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:
Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, Alan Seymour,
John Cunningham and Ken Kraus - Don Bergwall- absent. 1
vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rick
Coutts, Ed Miller, Phillip Connolly, Bob Marshall, Jason Isaacs, Paul Isaacs
Bill Kelley, Catherine Cunningham, Dave Gibson, Jack Gardner, Kevin Kershner, John Connolly, Joe Kacihowski, Harold Howard, Faye Cox, Dennis Schulze, Phil
Roush, Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting –
Planning Commission Special Meeting –
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr. Roush stated there was
an article that was in the Columbus Dispatch regarding Urban sprawl that was at
your table this evening.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
None
OLD
BUSINESS:
Zoning
Amendment
– 7.693 acres – located at SR 4 and Scott
Mr.
Jason Isaacs stated per the last meeting we have came up with a section that
might be commercial. The remainder
of the property it still planned to be homes.
Mr.
Kraus asked if Mr. Isaacs had the dimensions for this area.
Mr.
Isaacs stated it is approximately 1 ¼ acres out of the 7.6 acres. He stated he thinks the width, east to
west, is approximately 200 ft.
Mr.
Seymour stated the purpose of this is to explain to the commission the best
forecast of the limits of the commercial area. Mr. Isaacs stated
yes.
Mr.
Kraus stated based on the conversation and questions at the last meeting, the
property directly east of the Coutts residence will be residential. Mr. Isaacs stated that is
correct.
Mr.
Griffin asked if there was any reason we shouldn’t divide the zoning of the two
areas. He stated the fact is if we
do not rezone the piece of this parcel that is intended to be residential; it
could be sold and built on by someone else who could build commercial. I think from a stand point of making
sure that we know how the property is going to be used in the future that we
zone it accordingly.
Mr.
Kraus stated he would agree with Mr. Griffin. The only questions are procedural. Because the City initiated this
rezoning, Mr. Roush would need to get a description of this property.
Mr.
Roush asked if there was a reason that the line did not come across the north
line of the original Cowgill tract and then back a
couple hundred feet and then come straight down to the lower lot line. It would make it easier to come up with
a description that way.
Mr.
Isaacs stated the reason he didn’t do it that way was because of road
frontage. The only road frontage
for the parcel in the back is the little strip there. If it is just a zoning issue, it doesn’t
make a difference to me.
Mr.
Seymour stated by doing this it takes away the flexibility the developer will
have with this development.
Mr.
Griffin stated it does not if it is done through a PUD.
Mr.
Cunningham stated he would entertain a motion to table this item until the next
meeting to give Mr. Roush time to get a description of the zoning boundaries
completed.
Mr.
Isaacs stated he just wants to clarify that this is just a zoning district
change, not a change of lot lines.
It won’t affect the current setbacks we have.
Mr.
Kraus stated it would affect the minimum lot size if you decided to split it
into individual parcels. He stated
if it is a single ownership, condo project you don’t have lot lines and it is
just a density issue, you would be limited to about 14-15 units, which is above
what you were initially talking about.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to table this item until the July
meeting.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr.
Griffin
Yes
Motion
Passed
Approval
of Final Plat
– Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co. -
tabled from
Mr.
Cunningham stated we have received a faxed request from Vic Steinfels requesting that this be tabled until the July 3
meeting.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to table the approval of the final plat until the July 3
meeting at the request of the developer.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion
Passed
NEW
BUSINESS:
Approval
of Final Plat
– City Gate – located north of Delaware Ave. and west of US 33 – filed by
Connolly Construction
Mr.
Yoder stated he is going to recuse himself for reasons
stated at previous meetings.
Mr.
Cunningham asked where we are at on the final plat.
Mr.
Roush stated the final plat does conform to the approved preliminary plat. The final approval of the engineering
plans has been made. The one item
that remains to be presented is the performance bond. The developer Phillip Connolly has been
working with the city administration and others on a TIF. Until the final TIF approval is
gratified, the performance bond can not be obtained. When we did the Coleman’s Crossing
project, the land Mr. Connolly has now for City Gate was included in that
TIF. It requires approval from
Coleman’s Crossing developers to make any changes. That is where we are now is working out
those details. He stated Mr.
Connolly is concerned that the City Gate project be in a position to continue
through the approval process in a timely manner after such matters are resolved
with the TIF. Administration has
assured him that since the engineering plans have been approved and the layout
details conform to the preliminary plat, once the performance bond is issued,
the final plat will be approved as presented.
Mr.
Roush stated Mr. Bergwall sent an e-mail last week,
since he was not able to be here tonight, and his concern was to make sure the
traffic pattern was going to be one way around the cul-de-sacs. The traffic pattern is going to be in
conformance with the preliminary plat and be one way
traffic and the drives in the cul-de-sac area will probably be right in
and right out only.
Mr.
Kraus stated that given the fact that Mr. Yoder has recused himself and assuming that Mr. Griffin as he has in
the past, will be abstaining, we will not have enough
members to take an official vote.
He stated he would also draw the commission’s attention to 1105.21 (b)
which states we have 30 days to make a decision and failure to do so results in
the approval of the plat. He stated
the 30 days ends today. We don’t
have enough valid votes here to make the decision. It would appear to me that under our own
code that this would be approved.
This would leave the performance bond issues to the administration to see
that they are resolved.
Mr.
Cunningham asked if the commission could table it. Mr. Kraus stated we can’t make a motion
on it because we don’t have enough people to vote. Mr. Roush stated the only way it can be
tabled is with the consent of the developer.
Mr.
Cunningham stated his concern would be, if I were the developer that this would
be going through without complicit planning commission approval. He stated there is a loop hole here; on
a motion to table we would have to see if Mr. Griffin would be willing to vote
on the issue to table.
Mr.
Phillip Connolly stated they have worked closely with the administration and
don’t want to do anything that implies that we have held up the process for the
other processes that are taking place.
Although it is not the way we would like to have it approved, in an
effort to continue the process we would like to accept the loop hole (take the
approval by default).
Mr.
Kraus asked if Mr. Griffin was willing to vote on a motion to table.
Mr.
Griffin stated to be consistent with his voting record he would have to
abstain.
Mr.
Cunningham stated we have four potential votes and until we actually take a vote
we won’t know the outcome.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the final plat of City
Gate.
Mr.
Cunningham No, because
we don’t have all of the pieces here this evening.
Mr.
Kraus stated we have previously approved commercial developments on the
contingent basis that the bonds are in place prior to development. Mr. Cunningham stated that is not the
motion we are voting on. Mr. Kraus
stated if that makes a difference in your mind and you are willing to withdraw
your vote, I would be willing to amend the motion.
Mr.
Cunningham withdrew his vote.
Mr.
Seymour stated before the motion is made, we do have the other option of tabling
it. Mr. Cunningham stated we need a
motion from the developer. Mr.
Seymour stated he would not be opposed to have this item back in a week or two
to make the delay short. If it would be acceptable to the
developer.
Mr.
Connolly stated to be more specific, we have been working with the
administration in regards to the TIF for over 5 months. It was only in the last 6 weeks that the
City’s council discovered the snag in the arrangement. We don’t have a way to know how long it
will take to be resolved. The
discussion becomes circular because we can’t get a performance bond until we
have construction financing, we can’t get financing until the TIF is in place
and part of the TIF discussion is knowing that we have planning commission
approval.
Mr.
Seymour stated based on that he would suggest that we do a progressive tabling
until the city engineer comes and tells us the issues are complete and then come
forward for a final vote.
Mr.
Connolly stated he is not trying to be difficult but the best situation for us
is for it to be approved and have administration have the responsibility of the
bond before the project is allowed to be completed.
Mr.
Connolly stated there is a part of the code that is a little funny, actually a
lot of parts, but in a TIF you bond a project three times. You have the bond issued by the
administration that covers the project, a performance bond by the contractor
that does all the work and then the developer has a bond for the
development. Although I understand
the bonding process for a regular development process, the TIF already does
this. He stated as Mr. Kraus stated
Coleman’s Crossing was approved under the same conditions I am asking for
tonight.
Mr.
Seymour stated the only thing I stumble on is the consistency of the code and
the bonding.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve City Gate final plat with the contingency that
the project does not move forward construction wise until the bonding is taken
care of with the administration.
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes Mr. Griffin
Abstain
Mr.
Kraus
Yes
Mr.
Cunningham stated with only three votes, this becomes an unofficial vote and the
plat is approved by default.
Acceptance
of Final Plat
– Scott Farms Section 5 – filed by EMH&T Inc.
Mr.
Roush stated this section was bonded and engineered with Section
4.
Mr.
Griffin made a motion to accept the final plat for Scott Farms Section
5.
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion
Passed
Acceptance
of Final Plat
– Replat of Woods at Mill Valley North Phase 1 Part 7
– filed by R.D. Zande
Mr.
Roush stated since the preliminary plat for WMVN, there have been changes to the
code regarding lot sizes. They have
come to realize some of the lots are too small to put the size home they want to
put on it. They realized doing lot
line adjustments wouldn’t be the best way to go about it, so they are here for a
replat.
Mr.
Kraus stated besides one or two exceptions most of the lots meet the current lot
width and the square footage requirement in effect today even though they were
not required to.
Mr.
Seymour stated he agrees there would be nothing else different and he is okay
with everything.
Mr.
Kraus asked if on a replat do we have to go through
both the acceptance and approval process or it is just one
step.
Mrs.
Catherine Cunningham stated the code really doesn’t address the process on a
replat.
Typically when they are done it is just a one step process. She stated under 1113.02 it provides for
revisions. It doesn’t outline the
process. I don’t think on a replat you need a two step process.
Mr.
Kraus stated there is a final plat recorded on this section. For discussion purposes we could look at
1113.02 and I think this falls under a minor technical adjustment. There are no road layout changes,
utility changes or anything.
Mr.
Cunningham stated he would be comfortable with that by just changing the
language in the motion to make it an approval instead of an acceptance.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the revision to the final plat for Woods at Mill
Valley North Phase 1 Part 7 based on 1113.02 of the codified ordinance and given
the fact that the only thing changing is a few lot lines to eliminate a few lots
and bring it closer to the current code.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes
Motion
Passed
Acceptance
of Final Plat
– Replat of Woods at Mill Valley North Phase 1 Part 8
– filed by R.D. Zande
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the revision to the final plat for Woods at Mill
Valley North Phase 1 Part 8 based on 1113.02 of the codified ordinance and given
the fact that the only thing changing is a few lot lines to eliminate a few lots
and bring it closer to the current code.
Mr.
Seymour asked what specifically changed.
It looks like lot 5502 is an added lot.
Mr.
Kevin Kershner with RD Zande
stated in this phase there was one lot eliminated on the south side of
Mr.
Roush stated there were some duplicate lot numbers that needed to be
corrected.
Mr.
Kershner stated there were four lot numbers that were
issued to two different sets of lots.
We decided to go ahead and fix that since we were doing a
revision.
Mr.
Griffin stated he would assume that with enlarging these lots we will not have
the mass of lots going to BZA to get variances on lot
coverage.
Mrs.
Cunningham stated she believes BZA made it clear that we were not going to get
any more mass variances.
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes
Motion
Passed
Zoning
Amendment
– Northwoods subdivision – from O-R zoning to possibly
R-2 or R-3 – initiated by Planning Commission
Mr.
Kraus stated this area is developed entirely residential and yet someone could
go in and tear out a couple of houses and put in a business with signage and so
on and there is nothing anyone could do about it.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated if the commission would look at the
information that was in their packets, there are two colored drawings. On the second drawing, which is a closer
view of the area, there are sections labeled 2 and 3 which is owned by the same
person, which is outside of the Northwoods
subdivision.
Mr.
Seymour stated the area of number 2 is not really fit for R-2. He asked what number 1 was. Mrs. Penhorwood stated it is green space where utility boxes are
and is part of Northwoods.
Mr.
Seymour stated it might make sense to make number 2 B-R.
Mr.
Cunningham asked Mr. Roush if he could come up with a description for this. Mr. Roush stated
yes.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend to city council that the Northwoods subdivision and the area currently zoned O-R
north of the southern edge of Mill Rd. right-of –way be R-2
zoning.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
Passed
Mr.
Kraus stated the second motion would be that the area on the map provided and
designated as area 2 owned by Mary Twigg be
recommended to city council for B-R zoning to be consistent with the rest of the
property.
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Motion
Passed
Zoning
Amendment
– 87.692 acres located on Boerger Rd. – Bunsold Property – Currently Twp. zoning – initiated by Planning
Commission.
Mr.
Seymour stated the objective on this was to get it out of the township
zoning.
Mr.
Dennis Schulze stated he is the legal representative for the owner, who did not
get notified of this meeting.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated this was looked into earlier and it
was sent to Boerger Rd. LLC on
Mr.
Schulze stated the owner really has no objection because this is probably a
ready made area for a PUD anyway.
He stated his client is looking to match the lots along
Mr.
Schulze stated what he would like to suggest is to call a meeting with the
neighborhood and show some plans ahead of time and make sure it is not going to
be a detriment to the community. He
stated by the time it gets to the commission it will not matter what the
underlying district is.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated that because part of the property
was in the city prior to this last annexation, the piece of property along
Mr.
Seymour stated since there is a project being worked on at this time, maybe it
is worth giving it more time, instead of deciding on a zoning right now and
having to do it again when the project comes to us.
Mr.
Kraus stated he feels it is important to get this property under city
zoning.
Mr.
Griffin stated he agrees because you never know, someone may decide tomorrow to
sell the property. It is important
to get it under some type of city zoning and to be consistent with what we’ve
done in the past we should bring it in as A-R.
Mr.
Cunningham stated the current Bunsold residence is
going to be grandfathered in now matter what it is zoned. Mrs. Penhorwood stated correct, the zoning will come into play
though if they want to add on or add new buildings.
Mr.
Griffin made a motion to rezone the piece that currently has township zoning to
A-R.
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion
Passed
Amendment
to Section 1100.01
– Subdivision Fees
Mr.
Roush stated the service departments have been working on some fee issues. It was determined that changes needed to
be made to Chapters 925 and 935. We
made some changes to the inspection fees for water and waste water. When we did that we realized that
Chapter 1100 which is under the planning commission also needed some
changes. We are asking that you
make the recommendation to council of these changes.
Mr.
Kraus asked if there was a reason for the one acre minimum. Mr. Roush stated we felt that any
project smaller than an acre should be charged as it was a residential use
because it only results in one minor inspection. He stated Mr. Aslaner actually made the suggestion.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend to city council the changes made to chapter
1100.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes
Motion
Passed
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
General
Issues
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated on the table there is a packet of
information that includes chapters of the code that were affected when the new
Design Review legislation passed.
Those changes included references to the Shade Tree Commission and
Architectural Review Board.
Mrs.
Penhorwood asked if they wanted to review these at a
special meeting or if they just wanted them placed on the agenda for the next
regular meeting. There are no items
for
the
Design Review meeting on June 14th. That will also be the last meeting of
the current Design Review Board.
Mr.
Cunningham made a suggestion to hold a special meeting on June
14th.
Commission
agreed.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Cunningham
– He stated he gathered some information on mobile homes.
Kraus
– None
Yoder
– He stated the next Design Review meeting is going to be the last one for this
board. The administration chooses
three from this board and with my busy schedule I would be willing to not be
appointed to the new board.
Architectural
Review Board Representative – Mr. Griffin stated one of the applicants did not
show and the board only approved half of the other one, they have to come
back.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting
was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.