PLANNING
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 23, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice chairman called the meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, Ken Kraus, Alan Seymour, John
Cunningham, Pat Soller. Don Bergwall -Absent.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg DeLong
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr. DeLong stated he has left some draft
legislation for the commission to review regarding Portable Storage Units. He stated there have been several phone calls
from citizens wanting to put them on their property. Before it becomes a big issue, we should get
the legislation in place.
Mr. Seymour stated since it is not an item on
the agenda, he would like a motion to add it to the agenda.
Mr. Yoder made a motion to add Portable
Storage Unit legislation discussion to the agenda.
Voice vote was unanimous.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Veterinarian Clinics as a permitted use in the
OR and BR zoning districts
Mr. DeLong stated at the last meeting Mrs.
Meg Michel was here wanting the commission to look at
this item. He stated at this time he
would like the commission forego doing that.
Mrs. Penhorwood is in the process of converting the SIC codes to the
more up to date NAICS. In that process
the definitions have changed. It would
be better to tackle at a later date when we are going through the code.
Mr. DeLong stated one thing we need to do is
discuss what the weaknesses of the city are.
One thing we know for sure is the sign code. He stated last Friday he drove around with
John Marshall and he pointed out things around the city that he thinks needs
fixed.
Mr. Yoder stated from the conversation we had
at previous meetings most of us want to see different
strip mall signage regulations.
Mr. Seymour stated he would like to better
understand the code change. Is there
anything out there stating we have to make these code changes. Mr. DeLong stated no. In the code it states you need to review the
code at least every five years.
Mr. Kraus stated he doesn’t think it is as
big of a task as they commission may think.
There are a lot of chapters that have been revised recently.
Mr. Seymour stated chapter 1137 has also been
looked at least within the last 5 years.
Mr. DeLong stated there will still be some changes that will come along
with the conversion of the SIC to the NAICS.
Mr. Seymour asked about a time table for the
conversion. He asked how long it would
be before the commission could take action on part one. Mr. DeLong stated he feels the commission
should go through the entire chapter/conversion and send it through as a whole
package.
Mr. Griffin asked what the rationale was
behind using these classifications in the first place. Mr. Kraus stated the rational was it was a
standard that is used nationwide.
Mr. Griffin stated when the neighborhood
commercial district was created we wrestled with what to put as permitted uses
in that district.
Mr. Kraus stated one thing we should consider
is to look at chapter 1135 before we look at chapter 1137. We need to make sure we are all in agreement
on what the purpose of each district is.
Also, there are some zoning districts that have never been used. Do we still need them? Or will having the PUD legislation
suffice?
Mr. Yoder stated another thing we might want
to look at is the Design Review chapter.
We, URE, are putting on an addition to our existing building and because
it is an addition, it was not required to go before the Design Review
Board. That was a bit of concern to
me. What if someone is not a good
corporate citizen? Mr. DeLong stated he
agrees. You may start out with this
beautiful building and then put up something that may not be up to par.
Mr. Cunningham stated that was the intent
initially. When we drafted the Design
Review Guidelines, we purposely left that out thinking lets get a grasp on the
new builds and then change the legislation to include the additions.
Mr.
Yoder stated with today’s environment, building a “green building”, our code is
counter productive to that. One of the
things we ran into with URE was the code requires curbs and we were trying to
have the water drain into the bioretention swales, so
it is counter productive. Mr. Kraus
stated it would be nice to have some alternate language in there. Mr. Yoder stated we really need to be
thinking about some “green building” type language.
Mr. Kraus stated in talking about Design Review,
should there be a time limit on the approval of a design, something that
terminates the approval if it is not done within a certain amount of time. He stated the reason he asks is because the
DRB approved a design for a Dairy Barn by Community Markets and now there is a
For Sale sign on the lot. I don’t think
it is appropriate for a new owner to come in and just as a free ride without
having it double checked.
Discussion held on the review of the sign
ordinance and whether it should be in with the district regulations or as
is. Mr. DeLong stated the way the code
is now it is confusing to calculate how much signage a building can have. We just need to tell them. Take out all of the calculations and just
tell them. Mr. Yoder stated he likes it
when it is simple.
Mr. Kraus stated his question is how can we get existing signs to eventually come into
conformance. Mr. Griffin stated he had a
conversation with Mr. Eric Phillips on this topic not too long ago and I think
if we enact a fairly simple and fair minded sign ordinance, and we can get Mr.
Phillips and the Chamber behind us to sell this whole idea, it could work. Mr. Phillips has indicated he would not have
a problem getting behind us on this.
Mr. Soller stated he would think the
marketing plan for Marysville would include some type of branding which would
include some uniformity in signage. It
may take a while for the existing signage to get converted.
Mr. Cunningham stated there is a unique
opportunity with the amount of commercial development that is occurring right
now. It would have the new businesses
showing the “respect” to the community.
Mr. DeLong stated it is also the training of
BZA. Coleman’s Crossing has too many
signs. There are some businesses out
there that can have seven signs. That is
because of all the pylon signs that were approved.
Mr. Griffin stated so to follow up, we should
start with chapter 1135 then 1137 and at the same time go back and look at 1139
and make sure everything is tied in right.
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks signs can be dealt
with separately from everything else.
You have one set of criteria for OR and BR because of the mixed uses and
maybe something slightly different for everything else.
Mr.
Soller asked if we need to have the conversion completed before we can identify
the purpose of each district. Mr. Kraus
stated he doesn’t think so.
Mr. Soller asked if the plan would be to
address the code at the regular meetings or at special meetings. Mr. Seymour stated historically used these
special work sessions because we can have this dialog more comfortable without
the formality.
Mr. Soller asked if there was a document that
keeps track of when each section was reviewed.
Mr. Cunningham stated no, not unless there were changes made.
Mr. Seymour stated on the SIC code
conversion, is it something that still needs to be worked on. Mr. DeLong stated he would check with Mrs.
Penhorwood and see where she is on the conversion. He stated he can start looking at the sign
ordinance and working on it.
Mr.
Kraus stated he thinks they may be able to deal with 1135 and signs
simultaneously with signs having the priority.
Mr. DeLong asked if they commission wanted him to work on the sign code
or if they wanted to do it as a group.
He stated if they are going to work on 1135 at the next meeting, he
doubts he will have the sign stuff ready.
Mr. Griffin stated he thinks the commission
can start working on 1135 and then when Mr. DeLong gets information on the
signs he can bring it to us. Mr. DeLong
stated he thinks 1135 and 1137 would work better together and he can work on
the sign part and keep the commission updated on where he is with it. Tell you what direction I am going and then
it can be tweaked.
Mr. Kraus stated that sounds good because
there are several different “types” of signs and somehow the multitudes of
pages currently in the code need to be reduced and simplified.
Mr. Soller asked how much time Mr. DeLong
thought it would take him to get a packet together. Mr. DeLong stated probably a month or
two.
Mr. Seymour stated one of the agenda items
for each of our work session special meeting will be update on the signage
language.
Mr. Griffin asked if the objective was going
to be to have one work session per month.
Mr. Seymour stated as we look at the work load, it probably warrants
it.
Mr. Kraus stated if we look at 1135 and then
work on signs, Mrs. Penhorwood should be far enough ahead of us with the conversion.
Mr.
Kraus stated in the book that was passed out to the commission from
administration with the executive plan in it.
It gives a time line of things that are to be done and some of them are
the responsibility of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Seymour stated with this book it doesn’t say who endorsed it. What makes it official? Mr. Kraus stated the one that concerns him is
the consideration of City Council reviewing sketch plans and so on.
Mr. DeLong stated he believes this book came
from the retreat that Administration and City Council had and the goals they
wanted to see accomplished.
Mr. Kraus stated he just wants to make sure
the commission is aware of what is in there and I am not sure what we are to do
with it.
Mr. Seymour stated to one of the points under
the planning side, review and update the comprehensive plan. As far as review and update, we talked about
this recently and we said we would like for Mr. DeLong or someone to compile
all information that funnels into a comprehensive plan. Mr. Seymour stated right now our
comprehensive plan is just a piece of the county plan. What I would like to see is that pulled out
of the county stuff and then proceed with the review
of such. He stated this is one of the things he would like to see done sooner
rather than later.
Mr. Cunningham stated in doing this it is
something that we should be working with council on. When any one of us, city boards, talks about
the comprehensive plan we should be able to make sure we are talking about the
same document.
Mr. Soller stated his understanding was that
council had a plan put together and this is probably it.
Mr. Cunningham stated he knows Councilperson
Sellers had talked about this but she also has indicated in meetings that they
would include Planning Commission in the meetings.
Mr. DeLong stated from his stand point it has
been frustrating because he is not sure which direction to go. They want me to do a comprehensive plan for
areas that are not in the city limits.
Mr. Griffin stated he doesn’t think he can do that. Mr. DeLong stated he can, but how do we
enforce it. In some of the cases, you
need a third party to do it.
Commission agreed a third party should be involved.
Mr. Griffin stated if you were to embark on
anything that would suggest that we were telling
Mr. Kraus stated we need to look at some of
the outside are for potential growth but say if it was to come into the city
this is what we might suggest.
Mr. Seymour stated you have the base
comprehensive plan. Then you have
scenarios that take it beyond the limits.
Mr. Kraus stated if we didn’t have a
comprehensive plan in place now, I don’t know what would be happening with the
Cook property.
Mr. Seymour stated if I am hearing consensus
and take what we have with the current comprehensive plan, our request to the
city is that we formalize it into a specific Marysville comprehensive
plan. Don’t wait for revisions, let’s do
it now and it can be revised as appropriate.
Each of us wants a copy of it.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to formalize the
current plan into a specific Marysville comprehensive plan. Voice vote was unanimous.
Mr. Kraus asked if it is the consensus here
that for the update of the comprehensive plan, the city should be looking at a
third party to help coordinate the project.
Commission stated yes. Mr. Kraus
asked if the commission wants to make a recommendation on it.
Mr. Cunningham stated he thinks a
recommendation needs to be made because right now there is no money set aside
in the budget to do anything of this nature.
He stated that the commission needs to make a recommendation to City
Council that the comprehensive plan be unified for the referencing and the
initial unification be done by a third party.
Mr. Kraus stated he seconds the motion Mr.
Cunningham just made. Voice vote was
unanimous.
Mr. DeLong stated regarding the Portable
Storage Unit legislation what he did was take the language Mr. Yoder proposed a
while ago and put in bold questions on it.
Mr. Yoder stated he would like the commission
to answer some of the questions that there are.
Mr. DeLong stated he placed it under 1139.05,
Temporary Buildings. Under “a”, it is
what is already in the code, so we’ll just leave that one alone. In “b” I would like to change it from PODS,
which is a name of company and call it Portable Storage Containers. Commission members asked if this would
include dumpsters. Mr. DeLong asked if
the commission wanted him to draft legislation that would include dumpsters.
Mr. Kraus stated in 2 originally it say 30
days permitted with a 30 day extension allowed.
Mr. DeLong has changed it to say 14 consecutive days per year. How long do we want to allow it?
Mr. Yoder stated there should be something in
there to allow for special circumstances such as a house fire.
Commission agreed they would like the 14 day
limitation with an extension.
Mr. Kraus stated on number 3 he would want a
clause which says they can’t obstruct the view for traffic or block the
sidewalks.
Discussion on the time limit
of the units. Mr. DeLong asked if the
commission was going to drop the extension fee but allow the extension, with a
limit of one extension. Mr. Yoder stated
he thinks there needs to be a fee for the extension. If there is no fee and they are allowed an
extension then there is no reason for them to not leave it there for the full
28 days.
Mr. Soller stated his concern is that it may
take a week or two for someone to call the zoning inspector, another day or two
for them to get out there and see it and then the clock starts for the 14
days. Mr. Kraus stated the “renter” of
the unit should have paperwork stating when they received the unit and that is
the date the 14 days starts.
Mr. Soller stated what about someone who only
needs it for one day for loading. At
what point do they need to get a permit.
Mr. Yoder all of the language he seen stated that no matter how long you
needed it for, you need a permit.
Mr. Cunningham stated can the owner of the
unit be charged a fine for dropping a unit without a permit.
Mr. Seymour asked if the commission was going
to place this on residential properties only.
If we don’t, it can create even more issues.
Mr. DeLong stated number 4 specifies
residential areas.
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks number 5 should
just reference chapter 1125.99 and doesn’t need to spell it all out again.
Mr. Yoder stated back to number 3 some of the
language he looked at was very strict.
It didn’t allow the units to be placed in the yards; it had to be placed
on a hard surface. What about the homes
that don’t have a driveway?
Mr.
DeLong stated what he has for changes is in “b” call
it portable storage units instead of PODS.
In one, reference that it will be the same fee as accessory
buildings. In number two, we will allow
14 days and a continuation and they will have to pay the fee for the
continuation. Number 3, we are dropping
the first sentence and add the word “shall” in reference to them being kept in
driveways. Four will be the same and in
five just reference section 1125.99.
Mr. Cunningham made a motion to make this
item a part of the regular meeting agenda on May 7th. Voice vote was unanimous.
Mr. Yoder stated something that bothers him
is the large retail stores using their parking lots to extend their retail
business for seasonal activities. To me
that is very unsightly.
Mr. Seymour stated he thinks that would be
sensitive.
Mr. Griffin stated Home Depot is starting to
do it and it is a new building. It
starts to look tacky.
Mr. Seymour stated back to the first item of
allowing vet clinics do we want to post pone it or put it to rest.
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks that any zoning
district with a residential use in not an appropriate place for a vet clinic.
Mr. Soller stated if there is no specific
example of someone asking for a vet clinic in a residential area, then I don’t
think it is an issue we need to resolve.
Mr. Yoder stated he thinks there is a
business that is trying to relocate somewhere.
He stated Mr. Griffin mentioned that he felt this issue might be
economically driven. The problem I would
have in a residential district is allowing an outside kennel.
Mr. Kraus stated even if you don’t have
outside kennels, the noise from inside is still going to carry.
Mr. Soller stated that Woodside Vet Clinic is
right at the entrance to
Mr. Kraus stated the unique thing about that
is it is located in an area zoned commercial not OR or
BR. Right off the bat it is a different
situation. Putting it in OR or BR would allow it to be right next to a residence not
across the street with several feet between.
Once it is zoned that you can’t control where it specifically goes.
Mr. Seymour stated they reason we would make
a choice on whether it should be included in OR or BR
is relative to the use of the property.
Do we feel it is suitable for those districts?
Mr. Cunningham stated he can’t think of a
situation where it would be.
Mr. Cunningham made a motion to allow vet
clinic usage in OR and
Mr. Yoder No Mr. Cunningham No Mr. Soller No
Mr. Kraus No Mr. Griffin No Mr. Seymour No
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks this should be
reported on at the regular meeting.
Mr. Seymour stated the voting was a
discussion consensus. We request that
this item be place on the regular scheduled agenda for official vote.
Mr. Soller stated he would like to understand
from Council or administration in regards to this strategic plan, are these
action items that they expect Planning Commission to accomplish or are they
just a guideline.
Mr. Seymour stated what we would like is an
explanation on what the purpose of the document is and how does it effect us.
Mr. Yoder asked if it would be better to have
a joint session with council to talk over these things.
Mr. Seymour stated when we think about the
things we’ve talked about the comprehensive plan and the accord, those items
could warrant a joint session.
Mr. Kraus stated he would prefer it be
scheduled in June.
Commission had discussion on not referring to
the accord. Commission agreed not to use
it.
Mr. Yoder stated with the joint session we
can take the strategic plan and hear from them an elaboration of what they
expect from us.
Comments made regarding what happened at the
council meeting on planning topics.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned.