PLANNING
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING AUGUST 20, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alan Seymour, Don Bergwall, Pete Griffin,
Roger Yoder, Patrick Soller, John Cunningham, Ken Kraus
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg DeLong
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr. DeLong stated he has an update to the
Chapter 1135 and where the commission left off the last time they discussed
it. He stated he added the GOV district
that the commission created. There is
still the County owned property on SR 4 North that has township zoning. Do we want to start moving forward and using
this district that was created? We also
have the annexation of the school property at SR 4 South and
Mr. DeLong stated he received comments today
from Mr. Aslaner regarding the POA proposed language. He stated attached to that is information
from another township. He stated Mr.
Aslaner’s comments were that he thought the proposed language we have drafted
is probably too much.
Mr. Kraus stated it seems to him that there
should be language in there that says the City has the right to step in and fix
what they need to and assess it back to the property owners.
Mr. Seymour stated they would get back to
this topic.
Mr. DeLong stated he had another packet of
information. It contained more POA
language that the law director thought was good.
Mr. Soller asked if Mr. Aslaner took Mr. Bergwall’s copy of the POA language and marked it up. Mr. DeLong stated no. He stated Mr. Don Brosious
stated there could be some legalities with the language originally proposed.
OLD BUSINESS
Review proposed
language for Property owner’s Associations (POA’s)
Mr. Bergwall stated he would like to review
what was proposed and then determine what is too over reaching. Mr. DeLong stated he knows that some of the
issues were getting involved into the POA meetings and requiring them to have
meetings.
Mr. Bergwall stated this doesn’t suggest that
we are involved in their meetings. Mr.
DeLong stated in the language it required that they submit minutes to the City
and that they hold an annual meeting. He
asked from a planning perspective what do you want from the POA.
Mr. Soller stated we want to know that it is
in operation. Mr. DeLong stated that is
what they felt the language they sent is doing.
Mr. Kraus stated part of the complaint is in
how much we are asking them to report.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to discuss the POA
language before the review of Chapter 1135.
Mr. Kraus stated looking at Mr. Bergwall’s definitions; annual meeting can be stricken
because whether or not they meet annually it is their business. He stated we can ask them to have and report
officers annually. Annual report with a
listing of officers can also be stricken.
Mr. Bergwall stated he would question that
because if they don’t meet then how can you determine if it is active. Mr. Kraus stated that is not our
concern. As long as we know who the officers
and as long as we have the right to deal with the property if it is not maintained,
that is all we need.
Mr. Soller stated when the developers are
creating the covenants with the POA; this can also be a guideline of what is
expected of the POA. We are going to be
reviewing the covenants and the operating procedure of the POA’s
during the planning process.
Mr. Kraus stated the question is what
authority do we have over their deed
restrictions. None. We don’t want guidelines in an
ordinance.
Mr. Bergwall stated the reason he listed this
is one is you want to know that they are not there in just name only. If they just send us a list and it says these
are the people, how do we know they are still there? There are no resources behind the organization.
Mr. Kraus stated that is the one thing that I
think is missing from the law director’s proposal is the authority of the City
in dealing with that.
Mr. Soller stated the other thing is the
mismanagement. If the
POA makes mistakes that cause damage to say the storm water retention or if
they stop collecting dues…. Mr. Kraus stated that is not our
concern. Mr. Soller stated it is because
it is going to prevent them from maintaining the property. He stated with the confidentiality issue is
this something that would be counter initiative because we are asking for all
of this information that will go into a public record.
Mr. Bergwall stated they are like a
corporation and is a quasi public group.
Corporations have to have annual meetings. He stated in this book, it states that all POA’s are required to hold at least an annual meeting. I was under the opinion that we wanted to
know that the POA is organized to be able to act on an issue if they need
to. If they can’t get together at least
once a year to have a meeting and verify who the officers are and to verify
that they have the financial resources to maintain the common properties, then
the organization is dead. If they say
they don’t have to meet, or we get together and have lunch, it may work but it
is not a very leveraged way to do it. We just need to know is that the POA alive
and is it functional.
Mr. Cunningham stated he thinks the bottom
line is just are they doing what they are supposed to do. It doesn’t matter if they meet.
Mr. DeLong stated
then out of Don’s language all you think we need is 1110.05 g, it says to
submit an annual report that… That is
what you want? Mr. DeLong
stated he thinks that is all we need.
Mr. Seymour stated he agrees with Mr. DeLong.
Mr. Cunningham stated ultimately he would
like to see implemented what Mr. Bergwall suggested
as protocol but not regulate.
Mr. Seymour stated that he would like the POA
to register with us what the rules are going to be and then if they don’t
follow them we would know. The question
then would be of enforcement and that comes down to us taking care of it.
Mr. Kraus stated in the township language it
doesn’t spell out what can happen. We
should have Mr. Bergwall’s portion of the language
which states that the City can come in and take care of the issues and assess
the property taxes back to the members of the POA.
Mr. Soller stated
he agrees with the intent, but there are some things in Mr. Bergwall’s
language that might contradict what is already in the association guidelines. He stated having the procedures in place for
these associations to operate and work with the City, it is better to be
farther reaching than to have no communication at all.
Discussion held on how some of the current POA’s work.
Mr. Kraus stated he likes Mr. Bergwall’s section of 1110.09, which states that if the
City finds something in non-compliance, they first notify the POA, if it is
taken care of fine, if not then City can go in and do it and send the POA a
bill and then if it is not paid timely then it can be assessed. If this is in an ordinance somewhere then it
becomes very difficult for someone to come and say it is not legal.
Mr. Soller stated
there is a chance that when the City does come in and starts taking care of it
the property owners will say, that is fine we don’t want to have to deal with
it anyway, let the City take care of it and bill us.
Mr. Kraus stated that is a potential
downfall.
Mr. Seymour stated we all agree that we want
to move forward with this, and that we want to keep it simplified. He stated that it looks like 1110.06 is a
section we want to keep.
Mr. Kraus stated number five only. Mr. DeLong stated
that the other numbers are what the law director is having problems with.
Mr. Soller stated
in some of the other items we have dates or time lines in here. He stated I think it needs to be changed to
say something like it needs to be in compliance with your current POA due
dates. He stated April 15th
may not be the best for everyone.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he liked to have just one date so that the City only has to deal with it once a
year rather than have them trickling in several times a year.
Mr. Seymour stated in 1110.07 the key bullet
in that one is item one. Mr. Kraus
stated that it is an unnecessary paragraph.
We don’t put procedure in legislation.
Mr. Seymour stated then take
out the word procedure, but we do want a copy of their legal documents on
file. Mr. Kraus asked if they are part
of the final plat documents they should already be on file.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he doesn’t think the POA bylaws are part of it.
It is just the deed restrictions.
Mr. Kraus stated in past experience and
looking at the law directors cover memo, that unless we do something to greatly
simplify it, his recommendation to City Council will be to not pass this
legislation.
Discussion continued regarding POA’s.
Mr. Kraus stated based on what we’ve said so
far, does it make sense for someone to simplify this before we go forward.
Mr. Seymour stated he thinks there is a
consensus that this is as basic as it needs to be and supported by the legal
department. Mr. DeLong
stated he is not sure he has heard a consensus regarding the whole
document.
Mr. Soller stated
he doesn’t like number 3. Discussion
held regarding number 3.
Commission decided to run through all items.
Mr. Kraus asked if there was a purpose for
the general purpose statement. Mr. DeLong stated if it is a new section of the code, he thinks
there needs to be something.
Mr. Soller stated
in 1110.03, he would like to strike it or change it to 100% of the property
owners to create one. Mr. Kraus stated
he agrees.
Mr. Bergwall stated
in (b) that is not for new development, it is for a development already
established. Mr. Soller
stated yes, he understands that and that is why he doesn’t agree. He stated he doesn’t feel anyone should be
forced to join a POA.
Mr. DeLong stated
his question is as a City, do we care.
Mr. Kraus stated he would throw the question
to the law director. Is there a process
in the ORC for establishing a POA for an existing area? If there is nothing in the ORC, I think we
should provide a mechanism, should they choose to use it, to get one
established. We may just need to
reference the ORC if they have it.
Discussion continued.
Mr. Soller stated
to summarize the objective on the whole POA, it is to create communication
between the POA and the City and to reinforce that the association has the
responsibility to do the maintenance.
Mr. Kraus stated in 1110.04, I don’t think we
need it. Mr. Seymour stated that is what
requires POA’s.
Mr. Kraus stated that should be a policy not legislative.
Discussion held on pros and cons and opinions
of keeping 1110.04. Three members
thought it should be legislation, four felt it should be policy.
Mr. Kraus stated 1110.07 and 1110.8 can be
deleted.
Mr. Kraus stated his question for the law
director pertaining to 1110.09 is using the township language and our current
penalty, does it give the city the authority to go in and clean it up. If what we have does, then we don’t need 1110.09.
Review Chapter 1135
Mr.
DeLong stated the last time the commission addressed
this; they were going to think about the R-4 and R-5 because they have the same
density.
Discussion
held on what properties in the City are zoned R-5.
Discussion
held regarding either increasing the R-5 density, lowering the R-4 density or
getting rid of R-5 all together.
Mr.
Cunningham left the meeting.
Mr.
Kraus stated he would like to see R-5 density to go to 12.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he is okay with 12.
Mr.
Griffin stated he would like to understand it better before he is willing to
change it, so he would say to stick with eight.
Mr.
Yoder stated he is leaning towards the 12.
He stated he thinks there needs to be more than 2 between the R-4 and
R-5.
Mr.
Soller stated he is in favor of the 12.
Commission
decided to set it at 12.
Mr.
Seymour moved on to the Office Residential (OR) section.
Mr.
Kraus stated in OR (b) he would like to see what the thoughts are in regards to
single family. Discussion held on the
50% and where it came from.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he doesn’t have an issue with the way
it is written now. He asked if you can
take a commercial piece of property and live in it. He stated on Stocksdale
Dr. there is an old bank that then was a medical
office. Can a place like that be
converted into a house?
Mr.
Kraus stated only if the zoning district allows residential.
Mr.
Kraus stated if you look at OR and BR they have one sentence in common and it
states that these are primary districts for transition from “a” to “b”. Would it help if we took that sentence out
from both of those?
Mr.
Bergwall stated it serves as a reminder to us that if
someone wants to use these districts how it should be used.
Mr.
DeLong stated he thinks it should stay in because it
gives people guidance as to where to go with these districts.
Mr.
Kraus asked if there should be the same 50% limitation in
Mr.
Soller stated his difficulty with PUD’s
is that it makes the land use map very difficult to understand what is out
there. If the map just says PUD, you
can’t just look at it and know what is out there.
Mr.
Griffin stated he doesn’t think they need to put in any statement as to a
certain percentage.
Mr.
Bergwall stated we have covered in the definitions
the difference between and office and a business.
Mr.
Kraus asked if in B-1 they want to add something like what is in B-3 so they
are allowed to put apartments above.
Mr.
DeLong stated he thinks the commission needs to look
at the permitted uses before they start changing that. In B-1 mini storage is allowed along with car
dealerships. If you start allowing
residential, it could cause some major issues.
Mr.
Kraus stated then we could make it different by under
1137, you could make the residential only allowed with certain types of
businesses or as a conditional use.
Mr.
Kraus stated if it is in 1137 about overhead residential then it should be in
1135.10.
Mr.
Bergwall stated if you do that then
what is the difference between B-R and B-1. Mr. Kraus stated B-R allows single family and
B-1 would only be multi-family overhead.
Mr.
DeLong stated for now we will add the allowance of
multi-family overhead to 1135.10.
Mr.
Kraus asked if B-3 Central Business District should be renamed Uptown Business
District. Mr. DeLong
stated he would rather not. It creates
too many other unnecessary changes and affects the CLG designation.
Mr.
Kraus stated out of the remainder districts, the only thing I would question is
the need for the NC district.
Mr.
Griffin stated it was done specifically for the one neighborhood. Mr. Kraus stated nothing ever got zoned this
way.
Mr.
Bergwall stated in a true PUD, you would find a
purpose. Mr. Kraus stated yes, but they
would not use the NC it would be a PUD.
Commission
is done with the review of chapter 1135 for now.
Mr.
Kraus stated the City Planner has asked the commission about direction on the
GOV district zoning. He stated his first
reaction is the County property on SR 4 N., the recently annexed school
property on SR 4 S., and the city county and school property on
Mr.
DeLong asked the commission if they want to look at
the sign section of the GOV district because it allows 25 ft. tall signs and
300 sq. ft.
Commission
agreed to look at it.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman
adjourned the meeting.