PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING OF TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006

 

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

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

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

 

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  

 

Eric Phillips

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

New Design Review Process

 

The meeting started with a brief overview of where we were and how we got here by Mr. Seymour.

 

Mr. Seymour then asked for comments/questions from the commission members.

 

Mr. Kraus commented on the e-mail he had sent to the members with four items worthy of further discussion.

 

The first item was the issue of adding a reference to the Ohio Constitution in each chapter that had cross references shown.  This issue had been raised earlier by Councilwoman Sellers when reviewing the PUD legislation.  By unanimous voice vote, the commission agreed that under Cross References in each chapter we should add “Ohio Constitution, Art XVIII, Sec 3.

 

The second item was in reference to the changes suggested by Barb McCoy after her review of the Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 1140).  She had sent an e-mail with some suggested changes and her reasons for those changes being important.  Her first suggested change was under definitions (1140.03 (a) (20) “Substantial expansion.”  Mrs. McCoy proposed to add “vehicular access area” after “existing structure or”.  She had suggested that a business could expand the vehicular access area without additional landscaping if this was not included.  After a brief discussion the commission agreed to this change by a unanimous voice vote.

 

The second suggestion was in 1140.07 Minimum Landscape Standards, (b) (1) B Mounding Requirements.  The sentences “In addition ---“ to the end of the section had  been deleted in earlier sessions that Mrs. McCoy felt should stay in.   She also suggested changing the distance from 50 feet to 75 or 100 feet.  There was significant discussion on this issue primarily focusing on the distance.  Eric Phillips had offered a compromise of 75 feet.   Mr. Griffin suggested that the distance is really a function of the type of tree being planted.  If they are small trees, 50 may be more appropriate.  For medium or large trees, 75 feet is probably a reasonable number.  The commission also discussed the reference to a “standard tree” and “two (2) inch caliper” in that same sentence.  It was finally determined that at standard tree, by definition, is one and ¾ caliper.  The motion was made by Mr. Kraus to make the following changes to Mounding Requirements:

-         Reinstate the sentence beginning with “In addition - - - perimeter distance.

-         Change 50 feet to 75 feet

-         Delete two (2) inch caliper so the sentence reads “one standard tree is to be planted”

-         Do not reinstate the last sentence (Standard trees should be planted etc.)

 

The changes were approved unanimously by voice vote.

 

The last area of change suggested by Mrs. McCoy was in 1140.07 (b)(3) Interior requirements.  Here the suggestions were to keep a minimum area above which a planting area would be required and to keep the minimum planting area size.  Both had been removed in earlier discussion.  Eric Phillips had suggested adding “areas with more that 20 parking spaces” rather then using 6,000 square feet.  This resulted in a lengthy discussion regarding the size of parking spaces which can vary, width of aisles and what would be the easiest to administer. There was also discussion on the need for a minimum size for planting area.  The commission eventually settled on the following”

-         “Within vehicular use areas of at least 6,000 square feet, an area equal to a minimum of three per cent of the vehicular use area ----“ and to reinsert “Planting areas for the interior requirements shall be a minimum of two hundred (200) square feet in size.”  These changes were approved by a unanimous voice vote.

 

Mr. Kraus then raised the issue of color and design standards.  It was his feeling that something, even if basic and perhaps not to the extent eventually desired, should be available to be adopted on or before this legislation takes effect.  Mr. Phillips advised the members that URT had established a committee that was now working on these items.  After some discussion, the members agreed to consider “The Roanoke” standards for starters.  The Planning Commission would also expect URT to continue working to refine those standards for future consideration.

 

Next Mr. Kraus suggested that at our regular meeting on March 6, we consider tabling this whole package of legislation to the April meeting or a special meeting with City Council, whichever comes first.  As an explanation, Mr. Kraus offered the following points:

-         When the Planning Commission votes on a recommendation, it must go on the next available council agenda.  This leaves very little time for review by council and the ability to efficiently deal with any proposed amendments.

-         By scheduling a special Planning Commission meeting with Council in attendance, if there are no changes proposed, a vote could be held at that meeting and the package moved on to Council’s agenda.

-         If changes were proposed, they could be hashed out and then formally approved by the Planning Commission at the regular April meeting.  That provides all parties an opportunity to review the language changes before they become set.

-         This approach also avoids the compressed time frame we experienced with the PUD legislation and also responds to Council’s request for more communication.

After some discussion the Planning Commission basically felt this made sense and agreed to proceed in this direction at our meeting on March 6.

 

There were no other questions or comments regarding the Design Review package.

 

There was a general discussion that followed.  Mr. Phillips briefed the members on a 1200 foot cul-de-sac in a proposed industrial park that in on Monday’s agenda.  He emphasized the meetings with the Fire Chief and the arrangements for emergency access from adjacent properties that will be part of the plan.  This was followed by a general discussion of cul-de-sacs.  No decisions or direction was established.

 

There was also a discussion regarding the letter from the school architect and their request for less concrete curbing.  Although there is latitude in the code and a desire to not be too hard on the schools, there was also some concerns that this may set a precedent – what do we do if a big box retailer makes the same case (storm water is controlled without curbing).  This item will be discussed further if it comes back to the Design Review Board as an official request.

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M..