PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF
MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The Chairman called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Ken Kraus, Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, Alan
Seymour, John Cunningham and Don Bergwall
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jason Coffee,
Bill Keefler, Drew Sanderell, Al and Sue Osborne, Michael Warner, Bob Edmonds,
Bob Bachtel, Phillip Connolly, John Connolly, Dick
Mickley, Tina Basch, Vic
Steinfels, Bill Kelley, David Walker, Eric Phillips, Mike Karcher, Dale Scheiderer, Faye Cox, Shawn Lanning, Nevin Taylor, Scott McClintock, Scott Schaffer, Phil Roush,
Barb McCoy
ORGANIZATION:
Election
of Chairman – Mr. Seymour nominated Mr. Cunningham for a second term as chairman
of the Planning Commission. Mr.
Griffin seconded the nomination.
Mr. Kraus moved the nominations be closed. Seconded by Mr.
Yoder. Voice vote was
unanimous. Mr. Cunningham remains
chairman of the Planning Commission.
Election
of Vice-Chairman – Mr. Griffin nominated Mr. Seymour for a second term as
vice-chairman. Mr. Yoder seconded
the nomination. Mr. Bergwall made a
motion to close nominations. Voice
vote was unanimous. Mr. Seymour
remains vice-chairman of the Planning Commission.
Rules
of Procedure – Mr. Kraus stated he has some concern with number 12 and would
suggest some alternate language.
“At a minimum the motion must have a majority of 4 votes in order to pass
excluding abstentions.”
Mr.
Bergwall stated in number 5, it states unless there is a conflict people will
vote. He stated he would like the
commission to consider adding another sentence that says. For conflicts that result in voting
abstention, the commissioner shall refrain from dialog and comments on the
agenda issue. Mr. Kraus suggested
adding “When such conflicts are recognized the member shall refrain from any
conversation or discussion of the issue.”
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the Rules of Procedure as amended. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission Special
Meeting –
Planning Commission Meeting –
Planning Commission Special
Meeting –
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
None
OLD
BUSINESS:
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to move the recommendation items to city council to the
end of the agenda. Voice vote was
unanimous. Motion
passed.
Proposed
amendments regarding Board of Zoning Appeals
(Tabled from March 6th)
Mr.
Dick Mickley, chairman of the BZA, stated because of
the change in the charter we reviewed a few items in chapter 1129. The first one is 1129.05, we need to
change it to state that it now consist of 7 members. We then considered the initial
appointment terms. We would suggest
that the two new appointments be one for three years and one for five
years. The other change would be to
add “or designee” in the sentence requiring the zoning inspector to be
there. Sometimes Mrs. McCoy can’t
be there but we would like to have someone there to answer questions.
Mr.
Mickley stated in 1129.07, the question comes up that
we used to require 4 members out of the five to have an affirmative vote. The consensus was to change the vote
necessary for affirmation to five.
Mr.
Mickley stated in 1129.18 and .25, we would like to
add the words “conclusion of the” before public hearing, because sometimes we
have to table the agenda item. Part
of the reason for this is because we operated under the rule of thumb that if a
decision was not made within 30 days, that it became law. We found out that it was taken from
ARB.
Mr.
Taylor stated most of the changes are just house cleaning issues.
Mr.
Seymour asked do you want this to replace the 35 day time frame. Mr. Mickley
stated no.
Mr.
Kraus asked if in 1129.07 if they had given any thought to deleting the entire
sentence and placing it in the BZA rules of procedure, so when they need to make
changes they don’t have to go through city council.
Mr.
Taylor stated they left it this way because it was already there.
Mr.
Kraus asked if on 1129.18 and .25, should there be a sentence at the beginning
that states, “The public hearing may be extended to another date by mutual
agreement of the board and the applicant.”
Mr. Mickley stated he would not have any
problem with that.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend 1129.05 changes as presented by BZA to City
Council.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
passed.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend 1129.07 changes as presented by BZA to City
Council.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion
passed.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to amend section 1129.18 to have an initial sentence that
reads, “The public hearing may be extended to another date by mutual agreement
of the board and the applicant.”
along with those changes presented by BZA and
recommend them to City Council.
Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Motion
passed.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to amend section 1129.25 to have an initial sentence that
reads, “The public hearing may be extended to another date by mutual agreement
of the board and the applicant.”
along with those presented by BZA and recommend
them to City Council.
Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion
passed.
Zoning
Amendment-
14145 SR 4 – 119.8 acres – zoning change from AR to R-2/R-4 – filed by Glen
Dugger (Tabled from March. 6th)
Mr.
Roush stated we had not heard from the representatives on this project.
Mr.
Cunningham stated his perception is that Mr. Dugger is very aware of this having
been on our agenda for an extended period of time and I would like to take
action on this and clear it from the agenda this evening.
Mr. Kraus stated maybe it would
be more appropriate to table it for one more meeting and have the administration
contact Mr. Dugger and ask that he withdraw the application. With the new PUD zoning code there is no
overlay onto the zoning.
Mr.
Seymour stated he would agree with Mr. Cunningham and per code there is no
option for tabling at this point. I
would think there would be urgency on the applicant’s part to represent his item
or at least advise the administration with a letter requesting it to be
tabled.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion that the zoning amendment for 119.8 acres located at 14145
SR 4 requesting a zoning change from A-R to R-2/R-4 be
approved.
Mr.
Cunningham No Mr. Griffin No
Mr. Yoder No Mr. Kraus No
Mr. Bergwall No Mr. Seymour No
Application
denied.
Zoning
Amendment
– Weinlein Property – located on
Mrs.
Faye Cox stated this was tabled from the March meeting to allow us time to talk
with some of the neighbors of this area.
Mr.
Jason Coffee stated the commission has the new drawing in front of them. The initial drawing we submitted for
discussion purposes only had the majority of the site in R-2 zoning with R-1
buffering the lots along
Mr.
Coffee stated in regards to the street to the south, we felt that there was
always going to be a connection from
Mr.
Kraus stated he brought up the roads being too close together. In my mind it is a discussion point, not
a major issue. I am more concerned
with the commitment to the abutting property owners.
Mr.
Mike Karcher stated he is one of the abutting property
owners and in summary we do appreciate the concessions that were made
immediately adjacent to the property.
However, what is abutting our property is what I would like to see
throughout the entire development.
I think from the discussions at the last meeting and looking at the
comments, there was a transition point where we wanted to transition to a larger
lot, lower density as you head towards Scottslawn Rd. This precedence was set recently with
the property surrounding the Ahler’s residence being
zoned SR. It makes a lot of sense
to me to stick with the SR zoning.
It is a better transition and a better protection of the investment that
we put into our homes. I like the
idea, but wish it was throughout the development.
Mr.
Al Osborne stated he has lived in one of the neighboring residences for about
three weeks. We did take the
opportunity to meet with the developers.
We had looked at what they had made as concessions and as Mr. Karcher stated we don’t feel like this is the proper thing
to do with this property. We made
other suggestions of further concessions which were not considered, such as
making some of the lots on the cul-de-sac larger. Our feeling is because the SR zoning is
already set as a precedence continuing it on down would make it a much nicer
buffer for us and help us preserve our property value.
Mr.
Yoder stated for a more harmonious and a more continuity point of view, the
properties along
Mr.
Bergwall stated when he first looked at this in the pre-sketch plan stage; the
comments were we need to get larger lots.
While the desire would be to have much of this be SR, it is quite
understandable that there may not be much of a business case for that in this
location. One alternative is with
no business case, this could remain undeveloped and in a year or two down the
road make a new request and maybe with some new faces, some proposal with all
R-2 could get approved. I think
there have been adequate steps made in buffering the larger lots along
Mr.
Seymour stated the cul-de-sac closest to
Mr.
Cunningham state on the other end of the business case, bringing SR that close
to M-1 and the marketability of lots that size can be
limiting.
Mr.
Coffee stated when you look at the Beazer development the SR is only about 6% of
the overall development. Was that
done because from a zoning perspective it made sense or was it a concession to a
property owner?
Mrs.
Cox stated in that deal it made sense because they were able to put most of
their detention ponds in that area.
She stated there are not many R-1 zonings in the area. In addition, we are looking at nice
neighborhoods. Just because it is
R-2 doesn’t mean it isn’t going to be a nice neighborhood. Green Pastures and Timber Trails both
have R-2 zonings.
Mr.
Coffee stated we felt the larger house size would be a better benefit to the
neighbors.
Mr.
Bergwall stated if we push for SR lots which we
already have the size of SR lots on some of these, then the requirement could go
away to buffer the adjacent lots and you are going to lose some advantages.
Mr.
Cunningham state the commission is looking at a zoning change request. We are hearing a lot of promises and
seeing a lot of drawings, none of which are binding at the end of the
evening.
Mr.
Yoder stated if we approve this as presented how can we
then go back and ask them to put in larger lots. Mr. Cunningham stated you can always go
larger. Mr. Yoder stated he thinks
it’s an issue of density.
Mr.
Kraus stated Mr. Coffee brought up a good point; our original recommendation for
the currently zoned SR Adena Pointe property was R-2. It ended up being SR for a couple of
reasons, but the primary one was as a concession to the adjacent property. He stated his suggestion would be lots
2-14 be the larger SR lots.
Mr.
Griffin stated he lives on a lot himself which is 1 acre. I am adjacent to an R-1
neighborhood. When it was first
being developed, I was in hopes of it being SR. I have to admit that now that it is
there it looks good. There is a
fair amount of green space. The
point is there are approximately 6 lots that are greater than SR and then you
have several lots that are slightly below SR. He stated having lived next to this
situation himself; it is not a bad situation.
Mr.
Bergwall stated the point was well taken that we are looking at zoning and not
the layout of the subdivision. If
we were to vote to approve this it should be under the understanding that it was
on the basis of the total package proposed and if there were games played with
lot layout and buffering after the fact to meet the letter of the code for that
zoning, the sketch plan will be denied.
Mr.
Kraus stated he would carry that a step further, Mr. Coffee has indicated a lot
of verbal commitments and I would like to see those in letter form with the
sketch plan.
Mr.
Coffee stated absolutely.
Mr.
Seymour stated he stands by the SR zoning.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what Mr. Seymour is asking for then is everything would be SR and
R-2 and loose the R-1. Mr. Seymour
stated he sees this as having three zoning districts.
Mr.
Kraus stated with the size of this piece of property, I think three zoning
districts would be too much. I
don’t have a problem with what they submitted as long as they can make their
commitments work.
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to approve the zoning amendment request for the Weinlein property located on
Mr.
Griffin
Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour No
Mr.
Cunningham
Yes
Motion
passed.
Approval
of Final Plat
– Keystone Crossing – filed by Jeff Lewis (Tabled from Feb. 6th)
Mr.
Roush stated he has received the performance bond, parkland fees and a
developer’s agreement. We have also
received a copy of a recorded easement from the mainline sewer for the Keystone
Crossing property through what is known as the
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Keystone
Crossing.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
passed.
Approval
of Final Plat
– Chestnut Park – filed by David Walker, ME Companies (Tabled from Jan.
3rd)
Mrs.
Faye Cox stated the property has been sold and the new buyer would like a
tabling until the next meeting so they have time to get the money together for
the bond and submit a new mylar reflecting the new
ownership.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to table the approval of the
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion
passed.
NEW
BUSINESS:
Approval
of Preliminary Plat
– Scott Farms Section 5 – filed by EMH&T Inc.
Mr.
Drew Sanderell with EMH&T stated this is the
platting process for the second access for Scott Farms. The construction plans have already been
approved with section 4. At last
months meeting, the commission brought up the letter from the
Mr.
Roush stated the other concern we had at that time was from the county
engineer’s office regarding the turning radius at
Mr.
Kraus asked if the construction drawings address the schools issues. Mr. Roush confirmed that they do.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if he understood correctly there was to be mounding between the
school and the road. Mr. Roush
stated yes. Mr. Bergwall asked if
that would cause any line of sight issues.
Mr. Kraus stated there is 22 ft. before you get to the curb. Mr. Yoder stated there was also to be a
fence.
Mr.
Yoder made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Scott Farms Section 5 as
presented.
Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Motion
passed.
Approval
of Final Plat
– Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co.
Mr.
Vic Steinfels stated he is requesting that the approval of the final plat be
tabled until the June 5th meeting to allow the completion of the
bonding.
Mr.
Roush stated there has been some discussion with the developer in regards to the
timing of the approval of the final plat with the approval of the final
development plan. He stated the
construction plans have been approved.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to table the approval of the final plat for Galbury Meadows
until the June 5th meeting at the request of the
applicant.
Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion
passed.
Approval
of Final Development Plan
- Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co.
Mr.
Roush stated everything is okay with administration.
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to approve the final development for Galbury meadows as
presented.
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Motion
passed.
Approval
of Preliminary Plat
– City Gate – located north of Delaware Ave. and west of US 33 – filed by
Connolly Construction
Mr.
Yoder recused himself from the
meeting.
Mr.
Griffin asked the commission if there was any objection to him staying to hear
the discussion as long as he doesn’t comment. He stated he is not voting due to a
conflict of interest. No
objections.
Mr.
Connolly stated they are back with a plan that has been amended indifference to
the comments the commission made at the last meeting. It has a divided boulevard all the way
back with an increase in the street width.
The bike path back to the turn around is also paved.
Mr.
Kraus asked the width of the bike path access. Mr. Connolly stated it is 10 ft.
Mr.
Roush stated as far as the preliminary plat is concerned, there is no reason it
shouldn’t be approved. He
stated the width of the pavements through this project would provide for
movement of traffic on a single side in case of a blockage on the other
side. As far as the traffic pattern
around each of the circles, we feel it should be one way
traffic going counter clockwise with the drives for the lots in the
cul-de-sac being right in, right out only.
He stated late last week he did receive copies of the traffic study
provided by EMH&T which basically says that there is a warrant for a west
bound right turn lane into the development and in the future there will be a
warrant for an east bound left turn lane into the development.
Mr.
Kraus stated a comment for the commission would be because our code states that
cul-de-sacs shall generally not exceed 600ft., which leaves the door open for us
to do something different. We
should acknowledge, assuming we approve this, that the reason we allowed the
extension beyond 600ft. is because there was an emergency access provided and
the street is a boulevard.
Mr.
Seymour stated to add to that, this boulevard is a good alternative. There was some discussion before that
maybe we should alter our code to reduce the length of cul-de-sacs, but this is
an excellent compromise.
Mr.
Roush stated on lot 6987 and 6988 the driveway access should be on
Mr.
Bergwall stated he agrees with Mr. Roush and it is pertinent information because
it may impact the placement of the islands and it impacts the guidebook that was
provided.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what the pavement width was on the emergency access. Mr. Connolly stated it is 10 ft. Mr. Bergwall asked Mr. Roush if he had a
chance to check with the fire chief to make sure that was adequate. Mr. Roush stated he did not get a chance
to check. Mr. Connolly stated they
have done them at 8 ft. before because a fire truck is about 7’10” wide.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he was glad to see the mounding all the way to lot 6999, but was
wondering why there was no mounding protection on the north side of lot
7003. Mr. Connolly stated it was an
oversight.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he was confused after reading what was in the paper after the
last meeting about what went on in the last meeting. I must not have made myself clear. I had two real concerns, one, did it
meet the code, and two did it provide for safe easy access of traffic. Outside of that, there is the issue of
are we doing anything to compound the traffic issue along
Mr.
Bergwall stated in the book that was provided, there were some
observations. On page 9, where it
talks about visibility, it says SR 33 being 10-15 below this sight. He stated it is actually both above and
below. He stated he didn’t
understand the general slope of the sight providing excellent visibility along
Mr.
Bergwall stated in Reserve J, he would suggest that it either be dedicated to
the city, or designated in the covenants and deed restrictions as having the
potential for future roadway access, should someone want to reconfigure the
access to Burger King or Nations Rent.
Mr. Roush stated note A on page one of the
plans, states reserves A-I shall be maintained by the City Gate owners
association with a dedicated right-of-way.
Reserve J shall be owned and maintained by the developer until such time
as it is adjoined with the parcel to the south.
Mr.
Roush stated note F states the developer agrees to pay $1000.00 per lot in lieu
of parkland dedication. In
commercial subdivisions, the parkland fees are collected at the time the
building is built and based on the square footage of the building.
Mr.
Seymour asked about the sidewalks.
Mr. Connolly stated it was a temptation to put in bigger sidewalks. What you have here is a standard
sidewalk. I don’t know how much
these sidewalks will be used.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he feels the standard width sidewalk would be adequate. What you are going to find is maybe
employees of this development walking during breaks and lunches. Mr. Connolly stated if you really think
the neighborhood would use the sidewalks, I am willing to widen the sidewalks to
5’ as a compromise.
Mr.
Bergwall stated another question is you have reserve I, which is to include the
property sign. Is what you have on
the cover of the book what you are looking to for signage. Mr. Connolly stated yes. Mr. Bergwall asked if they were planning
on having any type of sign that talks about who is in the development. Mr. Connolly stated no. We may end up having to do that, but we
are trying to steer away from it.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for City Gate as presented
with the understanding that we are exceeding the 600’ length of the cul-de-sac
because of the boulevard and emergency access provided.
Mr.
Griffin Abstain Mr. Yoder Recused Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion
passed.
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Chapter 1136(Tabled
from March. 6th)
Mr.
Phillips stated there was a great joint meeting and from that meeting there have
been additional changes made. He
stated on page 2, it was discussed that we have some single family homes that
are of special architecture and we should protect them. In the case of demolition, they will be
considered as part of a certificate of appropriateness application. On page 4 it adds the specific language
for this. On the bottom of page 10,
it was a consensus in the meeting to make demolition a little bit more thorough
process so these changes were made.
In the approval process it states this review may include recommendations
on alternative historical uses that may preserve the structure. Mr. Cunningham asked if the word
historical was appropriate. Mr.
Phillips stated it should be taken out.
Mr.
Phillips stated he also made a change that specifies the board makes the final
determination not the Historical Society.
Discussion held on the wording.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend to City Council the changes to Chapter 1136
with the changes presented tonight.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
passed.
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Chapter 1140(Tabled
from March. 6th)
Mr.
Phillips stated there have not been any changes since the last meeting.
Mr.
Kraus stated he has a concern based on the comments from the joint meeting. In 1140.05 (a) types of requirements –
new structures, the last sentence “this requirement does not apply to existing
single family residential uses.” He
stated he thinks it should be expanded to say “nor does
it apply to single family zoned districts.” Mr. Phillips asked what you would do
with the BR districts. Mr. Kraus
stated it would be purely residentially zoned districts. Discussion held regarding this. Mr. Phillips stated if you take out the
word existing you accomplish the same thing. Commission agreed.
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1140.07, landscape buffering should be required. It should state multi-family,
manufacturing and commercial will always put the buffering in not
single-family. Mr. Phillips stated
if there is a commercial use that is next to another commercial use and one of
the commercial uses wants to build it single family, the developer should be the
one to put it in. You can’t
penalize an existing commercial property for someone building a single family
residence beside them. Mr. Kraus
stated then it needs to specify it’s the developer’s responsibility not the
single family property owner.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend to City Council the changes to Chapter 1140
with the amendments as discussed.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion
passed.
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Chapter 1144(Tabled
from March. 6th)
Mr.
Phillips stated in this section changes had to be made to accommodate the
request from City Council to have some appointments to this board. The wording I’ve come up with is, “The
Design Review Board is here by established. The Design Review Board shall consist of
seven members. Of the seven
members, 4 of the members shall be appointed by City Council, each being a
resident of the city. The remaining
3 members shall be appointed by the Mayor from the members of the Planning
Commission. Terms of office shall
be for 4 years, provided upon initial formation of the board one council
appointee shall be appointed for 1 year, 1 council and 1 mayor appointee shall
be appointed for two years, 1 council appointee and 1 mayor appointee shall be
appointed for three years and 1 council appointee and 1 mayor appointee shall be
appointed for four years. Terms
shall begin 30 days after enactment of this legislation. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
prior to the expiration of the term for which his/her predecessor shall hold
office for the remainder of the term.
As determined appropriate by City Council, members of the Design Review
Board may receive compensation.”
Mr.
Phillips stated he added a sentence to identify the duties and
responsibilities.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to recommend to City Council the changes to Chapter 1144
as amended.
Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Motion
passed.
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Chapter 1100(Tabled
from March. 6th)
Mr.
Phillips stated in the fees, we took out the fees for residential Certificate of
Appropriateness and added a fee for residential demolition of $100.00. There was a concern that the fee we had
for non residential was too high, which was $250.00 and now is reduced to
$150.00 along with the demolition and the sign permit was reduced to
$25.00. They are less because we
want to encourage development and growth in the historic uptown area.
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to recommend to City Council the changes to Chapter
1100.
Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion
passed.