PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.   

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ken Kraus, John Cunningham, Don Bergwall, Alan Seymour, Pete Griffin.  Roger Yoder – absent.  1 vacancy.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dennis Schulze, Catherine Cunningham, Kevin Kershner, Phil Roush and Tammy Penhorwood, Secretary.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Planning Commission Meeting- August 7, 2006- Mr. Griffin made a motion to approve the minutes as written.  Voice vote was unanimous.  Motion passed.

 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:  None

 

Mr. Seymour stated he had questions for the administration.  He asked Mr. Roush to give the commission an update on the funding and the status of South Park.  Mr. Roush stated there have not been any recent updates. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the center area of the park has not been mowed for some time, is it the intent to let it go as a natural area.  Mr. Roush stated he is not sure; he would have to get with the superintendent of parks.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Roush if there were any updates on the Assistant City Engineer. 

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS: 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated there is a note on the agenda that there was a request from the Niemi’s to speak about Walker Meadows.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated she received a voice mail from Mrs. Niemi asking to be taken off of the agenda; they were trying to work things out.

 

Mr. Griffin stated he had a phone conversation with Mrs. Niemi and she indicated that Mrs. Lutz was doing a number of things that would cover some of their concerns.  He stated she wanted to give them the time to address their concerns.  He stated it doesn’t say she won’t be here at some point, but right now things are progressing.

 

Mr. Kraus stated if he understands the issues correctly, although we can’t stop people from commenting at this part of the agenda, I would object to this type of thing being on the agenda to discuss.  This is either a zoning enforcement or a civil matter. 

 

Mr. Griffin stated he encouraged her to ask to be on the agenda for one major reason, which is that her issues were water related issues and we should be made aware of these things. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated those issues should be directed to the City Engineer.

 

Mr. Roush stated he talked to both Mr. and Mrs. Niemi and it is a civil issue between them, their builder and the developer.  I talked to the City Law Director and he agreed it is a civil matter.  The subdivisions infrastructure is complete and was inspected. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he partly agrees with Mr. Kraus that because we new more of the situation that it is a civil matter.  However, we cannot preclude anyone from speaking under the citizen comments section of our agenda. 

 

Mr. Dennis Schulze stated he has dealt with realtors and citizens who were upset and I have thought for a long time that we need a mediation system in place for people that buy houses and have issues.  He stated what he has suggested is that the County Common Pleas Mediator advertise the availability of their services.  A lot of these things end up here or in court where they don’t belong. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated that would be very helpful.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he agrees that this particular issue is a civil matter.  It is also a point of interest for us.  It provides us information of what is going and allows us to take a look and determine if there is something in our process that could help from a planning aspect and would help avoid those types of conflicts arising down the road. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated there is a triangle of property at the intersection of SR 736 and SR 38 that is owned by Mr. Morrison.  Every so often the question pops up, what do we do with this property.  It is currently zoned AR.  There is a person who came into my office and asked if this property could be zoned commercial.  Mr. Schulze stated he told them probably not, because of the way the road system is.  If SR 736 were to ever be move then there would probably be a good chance of getting it zoned commercial because the rest of the adjoining land is already commercial. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated he would like to ask that the commission take a look at this property and determine what is best for this land.  No one is going to build a house on that corner.  It can’t be industrial.  Commercial has potential access problems. 

 

Mr. Roush stated this particular property had a zoning change request before the commission.  Mr. Schulze stated he believes there was but we were asked because a new zoning code was coming out and we were asked to wait.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated it was his understanding that SR 736 was going to bend such that it would be perpendicular to SR 38 and that property would then be used for the road.  Mr. Schulze stated no, the City already owns a separate 60’ strip of land. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated if anyone buys this and builds a building, they could end up with the back of the building to the road. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he does not know why we can’t create a win win situation. 

 

Mr. Bergwall asked if the road was changed, who owns the abandoned road strip.  Mr. Roush stated until the city gave up their highway rights, it would still be owned by the city.  Once that happened it would probably be half and half. 

 

Mr. Kraus stated he understands all of the discussion of the road, but when it comes to zoning, what is the best purpose of the land. 

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Approval of Final Plat – Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co.- tabled from 7-3-06

 

Mr. Schulze stated Mr. Steinfels and himself met with the banks this morning, however, they are still not ready to post the bond and pay the parkland fees.  He stated he is asking for a one month continuance on the final plat approval. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated in the minutes of the last meeting Mr. Steinfels was concerned about asphalt plants closing down and being able to get the sit work done.  Mr. Schulze stated he is very anxious to get this project started before the winter sets in.  Mr. Seymour stated it doesn’t appear that he is going to get that done, so is a one month extension long enough.  Mr. Schulze stated he is very close to getting this done.

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to table this item until the October regular meeting.

 

Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mr. Bergwall          Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes

Mr. Cunningham    Yes    Mr. Griffin   Yes

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Acceptance of Final Plat - Woods at Mill Valley North Phase 1 Part 11- filed by R.D. Zande and Associates

 

Mr. Roush stated they have everything in order and would recommend that the Planning Commission accept the filing of the final plat.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated in this area there is a park, when will the park come about.  The reason this is being brought up is with the market slowing down, when will the park come about and what is there to make sure the park will come.

 

Mrs. Cunningham stated she believes that the zoning obligation was that when all of the phases adjacent have been platted, the park will then be transferred to the city.  The next phase to be platted is Phase 12 and that is the last adjacent phase to the park.  So it should be next year, because we have to bring the next phase in next year to continue with the preliminary plat.  She stated at that time the park will be transferred to the city.

 

Mr. Roush stated that is also when the path and benches, park improvements, will be done.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked what happens if a down turn continues.  Mrs. Cunningham stated they have an interest in continuing with their final plats, because if they don’t their preliminary plat will then be void and the zoning requirements have changed.  She stated she doesn’t believe it was addressed in the beginning.

 

Mr. Kraus stated he would encourage Dominion to not wait until the Phase 12 final plat.  It would help the image and would be a good will item.  Mrs. Cunningham stated she would pass that information along.

 

Mr. Seymour made a motion to accept the Final Plat - Woods at Mill Valley North Phase 1 Part 11.

 

Mr. Bergwall          Yes    Mr. Seymour         Yes    Mr. Cunningham    Yes   

Mr. Griffin   Yes    Mr. Kraus    Yes   

 

Zoning Amendment – 2.86 acres on Coleman’s Crossing from Township zoning to TOC- located behind the Shoppe’s of Marysville (Applebee’s) - filed by Faye Cox

 

Mr. Schulze stated this is one of the little pockets of township zoning that we are getting rid of.   We are requesting that this be zoned to TOC.  This property is two-thirds surrounded by TOC zoning and the other is SD-1.  He stated there is a contract in place for a bank to go on part of this property. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated he feels TOC is appropriate for this land.  Mr. Cunningham stated he agrees.

 

Mr. Kraus stated SD-1 was created to be a combination of both industrial and commercial businesses.  If you look at the zoning map, TOC goes along East 5th Street.  He stated he agrees with TOC being the best zoning. 

 

Mr. Seymour asked if anyone looked at distances.  Mr. Kraus stated Mrs. Penhorwood looked at the lot requirements and they are identical.  Mr. Seymour asked if anyone looked at the distance to the closest church.  Mrs. Penhorwood asked if it was in regards to a SOB going in.  Mr. Seymour stated yes.

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated she did not specifically look at it but you do have Harold Lewis Schools and the daycare across the street.  She stated the other reason she believes they would be prohibited is because there is a business on E. 5th Street called Kathy’s Korner which was inspected and have to remove items because they were within the radius of the school.

 

Mr. Schulze stated they could put in deed restrictions that would eliminate the potential for that type of business.

 

Mr. Kraus stated TOC is the best use of the land, and if there is a SOB then we will have to deal with it.

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to recommend to city council that these 2.86 acres be rezoned to TOC.

 

Mr. Seymour         Yes    Mr. Cunningham    Yes    Mr. Griffin   Yes   

Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mr. Bergwall          Yes   

 

Mr. Bergwall asked if there were discussion going on about having access from Charles Lane back to 5th Street through this property.  Mr. Roush stated there have been discussion and have asked for them to leave a 60’ ROW for a road to connect to Fifth Street.

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

 

General Issues

 

Mr. Cunningham state he knows Mr. Bergwall sent out an e-mail regarding special meetings.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he received feedback from Mrs. McCoy and in general she stated she doesn’t like the idea of special meetings, but if we are to have one it should be scheduled during the 3rd week of the month and that $500.00 would cover the cost of the meeting.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated Mr. Kraus made comment that it should be in section 1105.  He stated the reason he did not put it there was because he did not find a place that it fit well.  He stated he asked Mrs. McCoy to look into that and she suggested it should go somewhere around the final plat.  He stated this would subtlety give them the impression that this goes with final plats without writing it into the language and imposing this upon ourselves.  The other section it falls under would be 1100 for the cost of the meeting.

 

Mr. Seymour stated if there is a meeting request then we would not be able to conduct any other business on that night because they are paying for the meeting.  Mr. Bergwall stated it doesn’t say that.  Mr. Kraus stated ethically Mr. Seymour is correct.

 

Mr. Kraus stated you have to be really careful with this because if party A pays the fee and then party B wants to tag along for free, what do you do.  He stated he could see, not with this group, but a planning commission waiting for a developer to request a meeting and pay the fee and then conduct all sorts of business after the developer leaves.  That is no ethically correct either. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated to him that is efficient.  If we had need for a special meeting then we would call one on our own, but if we are meeting and it is a 10 min. item, I would ethically feel awkward about not making the meeting more efficient than the one item.  Mr. Kraus stated that is the situation in which he would go with the concept of waiving the fee.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated his concern would be the legality of even doing this.

 

Mr. Schulze stated you do have to be careful the fee is to just to cover the cost.  If more than one developer wants a meeting on that night do you charge them each the fee or do they split the fee amongst them?

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the way this is worded is they have to have an item on the agenda at the regular meeting and then request their special meeting then.  He stated if there is more than one developer that request a meeting that night, then they should split the cost of the meeting.  The $500.00 is intended to cover the entire cost of the meeting. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated he doesn’t think there is any problem with the concept.  The developers are competing.  If they are putting in similar projects they may not be flexible to another developer and agreeing on a date.

 

Mr. Seymour stated this is general a rare occasion.  We have special meetings all of the time and if some developer has a reasonable request for a special meeting and we are already having one, we typically accommodate.  I don’t understand why we are creating legislation for this.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated developers that request a special meeting now are told if we have a special we will put you on the agenda.

 

Mr. Kraus stated Mr. Bergwall feels that is discriminatory.  We are looking for a mechanism that says when we don’t have a special meeting but there is a legitimate need there. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated we typically don’t determine if we are going to have a special meeting until the end of the regular meeting. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated the first order of business if that we have a regular meeting once a month. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated you have to also think whether or not you are creating a meeting on demand.  Mr. Kraus stated that is why he wanted it to say final plat only.  We don’t want the developer to control our calendar. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he is seeing a lot more cons vs. pros in doing this legislation.  We have a lot of work to do.  We do typically have special meetings to get these items done.  I am not sure it is worth the overall effort.

 

Mr. Kraus stated he would like to see the cost justification on the $500.00.  It seems to be high. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he wanted to see the breakdown of the cost.  He stated Mr. Seymour is not in favor of this legislation and asked Mr. Griffin what his thoughts were.  Mr. Griffin stated he agrees with Mr. Seymour. 

 

Mr. Cunningham asked Mrs. Penhorwood to look and see if there are other cities that have this type of legislation.  He stated this should be put on the ‘To Do’ list.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked if the commission was going to have a special meeting this month.  Commission decided to hold a special meeting on September 20th at 6:30.

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:

 

Pete Griffin- None

 

Roger Yoder- Absent

John Cunningham - None

Alan Seymour - None

Ken Kraus- He stated things that need to be added to the ‘To Do’ list are the SR 736 and SR 38 property zoning and the special meeting item.

Don Bergwall – He stated he went to the meeting on Farm Friendly Zoning.  He stated it was interesting but nothing new was learned.  Mr. Bergwall gave details of the meeting.

 

Mr. Griffin stated there are two new schools that are to be built on land that is not currently in the city.  Has the City taken an official stand on this?

 

Mr. Roush stated Mrs. House sent a letter to the schools last week on the City’s position on this matter.

 

ADJOURNMENT:      

 

Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.