PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Don Bergwall, Ken Kraus, Pat Soller, Pete
Griffin, John Cunningham. Alan Seymour-
excused. Roger Yoder-absent
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dennis Schulze, Chuck Day, Greg DeLong, and
Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting- August 6, 2007- Mr. Bergwall stated
on page 8, fourth paragraph from the bottom, after it says “in a team” the word
“in” should be “of”.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the
minutes as amended. Voice Vote was
unanimous. Motion approved.
ADMINISTRATION
COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN
COMMENTS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval of Final Plat – Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding
Co.- tabled from 6-4-07
Mr. Dennis Schulze stated with this project there has been a change in
investors. The investors had a choice of
continuing with the developer that was already guiding the plat and they choose
not to use that developer. In the
contract, it gave the developer a chance to buy back the development. That is what the last tabling request was
for, to get through his buy back period.
The investors now have a period of time to decide if they are going to
go through with the current plans or make some modifications. Before they make that decision, they need to
hire a developer. They are in the
process of interviewing for that now. We
are going to ask
for a continuance on this. It is a 50/50
chance of using the plat that is already in front of you. There is the chance that they will find a
developer that will want to take this property in a little different
direction. If that is the case then of
course they will need to come back before the board and possibly start
over. He stated he is here tonight to
ask for a continuance of another three months so the investors can decide which
direction they are going to go.
Mr. Kraus stated the investment group needs to be aware of the previous
commitments that have been made by the previous developer to the adjacent
property owners. He stated we expect
those to be honored. He stated because
of all of the neighbor input, he is not sure that changes, no matter what they
are, are going to be looked at in a very friendly light.
Mr. Schulze stated he understood and has relayed that to the
investors. He stated he told them if
there are changes the first thing they need to do is to have a meeting with all
of the neighbors and show them what they are looking at changing.
Mr. Kraus asked Mrs. Penhorwood if because this project is a PUD, if they
start making changes, are they going to have to go
back to ground zero and start over. Mrs.
Penhorwood stated it would depend on what the changes are and how major the
changes are, it may be a revision to the Final
Development Plan.
Mr. Kraus asked Mr. Schulze if three months would be a long enough
extension or if it should be pushed to January or February.
Mr. Schulze stated he would rather do February.
Mr. Bergwall asked if anyone knows when this project was at the original
final plat stage.
Mrs. Penhorwood stated she did not know the exact date but she was pretty
sure it has been over a year. (It was
later looked up and it was originally on the agenda for the regular meeting in
April 2006.)
Mr. Bergwall asked if there were any time restrictions by code that would
not allow this to continue to be tabled.
Mrs. Penhorwood stated no.
Mr. Bergwall stated Mr. Schulze could make his request to the commission
that this project be tabled until February or sooner if the applicant is
prepared.
Mr. Schulze stated that is what he would like to do. He stated he requests that this project be tabled
until February or sooner if they are able to get things together sooner.
Mr. Kraus made a motion that the approval of the final plat for Galbury
Meadows be tabled until February at the representative’s request, with the
understanding that if their time table improves they are free to bring it
forward sooner as long as they meet the appropriate deadlines.
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Soller Yes
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion approved.
NEW BUSINESS: None
Mr. Bergwall stated the commission has passed citizen comments already, however, there is someone in the audience. He asked them if they had questions or
comments.
Mr. Chuck Day stated he lives in the Clark Addition and he would like
just some information only. He stated
what the residents would like to know is when the information/discussions will
be made regarding the Cook’s vs. the
Mrs. Penhorwood stated at this point, nothing has been filed. Until they make application there is no way
for us to know that. If they make
application by the next meeting deadline which is Monday September 10, 2007,
they will be on the agenda for the October regular planning meeting.
Mr. Day asked how will they know if they have
filed. Mrs. Penhorwood stated he could
call or e-mail her on Tuesday and she would know by then.
Mr. Kraus stated it is worth commenting that on this project when issues
like screening and so forth come up we will be able to deal with. Items like sanitary and water, we can’t deal
with.
Mr. Day stated they are interested in easements and buffers. Mr. Kraus stated buffers we can deal with to
a certain extent, with the easements it will depend on what the issues are.
Mr. Day stated he is not sure what other tool the residents have. He stated they have talked to the Cook’s and
are not making any headway. We are not
sure what bounds we have to follow. We
would like to have buffers around the Clark Addition, but I know it is too
early to talk about this now. We just
needed to know how we could find out information.
Mr. Kraus stated to Mr. Day that if several residents of the neighborhood
come to the Planning Commission meeting about this, he would suggest that they
elect a spokesman for the group.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Mr.
DeLong stated in regards to chapter 1135, we went through most of it at the
last meeting. We got to the point of the
Manufacturing District. I would like to
go over a couple of things I noticed when I was going through it, so you can
have time to think about it before the next meeting on this. 1135.14, Manufacturing Districts, I’m not
sure why that is there because it is not a zoning district, so I would recommend
that we remove it. He stated under the
M-1 and M-2 it references back to the district regulations and supplementary
regulations. I scratched them out
because we are not referencing them in any of the other districts. This also carries into the SD-1
district. Under 1135.18, I took it out
completely. You guys can discuss the use
of this at a later time. It has been
around for a while and it has never been used and I don’t see that it would
ever be used.
Mr. Griffin stated it was put in there for a reason. There was a lot of effort and a lot of hours
spent on that district.
Mr. Soller stated as far as that district, the entrance to
Mr. Griffin stated NC was created for the farthest north point of the Mill
Valley Subdivision where they were proposing for a fire station. He stated we deliberated on it for a long
time to figure out if you were to have a neighborhood and have any type of
businesses, what type of businesses would be appropriate for that area.
Mr. Kraus stated on the one hand he does not have a problem doing away
with the ER and NC. The only purpose I
see is that under the new PUD legislation is the developer has to give us what
district he is trying to mimic and this gives them some middle ground.
Mr. Griffin stated there was a lot of time put into creating these
districts.
Mr. Bergwall stated while we haven’t used it in the past and we don’t see
today, a use, it is hard to predict what will happen in the future and more
things come together. I wouldn’t
understand the drawback to leaving it in there.
Do you have other logic behind wanting to remove NC.
Mr. DeLong stated he has never seen NC work in my career. The intent is there but no one ever did
it. This is just an item of discussion,
if you guys want to keep it, that’s your right.
Mr. Bergwall stated in his recent travels, he’s seen a lot of new planned
developments that have a variety of uses.
Mr. DeLong stated that is the key, they are planned developments (PUD). I don’t see anyone coming in here and wanting
to zone an area NC.
Mr.
DeLong stated the second thing he wanted to give to the commission was Property
Owners Association (POA) language. This
is just for discussion. I would like for
you guys to review this. There is a
cover letter on the front from Phil Roush, City Engineer. He reviewed it and he just wants to make sure
the easements are addressed in the POA language. What is before you is
a combination of the language Mr. Bergwall and Mr. Aslaner proposed which was
from Plain Twp. Just review this
information and we’ll review it at a later date.
Mr. Schulze stated on the topic of the POA’s,
New California is just going through the transition. The developer maintained control and
therefore paid expenses beyond what he could and should have. Now the residents are used to getting these
services and not paying for them. It was
very difficult in getting them to assume responsibility. They all wanted a say in what was going to be
done, but no one wants to pay for it. If
a developer can get in there and figure out how to integrate this in, it will
be much more effective.
Mr. Kraus stated from a City standpoint, there is only so much we can
do.
Mr. Griffin stated it is his understanding that in Green Pastures there
is a POA. Mr. DeLong stated yes, there
is. Mr. Griffin stated that POA has
never gone from the control of the developer to the POA.
Mrs. Penhorwood stated in that situation, she believes that the developer
is acting as the majority vote in the POA and the property owners are paying
their fees.
Mr. DeLong stated the last thing I’m passing out is language regarding
the GOV district sign regulations that are presently approved. He stated he was concerned about the amount
of signage that was allowed in this district.
They are allowed to have 300 sq. ft. and up to 25 ft. in height. Do we really want that much signage in this district. Our
residential district currently allows for 5 ft. in height and 20 sq. ft. The schools are following that regulation
just fine. Do we want to allow this much
signage which is what is following the TOC district? Or do we want to tighten the noose a little
bit and have more of a residential look in the GOV district vs. a commercial
look.
Mr. Kraus stated looking at 1143.16, they can have a 5 ft. high ID sign
and they are also allowed a bulletin board.
It seems to be working now. I
think we should change the regulations under the GOV district for signage to
comply with 1146.16.
Mr. Griffin asked if there was any reason that we shouldn’t.
Mr. Kraus asked if they should have the change in signage regulations for
GOV go through first or could it go through at the same time as us rezoning
some properties.
Commission decided to send the revision to the legislation first before
they rezone any properties GOV.
Mr. Bergwall stated the next question is then
when do we review these.
Mr. DeLong stated if the commission is comfortable with the change to the
GOV district signage change then we can put it on the next regular scheduled
meeting for a vote. Mr. Bergwall stated
the consensus is yes, move it forward.
Commission discussed having a special meeting and when they would hold
it. Special meeting will be held on
Monday September 17th at 6:30.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Mr. Soller- None
Mr. Kraus- None
Mr. Griffin- He stated he received a news release from the Columbus
Dispatch from August 25, 2007. It had an
article regarding a development near
Mr. Cunningham- None
Mr. Bergwall- He asked who was going to the conference on the 19th. Mr. DeLong stated it would be himself, Mr.
Bergwall and Mr. Griffin. Mr. DeLong
stated Mr. George from Design Review has showed some interest.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 7:55