.
Mr. Griffin asked how much space was between
the building and the lot line closest to the residential area. Mr. Miller stated there is about 8 ft. Mr. Griffin asked how they plan to buffer
this area. Mr. Miller stated alone the
building they will have a 6 ft. fence and the rest of the property line will
have mounding and landscaping.
Mr. Cunningham stated he wanted to point out
that the design is not the issue this evening.
The issue is the zoning. Mr.
Griffin stated he understands.
Mr. Cunningham stated it is important to note
that if we approve the B-1 zoning anything that is permitted in B-1 can be put
on this property. The applicant is not
tied to this design.
Mr. Miller stated he understands that, however,
they are looking at this project and have an interest in it because we will be
opening a branch office of our firm in one of these buildings.
Mr. Kraus stated under the proposed uses in
your packet, you have listed Construction, Special Trades. How important is that use to this
project? Mr. Miller stated Mr. Marshall
was looking to move the office of his construction company to this area as well. Mr. Kraus stated the reason he raises the
question is a B-R designation would limit some of the commercial uses but
allows everything on your list but the Construction, Special Trades. This would perhaps be a better buffer between
the commercial and residential. He
stated there may be some people who say to do that for 2 lots would be spot
zoning. My response would be that it
would be a zoning spot. It is what would
be best for the area.
Mr. Cunningham stated the question is would
Construction, Special Trades be allowable in the B-R district.
Mrs. Meg Michel stated she was here to talk
about what was allowable in the B-R and O-R districts, but she was late to the
meeting and missed the citizen comment section.
She stated what Construction, Special Trades entailed was general contractors
and about six other types of contractors for use as offices and supply
areas.
Mr. Kraus stated that would be unlike Carroll
Electric that used to be in that area.
Mr. Cunningham stated he doesn’t know if the
requestor would be willing to change their request to rezone it to B-R. Mr. Miller stated that was what we were
looking at in the beginning; however, we changed it to avoid the issue of spot
zoning. He stated he grew up in
Marysville and I would rather see the B-R transition.
Mr. Kraus stated he doesn’t have a problem with
arguing the fact that this is not spot zoning it is a zoning spot, it is more
protective of the neighborhood, but it is up to the rest of the
commission.
Mrs. Meg Michel stated what she wanted to talk to the commission
plays into what is being talked about here.
She stated she has always looked at O-R and B-R as the buffer zone
between the heavy use commercial and the residential uses. I think we need to add some acceptable uses
to the O-R and B-R. We are discouraging
logical businesses from going to those areas, we are forcing them into a
heavier use area. It makes O-R and B-R almost
uneconomic to develop. I brought up you
a few things that are under the construction, trade services. She stated you can’t do architectural design
for landscaping anywhere in Marysville.
A-R is the only place you can do anything agricultural. There is a whole in the use category. Veterinary services are permitted in TOC and
B-1, it should be permitted in O-R. I would like for you to at the next meeting
add a few uses to O-R and B-R so the land is currently can be utilized.
Mr. Cunningham stated on the Landscape
Architecture issue only being permitted in A-R, where are you seeing it under
A-R. Mrs. Michel stated it is in general
07 category of the SIC code.
Mrs. Penhorwood stated Mrs. Michel had
previously called into the office with this same information and Mrs. McCoy and
myself looked into this and in O-R Engineering/Architectural and if you look in the SIC book it allows for
landscaping architecture.
Mrs. Michel stated veterinarian services are
permitted in B-1 now, but not in O-R.
There is no separation in Eating and Drinking Places. There is a big difference between a coffee
shop and a place that has a grill.
Mr. Cunningham stated he thanks Mrs. Michel for
pointing this out to the commission. He
stated we will be reviewing sections of the code and will keep this in mind.
Mr. Schulze stated in regards to the agenda
item, for zoning you have to look at what is best for the city and if it is a
transitional type of thing then it is not spot zoning.
Mr. Kevin Klingler
stated he lives in the neighborhood and thinks B-R is a good idea because it
offers more protection to the neighborhood but still allows them to build the
offices.
Mr. Seymour stated what is presented is B-1 Mr.
Kraus has suggested B-R, and I would like the commission to also consider
O-R. He stated the reason he would bring
up O-R is that it would limit it a little more.
Mrs. Michel stated this is the first time this
change is being made public. If I were
the person buying the house next door I would want to know. Does the system allow for notification to a
home owner who has a home in contract?
Mr. Miller stated he understands that Mr.
Marshall has made the pending buyer aware of what we are planning on doing and
what could be done if this does not get approved.
Mr. Seymour stated this also has to go through City Council. All homeowners will also get a notification
of the public hearing through City Council.
Mr. Bergwall stated right now we have B-1 and
R-2 adjacent to each other. If you take
B-1 down to B-R and R-2 up to B-R, you compromise with the two lots.
Mr. Cunningham stated if we want we can wait
until the next meeting to take actions to see if anyone else comes forward with
issues. Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Miller
if there was urgency on the part of the developer on this.
Mr. Miller stated there is to a certain
extent. We are open to rezoning it to
B-R.
Commission agreed that they lean more towards
the B-R zoning vs. the B-1 or O-R.
Mr. Bergwall asked if Mr. Miller made the
recommendation to modify the request to include rezoning both lots to B-R can
we still act on it tonight.
Mr. Cunningham stated we are only talking about
one lot tonight so this will need to come back to us.
Mr. Bergwall stated the text of the application
talks about both properties. To me it is
appropriate to consider both lots in the request to amend the application. Mr. Kraus agreed.
Mr. Chad Morse stated he is a neighbor in this
area, whether this is zoned to B-R or B-1, is it going to make a difference in
the screening procedures. Mr. Cunningham
stated no. Mr. Morse stated his other
question would be the storm water. Mr.
Cunningham stated that issue would come up when the actual design of the
building is reviewed.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to amend the
application to add
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Motion Passed.
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to make a recommendation to City Council to rezone 428 and
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion Passed.
DISCUSSION/ ACTION ITEMS:
Revision of ‘To Do’ List
Mr. Kraus stated
at the last special meeting we talked about officially doing something with the
‘To Do’ List at this meeting. Do we want
to drop some of the items off of our list and wrap some of them up into doing a
revision of the code?
Mr. Bergwall
stated he was at the last City Council and asked Mr. Aslaner,
Law Director, if he had a chance to review the proposals of Chapter 1111 and
HOA legislation and he stated he had not seen either one. I forwarded a copy to him but have not heard
back from him.
Mr. Kraus stated
based on the last discussion, Councilman Reams Memo, Historic District Zoning,
SR 736 rezoning, Section 1107.10, Section 1107.09 and POD’s
we stated can be removed from out list, but not lost sight of.
Mr. Yoder stated
he thought it sounds reasonable.
Mr. Kraus stated
Chapter 1111 is left on the list and then we also need to start going through
the code.
Mr. Cunningham
stated Chapter 1111 is part of going through the code too. I have agreed to draft a letter and send it
to both legislators regarding the enforcement of this.
Mr. Bergwall
asked where the Historic District zoning was left. Mr. Kraus stated based on the last
discussion, I think it goes back into the whole lot coverage issue.
Mr. Bergwall
stated that is an area I have some question with.
Commission
agreed it is something to look at when they do the code revision.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated as the commission is reviewing the code one thing they also need to take
a look at is updating the SIC codes that are in the zoning code. Mr. Cunningham asked Mrs. Penhorwood if she
could start working on that for the commission.
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to remove Councilman Reams Memo, Historic District Zoning, SR 736
rezoning, Section 1107.10, Section 1107.09 and POD’s
be dropped from the ‘To Do’ List and incorporated into the process of reviewing
the entire zoning code.
Mr. Yoder Yes Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion Passed.
INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Yoder – He
asked when the commission was going to start reviewing the code. Mr. Cunningham asked what dates were free the
week of the 19th. Mrs.
Penhorwood stated Wednesday the 21st the room is available. Commission agreed to have a special meeting
on the 21st to layout a strategy to attack the review of the code.
Mr. Seymour-
None
Mr. Cunningham –
None
Mr. Kraus – None
Mr. Bergwall –
None
Mr. Griffin –
None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was
adjourned at 8:10 p.m.