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:
Don Bergwall, Pete Griffin, Ken Kraus,
John Cunningham, Alan Seymour, Roger Yoder 1 vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob
Bachtel, Gary Lee, Ed Miller, Dave Gibson, Carol
Gibson, Bob Rinehart, Phil Roush and Tammy Penhorwood,
Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting-
Planning Commission Special
Meeting-
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
None
OLD
BUSINESS:
Zoning
Amendment
– 7.693 acres – located at SR 4 and Scott
Mr.
Roush stated on the table in front of the commission is a description of the
portion of land in the Cowgill tract that is to remain O-R. It comes out to be about 3.9 acres
total.
Mr.
Kraus stated that leaves approximately 6.3 acres to be rezoned.
Mr.
Cunningham stated when we last discussed this it seemed that the commission was
leaning towards rezoning this to S-R.
Mr.
Kraus stated that would be his suggestion.
He stated if the owner were to subdivide this parcel, and it was zoned
S-R, he would have to have at least 20,000 s.f. lots
which would be about the average lot of the Navin
subdivision. If single unit condos
were put in they would have a density limit of about 12 on these 6 acres. The S-R would not permit apartments
which the neighbors were concerned about.
Mr.
Yoder stated S-R sounds reasonable to him.
Mr.
Seymour stated he generally agrees, but he would like to discuss the possibility
of R-1. He would like the opinion
of the commission on the pros and cons of S-R vs. R-1. He stated he is not opposed to S-R but
as he looks at the surrounding area he feels R-1 may also be
appropriate.
Mr.
Cunningham stated we are applying a zoning district here that will protect the
property. The developer can always
bring it forward as a PUD if they want to subdivide it to something
different.
Mr.
Seymour stated he thinks R-1 because on the financial end of things, it gives
them a couple more lots.
Mr.
Griffin stated he thinks it should go S-R and then the developer comes in with a
great plan with a higher density it could be a possibility. It forces the developer to come in with
a plan they have worked hard on.
Mr.
Kraus stated he thought about R-1 previously and the reason he went with S-R was
it puts a lower limit on the density.
Mr.
Bergwall stated with as small of an area that this is
you have to look at the proportion.
There is going to be some of the area eaten up by road and some with
storm water retention. The
significance in the number of lots is low.
It is such a small parcel overall it is not going to have a high impact
on anything. He stated he tends to
look at the compatibility of the surrounding area. You have to look at the more suburban
area of the Navin addition but you also have Scott
Farms across the street and commercial offices up front.
Mr.
Cunningham stated the drawings we saw earlier indicated they would be S-R type
lots.
Mr.
Seymour asked Mr. Roush if he worked with the developer on this
description. Mr. Roush stated it
was based on what was talked about at the last meeting. Mr. Seymour stated then the developer
has not seen this to agree with it.
Mr. Roush stated he used their drawing that they
provided.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated she had conversation with Mr. Isaacs
and he stated he was not planning on attending this meeting. He asked if I knew what the description
was going to be. I told him it
would be based off of the 200’ figure he provided and he stated that was
fine.
Mr.
Bergwall stated the real balance is when you look at
this piece of property based not on proposal that have been made, but on its
location and its surroundings, one question is what should it be zoned. Another is if it is zoned that then what
flexibility is there within the zoning.
One of the possibilities we talked about is a PUD and you can do it with
any underlying zoning.
Mr.
Kraus stated in looking at this and the surrounding lots we have to think in
terms of what is the best use of the land regardless of what has be told to us
before, also keeping in mind the types of businesses that are going to be going
in up front.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend to City Council the rezoning of the part of
parcel number 2900130013001 that is outside of the 500’ x 330’ to S-R zoning as
the best use of the land given the surrounding uses.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Approval
of Final Plat
– Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co. -
tabled from
Mr.
Bob Bachtel stated we are still proceeding with bank
financing and need to have this tabled until a later point. What we would like to do is that the
bank states they will have everything in order by July 24th. Today we have Brian with Performance
Site Management who is doing the site work and based on the schedule that they
have put together, if it is possible to get approval by the end of July it will
allow us to have the paving done by the Thanksgiving period. That would require a special meeting by
this commission. If it is possible
to set up a special meeting at the end of July it would allow us to get the
paving done this year. The week to
week and a half is critical because it pushes us into December for
paving.
Mr.
Seymour asked if July 24th would actually be the date. Mr. Bachtel
stated that is what the bank is saying and we are very confident about the
date.
Mr.
Cunningham stated at this point we don’t have a special meeting planned.
Mr.
Kraus stated his suggestion would be that if the commission decided to have a
special meeting this month to deal with other items I wouldn’t have a problem
hearing this item. However, it
seems silly to me to meet for just one item which is a residential item in which
everything else is in order so there is really not much discussion. He stated this is consistent with what
we have done in the past.
Mr.
Cunningham asked if there are any other issues with this project that the
commission should be aware of. Mr.
Bachtel stated we are just waiting on the
bank.
Mr.
Yoder stated he has a letter that states you should have the landscaping package
approved with the Gibson’s prior to the approval of this development. The Gibson’s are here, has that been
resolved.
Mr.
Gibson stated he just wants to make sure the commission is aware that we have an
agreement with Mr. Steinfels regarding the 25’ no
build zone. There is a plan for
planting materials in that area. He
stated he did approach Mr. Steinfels and show him some
areas that are drainage issues for us.
There are drainage tiles that go across the Galbury property.
Mr. Steinfels assured me that those would be
taken care of when the development occurs.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion that the approval of the final plat for Galbury Meadows be tabled until the special meeting, if one
is held in July, or the regular August meeting.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr.
Kraus asked Mr. Gibson if the drainage tile information has been provided to the
City Engineer, such as the location of the tiles. Mr. Gibson stated no. There are no drawings on them. Mr. Roush stated when the work is ready
to be done; the inspector will need to meet with you so they can be told where
the tiles are located.
NEW
BUSINESS:
Approval
of Final Plat
– Scott Farms Section 5 – filed by EMH&T Inc.
Mr.
Roush stated this is the portion that connects Scott Farms Section 4 Part 1 and
Mr.
Cunningham asked if we have heard if the school if fine with everything that has
happened so far. Mr. Roush stated
the school is fine.
Mr.
Kraus asked if Mr. Lee is okay with everything. Mr. Lee stated he asked if any of this
section adjoined his property. Mr.
Roush stated no.
Mr.
Lee stated there are some issues but he was not sure if it had to do with this
section or not. He stated he would
speak on the behalf of the Navin family. He stated he has been directed by them
to look after their farm drainage.
The drainage has been resolved.
He stated he does believe that M/I has tried to
be a good steward there, but I think you need to hear the story about their
contractors. He stated he went out
with them and came within 50’ of where major tiles are. They dug it and then I come back 2 days
later and their response was that they hit no tile. I took 10 steps and found a 10” and 6”
that had been cut and were the major arteries that drain that property. Had not I been there, the tiles would
not have been noticed. He stated
last week, after about 7 weeks the tiles were repaired. He stated he just thinks the commission
needs to know that sometimes a developer means very well but their contractor
doesn’t deliver.
Mr.
Cunningham told Mr. Lee that he would appreciate it if he would keep the
commission informed of the progress.
Mr. Lee stated he appreciates the concern of this commission. Unfortunately there are no Ohio Revised
Codes (ORC) or local laws that allow for the working of drainage issues from a
municipality to a county unless a planning commission
cares.
Mr.
Seymour stated he was glad Mr. Lee was present at the meeting that lead up to
the final where you stated your concerns with the project. He stated we did our best to make sure
that they complied with the request.
Mr.
Bergwall stated the observation is that whenever there
is development that everyone is fearful that they will have problems because it
is never done right. As an engineer
it is upsetting to hear because there is no reason it can’t be done right. As a group representing the city, we
somehow need to better address this so people are not so fearful and thinking
they are going to be harmed because of an adjacent development. A question I have is there anything in
the current code or engineering standards that provide for a fine or recourse
against contractors if they don’t do the job right. Should our code include provisions for a
full time inspector whenever the work is being done and he documents as built
conditions.
Mr.
Roush stated generally when the underground goes in we have the full time
inspectors out there. Talking to my
inspector on this project they did intercept several tiles and they did repair
the tiles as they went through.
This is the first time I’ve heard otherwise. As far as damages, it is a civil matter
between the property owners.
Mr.
Bergwall stated somehow as a city that is encouraging
development how can we make it better for it to be in the contractor’s best
interest to make sure that there are not any problems. Right now it is like, sorry we’ll fix it
when we can.
Mr.
Cunningham stated you can put contractual insensitives
in to drive that. If there are
complaints the payment can be decreased or penalties.
Mr.
Roush stated but we don’t make payments to the contractors so we can’t enforce
that.
Mr.
Lee stated the superintendent has bent over backwards to work with me, but he is
not there everyday. The city
engineering department and the inspectors have worked with me.
It
is just the idea that if the adjoining land owner is not vigilant things can go
by missed. Without your concerns,
and telling M/I Homes that they had to leave the ditches open for my inspection,
it would not have happened.
Mr.
Bergwall stated even that did not happen without Mr.
Lee following up on it. Mr. Lee
stated not early on but they did get better.
Mr.
Lee stated one of the issues he had when he refused to accept the work 10 days
ago was that it was not set on grade.
It might as well not even have been hooked up.
Mr.
Kraus asked if there was something through the subdivision regulation that we
can do legally. He stated the other
key is effective property owners must be diligent. It takes all of the parties to be
involved in order for it to work.
Mr.
Bergwall stated then the question becomes how much
burden should be put on an adjacent property because the property next to them
is going to be developed.
Mr.
Cunningham stated there is an overlap between what the city can enforce and what
the county can enforce and where they intertwine.
Mr.
Roush stated we might be able to make some rules but the important thing is that
the land owner knows better than anyone where the system is. It is easy for someone with big
equipment digging a trench to hit a 4” line and not realize it.
Mr.
Seymour stated he believes that in 1109.10 there is the opportunity to beef up
the verbiage to make sure there is documented responsibility.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the final plat of Scott Farms Section 5 as
presented.
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1105.09
Mr.
Cunningham stated the next items are clean up changes that need to be made to
the code as a result of the changes that were previously made to the Design
Review and pertinent sections of the code.
Mr.
Cunningham stated it is taking out the recommendation and changing Shade Tree
Commission to the Planning Commission.
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1109.18
Mr.
Yoder made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1139.23
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1142.04
Mr.
Griffin made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1143.15
Mr.
Kraus stated at the special meeting we had talked in (b) about deleting any
reference to Design Review Board.
However, it appears we need to keep that in there because in the Historic
Uptown Marysville Design Review District that board is allowed to grant
variances.
Mr.
Cunningham asked if the commission was looking at the corrected version
tonight.
Mrs.
Penhorwood indicated yes.
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to recommend the changes as
presented to City Council.
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1143.20
Mr.
Seymour made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Chapter 1123 – Definitions – Cross
References
Mr.
Yoder made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1137.25 (n) (3)
(B)
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1143.17 (a)
Mr.
Griffin made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Seymour
Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes
Motion
Passed
Recommendation
to City Council - changes to Section 1143.19 (a)
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to recommend the changes as presented to City
Council.
Mr.
Kraus Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr.
Seymour
Yes
Motion
Passed
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
General
Issues
Mr.
Kraus stated if Mr. Lees is willing since he is here tonight and one of the
issues on our To Do List is
Mr.
Lee stated they did not initiate the rezoning of this property; it was the OSU
vet clinic. He stated it is the
county’s intent to hold the land for county uses. I think OSU’s
intent was to get a zoning that would get them the potential to sell the
property 15-20 years down the road.
He stated the county’s intention is to hold on to the property for future
county expansion.
Mr.
Kraus asked what uses are out there besides the county engineer and
offices. Is the Humane Society on
county property? Mr. Lee stated
yes. Mr. Kraus asked what about the
correctional facility and JDC. Mr.
Lee stated yes.
Mr.
Griffin asked how many acres does the county own out
there. Mr. Lee stated there are
approximately 80-85 acres of open farm land there. The rest of it is developed or adjacent
to developed property. There is
room at the current Ag center to add some more buildings.
Mr.
Griffin stated from a county standpoint you envision keeping all of this as
county owned property. Mr. Lee
stated yes.
Mr.
Yoder asked if there is a pressing issue to get this rezoned. Mr. Seymour stated it needs to be placed
under some type of city zoning and out of township zoning.
Mr.
Seymour stated he can see this as a SD zoned property.
Mr.
Kraus stated a type of district that they should be looking for is one that
includes Public Uses, Qusai Public Uses and Public
Service Facilities which is not in every district. He stated it may be that a special
district for governmental uses needs to be created.
Discussion
held on what you would include in the new district.
Mr.
Lee stated back to the Scott Farms project and to let you know of other issues
we have. One the engineer EMH&T
did not allow in their calculations to get rid of 15,000-20,000 cubic yards of
soil. One of the things I was told
early on was that the grade of the adjoining properties would not be imposed
on. The extra soil has been
spread. As they reengineer, the
adjoining property owners are looking at land that has been raised. Engineered correctly it can be dealt
with. Secondly, I was told there
would not be a detention pond that discharges onto my property. That changed and there is a detention
pond. Their engineer designed the
storm sewers 18” below grade for discharge onto my property. I was told by a
M/I person that this was not any different than what you envisioned when we
talked about this. Mr. Lee stated
it is different because you are talking about a grade cut well onto my property
to allow them to keep the retention pond.
Today if you want to go out there it is standing 2/3 full of water
because they can only discharge at the level of where my property and their
property meet.
Mr.
Griffin asked what they need to do.
Mr. Lee stated they need a 2’ cut on to my property and they think I
should give it to them for nothing.
Mr.
Roush stated another option is to get rid of a bunch of lots and move the
detention pond. Mr. Lee stated
regardless of what they do, they will still have a storm sewer that is sitting
18” below grade. That means they
will have to take storm sewer out.
They have given me the impression that it is my responsibility to talk to
them and they have hit a stone wall.
Mr.
Griffin asked if they just put it in too low or is it because of the raised
ground. Mr. Lee stated they say it
is because they put it in too low but I don’t know if I believe it.
Mr.
Seymour stated they are responsible to grade and lay the storm tile as approved
by the city engineer.
Mr.
Roush stated apparently when they brought in their plans they did not show
enough of their off site elevations.
He stated it is their problem not Mr. Lee’s.
Mr.
Kraus stated it is an issue and there is time for it to be dealt with. Mr. Lee stated whenever the approval of
that plat comes up it needs to be dealt with.
Mr.
Seymour asked if the city can stop construction until they correct the
problem.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated she believes the section in question
is 4-2 and the final plat for that section has not been approved yet. They had brought it to the table but
then withdrew it.
Mr.
Lee stated they have had great cooperation from the city. Mr. Geer has been very vigilant with
this.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he does not want to be critical of the
city or the process however the burden to get the job done right should be on
the developer and the contractor.
We can not afford to police 24/7 the work that is being done but we
should be able to make a provision in our code that impacts their business so
the contractors are more diligent.
Should a situation come up there should be very quick and thorough
recourse to get the problem resolved.
The contractor is all about time and money.
Mr.
Roush stated he would suggest having a joint meeting with the law director and
maybe city council. It would help us to see legally what provisions we can add
to our rules that will help us.
Mr.
Kraus stated before the meeting it would be helpful to have some homework
done.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if there is any certification for
contractors to install underground work.
Mr. Roush stated he didn’t think so.
Mr.
Cunningham asked Mr. Roush if he could draft something preliminary up so the
commission has something to work with and get to Mr. Aslaner. Mr.
Roush stated we could probably just take the minutes from tonight and us
them.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Ken
Kraus- He asked if there was going to be a special meeting. He stated he will be gone from the
28th of July and will be back on August 5th. Mr. Cunningham stated he has not heard
of anything that would cause a special meeting.
Don
Bergwall - He thanked Mr. Roush for the information he
provided at the joint meeting with council. He stated using Adena Pointe as an example; he would like to better
understand what happens between preliminary plat and the final plat. When we approve a preliminary plat then
they file the final plat we don’t see a lot of detail with it. We also may not comprehend all of the
changes made to the preliminary plat.
We are only getting the final plat phase by phase and issues may not come
up until a later date and it puts us in a vulnerable position. Mr. Roush stated there should not be any
changes to the preliminary plat concept.
Mr. Bergwall stated there have been things that
have changed from the preliminary plat on Adena to
what is being talked about now. Mr.
Roush stated he doesn’t think so.
Mr.
Seymour stated the preliminary plat drawing the commission approved with
conditions at the first phase of the final plat, the updated document of the
preliminary plat with all of the conditions made is what we want to see.
Mr.
Bergwall stated each time a final plat comes in I
would like to have a validation from the developer stated that everything is in
conformance with what the preliminary plat was.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated in regards to Adena Pointe, there were conditions placed on the
preliminary plat approval. Those
conditions were met, but it was only reviewed administratively. It can be taken care of by adding to the
code, under final plat requirements, that the developer must supply a copy of
the preliminary plat as approved with conditions. Every time they submit a final plat
section for approval they would need to submit a copy of the preliminary as
well.
Mr.
Cunningham stated he thinks it would be good to change the code to reflect that
but I don’t think that we necessarily have to. It needs to be done
anyway.
Mr.
Seymour stated he thinks it needs to be in the code so everyone is on the same
page at the first final plat review and have a document that shows everything as
agreed to at approval.
Mr.
Cunningham stated he agrees but he doesn’t think that we have to wait to get the
information until the code is changed.
Mr.
Seymour stated the full plat of the entire development should be provided. He stated it was supplied last time in
the 11 x 17 size.
Mr.
Kraus stated he doesn’t think there needs to be a change in the code at
all. It states the subdivider having received approval of the preliminary plat
shall submit a final plat…. the final plat shall have all of the changes of the
preliminary plat as required by the city planning commission.
Mr.
Bergwall stated City Gate is another example. When it came time for the final plat the
changes did not show up and there was never an update of the preliminary plat
and when we got into discussion there was confusion. I want to avoid confusion and have a
clear record that all these things we spend time on are captured and we are
getting what we expect.
Mr.
Kraus stated this is what we have run into before. The developers have in mind that they
are going to submit what is required by the county offices. For whatever reason, we have been unable
to get through to them that we want a final plat drawing that shows what we
approved. If that is different than
what the county requires then so be it.
Mr.
Cunningham stated the question he wants to put forward to the city law director
is when we are reviewing a project can we tie any improvements that are required
that are outside the prevue of the project can we tie it as a condition of the
preliminary plat.
Mr.
Kraus stated to answer the question; our code requires a final plat that
reflects the preliminary plat as approved with any changes as mandated by the
planning commission.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated everything that is on the checklist
is met by them or they don’t go on the agenda.
Mr.
Kraus stated as long as they are doing that and it reflects the changes if there
are any conditions, and then we are okay.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated the point is that with Adena some of the changes that we conditional with the
preliminary plat are not going to show up on the first final plat. Mr. Bergwall
is looking for confirmation at the very beginning before the first final plat is
approved that they met all of the conditions.
Mr.
Griffin stated it would be good to know this at the beginning.
Mrs.
Penhorwood stated she thinks they should be required
to send the preliminary plat with each final phase as a
refresher.
Mr.
Seymour agreed. Mr. Bergwall stated each phase should be a refresher so we don’t
have to go and dig out old drawings and ask the questions. It should be incumbent on them to show
that they are still in conformance.