PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 7, 2007

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

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

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Myron Gallogly, Pricilla Gallogly, Rob Meyer, Brian Palmer, Greg DeLong, and Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Planning Commission Meeting – April 2, 2007- Mr. Cunningham asked that beside his name under Members Present it be changed to say excused instead of absent since he did call ahead of time.  Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Voice vote was unanimous.

 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:

 

None on non-agenda items

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS: None

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Rules of Procedure- Mr. Cunningham made a motion to approve the Rules of Procedure as presented.  Voice vote was unanimous.

 

Approval of Final Plat – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering- tabled from 4-2-07

 

Mr. Myron Gallogly stated everything is in place.  Richwood Bank has approved a letter of credit.  They have supplied a letter of intent.  The bank is waiting on the appraisal of the property.  We are having the preconstruction meeting this Wednesday.  The first part of phase one will be the construction of the off-site sewer. 

 

Mr. DeLong stated the parkland fees have been paid and the City has received a pre-approved letter of credit.  We did check with the City Law Director and he has indicated that this letter is sufficient. 

 

Mr. Yoder made a motion to approve the Final Plat for The Oaks.

 

Mr. Griffin   Yes    Mr. Yoder   Yes    Mr. Soller    Yes

Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mr. Bergwall          Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes

Mr. Cunningham    Yes

 

Motion Passed.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated from an ethics standpoint for the record he would like to say something.  In regards to the property that Mr. Gallogly has across the road from this site, I did have a conversation with Mrs. Lutz regarding the access on Walker Woods Lane through the easement.  Also, I have personally as a citizen, given information to City Council regarding the zoning of that property.  As everyone is aware, I was not pleased with the whole thing went at the previous meeting. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to reverse the order of the new business items.  Voice vote was unanimous.

 

Adena Pointe Preliminary Plat extension request

 

Mr. Rob Meyer stated he is representing Beazer Homes.  He stated as the commission is aware in a phased subdivision every 12 months a new final plat must be submitted to continue with the preliminary plat.  The preliminary plat was approved around December 15, 2005 and the first final plat was approved around May 2006.  The market as most of you are aware is very soft.  Because of this we are requesting an extension of the preliminary plat.  He stated there are a total of 44 lots in phase one and there have been 5 permits for houses in this phase.  The extension letter from the engineering firm is requesting an 18 month extension.  In looking at previous requests from other developers, you have approved a 12 month extension.  The 12 months would certainly be acceptable with the understanding that depending on where the market is at that point there may be a return trip.  The idea is to give the applicant enough to get some momentum going.  He stated Marysville’s process on the preliminary plat expiring after 12 months is somewhat unique and we would like to thank your staff in letting us know this time was up.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated while the points are well made relative to the next phase.  One concern I would have from a precedence standpoint, is that if we were to grant this extension precedence would be set for that to happen with each phase and this project could sting over a much longer period of time.  Not knowing what may happen with the code, the city may be disadvantaged in having the ability for this project to go under 2005 or 2006 regulations.  If we were to do it for this phase, I would like the record to indicate that it does not indicate this opportunity for future phase and that somewhere we might expect a compression of the rollout to make up for this.  While large parcels in a planned community make sense, the overall extension of that has some negative aspects.  It would provide an unfair competitive advantage for some developers or a hardship for others. 

 

Mr. Griffin stated let’s assume the code would change in a year from now, in some way that would have some impact on the future phases of this project.  Wouldn’t the code changes have to be reflected on the additional rollout? 

 

Mr. Seymour stated no, the preliminary plat locks their regulations in place. 

 

Mr. Griffin asked what the time line was for the completion of this development.  Mr. Bergwall stated seven years originally.

 

Mr. Kraus stated in some respects he agrees with Mr. Bergwall, but he doesn’t think this would preclude an extension of another phase.  I think the condition of the market is beyond anyone’s control.  I would suggest an alternative to what Mr. Bergwall said.  If the request comes up in the future, then we would evaluate it based on the conditions at the time of the request. 

 

Mr. Soller stated he has been out to Adena Pointe and the developer has made a good faith effort to market the property to the best of their ability.  Putting up the model home makes the area desirable.

 

Mr. Yoder stated he would have to agree with the previous comments and each phase will have to stand on its own merits.  

 

Mr. Seymour stated he thinks one of Mr. Bergwall’s points was if in five years down the road we’ve changed the R-2 district regulations are there options open at that point.  He stated Mr. Kraus’s point is that if they come for another extension we address it at that point. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated we need to be careful when we change district requirements we need to be careful because when we made the changes a few years ago we then created an entire subdivision of legal non-conforming lots.  It is not always good for the homeowner.  If we were to make changes to the regulations, I would be in favor of creating a new district and not changing all of the existing districts.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated his point is I don’t see that as being as big a problem compared to what is happening at Mill Valley now in that they are developing new sections that are not in conformance with the current code.  I am bothered by the fact that new sections that are being released for construction in Mill Valley that is under different standards than a new section in Adena Pointe.  I don’t want to be committed the way we got committed for Mill Valley into the future. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he thinks with the economy at the challenging point that it is I think it is a good idea that we approve it this time. 

 

Mr. Griffin asked what would happen if the developer for whatever reason decides to pull out.  Can they sell the development as an approved plat?  Mr. Kraus stated his understanding stated yes, along as the time frame has not expired.  The approval of the plat runs with the land not the developer. 

 

Mr. Meyer stated the time frame the City has on the one year from preliminary plat and a year for each final plat segment after that is fairly tight.  What we are really pushing off is the time frame in which the next final plat will be required.  I believe there have not been any code changes as of right now that would effect his plat.  What the developers really need to look at is how big of a section should they phase at a time. 

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the request of the extension of the Adena Point preliminary plat for a period of 12 months.

 

Mr. Yoder   Yes    Mr. Soller    Yes    Mr. Kraus    Yes   

Mr. Bergwall          Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes    Mr. Cunningham    Yes

Mr. Griffin   Yes   

 

Portable Storage Container Regulations

 

Mr. DeLong stated at the last special meeting we had a discussion on portable storage containers.  On page 3 of the packet I put in a definition and under 1139.05, Temporary Buildings, I put in what they type of container is and how long you are allowed to have it.  The only thing I would like to change is after having discussion with staff and other colleagues is number 3.  It states that permits be granted for a period of 14 consecutive days….  I would like to drop the word consecutive and leave it as 14 days per calendar year. 

 

Mr. DeLong stated this is to be put in place so there are not any problems with these.  In talking to a colleague who works in a community that has these regulations, they said in the four years they’ve had the regulations in place they have probably issued only 4 permits.  It is something put in place so you don’t have them sitting around for months at a time and people using them for sheds. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated he recommends that in the second line, after the expiration of 14 days drop “the” before 14 and just end the sentence. 

 

Mr. Cunningham asked what the enforcement capabilities are on this regulation.  Mr. DeLong stated under 1125.99 is the enforcement.  It is a blanket which covers the entire code.  He stated it is dropped from this particular section because it was covered already.

 

Mr. Yoder stated in number 4, halfway down, it states, “if no driveway is present the applicant shall receive approval….”  Does that imply that they are automatically going to get approval from the City? 

 

Discussion held regarding the clarity of number 4.  Commission decided to change the last part to say, “If no driveway is present approval from appropriate City departments for the placement of the Portable Storage Container prior to its delivery must be obtained.”  

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to recommend to City Council the additions to1139.05 as amended.

 

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

Mr. Seymour         Yes    Mr. Cunningham    Yes Mr. Griffin      Yes

Mr. Yoder   Yes

 

Mr. Yoder made a motion to recommend to City Council the addition to 1123.01, definitions, 132-A as presented.        

 

Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mr. Bergwall          Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes   

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

Mr. Soller    Yes   

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he would like to suggest that the City write a press release regarding this ordinance change to that the community is aware. 

 

Adding Veterinarian Clinics to the permitted uses in the OR and BR zoning districts

 

Mr. Cunningham made a motion to add Veterinarian Clinics to the OR and BR zoning districts.

 

Mr. Bergwall          No     Mr. Seymour         No     Mr. Cunningham    No

Mr. Griffin   No     Mr. Yoder   No     Mr. Soller    No    

Mr. Kraus    No    

 

Mr. Seymour stated in regards to that item on the BZA agenda for the 14th it is requesting a condition use for the use of a vet clinic in the AR zoning district.  Mr. DeLong stated that will actually be removed from the agenda.  There was an error on staff’s part and the use is actually permitted in the AR district.  So there will be no action on that item.

 

Code Revision

 

Mr. DeLong stated in regards to the code conversion from the SIC to the NACIS Mrs. Penhorwood can update the commission as to where she is.

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated she is in the process of the conversion.  The NACIS code is more detailed than the SIC code.  Mr. DeLong stated for example, Dairy Stores, which is 545 in the SIC and allows dairy product stores, cheese stores, ice cream stores,…..  When you do the conversion it also allows a whole new set of stores to go in such as coffee and tea, gourmet food stores, soft drink stores,…  Mr. Kraus stated so it is broader definitions.

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated she is also working on a spread sheet which will show with the conversion what things will be permitted in each district.  But this will take time.  She stated she is half way through TOC going straight through the code. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated this will be very helpful. 

 

Commission decided to hold a special meeting on May 16th to discuss chapter 1135. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated on the implementation of the comprehensive plan, how can we go about this.  Mr. DeLong stated he has talked to administration regarding this but has not received a clear direction on where we are going with it.  He stated there is still talk about updating it and modifying it through Council.  If they want us to update it and do our own that’s fine but we have a county one now.  He stated he has also heard that the county is planning on updating the county wide plan as well.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked if there was an answer as to whether the Strategic Plan document was officially adopted or not.  Mr. DeLong stated there is no answer and the commission had expressed that they would like to have a joint meeting with Council. 

 

Mrs. Penhorwood asked the commission to clarify 1105.13 (b). 

 

Mr. Kraus stated it is in conflict with the Ohio Revised Code.  1105.13 (b) states if we change the zoning district requirements any final plat approved after that has to conform, even if the preliminary plat doesn’t.  But the code also states that the preliminary plat continues unless they don’t meet the requirements. 

 

Mr. Soller stated he believes that we need to get the law directors opinion since there is a conflict in the code. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he likes what it says.

 

Mr. Kraus stated it you read it literally then any second phase, if there is a change in the code, has to comply.  What it doesn’t say is that it is after the expiration period. 

 

Mr. Soller stated he thinks the reason for the difference is so the developer will have to decide whether to do a very large plat or break it up into sections that may be affected by the code.

 

Mr. Griffin stated 1135.12 is very specific, it states the approval of the preliminary plat shall be in effect for a period of 12 months and shall guarantee that the terms in which the approval was granted will not be affected by changes to these regulations providing …….  Both of these sections tie into each other. 

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated 1135.13 (b) is referring to the phases not the original preliminary plat. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated this is what he has been looking for for a long time.  There has to be a balance between saying you want large master planned communities to take advantage of all of the variation and mixed uses.  But you also put yourself at risk by letting people string out the preliminary plat over an extended period of time no knowing what the trends or the interest are going to be best for the community 10 years from now.  There has to be a balance point to say what is fair to entice development but not put us into a bind and create another Mill Valley.  I’m not opposed to Mill Valley, but I don’t like the idea that they have lots in there that are too small to accommodate a balance of housing. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated balance is the key.  Because you also have issues with the utilities and road layouts that are based on one plan that if there are too many changes the infrastructure could be wrong.

 

Mr. Seymour stated the response to that would be that is that any development that would come in later would have to take the new infrastructure that has been put in place and build on to that.  He stated he is hearing a couple of points.  The key point is that if we had the opportunity to proceed with a development later on we would prefer that it be held to the latest code standards.  Mr. Seymour asked Mr. DeLong asked if he would look into that and see if it is possible.

 

Mr. Kraus stated he is not sure he is in agreement with that.  I think once plans are in place people should have the confidence that those plans are good, regardless of how long it takes. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated what is being thought here is in the event of, what is our recourse. 

 

Mr. Bergwall asked if the commission could request that Mr. DeLong do a little research on what the background was for the change in the code on this subject.  Also, check with the law director on the legalities. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated he would like to see this at a special meeting. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

Meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.