PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING JULY 2, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pat Soller, Don Bergwall, Alan Seymour,
Ken Kraus, Pete Griffin. John Cunningham
and Roger Yoder absent
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg DeLong, Brian Palmer, Jason Francis, Joe
Clase, Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting
– June 4, 2007- Mr. Bergwall stated on page 2 the vote was not stated in the
minutes and there was another minor typographical error. Both of these have been given to the
Secretary for changes. Mr. Bergwall made
a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Voice vote was unanimous.
ADMINISTRATION
COMMENTS:
Mr. DeLong stated at the last City Council meeting the language Planning
Commission forwarded as a recommendation regarding the Portable Storage
Containers was denied. They had an issue
with people having to obtain a zoning permit and being charged a fee. POD’s came and gave
information as to why they didn’t like it.
Mr. DeLong stated a subcommittee was put together which included me, Mr.
Marshall, Mr. Fogt and a POD’s
representative. We came up with new
language and it will be in front of the commission in August.
Mr. Palmer stated we are in the process of redoing our street light
agreements with DPL and URE. As part of
that we are going to be going to a standard set of street lights. This will help reduce the cost of street
lights as new developments are coming in.
Because we don’t have standards we have subdivisions coming in with
special lights which end up costing the City more money in usage and
maintenance of the lights. In order to
control this, we are going to a standard set of lights that will be able to go
into any new subdivisions. There will be
approximately 5 styles of lights for the developer to choose from. All of the lights that are currently being
used will still be able to be used. This will just be for all future development.
Mr. Griffin asked what the main reason was for doing this. Mr. Palmer stated this is so the City will be
able to know how much it will cost us for these lights when they become ours
and so that we are not getting lights that are going to cost more to maintain
and for the electricity.
Mr. Kraus stated he agrees with Mr. DeLong on the storage device
language, getting something on the books is usually the toughest part. He stated the only question he would have is
if there is going to be no fee or permit should there be language in their
requiring the vendors to provide us with a monthly report of were they are
dropping these units. On the street
lighting issue, the standardization was done in the 1990’s. It included the lights in Green Pastures,
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
Mr. Joe Clase stated he wanted to give commission a copy of the URT Alert
which is a quarterly publication passed out to uptown business. He stated he would like to plead with the
commission for articles that could be included in the fall edition.
Mr. Bergwall asked what the circulation of this is. Mr. Clase stated it gets hand delivered to
the 135 uptown businesses, chamber board, community improvement cooperation and
the city boards and commission.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Revision
to Preliminary Plat- Scott Farms Section 4 – tabled from June 4,
2007
Mr. Jason
Francis, M/I Homes, stated what they were trying to accomplish with the amended
preliminary plat was to create smaller phases within this section of the
development. With that it would allow us
to build at a slower pace without having to come before the commission and ask
for extensions. It was originally laid
out with approximately 60 houses per phase and with this economy,
unfortunately, that is more house than we can sell in a year. What we don’t want to do is come here every
year and ask for an extension. I thought
this was a simple clean alternative by creating smaller phases so we could
avoid coming back for extensions. A lot
of issues came up last month that I have heard second hand and am not totally sure as to what they are. I know Mr. Gary Lee had a number of
concerns. I have put a couple of calls
into Mr. Lee and have not heard from him.
We have been in touch with Mr. Lee off and on since the beginning of the
project. So I am a little disappointed
that the only time we’ve heard from him is when we had something on the
agenda. Again, I am not totally sure what
his objectives are. He has my number and
our field superintendent’s number. He
has been easy to work with when we have met with him. Specifically to the basin itself, the basin
was added after the original preliminary plat approval in March of 2005. We were already in the process of doing the
final engineering. The final engineering
was submitted in April 2005 and during this time it was determined that it
would require that there be a detention basin in this area. The engineering plans were approved in July
and August of 2005. During the course of
construction there was an issue with a pool of water. I guess there was some confusion about
whether it was actually supposed to be a detention basin or a retention
basin. The issues there were the
temporary riser pipes used to treat erosion control tends to create ponding and once they are removed that issue usually goes
away.
Mr. Francis
stated not only were the preliminary plat and engineering plans approved but
the Final Plats for Section 4-1 and 4-2 were submitted at the same time. They were engineered together because of
storm water drainage reasons. What
wasn’t necessary was that we build all of the utilities. I wasn’t made aware of that until a couple of
days ago. In any event, 4-1 and 4-2 were
submitted together and it showed the detention basin. So the issue that came up last month with the
revised preliminary plat, stating that the detention basin should be in a
reserve, was a little bit of a surprise.
Like I had said, I had met with the engineer’s office on two occasions
and I understand Mr. Roush’s concerns.
We have attempted to address those concerns the best we can. Mr. Roush has indicated that the 14’ strip we
have put in for access to the reserve is narrower than he normally sees. Mr. Francis stated that could be supplemented
with reserves as needed.
Mr. Francis
stated the basin was constructed per the approved plans. Unfortunately the approved plans had a
problem. The detention basin was holding
water. It turned out that the plans had
a mistake on them. There were two
options. One would be to work with Mr.
Lee and grade about 15 to 20 feet onto his property and he wasn’t agreeable
with that at the time. So we went
through a revision process and redesigned the detention basin.
Mr. Francis
stated they have designed into the detention basin a small permanent pool area
at the low end of the basin. I chose to
do this because of a couple of reasons, one the outlet was fixed, and we
couldn’t lower it anymore. I wanted the
detention basin to have as much slope as possible. We work with 1% in the grassy areas but I
asked the engineer to put in a 2% slope.
They couldn’t achieve a 2% across the whole basin.
Mr. Palmer
stated Mr. Roush provided the commission with a letter regarding this matter. Mr. Francis touched on the items in Mr.
Roush’s letter.
Mr. Kraus stated he has a problem with detention basin being in
people’s back yards whether they are in a reserve or not. I was out there today and I think what is out
there now, I don’t know how you would put a home on the lot and try to sell it
with the steep slope falling off into a hole.
There are two alternatives.
Neither with having the path you have shown. The most difficult for you would be for 139
and 140 to be non buildable lots. Another would be to have a redesign and
reengineering of the detention basin, bury the pipe to the outlet, and the
detention basin would be shallower but extend onto more properties.
Mr. Francis stated
this has been reviewed and approved and is constructed per approved
drawings. I understand it wasn’t on the
preliminary plat that you initially saw, but it was part of public discussion.
Mr. Seymour
stated first of all, you can’t always catch everything on the first go
around. This commission has always had
the perspective that we don’t want detention basins in backyards and prior to
this revision, the lot lines went all the way back and the basin was included
as part of the lots. When you bring this
to us again and it gets noticed, we have to act on it, which is not new to our
principals. When you identify that you
are going to have a wet spot and you don’t have a way to get rid of it, we have
an obligation to the HOA to take care of it now.
Mr. Francis
stated he is not sure how to rectify the wet area. He stated he did reconsider the design out
there and they could cover the majority of the basin with 2% slopes from east
to west and west to east the channel from north to south could be to be under
1% slope.
Mr. Francis
stated he disagrees with the thought that the homes will be undesirable homes
backing onto a steep slope. He stated
they sell lots like this all of the time.
Mr. Bergwall
stated as he looks at it the contour lines are the contour of the pond. What are the dotted lines? Mr. Francis stated they are the existing
contours. Additional discussion held
regarding contours, drainage from homes and concern on water in basement.
Mr. Seymour
stated the issues regarding about the finished grade and the water in basements
is an engineering issue and something for the building inspector to worry
about.
Mr. Seymour
asked Mr. Palmer what happens to protect the citizens when these homes are
built. What steps are taken to make sure
they are not going to have water issues?
Mr. Palmer
stated as Mr. Francis stated, the ground elevation is approximately 2 foot
below the finished floor of the home.
So, I don’t see that there will be problems with the home. He stated he
doesn’t see these homes in 4-2B being as big as an issue as the houses that
still have the drainage easement on their property with a 4 ft. drop off in the
4-2A area.
Mr. Kraus stated
if he is reading the plan properly, the water will flow over land if it gets
too high. He stated he doesn’t know what
the options are but I still have a problem with the steep slope and deep basin
in the backyards of the property.
Mr. Francis
stated isn’t it a personal preference issue for the people who choose to buy
the home. No one is being forced to buy
these lots.
Mr. Soller
stated he has seen detention basins like this.
My concern is the maintenance of the detention basin and how it is
handled by the HOA. They are going to
have to drive mowers down through this area.
It will be difficult for homeowners to not “takeover” this 14’
strip. It would be a challenge for the
city to monitor it to make sure the HOA is in compliance. What we had talked about last month was is
there a better entrance for maintenance purpose.
Mr. Francis
stated if there was not a recreation area attached at the other end, I could
see the concern. But the crews are going
to have to take care of the recreation area and they will just continue to the
basin. He stated we can delineate the
14’ area with fencing so they are more sure of the
defined area that is theirs.
Mr. Soller asked
if the area can be delineated with some landscaping and made more into a
walking path. Mr. Francis stated they
can add the walking path with it terminating on the embankment of the
basin.
Mr. Soller asked
if it was possible to turn the detention basin into a retention basin that
would have maybe a fountain in it. It
would create less mowing and give the adjacent homeowners more of a reason to
keep the area up to it mowed.
Mr. Francis
stated he looked at that originally but we don’t have the space to get the
depth we would need to get a good pond.
Also, I wouldn’t feel comfortable having a retention basin that close to
homes.
Mr. Seymour
stated in trying to capture the points made here this is what I have. Mr. Kraus’s concern is the rapid slope in the
yards. Mr. Bergwall was concerned with
the topo and the elevations of the future homes. Mr. Soller’s
concerns were regarding the maintenance of the common area and my concern is
the wet spot in the bottom of the detention basin.
Mr. Kraus stated
in addition to the slope issue, I don’t think the basins should be in backyards
at all. It creates an out of sight, out
of mind.
Mr. Seymour
stated one of the corrective actions that they did come forward with was they
did put the property lines across the back.
The homeowners will not own the detention basin. He stated the lots are more restrictive. On lots 152 and 151, they have aggressive
slope as well. So the lots we are
dealing with are not the only ones.
Mr. Bergwall stated with the 14’ reserve, Mr. Roush stated in his
letter that the Reserve is much narrower than what the City would
recommend. What would the City
prefer? Mr. DeLong
stated they are typically 20’-25’.
Mr. Bergwall
stated if they put 3’ easements on each side of the 14’ strip that would widen
the access. Would that be considered a
compromise? Mr. DeLong stated people are
able to build over easements, so if the homeowners put up fences then the 3’
easement would not help.
Mr. Francis
stated they could put a 3’ no build zone along there so there would not be
allowed fences. Mr. Seymour asked if
they would be able to go wider on the reserve.
Mr. Francis stated they would not be able to make the reserve itself
wider, it would make the lots out of compliance.
Mr. Kraus stated
if the commission approves the split of 4-2 into A and B, the developer needs
to be made aware that the bond is for 4-2 total. The performance will not be able to be
reduced to the 10% maintenance bond until 4-2B is done.
Mr. Kraus stated
he thinks putting the fence in that Mr. Soller suggested around the 14’ area is
a great idea that would let the homeowners know for sure that it is not part of
their lot.
Mr. Francis
stated he offered the 3’ per lot as additional easement and restrict fencing,
but we would rather not. Fourteen feet
is plenty of room for our maintenance equipment to get through.
Mr. Soller asked
if they could put the landscaping in.
Mr. Francis stated he was thinking more of continuing the fencing that
was already around the “tot lot”.
Mr. Palmer
stated Mr. Roush had a comment in his letter that the sections of Scott Farms
will remain out of compliance since most of the construction is already
complete for 4-2. It is a preference
that 4-2 not be split into A and B to bring it back into compliance.
Mr. Francis
stated we are out of compliance because we did most of the construction without
having the final plat recorded. Is it
correct to say that we will be out of compliance until this is done? Mr. Palmer stated it will be out of
compliance until 4-2B is finalized and construction complete. That if why Mr. Roush stated he would like
for them to be done together.
Mr. Francis
stated that was the whole reason for redoing the preliminary plat. The economy is not favorable of a phase this
size. The only way we would be able to
do that is if the commission would give me 24 months between this and the next
final plat.
Mr. Kraus stated the dilemma is two fold. If we split 4-2, then the developer is less
at the mercy of the market, but we have about 20 lots that are out of
compliance. If we were to try to approve
the whole thing, yes it puts them in compliance but it almost assures that they
will be back a year from now asking for an extension.
Mr. Soller asked
the developer if we are willing to grant an extension for 4-2, would you be
willing to get the whole thing in compliance now.
Mr. Francis
stated the code requires me to ask for an extension tonight.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated if 4-2 was done as a whole, within 12 months from the date it was
approved, the developer would have to either file the next phase, 4-3, or
request an extension. She stated that is
what MI did previously.
Mr. Bergwall
asked what the minimum number of lots you can have in a phase. Mr. Palmer stated it would be 5.
Mr. Bergwall
stated since most of the utilities have been put in for all of 4-2 what is the
hardship. Mr. Francis stated there is
really none, he would pave it tomorrow.
My concern is the fact that we would have 50 lots to get done in the
next 12 months and then have to come back with the next phase. There is just not a market for that at this
time.
Mr. Bergwall
asked did someone say there was an extension granted on this project. Mrs. Penhorwood stated yes, they were granted
a 12 month extension from 4-1. It has
been 24 months since they have brought in a phase.
Mr. Bergwall
stated the reason for some of his questions is that we have had other
developers in here that we have granted 12 month extensions for. They were told that it would be an extension
but don’t think of it as precedence setting.
If we are to split these phases, which in another way are an extension,
and you miss the timing, I will not be in favor for any more extensions. If you can’t do it then you need to go back
and replat the others and meet the current code. You have the benefit of having the lot size
prior to the change. ***
*** It was
discovered after the meeting that the lot width in the codified ordinance for
R-3 was incorrect and Scott Farms Section 4 lots are compliant with the most
recent code.
Mr. Bergwall
stated let us understand that when we are voting for the revised preliminary
plat it includes the reconfiguration of Reserve G, the easements along the
lots, and the rephasing of the remainder of Section
4.
Mr. Soller asked if the commission has the ability to grant an
extension, if 4-2 was approved as one, which would allow the applicant be in
compliance. Do we have the authority to
grant the time frame to beyond 12 months?
Mr. Seymour
stated for simplicity, the preliminary plat was done with this being done all
together.
Mr. Soller made
a motion to approve the revision to Preliminary Plat- Scott Farms Section 4 as
presented by the developer with the condition that fencing will be added along
the 14’ reserve strip.
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Soller Yes
Mr. Kraus No- I am not happy with the way the
detention basin is structured.
Approval of Final Plat- Scott Farms Section 4 Phase 2 Part A- filed by MI Homes
Mr. Bergwall
stated in support of the final plat for this, the expectation is that Part B
will be before us within the next 12 months.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated this plat can not be approved tonight because a correct plat to match
the preliminary plat has not been submitted.
She stated she talked to Mr. Francis previously and informed him of
this. He stated they would request a
tabling.
Mr. Francis
stated he did not submit the final plat because he was not sure how the
discussion would go on the preliminary plat.
I will request that this plat be tabled until the August meeting.
Mr. Kraus made a
motion at the request of the developer to table the final plat for Section 4
Phase 2 Part A until the August meeting with the understanding that the
appropriate changes match the preliminary plat will be made.
Mr. Bergwall
asked that the deed restriction language be brought in so we can see how it
will be described to the property owners.
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Soller Yes
Recommendation to City Council - Code Changes in Chapters 1136 and 1144 for Certified Local
Government Designation
Mr. DeLong
stated he is passing out to the commission section 1123 of the code. He stated he is requesting that the
commission add this item to the agenda.
It is a minor change and we had overlooked it previously.
Mr. Bergwall
made a motion to add the Revisions to Chapter 1123 to the agenda. Voice vote was unanimous.
Mr. Clase stated
the City has had a long term goal with becoming a Certified Local Government
(CLG) through the Ohio Historical Society.
The designation would allow us to be distinctive since there are only
approximately 43 communities in the state of
Mr. DeLong
stated the CLG is a 60/40 matching grant.
The state has been getting on average about $80,000 per year for the CLG’s. It is not a
big fund, and it is broken up among the communities. We have a chance of getting a few thousand
dollars which is suitable for a business in the Uptown area. It can be used for a lot of different
improvements. It is a prestigious honor
to have this thing and the state is watching communities closely to make sure
they are following the rules to maintain the designation.
Mr. Bergwall
asked if there was a cost. Mr. DeLong
stated no.
Mr. Soller
stated there was some discussion as to the designation of historic areas in
Marysville. Mr. DeLong stated the
minimum requirement for historic designation is the building needs to be 50
years old. Part of what we can use this
grant money for is to hire a certified historic preservation officer that can
come and do an inventory of the historic buildings in Marysville. The present code had no way of allowing
residential homes into the historic area.
We tweaked the code to allow the possibility of allowing residential
homes. It would require that the
commission add a chapter to the code.
Mr. Seymour
asked is it is only limited to the Uptown right now. Mr. DeLong stated it is and what we did by
adding residential to be allowed is we clearly stated is the Uptown area still
excludes single family.
Mr. Seymour
stated in Chapter 1144, could you explain letter d. Mr. Clase stated d was added because of a
requirement that said you had to have a system for maintaining historic
properties. At some point it will be
necessary to update the one we have which was done in the 1970’s. The grant funds can be used to do this.
Mr. Kraus stated
when someone comes before the Design Review Board don’t they provide us with
this information already. Mr. DeLong
stated yes.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to recommend to City Council for approval
the submitted changes for Chapter 1123.
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr.
Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to recommend to City Council for approval the submitted changes for
Chapter 1136.
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to recommend to City Council for approval the submitted changes for
Chapter 1144.
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Soller Yes
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Pete Griffin- He stated he doesn’t understand
how we got into the dilemma with MI. Was
there a drainage problem with the initial preliminary plat? Mr. Palmer stated the initial preliminary
plat did not have the pond on it. Mr.
Griffin stated what he wants to make sure is that everyone is doing what they
need to do at the time. He stated he is
also in concurrence with Mr. Bergwall, that we should not be giving them
another extension.
Roger Yoder- absent
John Cunningham -
absent
Alan Seymour -
none
Pat Soller- He
stated he would like to thank Mr. Clase and Mr. DeLong for doing the work on
making the city a CLG. In combination
with standardizing the street lights and starting to look at the historical
value, we may be able to develop a community identity that may spear head some
things in the comprehensive plan.
Ken Kraus- He
stated he understands where Mr. Griffin and Mr. Bergwall are saying and if
there are issues that are in the developer’s control, and then I would agree
with them. But if the market stays the
way it is then I think it is totally different.
Don Bergwall- He stated be it market conditions, be it the
developer, the fact is you end up with plans that were made a long time ago
that you are not obligated to live with in the future. I think that if the opportunity comes up for
us to enforce current code on a development, it’s not all bad. I would not mind the future phases have to
comply with the current lot sizes. He
stated after the joint meeting we had Kathy House stated the information that
was started as a draft regarding HOA’s, if it was forwarded to her she would
try to get it moving forward.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.