PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MEETING OF MONDAY,
CALL TO ORDER:
The Chairman called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Ken Kraus, Roger Yoder, Alan Seymour, Paula Bodey, John
Cunningham, Pete Griffin, Don Bergwall.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Phil Roush,
Tammy Penhorwood, Michael Warner, Glenn Dugger, Dennis Schulze, Jim Page, Myron
Gallogly, Pricilla Gallogly, Mrs. Gibson, Gary Schmidt
Mr. Cunningham stated before
the meeting gets started in terms of moving through the agenda we need to
remember that we need to speak one at a time and the one speaking needs to be
recognized by the chair of the meeting before speaking.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission Special Meeting –
Planning Commission Meeting –
Planning Commission Special Meeting –
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr. Roush stated he has drafted a letter to send to all
developers and consultants to firm up the Planning Commission and Staffs
position on accepting final plat applications. He stated in the past there may have
been a slight bending of the rules where we accepted the application when the
engineering plans have not been completely approved. We just want to confirm that from this
point forward that we will be following the code.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
None
OLD
BUSINESS:
Zoning
Amendment – 14145 SR 4 – zoning change from AR to R-2/R-4 (tabled from Jan.
3rd)
Mr.
Dugger stated this application is one that has been
before the commission for some time.
He stated he would defer to the chairman on how he wants to handle
this. The current request is for
standard zoning classifications. At
the time we looked at doing this project as a PUD. The PUD code needed some revision work
and it has now been done. He stated
their intention is to convert this application from what has been currently
filed into the PUD format. He
stated we would like to get some input as to which direction we should pursue
the PUD.
Mr.
Cunningham stated the new PUD legislation is currently in front of City
Council. There are some amendments
that are proposed. Mr. Dugger stated he is hoping the legislation remains
substantially similar to what the commission considered. Mr. Cunningham stated in terms of
content it should stay the same.
The amendments are procedural items.
Mr.
Dugger stated he has anticipated on gathering some
discussion in terms of direction with the PUD and to have it in front of the
commission next month.
Mr.
Bergwall stated as to the amendment on the agenda, and
based on the drawings that were submitted with it, I would have reservations
about it being appropriate for that area.
Mr.
Kraus suggested moving this item to the end of the meeting where they can spend
more discussion time on it.
Mr.
Seymour stated if we choose to move this on the agenda, it would no longer be
titled zoning amendment. We would
talk about the PUD options.
Mr.
Dugger stated for the purposes tonight, I would
request that we table the item as shown on the agenda and then have discussion
on the later agenda item about revising this application.
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to table the zoning amendment
for the 14145 SR4 property at the request of the
developer to the regular March meeting.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Cunningham
Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mrs. Bodey Yes
Approval
of Final Plat – Keystone Crossing – (tabled from Dec.
5th)
Mr.
Dennis Schulze stated in December we asked to have this tabled until February
since
Mr.
Seymour stated the plans we have before us right now for final plat don’t
clearly define all of the agreements that we came up with. Mr. Schulze stated it looks like we
might be doing all of the sewer work through
Mr.
Yoder made a motion to table the approval of Keystone Crossing at the request of
the representative until the regular April meeting.
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Cunningham
Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mrs. Bodey Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
NEW
BUSINESS
Amendment
to approved Preliminary Plat – Galbury
Meadows
Mr.
Schulze stated he represents Galbury but he thought
they were going to be here. I ask
that this be postponed a little bit until I have an opportunity to contact them
and see what is going on.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to move this to the end of the new business items. Voice vote was unanimous.
Acceptance
of Preliminary Plat – The Oaks
Mr.
Kraus stated given the fact that there is a legal dispute between the applicant
and the City, in which I will probably be playing a role, I will be recusing myself.
I would ask that someone come and get me once these agenda items are
concluded.
Mr.
Page stated he is here to answer any questions the commission may have.
Mr.
Cunningham stated in the checklist it mentions having elevations of proposed
buildings. The commission has asked
this question in regards to the condos.
It was indicated that it would be something that would be handled by a
third party when the condos developed.
He stated he is very concerned before the approval of this project that
we have some more concrete idea of what they are going to look like and what
some of the restrictions will be.
The only thing we have heard at this point is the price, which was
indicated to be around $200,000. We
would like to have more information regarding building materials and how it will
conform to the surrounding buildings and environment.
Mr.
Page stated the problem they have with that is the condo section will be built
by someone else. It is hard for us
to tell you what they are going to do.
He stated the concept of the condos was presented in the sketch plan
phase and if someone else is going to come in and buy that section they are
going to have to come in and present this to you.
Mr.
Cunningham stated once we approve this plat and development plan, I don’t know
if we will have an opportunity to review those plans.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated in the design review code it
specifies that any property within a PUD, will have to go before the
board.
Mr.
Page stated it could be spelled out to us that it has to come back to you to
look at. He stated when you approve
the PUD you are not approving that section in detail. You could word it in any such way that
you are not giving up the power to review the condos.
Mr.
Gallogly stated the specific question regarding the
materials are specified in the deed restrictions and applies to the single
family and the condos. The
restrictions also spell out the square footage of the buildings. He stated across the road you have
Walker Meadows you have a small number of condos that is intended to be very
high end. There is also Mr. Bland
building on
Mr.
Cunningham stated he wants to make sure with the zoning that we have some
control. Mr. Gallogly stated the discussion with the perspective buyers
is that anything they do deviating from what we currently have, which is
detached units with the materials in the restrictions, will have to come back to
the commission.
Mr.
Seymour asked if the styling of the condos would blend with the styling of the
neighborhood. Mr. Gallogly stated it would blend with the project which is
above the neighborhood. Mr. Seymour
asked what instruction are you giving your perspective
buyers on the styling. Mr. Gallogly stated the developer will have to come to the
commission for final review, so you will have the final say.
Mr.
Bergwall asked in regards to the access to SR 38,
Mr.
Roush stated between the two accesses from this development looks to be about
650 ft. Mr. Bergwall asked why we really need two exits from this
development onto SR 38 if there is a second exit onto SR 736. We need two points of entrance and
egress, but do they have to be onto the same road?
Mr.
Page stated
Mr.
Seymour stated at the sketch plan, part of the objective was for
Mr.
Bergwall stated we want to discourage people going
through this development to get over to SR 736.
Mr.
Gallogly stated this was changed in response to
concern from the city. It was
originally shown as a cul-de-sac and they didn’t like them. The condo area has been indicated to
need two entrances through flow. We
don’t really care. We have
responded to accommodate the comments.
What is shown is a good accommodation. If you want something different say what
you want to do. We have responded
and we think it complies with all regulations.
Mr.
Bergwall stated that is what he is questioning. I don’t know that it does.
Mr.
Gallogly stated we had a plan which is what you are
suggesting which was indicated by the city as unacceptable. If that is the case then let’s go back
to the original plan. Mr. Bergwall stated there are mixed feelings about
cul-de-sacs. Some of us think they
are okay and others don’t. Mr.
Gallogly stated he doesn’t because he doesn’t
care. What I want it to get the
project moving forward. All I’m
trying to do is get resolution about what the various comments are so we can
move forward.
Mr.
Roush stated he doesn’t know that he has a particular problem with the two
entrances onto SR 38. I would be
more concerned about
Mr.
Cunningham stated Mr. Griffin pointed out that in 1107.10 it does indicate that
the intersections shall be not less than 1000 feet apart. With the “shall” there is would make it
difficult to do anything without a variance.
Mrs.
Bodey asked how far
Mr.
Cunningham stated in 1113.06, variances, you need to provide the information on
the hardship of not being able to comply with these regulations.
Mr.
Seymour asked if Mr. Bergwall had a chance to figure
if
Mr.
Cunningham stated he is not hearing a proposed resolution at this point. Are you talking about Azalea remaining
where it is with
Mr.
Roush stated as far as the administration is concerned, we are okay with the way
the street layout is shown. It may
not be the most ideal, but the only way to get that is to develop the entire
area.
Mr.
Seymour stated his desire would be for
Mr.
Griffin stated he thinks that makes sense.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if the private drive from the condos
would go out onto SR 736. Mr. Page
stated that is the intent. Mr.
Bergwall asked what the distance is between the two
onto SR 736.
Mr.
Gallogly stated we were told we need an entrance on
each end and two entrances for the condo area and that the street had to go
through the residential area. We
have done what we have been told, so if you have different instructions give
them to me.
Mr.
Cunningham stated we have before us a suggestion from Mr. Seymour on how to
correct this. Is this something
that can be done? Mr. Gallogly asked if they are talking about eliminating the
Royal Oaks entrance off of SR 38.
Mr. Seymour stated yes. Mr.
Gallogly stated in doing that there is no entrance
into Phase 1 of the project.
Mr.
Yoder stated a comment was made earlier about trying to deter from cutting
through this development to get to SR 38 and I think this would help.
Mrs.
Bodey stated
Mrs.
Bodey stated with the goal being to abide by the
letter of the code, since it is not possible, a reasonable compromise seems to
be the best bet.
Mr.
Griffin stated in 1113.06, there is something that suggests we can solve
this. I think the fact that this is
the high point of the road, provided a reason as to why we should allow it.
Mr.
Gallogly stated if you go to one entrance, that is the place to have the entrance.
Mr.
Griffin stated you have to have another entrance for the condo area anyway. Mr. Gallogly
stated he agrees they do, but he is trying to respond to the commission’s
comments.
Mr.
Bergwall asked why they have to have a separate
entrance for each road for the condos and a separate entrance on each road for
the residential area. Mr. Page
stated the City Engineer likes it the way it is and it is laid out the best way
this property can be. The variance
idea for the 1000 ft. problem sounds like the best solution. I don’t know why you would want to
change the entrances. They are
pretty much balanced out between what is there. In the past, it has been argued that you
want more than one entrance on these developments.
Mr.
Yoder stated given the facts, he is leaning towards what is being presented here
and having the developer apply for the variance.
Mr.
Cunningham stated regarding the variance we would have to have an application in
writing tonight.
Mrs.
Bodey asked in the approval of the preliminary plat,
are we also approving the condos.
Will the variance need to request the variance of the condo roads not
being the 1000 ft apart?
Mr.
Cunningham stated the commission is not approving the preliminary plat
tonight.
Mrs.
Bodey asked if the request is going to be for all of
the roads in the area that are not
1000
ft. apart or just the ones in this subdivision. Mr. Roush stated it would be for all of
the roads.
Mr.
Yoder made a motion to accept the preliminary plat with the condition that the
variance will be presented by the end of the meeting.
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Cunningham
Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Yoder
Yes Mrs. Bodey Yes Mr. Kraus Recused Mr. Bergwall
No
Public
Hearing of Preliminary Development Plan – The Oaks
Mr.
Bergwall stated on page 11 of the deed restrictions,
under exterior materials, it says natural finish materials…. as well 6” beaded
vinyl for certain colonial style homes shall be applied to all sides of the
exterior of buildings. It also
states that the roof pitch shall be a minimum of 6/12. He stated if you build a colonial style
home, according to your restrictions, vinyl is the only material required. Mr. Gallogly
stated he was not aware that vinyl was allowed anywhere in the
restrictions. The intent is for no
vinyl to be allowed. Mr. Bergwall stated commonly in homes like this the roof pitch
is asked to be 8/12 or greater. Mr.
Gallogly stated this is an exact copy of Walker
Meadows restrictions.
Mr.
Bergwall stated in regards to item K, regarding
mailboxes, post lights and street trees it says there will be a post light on
each lot. Are you planning on using
post lights instead of street lights?
Mr. Gallogly stated this was a copy of the
Walker Meadows restrictions, which they have a limited number of street
lights.
Mr.
Roush stated if they are going to request a variance for lighting they will have
to do it tonight. Mr. Gallogly stated the post lights are not intended to be a
replacement to the street lights.
The intention of the street lighting is intended to be in compliance with
the city code.
Mr.
Cunningham asked if this development will have sidewalks and curb and gutter
throughout. Mr. Gallogly stated at the insistence of this commission the
sidewalks are included in the plans.
It is against my wishes.
Mr.
Cunningham stated with no further comments, this is the closing of the public
hearing for the Oaks.
Mr.
Kraus came back into the meeting.
Approval
in Principal of Sketch Plan – City Gate – filed by Connolly
Construction
Mr.
Yoder stated he is recusing himself from this agenda
item due to the fact that the applicant and I are involved in litigation on a
personal matter. Although I feel I
can be fair and impartial, I don’t want there to be any perception
otherwise.
Mr.
Connolly stated they have worked for several years to assemble the properties in
this particular area. Having
assembled them we have worked with administration through several different
renditions of plans to try to figure out the best use and development of this
plot. The development of Coleman’s
Crossing has taken the need for locations of big boxes away. This is divided into lots that are about
1-4 acres in size with the idea of using the idea of TOC zoning for retail,
commercial and eating establishment types of businesses.
Mr.
Roush stated we have had several meetings.
There is a traffic study being done currently. There will be a right hand drop off
lane. In addition to what is going
to happen with City Gate, there is a concern in the area with the traffic along
Mrs.
Bodey asked if the city was planning on using the TIFF
money to widen the road. Mr. Roush
stated yes,
Mr.
Seymour stated there is the primary access of Coleman’s
Mr.
Seymour stated he would not feel good about having
Mr.
Connolly stated initially we were under the impression that the city would want
to create an extension of the McDonald’s access. That was before we understood the
administration’s desire to take another look at the traffic study from Coleman’s
Crossing all the way back to Five Points. When we thought that was going to
happen, we asked the administration if they wanted us to hook
Mr.
Connolly stated one of the things we did about 1 ½ years ago is we invited all
of the contiguous property owners and city administration to a meeting where we
had our land planner and asked the property owners what they would like to
see. That is where it became clear
that they did not want
Mr.
Bergwall stated there are a number of concerns he has
in regards to this project and the code.
When the zoning amendment was done, there was discussion about
Mr.
Bergwall stated the point of access onto arterial
streets also comes up with this project.
The distance between Coleman’s
Mr.
Bergwall stated continuing the Coleman’s
Mr.
Bergwall stated he did have an opportunity to meet
with Mr. Connolly to voice some of these concerns and he was kind enough to show
me some of the alternatives. My
concern is that this is almost inside out.
Mr.
Seymour stated the cul-de-sacs are a concern. Some of the other items I had a concern
with are sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and buffering.
Mr.
Connolly stated he told Mr. Bergwall that it was an
error on our part to dead end
Mr.
Connolly stated his engineer is here to talk about the loop roads. Mr. Roush asked if he had any comments
on the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Connolly
stated those are loop roads, they don’t meet the definition of a
cul-de-sac.
Mr.
Scott McClintock with EMH&T stated when they read the code, it states,
“cul-de-sacs shall not generally exceed 600’”. When we looked towards the layout of the
development and trying to create a front and back development this was the best
option. The roads are what we call
loop roads, which will be able to have both directional
traffic on both sides. He
stated the cul-de-sac on
Mr.
Cunningham stated he wanted to know how someone would get from lot 14 to
17. Mr. McClintock stated they
would have the option of going either direction around the loop.
Mrs.
Bodey asked if they thought about linking the roads
into a triangle. Mr. Connolly
stated that was designs 2, 3, and 4.
It ended up being so tight that it created one or two lots in the middle
of an island and it didn’t give us a way to easily service the other lots.
Mrs.
Bodey stated she agrees with Mr. Bergwall that it feels like if an issue occurred on one of
the roads it would isolate more than half of the properties and it wouldn’t give
you your two ways in and out.
Mr.
Connolly stated he doesn’t want to split hairs over whether or not it is called
a loop road or a cul-de-sac. I
don’t like cul-de-sacs. It would
have been much easier to just design one large cul-de-sac. What I remember the code saying is that
they generally should not exceed 600’.
Mr.
Kraus stated one way to elevate the concern of the distance would be if the west
branch of
Mr.
Bergwall stated his thinking is just the
opposite. I would rather have
people confined to their home than to there car. That mother that has the baby in the car
and one bottle in the bag would be much better off at home. There will also be a lot more traffic
through this development because it is commercial.
Mrs.
Bodey stated she still does not like the loop and is
hopefully that they will come back with something that can address the problems
that we have stated.
Mr.
Cunningham stated Mr. Joe Tracey of the street department made a comment of
increasing or deleting the width of the road coming into the development. Mr. Connolly stated he will make it into
what ever they want it to be. Mr.
Roush stated he is not sure we are sold on the boulevard entrance.
Mrs.
Bodey stated she thinks the boulevard idea is a good
idea and makes a nice feel.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if the interior roads will be city
dedicated roads or private. Mr.
Roush stated they will be city streets.
Mr.
Seymour asked what the intention is on the lots facing
Mr.
Bergwall stated the elevation of SR 33 pavement vs.
the proposed elevations of the parking lots is quite a difference. Mr. Connolly stated one of the concerns
is the height of the buildings and how the equipment is placed. Mr. Bergwall
stated when we start talking about buffering on SR 33. I don’t think we should
waste a whole lot on trying to put in the buffering because you will be looking
down onto the buildings.
Mr.
Connolly stated their intent is to buffer against the residential but to have no
buffering along SR 33 and
Mrs.
Bodey stated she feels heavy landscaping is
appropriate.
Mr.
Roush stated the first layout the administration saw for this project was the
triangular
layout. What you end up with is a lot of smaller
lots and no larger lots. It is not
a big enough piece of property for that type of layout.
Mr.
McClintock stated an issue that was raised was what if something happens at lot
9 how does anyone get out. As I
understand the layout will have the potential of having cross access easements
from each of the commercial lots.
Mrs.
Bodey asked if this going to be added in the deed
restrictions. Mr. McClintock stated
yes, the way this is going to work as a complete development is as each of the
tenants come in, there is going to be a design component that is going to work
together.
Mrs.
Bodey stated Mr. Roush indicated by putting in a
triangular road system the lots would get smaller. Wouldn’t the shape just change? You have
the same amount of area.
It
would be helpful to know what the minimum acreage needed for the businesses you
have in mind. I can’t dismiss that
it is not good to have a triangular roadway.
Mr.
Connolly stated when you bring the roads together you need to bring the nose
down far enough that it creates an island in the middle that is only about 2-3
acres. None of us could identify
potential uses for those interior lots.
In the current plan, the entire site is 38 acres, 5 acres is asphalt
now. When we went with the loop
road, it was over 7 acres of asphalt.
It is ultimately the land use.
If we could figure out a way to sell the lots in the island, it would be
our desire.
Mrs.
Bodey stated on lot 18, for instance, what do you envision going on there. Mr. Connolly stated those are some of
the most usable lots. Without going
into privileged information there is discussion about combining two of those
lots for something like a grocery store.
There is discussion for using a lot for a hotel and one for an office
building.
Mr.
Seymour stated there are a couple of open issues to come to a better consensus
that way they can have a better idea of what to come back with at preliminary
plat.
Mr.
Cunningham stated one would be the loop roads vs. the triangular shape.
Mr.
Seymour stated another would be understanding of the
extension of the road to go between Burger King and Nations Rent. Another would
be the access of
Mr.
Connolly stated we are on a tight timeline to make this all fit. In order to make your deadline for the
next meeting we have to have this turned into here by this Thursday. We have engineers on call to start
making all of your changes first thing in the morning. We literally have 48 hours to get ready
for your next meeting. We need to
have a clear understanding of what you want, or to have the ability to be able
to adjust them at the meeting. You
need to tell us clearly what you want us to do and it is our job to try and make
it work.Mr. Bergwall stated
clearly there are concerns regarding traffic on
Mrs.
Bodey stated in response to Mr. Connolly, we are here
to discuss the sketch plan, but we are not talented engineers to give you a
redesign. The best we can do is
communicate our concerns.
Mr.
Cunningham stated we identified the loop road issue and it being longer than
600’ is not acceptable to the commissioners. Are we in agreement with that? Mr. Griffin stated he is not
in agreement with that because he feels it is solved with the cross links. Mr. Cunningham stated would deed
restrictions or control within the development suffice. Mrs. Bodey
stated it would really have to look like a road.
Mr.
Seymour stated he agrees with Mrs. Bodey. However, the
plan the way it is acceptable if the cul-de-sacs can be reduced to below the
600’. I believe with some creative
and minor lot adjustments, it can be accomplished.
Mr.
Cunningham stated he agrees if there was an emergency and there was another way
out, it would make it better.
Mr.
Seymour stated if that was not dedicated as a public access, I don’t know how,
in the long run, you can enforce it.
Mr.
Connolly stated where we have the bike path in the back with the desire to not
hook up
Mrs.
Bodey stated it is a smart thing to do but I don’t
think it addresses the concern.
Mr.
Connolly stated 99.999% of the time it is not going to be an issue. When I understand it being an issue is
in an emergency. If there is a way
to remove a bollard or open a gate, does that resolve the
issue?
Mr.
Seymour stated for him it doesn’t resolve the 600’ issue.
Mr.
Connolly stated if we get away from the 600’ issue, does it solve the concern
about the loop roads.
Mr.
Cunningham stated yes, it would meet the code.
Mrs.
Bodey stated she is hearing that the city discourages
cul-de-sacs and here are huge ones and we are encouraging them. Mr. Roush stated he does not think it is
fair to say that they are being encouraged; I would like to see the triangle
layout. We are not willing to take
away the ability to do a proper development. Cul-de-sacs are different in residential
area than commercial areas.
Mr.
Roush stated he would not want to see
Mr.
Griffin stated having
Mr.
Bergwall stated he does not have enough information to
be able to vote yes for this project.
Mr.
Cunningham read the sketch plan approval procedure from the code. He stated it sounds like they are
dependent on approval this evening.
Mr.
Connolly stated it is my risk that if I bring back a preliminary plat that does
not address what was discussed, then I’m kicked back. Our request would be that you approve it
in principal and let us refine a preliminary plat for us to bring to the next
meeting that would address your concerns.
Mr.
Seymour stated there are only about 3-4 bullets you will need to walk away with in order to come back with a preliminary. At the preliminary, we will be able to
further fine tune.
Mrs.
Bodey stated the city engineer indicated he needs time
to talk with local property owners, yet Mr. Connolly stated he wants to have the
plan approved and be back here next month.
Is that the time frame you were talking about?
Mr.
Cunningham stated the city engineer and city administration’s schedule is not
ours.
Mr.
Roush stated those two lots are outside the development.
Mr.
Kraus state he doesn’t have an issue approving the plan in principal with the
understanding that we won’t see the same plan return for the preliminary
plat.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to approve the sketch plan in
principal.
Mr.
Griffin Abstain Mr.
Yoder Recused Mrs. Bodey No Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall No Mr. Seymour
Yes Mr. Cunningham
Yes
Mr.
Yoder came back into the meeting
Amendment
to approved Preliminary Plat – Galbury
Meadows
Mr.
Schulze stated after conversation with the client and the city engineer, I find
out I could have done this previously.
Apparently we have a plat that need to be amended after the
approval. The reason it is amended
is the high pressure gas line that runs through this property that was not
located correctly. We have had to
move some of the lots.
Mr.
Roush stated the only change is Galbury Meadows Drive
is moved slightly south. It changes
a few of the lot sizes on the southern boarder slightly.
Mrs.
Bodey stated she is curious about the width of the gas
line easements. Mr. Roush stated he
believes it is 50’ easement.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what the depth of the line is on the
property. Mr. Gallogly stated it is 48” on his property.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the