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, Ken Kraus, John Cunningham,
Roger Yoder, Don Bergwall. Alan Seymour – absent.
1 vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Vic Steinfels, Dennis Schulze, Meg Michel, Phil
Roush and Tammy Penhorwood, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning
Commission Joint Meeting with City Council-
Planning
Commission Special Meeting-
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr.
Roush stated we have requests from both of the agenda items tonight to be
tabled.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
A
request was made to move Citizen Comments to after Old Business. Voice vote was unanimous.
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval of Final Plat – Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co.- tabled from
Mr. Cunningham stated this is coming back after being tabled in
July. He stated he understands there is
another request for this to be tabled again.
Mr. Vic Steinfels stated he tried to simplify in the letter before the
commission tonight the reason for the tabling.
He stated they have run into some difficulties in securing the bonding
requirement or letter of credit for the final plat approval. He stated as you may be aware the residential
market is going through some sever correction by the banks. What complicates ours a little bit is that we
have a combination of both single family and condos. We had the misfortune of being involved with
one bank that decided they no longer wanted to be involved in the condo
market. Then we were expecting a letter
of commitment to have at this meeting tonight, we were advised this past
Wednesday that this bank as well has put a hold on residential lending. We hope that the hold will be released
soon. We should know shortly. We are optimistic that it will be released.
We are fighting a very tight time frame.
The asphalt plants will be closing in late November. We have a meeting tomorrow with Phil Roush to
see what the maximum deadline is for getting asphalt on the ground and people
in this year. We recognize that the City
needs a letter of credit in order for us to secure the development and move
forward. Everything is done and we are
ready to go. It is unfortunate that we
are having a little bit of a problem with the banking industry.
Mr. Cunningham
asked based on your current discussions with the bank, using a percentage
basis, where would you put your estimation of success by the September meeting. Mr. Steinfels stated 90% if not more. He stated he is hoping it would be far before
the September meeting.
Mr. Kraus made a
motion to table this until the regular September meeting at the request of the
developer.
Motion Passed.
Approval of
Final Plat –
Mr. Dennis Schulze stated he is representing
this development. He stated when he was
here in May I was asked if August was going to be long enough and thought it
would be. He stated he received a call
last week from a potential buyer for this project. What happened was a land speculator bought
the project because it was in trouble and they needed to get the land easement
through. He stated they felt it would be
a good sale because he was going to reduce the price. The market has slowed way down. They have a potential buyer ready to talk to
me and get this thing moving.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to make contact with him. I am going to ask for a two month delay and
hopefully have the project here in a month. I hate to lose everything we have
worked towards so far. This is a TIF
project and we really want to get it going.
Mr. Bergwall stated in the transition and with
this delay the property that is surrounded by the proposed
Mr. Bergwall stated from a planning standpoint, that development
will come off with more appeal if it can be done. Mr. Schulze stated it all depends on how much
the owner thinks it worth.
Mr. Bergwall stated maybe the house doesn’t
have to be demolished, maybe it can be integrated into the development. Mr. Schulze stated it will all depend on the
cost of the home and what the potential developer will think.
Mr. Kraus stated as he recalls there is a
reserve next to where the house sits.
You may be able to preserve the house as it is and then add lots to the
back side.
Mr. Kraus asked if October was going to be sufficient
time to get this project moving. Mr.
Schulze stated the people that currently own the property want to move it. They tell me this is a very interested buyer,
but I haven’t talked to them. He stated
he hopes to be ready by next month.
Mr. Cunningham stated the language to be tabled
could say it would be tabled until no later than November with the
understanding that can come back if you are ready before. He stated at that point in time if it is not
ready, we are going to have to take a serious look at what is going on and see
if the project is going to go.
Mr. Schulze stated he would amend his request
and ask that it be tabled until no later than November.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to table the Final Plat
for Chestnut Park until the November meeting at the request of the developer
with the understanding that if everything comes together prior to that they can
request to be on the agenda sooner.
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Motion Passed
Mr. Griffin
asked that at the time this development comes back before the commission that
there are new plats filed. Mr. Schulze
stated what he would do is that if this buyer is interested,
tell them they need to come in here even if it is just for citizen
comments.
Mr. Bergwall
stated we should see and have in the presentation the preliminary plat as it is
updated, in order to have the final plat for approval. We should be able to go back to the
preliminary plat and have some acknowledgement in writing from the new owner
that they are in agreement and are going to proceed in accordance with all of
the provisions that have already been made.
Mr. Schulze
stated it is a good idea that the new buyer has a good understanding of what
has already been approved.
CITIZEN
COMMENTS:
Mrs. Meg Michel
stated she has been working on the zoning for the old parts of Marysville and
have been trying to make the zoning fit these sections. This is so the people keep improving these
houses and be able to build garages without having to go to zoning and variance
meetings to improve their own property.
If you remember prior to 1990 we had 50’ minimum frontages and the
setbacks were 6’ from the side. If we
make it so it is not a hard process, and people want to put their money into a
garage, there is not a whole bureaucratic process they are hesitant to go
through, people would buy more of the homes to live in rather than to use them
as rentals. Porches are the character of
the turn of the century home but right now the front setback does not allow
them. She stated from just looking at
it, it looks like the current setbacks are 10’- 15’ from the porches to 1 foot
inside the sidewalk. The current zoning
requires the setback to be 35’. This
really needs addressed if we want to keep money pouring into old
Marysville.
Mr. Schulze
stated he has been at each realtor’s meeting and has encouraged them to go to
the City Council meetings and the Planning Commission meetings and to get
involved in something that impacts their community. At some point in time I am going to encourage
them to have a member or two of the Planning Commission make a presentation at
one of the realtors meeting to let them know what you do and why they should be
interested in what you do. He stated he
thinks it is necessary that the community understands and to be involved in
what this board and City Council are doing.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he is sure there are commission members that are willing and able to do
so upon invitation.
Mr. Bergwall
stated he would be interested and not only for the realtors to be more informed
but we would also like to get some better feedback on the balance in the
community. From a real estate standpoint
what is it that we should be looking out for.
Mr. Schulze
stated we might be able to carry this to the Builders Association as well. They should be at these meetings every
month. He stated at times they don’t
understand the process or they don’t think they make a difference. There hasn’t been one of you that I’ve found
that is not willing to have input. Every
one of you have indicated that you want to hear from
people that are involved in the process.
Mr. Cunningham stated the point is well taken. One of the things we suffer with is we want
to hear things from the community and we need to hear more voices to give us a more
balanced perspective of what is happening out in the community. We try to do it on our own, but it is not as
successful.
Mr. Bergwall
stated he met with the Union County Builders Association last December
regarding a Veterans monument project.
After that there were a couple of people that asked questions and I told
them we would encourage them to come to meetings and provide input.
(Mrs. Michel is
talking but can’t make it all out because she is not at the microphone.)
Mr. Kraus stated
back to the original discussion about the small lots in old Marysville, we have
talked about this and it is on our to do list. He stated he is not sure a new zoning
district is appropriate. If we have
something in the code that says regardless of the zoning district you are in,
if you have a legal lot of record with less than 50’ frontage and less than
5000 sq. ft. in
area then you are able to go to 40% lot coverage, within 2’ of the side lot
lines for accessory buildings and your front setback should match your
neighbors. So if your neighbors
is 15’ then yours is 15’. As
long as it meets these criteria then Mrs. McCoy can issue the permit. A lot of people don’t go to BZA because it
scares them.
Mr. Cunningham
stated as a resident of old Marysville, I don’t mind the 40% coverage, but I do
have a concern about the 2’ from the property line. Mr. Kraus asked what about 5’. Mrs. Penhorwood stated it is currently
5’.
Mr. Yoder asked
if someone wanted to add a garage couldn’t that be excluded and only count
livable space. Mrs. Michel stated
livable square footage would help because right now decks and porches are
counted in lot coverage. Mrs. Penhorwood
stated they are not. When it comes to a
deck or a porch that is not enclosed, the only thing that is looked at for
zoning is the front, side and rear setbacks.
Mr. Cunningham stated he does not disagree with
the standards; he just wants to make sure the standards are applicable to 100%
of the properties.
Mr. Bergwall stated he is thinking we might get
ourselves in a bind with the front setback.
Why wouldn’t we want to go by some date when most of the homes were
built or the area was developed? Our
goal is to take older areas and let people make upgrades.
Mr. Griffin asked if this was going to be
discussed tonight or what. Mr.
Cunningham stated it was brought up as citizen comment. Mr. Griffin stated he would like to have an
inventory of the problem lots. That way
we can see what we are dealing with.
Mrs. Michel stated she has been working on that but there are
about 20 properties that are currently out of compliance. Another thing that I have not been taking
into consideration is the driveway having to be 3 ft. off of the lot line. She stated some of the homes on Fifth Street
have houses so wide that they have shoved the drives to one side to get back to
garages in the back and typically these drives are right on the lot line.
Mr. Griffin stated he finds it difficult to
deal with the problem until I understand the problem. Mr. Cunningham stated setbacks that are
currently not in compliance are a mute point because they are grandfathered
in.
Mrs. Michel stated one of the big problems is
the small one car garages that are not adequate anymore. In order for them to be able to tear down
these garages and extend their driveway past the house and put the parking and
garage in the backyard they have to get variances.
Mr. Cunningham stated he agrees with Mr.
Griffin, he would like to have a better understanding of what we are dealing
with as a total in the city.
Mr. Kraus stated he has some maps at home and
it does not encompass the whole city by any stretch. It is a portion of the city but would be able
to give you some idea of what is out there.
Mr. Cunningham stated an inventory and a little
bit of a more in depth awareness and a public hearing to hear from others that
may be running into the same problem is what we need.
Mr. Schulze stated if you are running into a
problem with uniform rules and how they would apply,
maybe look at the process itself. How
much it cost, how hard is it and how the process can be made easier.
Mr. Cunningham stated he would agree with Mr.
Schulze.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS: None
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Bergwall – He stated in reading the minutes from the joint meeting,
on page 13, there were comments regarding the
Mr. Bergwall stated this issue came up again
tonight that if a developer has something that they want to bring before us
ahead of the regular meeting, can they schedule a special meeting. We tell them we’ll put it on the agenda, if
we are already having a special meeting.
He stated why don’t we make it a provision in
the ordinance that if the developer request a special and we can get it
scheduled, and then they can pay for the meeting. They can’t just pick and date and we have to
go with it. We would have to agree on a
date, but they would have to foot the bill for the entire meeting. Mr. Cunningham asked him to work with Mrs.
Penhorwood and Mrs. McCoy to make sure all of the costs are covered.
Mr. Griffin – None
Mr. Yoder – None
Mr. Cunningham – He stated he did attend the
meeting that was sponsored by the American Institute of Architects in
Mr. Kraus - He stated there is a meeting at the
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 7:55