PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES OF MEETING MARCH 5, 2007

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Don Bergwall, Pat Soller, Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, Ken Kraus, John Cunningham, Alan Seymour – Absent.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dennis Schulze, Myron Gallogly, Brian Palmer, Greg DeLong, and Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Planning Commission Meeting – February 5, 2007 – Mr. Bergwall stated on page 2, 5th paragraph, replace “from we thing” with “that we think”.  Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Voice vote was unanimous. Motion Passed.

 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: 

 

Mr. DeLong stated there are two things he gave the commission.  One is information no the mobile home parks.  He stated at the request of Mr. Kraus today, I laid out some land use maps and growth area maps, if we get into that discussion tonight.

 

Mr. Palmer stated just as a heads up, Mr. Roush and I went to a storm water seminar last week and Marysville is now in a MS4 category.  This is a municipal separated storm sewer system.  This will have a lot of impact on the engineering design and zoning institutions by requiring additional setbacks.  It also gave information regarding HOA’s and what they have to do in regards to managing their storm water systems.  This is down the road.  Our draft plan is due May 1st and will have about a 5 year implementation plan. 

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS:

 

Mr. Dennis Schulze stated he wanted to update the commission on a few items.  He stated Galbury Meadows was looking for an investor and they now have some local investors.  They are right at the contract point on that.  I would say they have the investor in place.  There are also 4 banks that will be financing the infrastructure.  He stated where it will impact the commission is if you remember they had 76 single family homes and the condo area.  They do have a signed contingent contract on the assisted living for 8 acres.  They will be coming in to you on a change from the condo area to have part of it as the assisted living.  We will present it to you in a planned development sort of way.  Next month, we will be coming to you with just the final plat based on what we had before, 76 single family units and the condo area.  Then we will come back and split off the assisted living area later. 

 

 Mr. Schulze stated with respect to something that is outside the city limits, but the city will have some interest in because they will be providing the utilities, Forrest City is still actively involved in the Route 33/ 42 corridor.  They are trying to decide what to do in this time of residential cutbacks.  They haven’t given up on the area.  They are looking at waiting it out until the sewage plant comes on line.  If it does then they will be working through probably Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDD) with Jerome Twp. and Marysville.  He stated he is not sure how much the planning commission will be involved because it will be Jerome zoning.

 

Mr. Palmer stated the Glacier West property has been an issue for a while.  Have you guys been in recent contact, because we are still working on utilities with Jerome Village and this is news to me that Forrest City is still involved.

 

Mr. Schulze stated Jerome Village is a different Glacier.  Mr. Palmer stated he understands, but the utility issues are directly related.  Mr. Schulze stated he understands that. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated on Chestnut Park, they are still looking for a buyer.  Because of all the other developments in this area, this is a tough sell.  If you find a buyer, the buyer will have to find financing and the banks are not financing housing developments right now. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated the Boerger Rd. property, owned by Alan Shepherd; they are going to be bringing a sketch plan in pretty soon. They are more along the lines of the Galbury group as far as price range.  He stated Mr. Shepherd doesn’t care when the development takes off.  It will be coming; it just depends on the market.  He stated the biggest problem with this development is the engineering.  The sewer line is not adequate to service this property. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated in regards to the comments made regarding the Galbury Meadows property.  The new idea of the assisted living in this are is a significant change.  To me this puts a commercial aspect into this development.  Traffic patterns change, because of the around the clock staffing.  I would not want to approve the rest of the plan until I could comprehend what that area is going to entail and where it is going to be placed relative to the property and how it adjoins to the single family.  I just want to give you a heads up, that if you come in looking for approval for the first phase of the residential, I don’t think it is fair for the people who are going to be investors in the residential area until the whole thing can be comprehended.

 

Mr. Schulze stated number one, the final plat is close to approval and we don’t have to bring in the assisted living at all.  Number two, look at Carriage Court.  It doesn’t disturb the area.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the area Carriage Court is in is not the caliber of the area of the area you are talking about here.

 

Mr. Schulze stated this facility will be much better than Carriage Court.  The difference between the assisted living and the condos will not be much different except that we will have staff there.  I think we can bring this in and show the commission that this will be very positive. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he is not saying he is against assisted living in this area, I am just against a blind concept, by you saying you are going to put this in but we are not sure how and to what size. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated this is why he thinks a PUD over the condo area makes a lot of sense.  It will address all of those issues. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated yes, but it needs to be planned.  We have a development plan, plats and we need to back up and get it incorporated into those and then say here is the whole package together.  Mr. Schulze stated he agrees.  We have talked to the assisted living people and told them they can come in on their own or they can come in with us.  They have said they want to come in with us.  I think we can show you it will fit into this area. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated you shouldn’t come in with the final plat wanting this approved and then saying we are going to tell you more about it later. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated you have to keep in mind that we have to keep moving along with the final plat we have.  It doesn’t mean you have to approve the assisted living.  We are coming in with the final plat that we had before. 

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Approval of Street Trees – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering – tabled January 2, 2007

 

Mr. Palmer stated the parkland fees and the performance bond are not in place, so our recommendation would be to table this item. 

 

Mr. Gallogly stated last Wednesday we opened bids for the construction of phase 1.  It looks like we should be under contract within the next 45 days.  Working with the bank, they are not willing to issue the letter you require until they are ready to fund the construction.  They are in their due diligence process.  If you can not approve this subject to the bond being filed, I would request this to be tabled again. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the statue clearly states that we can not approve a final plat until these items are in place.

 

Mr. Yoder made a motion to approve the final plat of the Oaks at the request of the developer until the April regular meeting.

Mr. Cunningham    Yes    Mr. Griffin   Yes    Mr. Yoder   Yes

Mr. Soller              Yes    Mr. Kraus    Abstain        Mr. Bergwall          Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

 

Code Revision

 

Mr. Cunningham stated we do have in front of us information on mobile homes.  He stated he would like to comment on the second paragraph of Mr. DeLong’s submittal.  He stated regarding the Ohio Manufactured Homes Commission has been up and operating for approximately 2 years now.  Their only focus is on the installation of the homes.  Mr. DeLong stated he received this information directly from the Ohio Department of Health. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated their scope is very limited in terms of manufactured homes.  Mr. DeLong stated in his research he found that their only concerns are the tie downs, the infrastructure and the setbacks between buildings.  He stated there has been a lot of discussion as to who enforces the building portion of it.  I contacted the Union County Building department and they said they are responsible for the structural component of the building and they are going to start reviewing them.  I just want to get the information to the commission to let you know that we as a City have no regulations on them besides the setbacks on the perimeter of the property.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated Mr. Bergwall did have a meeting with Mr. Schulze and the owner of the mobile home parks and the owner seemed to be pretty cooperative with working with the City.  He stated one thing he would like to do is to update our language in the code, because as Mr. DeLong has indicated it is referred to as manufactured homes and our code still states mobile homes. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he has met with the owner of the park and first of all I will say the owner is very interested in working with the city in any manner necessary.  They are on a mission to improve the parks.  They have removed about 18 trailers.  The two story trailer is gone.  I talked with the Health department, looked at the Ohio Revised Code, the Ohio Administrative Code and I don’t think the code is written well.  If you look up mobile home parks and ask for that section of the code it will pull it up.  If you look up manufactured home parks, it will pull up the same section of the code with a different heading.  There is a specific definition for a mobile home vs. a manufactured home.  Basically, what it says is a mobile home is built at an offsite location on a frame and that unit is transportable to a site for setting as a dwelling.  It can at a later date be moved to another site.  A manufactured home is built at an offsite location, same kind of verbiage, but it talks about it being set on a permanent foundation.  I think when we look at our code I would not want to change it from being mobile homes to manufactured homes.  We may need another section of code to deal with manufacture homes.  In the event someone brings in a proposal for a manufactured home park. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the park regulations for the parks in Marysville references to manufactured homes.  I talked with them today and the only thing they allow in their park is mobile homes, they have to stay transportable.  According to their regulations, the only thing they will allow is a base unit and an addition that is manufactured by a mobile home manufacturer, pre-engineered carports and prefab storage units.  They will not allow any stick built additions.  He stated the owner of the parks was apologetic about the way the parks had deteriorated and has brought in a new management team. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated they are trying to figure out how to dedicate the streets.  Not for maintenance or snow plowing but for at least police patrol.  I still think the original track we were on, when we say we can’t do any kind of enforcement or can’t put anything in the code, I take exception with the fact that we have 1111.13 which states they are going to have skirting.  So I don’t understand why we can’t tell them they can’t have homemade additions.

 

Mr. DeLong stated it is because it is private property.  It is like a homeowners association.  They have their own set of rules and regulations that the City does not enforce. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated it doesn’t matter what the law says.  This owner is willing to work with the City regardless of what the City’s legal basis is.  He stated the owner can make it as strict as he wants to.  If you are willing to work with the owner and say this is what we would like, then he can put it in his regulations and enforce it. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated at some point when we go through the code we might want to see if we even want to keep the Mobile Home chapter.  He stated in approximately 1999 there was legislation that passed that said communities through zoning or building regulations can not differ between stick built and manufactured homes.  It was mentioned earlier that we may need a chapter on manufacture homes, however, it someone wanted to come in and put in a manufactured home park it is the same thing as a single family subdivision. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he understands the owner is willing to work with us but my only concern is what happens if he decides to sell. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated he understands, however, the owner is not going anywhere in the near future.  The owner just refinanced and is going to put $1 million into the two parks in the city.  He is willing to meet with the commission and come with ideas to improve. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he is not sure where we want to go from here.  Mr. Cunningham stated the work of working directly with the owner of the parks is not something that falls under the prevue of the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Soller stated he is interested in what the owner is planning on spending the $1 million on.  This is also an opportunity for the Planning Commission to be proactive in looking at these types of subdivisions because it is very similar to HOA’s and their rules and regulations. 

 

Mr. Bergwall asked if somewhere in our code, do we define what a mobile home is.  Commission stated yes it is in the code under definitions.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he would be in favor of keeping chapter 1111 for Mobile Home Parks, but linking to the definition.  Someone will have to explain to me again why we can’t put additional detail into it as to what can and what can not go into a mobile home park.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated once we approve a subdivision we are done.  We have no further say as to what happens.  Mr. Bergwall stated he would like Chapter 1111 to be a tool for someone who may want to build a future one.  Mr. Cunningham stated as of right now there is no property in Marysville were another park could go in. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated we don’t want to restrict parks from coming in because there is a need for this type of housing.  Mr. Kraus stated he agrees and if someone comes before the commission with this request it would be the ideal situation for a PUD.  Then we would have control over how wide the roads are going to be, set back of the homes and more.  This would help us control and accomplish exactly what we are trying to do. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated he agrees as long as the board doesn’t go overboard and try to dictate every aspect of it such as the color of the draperies in the windows of the homes.  Mr. Kraus stated that is not our concern.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated we will take a look at Chapter 1111 when we go over the code revisions.  That will be under the guidance of a new chairperson.  This leads me to discussion tonight.  Do the maps we have before us, bare any discussion?

 

Mr. DeLong stated Mr. Kraus asked me to bring them tonight because there was discussion from council member Sellers regarding the Comprehensive Plan.  She did have an invite to come tonight and so I printed them out in case she showed up and we got to that topic.

 

Mr. Kraus stated some of Mrs. Seller’s comments regarding the amount of residential area in Marysville.  She has commented a couple of times that maybe there is too much residential and maybe we should have something else.  Maybe we should be starting the process of looking at the land use portion of the plan and possibly meeting with residents of different areas to get their input.  Mr. Kraus stated he is talking primarily referring to the land use map.  We do have a lot of residential.  Are there better alternatives?  This can be handled with going through the code. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the last time around we had in our focus of making the subdivision process smoother.  Our next focus can be looking at the land use and how we are dealing with it. 

 

Mr. DeLong stated we have been having discussion about the sign issue.  I think we need to sit down and take a few chapters and find the weaknesses.  It would be nice to have input from the commission on what you want to see happen to the city.  There are the little tweaks we can do quickly that can make a big change.  I can come up with stuff, which I am doing, but I would also like to hear what you would like to see.  Repeatedly we are hearing issues with the number of signs permitted and the height and it seems like it is escalating. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated in 1103 – 1109, most of the commission has gone through it and may be blinded to weaknesses at this point. 

 

Mr. DeLong stated there are other sections, such as uses in certain districts, Mrs. Penhorwood is working on translating the old SIC code numbers to the new NAICS numbers and it is very time consuming. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated it seems like in the subdivision regulations there is periodic references to the 3 mile radius which needs to be removed.  Mr. DeLong stated there is tweaking of little language things that need to be taken care of. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated in the zoning section I don’t think we need to look at 1136, 1140, 1144 and 1145. 

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated it seems sometime you get wrapped up in the language of the code instead of saying this is what we want and what we want the city to look like.  Then outlining those items and then say what part of the code does this fit into.  What do you want to see when you go down the street?  After that then you can see what would need to be changed in the code to make it work.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated that makes perfect sense.  When we talked about visioning in the past we talked about it in a very broad topic more geared towards land use.  If you talk about visioning as what is your vision for the city, what do we want the City to look like when you come into the city?  Then the next step would be, if you are living in the community, how far should you have to go to get to a place to by milk or bread or to put gas in the lawn mower.  Then look and see if our zoning and land use map accommodates for this type of thing. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated from a developers standpoint, have an idea and then apply it across the board.  A good developer coming in will make an assessment based upon your rules.  It is not that you don’t demand certain things, it’s that you demand based on reasonability and consistency. 

 

Mr. Yoder stated then we just need to start reading the code and making notes.  Mr. DeLong stated or we can take the approach Mrs. Penhorwood suggested.  Sit down and come up with what you want the city to look like, make a list and then take the list and start looking into what needs to be changed in the code.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he thinks there is still the idea that we want to maintain the small town feel while having the economic growth.  I do think from everything I’ve read that Marysville treasures the small town feel. 

 

Mr. DeLong stated he is part of the Uptown group and we are taking a bus mobile tour of towns in western Ohio.  We are basically going to tell the people to get off the bus and tell us what your first impression is.  The towns we are going to all have the Main Street Program in place.  Drive around the little towns and tell us what you like and what you don’t like.

 

Mr. Griffin stated he got lost along the way.  I am not quite sure what we are going to do next.  Mr. Cunningham stated one reason he is hesitant is that he does not plan on continuing on as chairman.  Mr. Griffin stated that is not a reason to decide on a direction we are heading.  Mr. Cunningham stated he would like the person who is going to be chairman to have a say in the way we are going to proceed with things.

 

Mr. Soller stated his understanding with the code revision is that we are approaching it with two different strategies.  One is you can drive around and see what you don’t like and then look at the code and see how we can change it.  Two you could take the technical approach and go through each section of the code and modify it from that point.  Mr. Kraus stated there is a third approach and that is going around to other communities and seeing what we like there and how it can be implemented into our code.  Mr. Kraus stated it is probably going to be based on what each individual is comfortable with.  With the land use map for instance, I am going to have to look to someone else because I am too familiar with. 

 

Mr. Griffin stated he is afraid if we don’t come up with a way of how we are going to work our way through it otherwise we are going to keep putting it off.  Mr. Kraus asked Mr. Griffin how he would approach it.  Mr. Griffin stated he likes the idea of getting the visioning by going around the community and putting thoughts together on things that we think should be different.  I know the first thing that comes to mind is signs and I don’t think we need to wait for 6 months before we have discussion on that. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated on signage, he personally likes ground mounted signs.  He stated he likes the limitation.  It is a matter of us sitting down and discussing what we all want to see.  Quite honestly, I like the 6ft. limit.  Mr. Griffin stated he thinks that is a good place to start. 

 

Mr. Yoder stated he doesn’t have a problem talking about the signs, but he has to agree with Mr. Cunningham that we are going to have a new chairman next month and I think that person should have the ability to set the strategic direction. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated maybe we take an evening and as a group drives around and sees what we don’t like and what we do like.  He stated it would help him to get the vantage point of other people.  Mr. Cunningham stated that is a good idea, let’s set up a date to do this. 

 

Mr. DeLong stated he encouraged the Design Review Board members to share with the Planning Commission the issues that they have because there are issues of signage there as well. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he doesn’t want to loose Mr. Kraus’s idea.  I think it would help us to drive around the town.

 

Mr. Schulze stated he would suggest the commission do it in 3’s.  That way it is not a public meeting.  Look at what you are looking at.  If you are looking at land use, economics drive land use.  A sign height is not going to make an economic impact.  Commission agreed but said it is an issue because of how it looks. 

 

Mr. Soller asked if Mr. Schulze has seen developers turn away because of our code being too strict.  Mr. Schulze stated no, quite frankly, the code is not too restrictive.  It just needs to be consistent and enforced. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated so where do we go to from here.  He stated he hates the fact that our hands are tied and we can’t go out together and tour the city.  Mr. Griffin stated maybe we can do some touring and then come back here and have an open meeting.  Mr. Cunningham asked that we talk to the City Law Director and find out what they are capable of doing. 

 

Commission agreed that if people want to on their own go out looking at the city and then we can bring the ideas to the next regular meeting.

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:

 

John Cunningham – None

Alan Seymour – Absent

Pat Soller – None

Ken Kraus – He stated he hopes his term gets extended so he is at the next meeting.  He stated one thing that happened at Design Review last week was that White Castle came in and they had not seen Mr. Connolly.  It is not the Design Review Boards job to enforce Mr. Connolly’s requirements but there should be some indication that he has seen the plans and is okay with them.  Mr. Bergwall stated his deed restrictions stated they would go through his review and then they would go to the City.  Mr. Kraus stated that was not happening.  As soon as we explained the situation, White Castle agreed to table the plans so they could get with Mr. Connolly.  He stated the other thing the Design Review Board did was because the code says they have to provide other information that the board may request, we passed a motion that requires a letter from Mr. Connolly for anything coming through now.  If they don’t have this their application is incomplete and the administration can turn them down.  He stated on BW3’s, there was some sign discussion.  At some point, we will have to take a look at how many units have to be there before we allow a shopping center sign.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated in order for it to be considered a shopping center, there has to be 5 units.  Mr. Kraus stated that will be a stretch on this plan.  We may need to look at the definition.  Mr. Cunningham stated can’t they come in and say on the plans they are going to have 5 units and then a business comes in and buys 2 units.  Mr. Kraus stated it may be that instead of the number of units, we may need to look at square footage.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated if you do that then you are saying Super Wal-Mart can have a shopping center sign.  Mr. Kraus stated then you would have to look at square footage and multiple tenants.  Mr. Cunningham stated then Wal-Mart would still classify because they have multiple tenants. 

 

Mr. Bergwall- He stated the land use plan; we need to spend more time with this. I would question if this is really the 1998 version and what type of circumstances have changed in 9 years that we need to look at an overlay.  He stated he thinks land use as a generalized sense is something that we really need to focus.  We are probably going to get an increasing nudge in that regard.  Secondly, some of the comments that Mr. Schulze has made relative to development, some of the observations I’ve made, development in Marysville is being done in a far different manner that it was 15 -20 years ago.  I live in a subdivision where a local person kept selling off pieces of land for local builders to build on.  That was great when we were a small community.  Development in the future is being done on a business case and developers needs to know the inputs to the business case.  So we need to articulate clearly and consistently with the way the code is laid out. 

 

Mr. Griffin – None

 

Mr. Yoder – He stated he went by the McDonalds on SR 31 and noticed that there no sidewalks.  He stated he couldn’t find his plan, but typically we don’t let it pass without sidewalks.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated SR 31 is not in the City and ODOT had the final say and they would not allow the sidewalks.  Mr. Soller stated there is also a lot of trucks that park on the berm along SR 31. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

Meeting was adjourned at 8:52 pm.