PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 4, 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, John
Cunningham, Pat Soller. Don Bergwall-
excused.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dennis Schulze, Ed Miller, Gary Lee, Brian
Palmer, Greg DeLong, and Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting – April 23, 2007-
Mr. Cunningham made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Voice vote unanimous.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 7, 2007-
Mr. Kraus asked that under the approval of minutes in these minutes, it should
read that Mr. Kraus moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Griffin made a motion to approve the
minutes as changed. Voice vote was
unanimous.
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr. DeLong asked the commission to inform
administration if they are not going to be available for a meeting so we can
make sure there is still going to be a quorum.
Mr. DeLong stated the second item he has is
regarding the Portable Storage Container legislation. He stated he did receive a phone call from
POD Corporation stating they don’t like our proposed regulations. He stated the main problem they have with the
regulations is that we are requiring a zoning permit. I told him we are doing this mainly to make
sure the people are putting them in the proper place and not using them as
permanent storage.
Mr. Seymour asked Mr. DeLong to be at the
next City Council meeting.
CITIZEN COMMENTS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval of Final Plat – Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding
Co.- tabled from 4-2-07
Mr. Schulze
stated he would ask that the commission permit a 3 month delay in the approval
of this project. The investors are going
to have to make a decision on what they are going to do at that point. It doesn’t make economic sense at this point
to develop this land. We are hoping this
project will go, but under the circumstances right now we need another 3
months. The three months is so the
investors can determine if they are going to proceed forward with the project.
Mr. Cunningham
asked if it will be do or die in the 3 months.
Mr. Schulze stated that is a good question, but there are too many
factors to make that determination at this point in time. Timing is critical. They are better off doing this as soon as
possible. In 2008 when the sewage
treatment plant comes on line and you have other competing elements outside the
city limits, you are not going to be in an as competitive position. They would love to jump in right now and have
a head start, but with the other components it doesn’t make sense to do it now.
Mr. Cunningham
asked what the status of all the options on the property was. Mr. Schulze stated the investors own the
property.
Mr. Kraus stated
made a motion to table the item at the request of the representative until the
regular September meeting.
Mr. Yoder Yes Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Soller Yes
NEW BUSINESS:
Revision to Preliminary Plat- Scott Farms Section 4
Mr. Ed Miller
with EMH&T stated a couple of years ago MI submitted for the final plats of
both parts 1 and 2. They ended up
pulling part 2 because of the housing market.
It is now time for the next phase to be submitted and with the current
housing market we are asking that we split phase 2 into two parts A and B. This is why you have the revised preliminary
plat in front of you. We not only split
phase 2 but we also minimized the phasing of the subsequent sections. Hopefully this will reduce the number of
request for extensions for final plat approvals.
Mr. Seymour
stated so the objective is to rephrase it and move the houses in smaller
chunks.
Mr. Yoder asked
if anything else change.
Mr. Miller
stated MI is trying to appeal towards the families so they made reserve G into
a Tot Lot. Lots 134 and 135 are included
in part of the Tot Lot.
Mr. Seymour asked Mrs. Penhorwood for administration
comments. Mrs. Penhorwood stated Mr.
Miller covered most of the changes. She
stated the changes include the phasing lines change and the addition of the Tot Lot with the
inclusion of lots 134 and 135. The only
other comment administration had was in regards to
lots 138-140. On the original
preliminary plat the detention basin was not shown. During the engineering of parts 1 and 2 it
was determined that the detention basin needed to be there. Since they were revising the preliminary plat
they were asked to add the detention basin to it. There was some mix up with the construction
of 4-1 and 4-2. The engineering plans
were done together but only 4-1 was platted.
The entire infrastructure except for the paving of the streets is
already in place for 4-2, which per our code is not permitted. We are getting this worked out with
them. There are still a few items we
need from them. The detention basin is
there and is not in a reserve. It is
built to be a part of the lots in a drainage easement.
Mr. Kraus stated
in note F it states reserve C will be maintained as a Tot Lot but the Tot Lot
is in reserve G. Mr. Miller stated he
believes that it should be reserve G.
Mr. Kraus stated
he has a concern with the detention being on privately owned lots. There are assurances in no way shape or form
that they will be maintained or not filled in.
It degrades the lots. I would
like for the detention basin to be in a reserve that is to be owned and
maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Griffin
stated that is the problem they are running into at Milford Estates. He stated he’s always thought it was
wrong. Mr. Yoder stated he agrees.
Mr. Kraus stated
he believes the detention basin needs to be there, however, but putting it in
people’s back yards on private property is wrong. Mr. Seymour stated he agrees.
Mr. Miller
stated what if we created a reserve on the rear of lots of 139 and 140 and made
the lots the minimum depth and then on lot 127 we connected the reserve to the
street.
Mr. Kraus stated
his concern with that would be out of sight out of mind. It would be in behind homes and I am not sure
it would be maintained properly.
Mr. Miller asked
if we were to maybe to get rid of lot 127 and make it more accessable,
would it be acceptable. Mr. Kraus stated
it would make it more open.
Mr. Seymour
stated the detention basin needs to be there.
Mr. Palmer
stated if lot 127 was brought in it would have to be part of this plat and
therefore
Mr. Kraus stated another suggestion he would
make would be if 139 and 140 were a reserve, you also have the option to make
it a little bigger and it could be reconfigured so
it is
not off of 138.
Mr. Seymour
stated this is an important issue tonight.
He stated they will need to make the changes and get approval from the
City Engineer and then come back to the commission. Mr. Miller asked if the approval could be
made as a condition.
Mr. Seymour
stated it is sketchy as to how it is going to end up. Mr. Miller stated it is all designed it all
just depends on what MI is willing to give up.
Mr. Griffin
stated he thinks it needs to be finalized before it is approved.
Mr. Seymour
asked if the commission has any other comments on the preliminary plat. If not, any citizen comments?
Mr. Gary Lee
stated he thought this was a dead issue but since this has to be redone he
would like to tell the commission what happened. He stated he believes the lots in question
drain onto his property and that the company the gentleman is representing did
the engineering for the storm sewers.
When the storm sewers were in it was recognized that they were too low
to drain onto my property. MI called me
and asked for a substantial cut into my property to drain this project and I
refused. There was not a lot of
discussion but approximately 2 1/2 months later the outlet for this retention
pond was raised nearly 2 feet which allowed them to drain on to my
property. I asked an inspector from the
city how the storm sewer was going to work, because at that point the storm
sewers were about 1/3 full of water. I
was told that there are a lot of cities that allow that. I asked what about the mud and whatever can
build up in a storm sewer if it can’t flush.
The answer I was given was that the home owners can pay to have it rotor
rooted out and flushed. He stated he
doesn’t think that is good planning. I
had no choice but I allowed MI to drain on to my property. This week we will file to not allow them to
have their bond released for the work that was done on our property because we
have erosion. You have the opportunity
here to question the engineering and whether or not the storm sewer was
installed correctly or whether engineering allowed them to raise the grade that
is not in the best interest of city let alone me.
Mr. Seymour
stated just to clarify; the erosion is coming from that detention basin
area. Mr. Lee stated yes it goes into a
ravine and then goes to the old channel.
Mr. Griffin asked what has happened at this juncture. Mr. Lee stated we have worked with soil and
water conservation and laid out plans for areas to slow the water down, to do
seeding, and to remove trees. None of
the seeding was done. He stated there is
a bond and I can force the holding of that bond until we are satisfied. My other issue is why was the grade changed
from what was approved, so they did not have to negotiate
with me for the easement on
my property. It is an opportunity for
you to question whether or not the it engineering you
are getting is appropriate. It is not
always as it seems.
Mr. Kraus stated
just to understand you are comfortable with the relationship between you and MI
because of the bonds and such. Mr. Lee
stated yes, that is the only reason. Mr.
Kraus stated then you feel you are in a position to control to get done what
you need to with your property. Mr. Lee
stated he feels the bond is sufficient to protect my property; I still question
what was allowed engineering wise.
Mr. Seymour
asked how Mr. Lee feels in regards to cooperation with MI. Mr. Lee stated they just started that
process. I don’t know if the city has
notified them yet regarding the fact that we have requested the retention of
the bond.
Mr. Seymour
asked if there were any other areas on any other part of the property that you
are not satisfied with. Mr. Lee stated
no.
Mr. Cunningham
asked if this was part of the premature construction. Mrs. Penhorwood stated yes.
Mrs. Penhorwood
asked who was going to notify the city of the request to not release the bond
because you have referenced that the city has been notified and we have not
received anything at this point. Mr. Lee
stated he believes Joanna Pinkerton was to notify the city.
Mr. Seymour
stated the reserve at the far east corner of the
development there is a detention pond that goes into a farm pond. Are you still okay with that? Mr. Lee stated originally it was designed for
all of the water to go into that corner.
I am not in favor of any additional water into that corner because there
are flooding issues without any additional runoff. Mr. Lee stated he has always had a problem
with development because they want to talk to you and tell you that they are
not releasing any more water per hour than the original property released. That is okay, but when you release that much
additional water the farm water tile does not work correctly.
Mr. Griffin
stated we have been through this before with Dale Scheiderer’s
farm.
Mr. Kraus stated
a question for engineering would be why was this
changed, who authorized this change and is it going to work. I think we need to find out if this storm
sewer is actually going to work.
Mr. Lee stated he is not sure if they are going to work or
not. When I looked at it there was water
standing and the system was not empty.
He stated this issue is not for me, it is for the residents of Scotts
Farms.
Mr. Griffin
stated he is not sure of Mr. Lee’s first comment. He stated you said they changed the grade,
did they raise it. Mr. Lee stated yes
they raised it. He said he assumed that once
the rain is over the storm sewers should be empty. If they raised the outlet, then it can’t
drain properly.
Mr. Griffin
stated back to Mr. Lee’s property, will the water flush out through your
property properly with this scenario.
Mr. Lee stated the issue is that they were allowed to raise their outlet
which allowed them to drain onto my property which they couldn’t do until they
raised it. They were going to have to
deal with me and what is was worth to MI to make an additional cut on my
property.
Mr. Seymour
stated they have an obligation to build the site to the plans that were
approved. Mr. Lee stated he does not
know that the present outlet does not meet the plans, but I can tell you that
it has been changed.
Mr. Kraus stated
another question is that if the outlet was raised, does it change it from
detention to retention.
Mr. Kraus stated
he would like to see the next time MI is here a document between them and Mr.
Lee where both sides agree to what is going to happen and how it is going to be
done. We have an issue that we try to
deal with but ultimately it is between to adjacent property owners. If they document their understandings then
they have something to work with. What
they agree to is between them, not us.
Mr. Seymour stated
he agrees with Mr. Kraus. He stated
there are a couple of conditions that exist.
One is that we need verification from the City Engineer that the way it
is built is the way it was approved on the plans. The other thing is the detention basin issue
on the private property of some lots and then some proof of corrective action
for the effect on the adjacent property owner.
Mr. Lee stated
if the current grade allows for the storm sewers to completely drain then I am
okay with that. But if it does not, then
that is where I have a problem.
Mr. Seymour
stated there is also the issue that they started the work without
approval. Is this correct?
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated yes all of the infrastructure except for the
paving has been done.
Mr. Kraus stated
it was put in and inspected, were the inspection fees paid? Mrs. Penhorwood stated no. We have been talking with MI for a couple of
weeks now and they stated the Tuesday after Memorial Day they would have
someone in the office to supply the bond and pay the inspection fees. Typically this is not required until just
prior to the approval of the final plat, however, under these circumstances
with the majority of the work being done, we told them they needed to provide
this ASAP. We have not heard from anyone
at this point.
Mr. Cunningham
stated because of the premature construction we are caught in an unusual
situation. The issue at hand is the
engineering within the preliminary plat has not changed and therefore my
assumption is that is it correct on paper if not in reality.
Mr. Seymour
stated this was brought to us with changes made that represent the requested
revisions. However, we now know that
there needs to be another revision. What
I would recommend is that they come back to us again after issues are resolved
so all the revisions are done at one time.
Mr. Miller
stated he wants to make sure he has listed all of the issues. He stated we have the issue with the
detention basin being on private property and possibly losing a lot or two, the
issue with the erosion and miscalculation of the detention/ grade
correction. Mr. Kraus stated a fourth
item to look at could be on lots 134 and 135 which have already been platted,
is there a way to have them included in Part 2 Phase A and include them as part
of the Tot Lot.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated they are already platted and recorded with 4-1 as buildable
lots. Mr. Kraus stated there should be a
way to change that. Mrs. Penhorwood
stated they would be able to file an amendment to the final plat. Mr. Kraus stated never mind.
Mr. Cunningham
asked what the time frame was for the filing of the final plat. Mrs. Penhorwood stated Scott Farms was before
the commission last year requesting an extension which was granted for 12
months. They have now filed within those
12 months.
Mr. Kraus stated
he would encourage MI and Mr. Lee to sit down and get something worked out.
Mr. Miller
stated there is nothing as far as an agreement that he can show on a preliminary
plat.
Mr. Seymour
stated that it could be put on the final plat.
Mr. Miller stated it would not be on the final plat because they are not
platting Mr. Lee’s property and that is where the issue is.
Mr. Kraus stated
he would be satisfied with the parties coming in and saying they are both in
agreement. Mr. Seymour stated he would
like to see something in writing.
Mr. Miller
stated he would request the revised preliminary plat be tabled until the
regular meeting in July.
Mr. Yoder made a
motion to table the approval of the revision to the preliminary plat for
Section 4 of Scott Farms per the applicant’s request.
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Soller Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion Passed
Acceptance of Final Plat- Scott Farms Section 4 Phase 2 Part A- filed by MI Homes
Mr. Miller asked if it could be accepted and
forwarded for approval. Mr. Seymour
stated the acceptance is based on the preliminary plat which we are reviewing
now. An acceptance represents that the
application is complete. Is this the
case?
Mrs. Penhorwood stated there are a couple of
items per the checklist that are not here, however, they are not required to be
submitted until the approval step.
Mr. Griffin asked how we can accept it if we
know it is going to be changed. We don’t
have a preliminary plat that is approved.
Mr. Miller stated that we have an approved
preliminary plat. Mr. Griffin stated
yes, but we know there will be changes to it.
It is not going to be the preliminary plat.
Mr. Cunningham stated he would like to ask
Mrs. Penhorwood, the main sentence that is in 1105.20, is the final plat that
we have in front of us in full compliance with the formal provisions of these
regulations. Mrs. Penhorwood stated yes.
Mr. Seymour asked if the provisions require
that we have a completed preliminary plat.
Mr. Cunningham stated they do have an approved preliminary plat.
Mr. Cunningham made a motion to accept the
final plat for Scott Farms Section 4 Phase 2 Part A as submitted.
Mr. Seymour No Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin No
Mr. Soller Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Griffin- None
Mr. Yoder- None
Mr. Cunningham – He stated he would like to
state that he is glad the city has a planner on staff so that we can actually
plan for the city.
Mr. Soller- None
Mr. Kraus- None
Mr. Seymour- He stated on the Portable
Container issue, why did we not address the open trash container issue? Mr. Yoder stated we kind of talked about it
and stated we would address it later.
Mr. Kraus stated in 1139.05 it states that they are permitted in any
district while construction is being done.
Mr. Lee stated Mr. DeLong was at the lat SR
33 Corridor meeting and I would like to say he was there because none of the
administration was able to be there. His
comments and thoughts were greatly appreciated.
Within 90 days the County will have a planner on board through LUC. The other thing is that on June 13th
the county will be before the Design Review Board for the old Heilig-Meyer building.
We put a lot of thought into helping the downtown area. As commissioners we have to work with the
city and downtown business owners on parking issues.
Mr. Seymour asked about a special
meeting. Mr. Kraus stated we have a
special meeting scheduled with City Council on the 21st and some of
us also have Design Review on the 13th.
Mrs. Penhorwood asked Mr. Seymour about the
agenda for the meeting on the 21st.
Mr. Seymour stated he is working on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.