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, Alan Seymour,
John Cunningham and Don Bergwall.
1 vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rick
Coutts, Scott McClintock, Dan Niederkohr, Jim Watkins,
Dennis Schulze, Paul Isaacs, Ed Miller, Shawn Lanning, Doug Tailford, Alice and
Larry Ahlers, Spence Fisher, Harold Howard, Julie Scott, Phil Roush, Tammy
Penhorwood
RECOGNITION:
Mr. Cunningham stated he
would like to present Mrs. Paula Bodey with a commendation certificate from the
Planning Commission for all her hard work and effort while serving on Planning
Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting –
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
None
OLD
BUSINESS:
Approval
of Final Plat
– Chestnut Park – filed by David Walker, ME Companies (Tabled from Apr.
3rd)
Mr.
Dennis Schulze stated just before the last meeting the ownership of the property
changed hands. The new owners do
not have a builder at this time. We
are asking that the final approval of the final plat be continued for an
additional three months and hopefully they will find a builder within that
time.
Mr.
Griffin made a motion to table the approval of the final plat for
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
Passed
NEW
BUSINESS:
Extension
Request-
Request to extend approval of Preliminary Plat for Scott Farms Subdivision-
filed by Edward Miller with EMH&T
Mr.
Ed Miller with EMH&T stated they are requesting a one year extension of the
preliminary plat of the Scott Farms Subdivision. He stated the engineering plans for
Section 4 Parts 1 & 2 have been approved. The developer is in the process of
finishing Section 4 Part 1.
Mr.
Griffin stated the letter request states they are requesting an extension of 18
months. Mr. Miller stated yes it is
whatever is in the letter.
Mr.
Griffin stated his question would be if we approve this extension and we make
changes in the codes, do the changes get applied to
this project. The answer was
no. Mr. Griffin stated he thinks
that having the original 12 months of approval and then extending it for an
additional 18 months is too long.
Mr.
Miller asked if an extension of 12 months would be a more acceptable time
frame.
Mr.
Seymour stated Mr. Griffin has a good point. The purpose of the extension is to avoid
changes in the code.
Mr.
Miller stated the developer is anticipating the start of construction for
Section 4 Part 2 to be next spring.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to modify the request to extend the preliminary plat for
Scott Farms Section 4 Part 1 and 2 from 18 months to 12 months and to grant the
modified request.
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr.
Kraus Yes
Motion
passed.
Acceptance
of Final Plat-
Adena Pointe Section 1 Part 1 – located on Weaver Rd – filed by Watcon
Engineering
Mr.
Roush stated the engineering plans have been approved. The storm improvements basically provide
the first phase of the storm system through this development, which is designed
to accommodate all the water that is coming upstream from this.
Mr.
Seymour stated with the two detention ponds along
Mr.
Roush stated the ponds have a capacity to hold twice as much
water as the storm water calculations require. Mr. Watkins stated there is almost a 50%
reduction in the outlet from what it is at predevelopment.
Mr.
Seymour stated Mr. Roush stated they are accommodating the water from Bishop
Ditch. Mr. Roush stated yes. It accepts water from the watersheds
which starts on the west side of SR 38 and includes the golf course, part of the
Links,
Mr.
Seymour stated in the
Mr.
Roush stated there is currently ponding in
Mr.
Roush stated he is the city engineer and it is up to him to work the drainage
out. The drainage will work as it
is shown on the preliminary plat.
He stated the administration has a meeting tomorrow with some of the
people that live in the
Mr.
Seymour stated then this is an open issue relevant to this project. Mr. Kraus stated it doesn’t effect this
phase. Mr. Roush stated it is a
closed issue. The drainage for the
entire subdivision, as they have it laid out in their report will work,
regardless of what happens with
Mr.
Seymour stated if it is left uncontrolled, there will be a certain flow design
even if it is a natural water collection area.
Mr.
Kraus stated he understands where Mr. Seymour is coming from however; we are
dealing with Section 1 Phase 1 not the development as a whole. As long as we have the understanding
that all of the pieces will work when they come together, I’m okay with
it.
Mr.
Seymour stated he is concerned with it from a health standpoint I don’t know if
an additional project should be started knowing there is a condition that is
less safe than a natural city park.
Mr.
Roush stated if this development does not occur, it is guaranteed to keep the
existing conditions. If this
development continues it will do nothing but make the situation better.
Mr.
Seymour stated for tonight, as long as we are assured it is not going to be a
natural habitat of stagnated water, and then I’m
comfortable.
Mr.
Roush stated what occurs in
Mr.
Bergwall stated he was trying to match this final plat with the preliminary
plat. The latest preliminary plat
does not agree with the final plat.
Reserve D has an added access between lots 35 and 34 and an additional
access on the south side of this plat.
There was also resizing done on lots 49 – 46.
Mr.
Schulze stated when the preliminary plat was approved there were changes that
needed to happen prior to the final plat.
That’s why there are differences.
Mr.
Watkins stated Reserve D was changed because of the pump station location. It was first planned on the south east
corner of the development. After
talking to Mr. Roush and Mr. Varner it was decided it would be best to be placed
in Reserve D. The shuffling of the
lots was to accommodate an access drive to the pump station.
Mr.
Bergwall stated another point that is not necessarily pertinent to this section
but you should be aware of it is in the preliminary plat, I believe we
overlooked a section of the ordinance, 1107.13. It states a block can not exceed 1500
ft. and if a block is longer than 900 ft. you need a walkway easement. I just want you to be aware of this
ahead of time.
Mr.
Watkins stated he would look at that code.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he assumes they have done the math to make sure you can get an
adequate size home to meet the standards and setbacks on the lots that are
encroached by the easements. Mr.
Watkins stated they have looked at them and they are okay.
Mr.
Kraus stated in looking at the preliminary plat, it shows a pond on Reserve D,
is that still going to be there.
Mr. Watkins stated it would be a shared pond with the Weinlein
property.
Mr.
Seymour stated because of the unknown of
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to accept the final plat for Adena Pointe Section 1 Part
1.
Mr.
Bergwall asked Mr. Seymour if his recommendation would be to table this until it
is all resolved. Mr. Seymour stated
he would like to see the full details in their completion.
Mr.
Kraus stated that is not on the agenda tonight. We are dealing with phase 1. Subsequent phases will have adequate
time to address them. Mr. Roush has
stated that the drainage is not an issue and will work how it is
designed.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he tends to side with knowing up front what each piece is going
to be and how it is going to fit into the total puzzle.
Mr.
Schulze stated the engineering aspect is supposed to be handled by the
engineer. He has stated that the
plan they have in place will handle the whole project and will improve this
offsite project you are talking about now.
This is not even part of the development area and yet the developer has
voluntarily agreed to work with the city to improve the situation over there.
When there is not legal way he can be forced to do it. To impose upon them a requirement that
they wait until something is resolved is unfair. It is better to let them proceed now and
get improvement to the offsite issue.
Mr.
Cunningham stated there is a motion on the table and he would like to remind
commissioners as they begin to vote that if there is a negative vote a clear
legal reason must be given for that negative vote.
Mr.
Seymour
No – Because of 1107.03 – which is relative to the health of the
community and in all due respect to the city and their efforts, we still don’t
know what the end result of the park is gong to be
Mr. Cunningham
Yes Mr.
Griffin
Yes
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes
Motion
Passed.
Mr.
Watkins asked the Planning Commission for a special meeting for the approval of
the final plat for Adena Pointe.
Mr.
Kraus stated he would suggest unless there is another meeting for another reason
that they can wait their turn and be back at the June meeting. Mr. Cunningham stated he
agrees.
Acceptance
of Final Plat
– City Gate – located north of Delaware Ave. and west of US 33 – filed by
Connolly Construction
Mr.
Roush stated the construction plans for this development have been approved and
we have received the storm water calculations. The developer has submitted a traffic
study to ODOT regarding the proposed changes to
Mr.
Scott McClintock stated he was there on behalf of Phil Connolly. He stated there is nothing new to add
but would be glad to field any questions the commission may have.
Mr.
Bergwall stated with the cul-de-sacs you comprehend that there will be only one
way traffic around those and that drives will be right in right out
only.
Mr.
McClintock stated the traffic flow on the largest cul-de-sac will be one
way. On the smaller cul-de-sac, we
met with the city staff and reviewed the traffic movement there and the plans
we’ve submitted have the traffic going both ways. The city discussed it and decided that
if it was going to be a problem it is easy to convert it to one way
traffic.
Mr.
Bergwall asked how it would be an easy solution. Mr. McClintock stated it would be mainly
an issue of signage and maybe arrows on pavement.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what the logic was behind having the two cul-de-sacs having
different traffic patterns. Mr.
Roush stated with the larger cul-de-sac having the boulevard it would create
some issues with two way traffic.
We decided to let them try the two-way on the smaller one.
Mr.
Bergwall stated one of the reasons he voted to support this project the last
time was because I understood that we had decided there was to be one way traffic around both cul-de-sacs. He stated he was disappointed to hear
this has changed.
Mr.
Cunningham stated looking at the statute for these regulations, 1103.01 states
that these regulations shall be administered by the city planning
commission. He stated he is not
sure the city administration has the right to over ride our decision in this
matter. Mr. Roush stated until
after it is built. Mr. Cunningham
stated exactly.
Mr.
Kraus asked if the code covers one way and two way traffic. Mr. Cunningham stated it talks about
traffic patterns and the directions of the roadways. He stated he doesn’t think the
administration has the right to over ride that. Unless this is in compliance with the
preliminary plat as approved, it is a substantial change and we would be well
within our rights to deny this.
Mr.
Kraus stated he doesn’t have a problem with trying it. Mr. Seymour stated he agrees.
Mr.
Roush stated if the preliminary plat was approved with that condition then that
is how it is supposed to be.
Mr.
McClintock stated the cul-de-sac traffic pattern is not of a strong opinion one
way or the other. I wouldn’t want
this to be something that would tip the balances against the project and if it
were going to go that direction, we would be willing to give on that issue.
Commission
agreed they would like the cul-de-sacs to be one way
traffic.
Mr.
Bergwall stated in the covenants and conditions he would like to point out that
with regards to the process of approval of plans in article 4, it goes through a
lot of detail on how they will go through the design review process for City
Gate and the certificate of compliance, however, it doesn’t mention that they
will also need to go through the City’s design review process. He stated he would like to make sure
prospective buyers understand they will go through your process and then also
the City’s process.
Mr.
McClintock stated he did not partake in the writing of the draft; however, he
will pass the information along and see that potentially a footnote be added to
that effect.
Mr.
Seymour stated he needs a refresher as to what is going on with the access to
Burger King. Mr. Roush stated
Reserve H as indicated by a note on the plat indicates the association will hold
the reserve until it is transferred to the property owner.
Mr.
Bergwall stated folks in the community have expressed a concern with
Mr.
Bergwall asked Mr. Roush is there was any concern about all of the traffic in
this area. Mr. Roush stated the
biggest concern is with traffic on
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to accept the final plat for City Gate with the
understanding that the traffic around both cul-de-sacs will be one
way.
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Abstain Mr.
Kraus Yes
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Motion
Passed.
Zoning
Amendment
–
Mr.
Kraus stated having one lot in two different zoning districts is difficult. He stated he would suggest moving the
B-1 line north to
Mr.
Spence Fisher representing Memorial Hospital of Union County stated they own the
4th property to the east.
He stated the Board of Trustees of the hospital discussed this and
although we don’t oppose the proposed change we would request our lot continue
to be zoned HMD. From our
perspective we would prefer a tighter hospital restriction. To release another lot to B-1 zoning,
while it would not be hugely problematic it would open some other opportunities
down the road.
Mr.
Kraus stated Mr. Fisher mentioned there being tighter restrictions in HMD,
doesn’t the hospital own the property now?
Mr. Fisher stated yes. Mr.
Kraus asked if there was a reason they could not enforce deed restrictions as to
what would be able to go there without having this little piece of land sticking
out with a different zoning. Mr.
Fisher stated he thinks it is entirely possible. In fact they did that with some of the
properties on
Mr.
Kraus stated he understands the hospitals request, however, it doesn’t make
sense to have a lot sticking out like that when they have an alternative to
address their concerns.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion that the 4 lots north of the B-1 line to
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes
Motion
Passed.
Zoning
Amendment
– 7.693 acres – located at SR 4 and Scott
Mr.
Cunningham stated this is the property being developed by Dr. Cowgill and the
Isaacs. This is being looked at to
assure that residential development is put on these 7.693 acres.
Mr.
Seymour stated he is disturbed that this is coming to the commission. The reason I’m disturbed with it is that
if you look the minutes over thoroughly you see that there was a lot of
deliberation on this. Three of the
earlier bullets stated that this is all about zoning; we are not approving the
drawings. It was made clear in
several points. Further into the
body, there was discussion which said, “Mr. Seymour asked why they chose to
request this vs. two different zonings.”
Later in the body there are two other comments to this effect.
Mr.
Seymour stated with all of this he struggles with why we would put this
developer through the pains of having to go through the process again or why are
we changing our minds at this point when every time a zoning issue comes up we
preach that this is about zoning only and not about the plat. I do not believe we should change the
zoning. We made a conscience
decision to make OR the zoning.
Mr.
Griffin stated at the time we voted for this to be OR, there was considerable
discussion as to if a portion of this should be OR and the other R-2. At the time we had this discussion there
was considerable input from surrounding home owners. They wanted to make sure the rest of the
property remained as residential and not as business. More recently it comes to me that it
seems like they want to expand the business portion of the property at the
expense of the residential. From my
standpoint it makes sense to separate the two. If the owners then want to modify the
residential portion they can do that by applying for a PUD.
Mr.
Kraus stated his biggest concern at this point is I don’t have a problem with a
slight expansion of the commercial portion but I want to assure protection of
the existing residences out there.
If something can be worked out with the developer where he gets another
acre or two behind the current businesses but not close to the existing homes
then I am okay with that.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he remembers the discussion at the time, I thought we
entertained putting dual zoning in there and then we were assured that we did
not have to worry about that. I
think we went on the basis of that promise that it would get developed the way
it was proposed on the sketch plan.
Mr.
Rick Coutts stated his property is directly north of this project. He stated he was lied to by them, they
were told there would only be one building on this property. Now I find out there are four buildings
approved with one of them directly backing up to my property. Now they want to put more medical
offices directly behind me when I was told this was going to be residential
property. He stated the other thing
he would ask is that the city place a moratorium on any building along the Route
4 corridor until the city and the state determines what they are going to do
with it. You know there is a
problem, fix the problem and then allow the building. I can’t even get the state to reduce the
speed limit.
Ms.
Julie Scott stated she just moved here and lives on Scott Farms Blvd. She stated her concern is will there
be business traffic on Scott Farms Blvd. This is a residential street and the
only in and out access for these homes and now this office area is going to use
Scott Farms Blvd.
Mr.
Roush stated there will be a second access that will come out beside the
Mr.
Jason Isaacs stated when we went through this process previously we had 10 acres
to be annexed into the city. It was
our understanding from this body that a continuous zoning for an area makes more
sense. OR was a transitional zoning
between commercial and residential.
The plan that we presented was that we were planning to do offices in the
front and houses in the back. There is an existing house that has value to it
and the whole setting with the trees is very beautiful. We had a color rendering that showed
this. There was no sketch
plan. Zoning does not come with a
sketch plan or a plat. We had a
colored sketch meant to paint a picture of what we would like to do. We go through many
iterations of site plans before we give anything to the city. The color rendering was a concept of
what we want to do. Dr. Cowgill
owns these parcels based on the OR zoning, still with the intention that we are
going to do office buildings in the front and houses in the back. Nothing has changed. The idea that now there are all of these
office buildings and stuff around the pond is not true. I don’t understand the preemptive idea
of changing the zoning all of a sudden.
Mr.
Griffin asked if you are still planning on putting in single family residences
then why would you object to having it zoned for residential use only. Mr. Isaacs stated there is a potential
for an additional office building.
Mr. Griffin stated that is what bothers us. Mr. Isaacs stated this is no different
than what we presented the first time.
Mr.
Seymour stated the first proposal came to us with office buildings in the front
and homes in the back. You haven’t
necessarily drawn the line as to where the commercial is going to stop and the
residential is going to start. So
what you brought to us is where you think it is going to be at this point. Mr. Jason Isaacs stated yes. Mr. Seymour stated the commissions
question is what assurance do we have that it is going
to be residential.
Mr.
Jason Isaacs stated we don’t know what is going to be on the west side of the
drive. Mr. Seymour stated then the
issue is that you can’t define where the line is. Mr. Isaacs stated the line is going to
be the driveway. We just don’t know
if directly west of the drive if it will be offices or
homes.
Mr.
Kraus asked Mr. Isaacs if he had more time to deal with this would he be able to
narrow down where the line would be.
If you could do that then would you have any objection as to rezoning the
west portion then?
Mr.
Coutts stated his recommendation would be that all property east of his be zoned
R-2.
Mr.
Paul Isaacs stated he disagrees with that comment. When you do zoning you do
buffering. The question is that
there is no control of what could go onto Mr. Coutts property once it is
sold. They have the right to sell
it to whom ever they want. There is nothing to say it will not
develop into commercial property.
This area needs to buffer the other existing houses and the houses we are
going to build. Rezoning this
brings our project to a halt.
Having offices around the pond is ridiculous.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he got the perception that the 4 buildings that have already
gone through design review were the only commercial buildings and the remainder
was going to be residential. The
last time around we got some inkling that there might be more commercial. That came as a surprise. What I want to understand is the 4
buildings that are already proposed, is that the extent of your commercial and
the remaining residential?
Mr.
Paul Isaacs stated it is the extent of the commercial at the present time. The intent is for residential back by
the pond. The only thing we don’t
know is what is going directly west of the drive.
Mr.
Bergwall stated the intent is that we have a plan as a planning commission and
that we understand how that is going to develop. Not we are going to see how it develops
depending on how the wind blows. If
we think we need something in between, then that is new news. What we want to understand is where
is the line between commercial and residential.
Mr.
Jason Isaacs stated we are building out office buildings; we are not building
them all at once. As the tenants
come in we build more buildings.
Mr.
Seymour stated once again this is about zoning. As we said last time if Mr. Cowgill
would choose to sell the property, it is zoned OR. He stated he thinks the request from the
commission is that you define the line and the commission will make the zoning
change.
Mr.
Paul Isaacs asked how long it would be before we would be able to build a house
in the back. Mr. Kraus stated
because it is zoned OR you can submit a plan at any time.
Mr.
Jason Isaacs stated this discussion right now is currently slowing down the
current proposal of the front part.
Mr.
Griffin stated he gets very concerned with not knowing who is going to own this
land in 10 years. We have no
assurance that there will ever be houses back there.
Mr.
Kraus stated this discussion should not be slowing any progress of the applicant
down. I am not sure we are going to
come to a conclusion tonight. I
think Dr. Cowgill and the Isaacs should take time to think, is there a way to
draw the line. If you want to come
in with a residential plan, you can do that today.
Mr.
Coutts stated the Isaacs talk about the potential of our property selling and if
they build homes to be back of our property, there would be no buffer. I have no buffer now if they build
offices behind me.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to table this item to the next
meeting.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
Passed.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
General
Issues
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
John
Cunningham – He stated the commission needs to deal with the zoning amendments
as consistently as possible. To say
that we have already visited an issue and because of that to not revisit it is
not right. We are going to make
misjudgments at times.
Alan
Seymour – He stated to Mr. Roush, it was just something he had to bring up. With the zoning issue, I brought it up
because it was about the integrity of the commission. We made a decision and I chose to stick
by it. Mr. Cunningham stated when
we originally reviewed it there were assurances made that night that made me
overlook some of the aspects of the decision.
Ken
Kraus – He stated at the city council meeting the Mayor complemented the
Planning Commissions efforts on the agenda items. He stated we do not have anything for
the design review; we need to meet and discuss this ‘To Do’ list since it is
getting longer. If we do that it
might be appropriate to bring back Adena Pointe. Commission agreed.
Don
Bergwall - None
Pete
Griffin - None
Architectural
Review Board Representative Report
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting
was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.