PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Roger Yoder, Don Bergwall, Ken Kraus, Pat
Soller, Pete Griffin, John Cunningham, Alan Seymour
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pat Harmon, Myrtle Conrad, Linda Farnlacher, Don and Nina Noblit,
Tom and Jeanne Huch, Catherine Cunningham, Dave Cook,
Ed Starling, John Marshall, Jim Page, Andy Clarridge,
Dennis Schulze, Dan Fitzgerald, Joseph Whinnery,
Melody Whinnery, Sharon Dearwester,
Bill Kelley, Mr. and Mrs. W. Pitt, Prisilla Gallogly,
Myron Gallogly, Gary Schmidt, Brian Palmer, Greg DeLong, and Tammy Penhorwood-
Secretary
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
Planning Commission Special Meeting-
September 17, 2007- Mr. Kraus stated on page two, third paragraph, “Mr.
Bergwall stated that he stated…”, the second stated should be started.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the
minutes as amended. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion
Passed.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 1,
2007- Mr. Kraus stated on page 3, fifth sentence, concerning should be
concerned. Mr. Bergwall stated on page
2, first paragraph, second line, was should be what. Mr. Kraus stated page 16 at the end of big
paragraph, fifth line up, the word than should be
added before “a vague”. In the last
sentence of the same paragraph just should be jest. He stated on page 18, discussion items, Mr.
Kraus… met, not got, with Mr. DeLong.
Mr. Cunningham made a motion to approve the
minutes as amended. Voice vote was
unanimous. Motion Passed.
Planning Commission Special Meeting – October
10, 2007- Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion Passed.
ADMINISTRATION
COMMENTS:
Mr. DeLong stated in the packets there is a
letter from the
Mr. Bergwall made a motion to rearrange the
agenda. Revision to
Approved Final Development Plan for The Oaks should be first, Recommendation
Approval of Sketch Plan in Principle- Cooks Crossing second, and Recommendation
to City Council new Chapter 1110- Property Owners Associations is last.
CITIZEN
COMMENTS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Revision to
Approved Final Development Plan for The Oaks- filed by
Myron Gallogly
Mr. Gallogly stated the drawing before you is the page of the development
plan which includes street lights. I
have intended from the beginning to have the two monuments out front on either
side of the driveway. They are on a
separate service which will be billed to the home owners association
(HOA). The City standard requires a
street light out in front of the two monuments.
In meeting with URE staff we came up with this plan for the
lighting. The issue is having the street
light in front of the monument lighting.
In working out the details of the street lighting, we moved a light at
an intersection to across the street and would like to remove the light that
would be next to it. The third is a
light in the cul-de-sac, rather than have a light at the entrance of the
cul-de-sac and having one at the back of it we would like to remove one.
Mr. Palmer stated when the City staff reviewed this change, we decided
that since there was discussion about street lighting during the approval of
the development that it was an item that needed to be brought back before
you. As far as going through City
Council, this change will be reported to them and they can make the decision as
to whether or not they want to see it back.
He stated we do not have any problems with the plan; it all comes back
to being part of a final development plan.
He stated he is currently working with the electric companies to come up
with verbiage for a plan note that can be added to all plans to hopefully avoid
this situation in the future.
Mr. Seymour stated as far as lighting distribution, engineering is fine
with the proposed plan? Mr. Palmer
stated yes.
Mr. Bergwall stated because you are looking at changing the number of
lights, I think it is good that it comes back before us and get approval in a
public setting. All of this makes sense
to me except the one at the entrance on SR 38.
If your monument lights are lighting the intersection of SR 38 and
Mr. Kraus asked what type of lighting was going to be on the monument.
Mr. Gallogly stated it will be two large fixtures that will have 4 bulbs
in each one housed in clear glass.
Mr. Seymour asked will there be enough ambient light.
Mr. Bergwall asked what the height of the lights would be.
Mr. Gallogly stated the monuments are almost 6’ and the lights are
another 2.5’ and the base is 3’ above the street.
Mr. Cunningham stated the ultimate question is will the street be well
lit. He stated he doesn’t care about the
monuments.
Mr. Gallogly stated the light in the front is a no brainer. The entrance is lighted, the street is
lighted, why would you put a stupid pole out in front
of the monuments.
Mr. Seymour stated you have apparently talked to the experts and all have
agreed that it will light the intersection.
Mr. Bergwall stated he was under the assumption that you were talking
about new monuments and new lighting that would be directional to the
monument.
Mr. Gallogly stated no they were there for 10 years. We had to take one down to put the street
in. We are going to recreate one to
match the old one. I am not sure why we
are even having this discussion. I am
baffled by your comment.
Mr. Cunningham stated you are making some assumptions. It is obvious that it is not clear to the
seven members sitting here and that is obviously reason for discussion.
Mr. Yoder stated he wanted to make it clear, Mr. Page’s letter stated
that URE made the comment that it is excessive lighting. In talking to the employees of URE that have
been working on this project, we don’t necessarily feel that it is excessive we
just felt that it would be more logical with the changes.
Mr. Griffin made a motion to approve the changes to the Final Development
Plan as presented.
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder As
an employee of URE he abstained Mr.
Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion passed
Mr. Gallogly stated while I have your attention, there are a couple of
other issues that I don’t want to become issues later, that I would like your
consideration on. He stated the City has
a standard template for street trees, street lawn, sidewalk, etc. In the plans we have conceded against my
judgment to have sidewalks. He stated he
would like the commission to consider some photos, of the subdivision as
completed which if we put the sidewalks in the spacing that is called for in
the standard plan, we would be eliminating at least half a dozen mature White
Oaks, a mature Walnut and a couple of Hickory’s. My only reason for bringing this up is so
that we don’t have a problem like we are having right now of being a deviation
to the plan. As far as I am concerned, a
sidewalk can go around a mature tree. I
am not going to cut down a mature Walnut to put a sidewalk in. I have conceded that I will have
sidewalks. In the photos there are a
significant amount of mature trees that we would need to take out. It seems to be an engineering deviation to
take a sidewalk around a tree instead of through the tree. Personally I will not cut down a mature
Walnut to put the sidewalk in.
Mr. Seymour stated you are approaching a different topic. Hopefully this can be worked out with
administration.
Mr. Palmer stated he can not comment because he has not seen the photos.
Mr. Kraus stated our role is to make sure the sidewalks are there.
Mr. Gallogly stated he is not arguing that the sidewalks not be
there. I don’t want an issue in the
future that the sidewalks are not in the right place. I am not asking for action on this item.
Mr. Gallogly stated there is another issue that I don’t want to be an
issue and that is the existing monument on the south side is in the City
ROW. I don’t want someone to come and
say that it has to be moved. To balance
that monument it has been our intention to build another one on the north
side. That monument will be within the
easement but not in the way of any services.
I want to make sure there won’t be any issues with this.
Mr. Seymour stated he assumes this has been addressed with the City.
Mr. Gallogly stated they have pointed out that it is in the City
ROW. It may be an issue to someone but
it is not an issue to me. If someone has
to tear down the monument in the future, fine.
Mr. Seymour stated they will be the responsibility of the HOA. Mr. Gallogly stated correct.
Mr. Kraus stated in regards to the street light issue, I don’t think it
needs to go to City Council.
Mr. Seymour stated it would go if it is part of the development plan.
Mrs. Penhorwood stated we will get an opinion from the City Law Director
regarding this matter.
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval of
Sketch Plan in Principle- Cooks Crossing - filed by Patricia Harmon of Bird Houk Collaborative, Inc.-
tabled from 10-1-07 meeting
Mr. David Cook
stated we have enlisted the help of Mrs. Catherine Cunningham to help us in
this process.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated after the last meeting she was contacted by the Cook’s to join their
team and help them through the process.
She stated since the last meeting I heard the comments from the meeting,
read the minutes, met with staff, Eric Phillips about the regional concerns and
met with Mr. Schulze and Mrs. Cox who are representing the Clark Addition. I was trying to get an understanding of the
process through your code. When I looked
the code provisions for what the sketch plan requires one of the things that
struck me was the level of detail that you require at the sketch plan and the
significant detail that was provided to you for the sketch plan. It seems that there was some frustration in
comparing what the project is requesting vs. what is required by standard
regulations in your code. What I asked
Bird-Houk to do was to give more of a general
overview. That is why we are here today
is to have a conversation about understanding where we need to be. We would like to get an idea of how you feel
about the overall general concept of the layout, roads, use areas and then come
back to you. We met with staff in hopes
that we would have some amended things to submit to you in advance, but decided
that we didn’t have enough direction.
What we would like to come away with today is either an approval of the
concept so that we can come back to you with preliminary detail, understanding
that it is only conceptual. Or at least
have some clear direction about what level of detail you want.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated there were two handouts that Mr. Schmidt will go through with you. One is the sub area plan which has changed
slightly. The other is a chart that
hopefully will give a better overview of how things will work together.
Mr. Gary Schmidt stated I think were we left off last time was you
wanted to see where we were deviating from your standards. The chart shows the sub areas, what district
it is related to, permitted uses, conditional uses, minimum lot size, etc. If the box on the chart is white we are
meeting your standards, if it is blue we are exceeding your standards and if it
is purple we are less than your standards.
If we are less, it is very minor.
The Cook Book has a lot more detail in it. We would like to get back to that level of
detail, but it seemed like a bit much for sketch plan.
Mr. Schmidt
stated as far as the changes on the sub area map, there are changes in response
to the comments we heard from this commission but mostly from the Union County
Economic Development Director. There is
a concern that there is too much retail.
We have tightened it up and are requiring more office. The other change is the pond was a separate sub
area. Now the pond is part of sub area
B. They are all little changes but they
affect it a lot. If this looks good to
you then the next step would be to work with staff to reformat the text.
Mr. Kraus stated
he has a comment that is to be addressed as we move forward. In sub area A for example it states all TOC
except… We are in the process of going
through all of our districts and reviewing all of the permitted uses in the
districts. At some point you either need
to be specific with all the uses you want or know that if changes are made to
TOC you will have a change in your plan.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated they have discussed this themselves and where
we left it is at this point the best thing to do is to refer to your code and
pointing out the differences. We are
inclined to incorporate your code uses but specifically call out code uses that
we would not want to change. The counter
of that is rather daunting. The thought
was that we would include generally the classifications in the districts understanding
that as the district changes the classifications would change. Otherwise you are going to have a PUD
document that is overwhelmingly complex.
Mr. Schmidt made
a comment that was inaudible.
Mr. Seymour
asked if they have had a chance to calculate the percentage shift from
commercial to office with the restructuring of some of the sub areas.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated there were a couple of changes that were a direct result from the
conversation with Mr. Phillips. It was
the changing in the sub area of B2. One
of Mr. Phillips suggestions was to make the 7.9 acre, the 3.4 acre and the 2.6
acre areas less retail and more office.
The idea was to deintensify the retail there
and make it more office and restaurants.
Mr. Seymour
stated since this is an issue that is looked at closely, I think we need to
spend a little more time on this area, such as the percentage of retail vs.
office with the new breakdown.
Mr. Schmidt made
a comment that was inaudible.
Mr. Kraus stated
another item to look at is OR is permitted in some areas and it permits single
family which has not been excluded.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated she thought they had excluded that.
Mr. Schmidt made
a comment that was inaudible.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated her hope is that these details can be worked out in the preliminary
stage. She stated a couple of other
changes you will see in the sub area plan are that Mr. Roush had comments
regarding connectivity to the property to the north. There was a road in the center which has been
changed to two roads one farther to the east and one to the west.
Mr. Schmidt made
a comment that was inaudible.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated there was also a little shift in the cul-de-sac making it closer to the
Clark Addition to allow for the emergency access without a road
connection. The developer is not
proposing a through street to the Clark Addition.
Mr. Yoder stated
in regards to the property to the north of the subdivision that has been
designated as residential, an issue that was raised at the last meeting is that
if it is designated as such it could have an impact as to how the Fitzgerald
property to the north can be developed.
The Fitzgerald property would then have to develop into something
compatible with the residential. He
stated he is wondering if there has been conversation with the Fitzgerald’s,
staff or Mr. Phillips as to how they see that sub area developing. Maybe it is not best to be residential.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated they have not talked to the Fitzgerald’s but we have talked to Mr.
Phillips and he was supportive of and liked the multi-family.
Mr. Schmidt made
a comment that was inaudible.
Mr. Seymour
stated he is not as inclined to have residential that dense, because it is
already a highly populated area.
Mr. Griffin
stated he would concur with Mr. Seymour, he doesn’t see the need for a
residential area as large as what is shown on the map.
Mr. Bergwall stated he has expressed reservation about having the
residential to the north. It kind of
caps this area and the central corridor between SR 31 and SR 4, if we keep it
all office and keeping the residential out of it would make more sense. Especially with the amount of traffic that
section of Mill Wood is going to have against the two large commercial
pieces. The only thing that would seem
to make sense from a residential standpoint might be some multi-level condos
with commercial on the first floor.
Mr. Schmidt
stated it is kind of unusual for us to be thinking of the land to the north
since it is not in your city. However,
if I assume that it is in the city limits, there is a limit to the amount of
commercial, office and retail that you are going to see out here in this part
of town. Especially with what is
happening on US 33 as we move towards
Mr. Kraus stated
a couple of things he would like the developer to think about for the next time
back. One is that he would like to see a
one or two page delineation of the buffering around the Clark Addition. The other one is for your consideration, you
have two public roads going to the north and your current multi-family is about
19.55% of the developable acres. What
would happen if on the two public roads you had an additional 5 or six acres on
the opposite side of the road that was also commercial, having a little less
multi-family but still leave some there.
It would give commercial along the access corridors.
Mr. Cook stated
he would like to do the entire development in the north commercial. He stated if you look at the demand we felt
that it would be too much commercial for Marysville to take on.
Mr. Bergwall
stated we tend to look at two things.
The first objective has to be what is the proper zoning, what is the
proper land use for this property long term.
The marketability of what is best for long term land use may not be
totally compatible with that but needs to be given fair consideration. From a planning standpoint we need to look at
what is the best for this land for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Griffin
stated he thinks there is an issue that has not been talked about and that is
traffic. He stated he knows that City is
going to be spending money on a traffic study and that thinking has to be
incorporated into this whole thing. I
think it would be terrible if we got embarked on this thing and then found out
that the traffic of the future is going to be different than it is now. We all know that the traffic is horrendous in
this area now. It is only going to be a
whole lot worse. I don’t think you
should be jumping into things until the traffic thing is understood, because it
may mean a relocation of some of your infrastructure.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated she expects that these are things that would be talked about more at the
preliminary and final development plan stage.
Mr. Griffin
stated he understands that it is just something he feels we need to keep in
mind as we move forward.
Mr. Seymour
stated at the recent City Council meeting there were comments regarding this
development. Some comments were relative
to the comprehensive plan. I am sure you
have already heard these comments from Mr. Phillips. A requirement of a PUD is that you do a
document as to why you are developing the PUD outside of the normal district
regulation method. In other words what
benefits does this bring for the community and it would align with how does
this align or not align with the comprehensive plan. Why does this proposal make more sense? This is a requirement of the PUD. This may respond to City Councils concern
about more retail than office which is in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated with the initial submission of the Cook Development Text, that was
included as part of the letter and in the general introduction. How do I get that to you?
She stated she
doesn’t have a problem getting that to you, I’m just trying to understand the
format you want it in and when you want it.
Mr. Seymour
stated he is sure it is part of the Sketch Plan requirement.
Mr. Kraus stated
supplemental PUD sketch plan requirements 1145.09 (a) 9, is what Mr. Seymour is
asking you to address.
Mrs. Cunningham
asked do you want a written presentation on that.
Mr. Seymour
stated yes.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated something she would like some clarification on is the distinction
between commercial and retail. The way
you talk about these terms and the way I understand them in your code are not
necessarily the same.
Mr. Seymour stated
commercial is used in a broad sense. The
distinctions I’ve heard in regards to the development are between commercial
and office.
Mr. DeLong
stated he has always thought of commercial and retail to be very similar.
Mr. DeLong
stated on the new sub area map the A1 area in the legend now states that
commercial is allowed where before it was just corporate office.
Mr. Schmidt made
a comment that was inaudible.
Mr. Kraus stated
in order to help the applicant out a bit, if there are issues that they come up
with where you are not sure how we are using the terms or it may not be clear
in our definitions, I am not opposed to you having your own definition section
in your book.
Mr. Schmidt stated
he was trying to make it as close to our code as possible.
Mr. Seymour
stated the difficult part here is office vs. retail. By calling it commercial it leaves it
open. It provides greater flexibility
and I think that is the intent of the developer. The road block we are faced with is that we
want to know what percentage will be office and what percentage will be
retail.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated her frustration in trying to put together something is when I read your
code it looks like what your code is trying to get an applicant to do is to
define the PUD in terms of your code.
You want us to identify the uses based on the similar zoning district
and how whatever uses you are going to have deviate from the zoning
district. From an applicant standpoint
it makes it look like if we just conglomerate your existing classifications
together it would be the easiest way to go.
But since that is what was submitted before, it appeared that everyone
was unhappy with the definition of uses because it didn’t say what all the uses
were going to be. When you say you want
an office component and I look at the code I don’t find a zoning classification
that allows freeway orientated office.
Every classification you have has retail, office, and commercial
together in some format. There is a
reason for that generally and that is it is typically what works in land
use. It is very difficult to have a very
large tract and say it is going to be all office. Usually you see developments with all of the
uses mixed together and the reason you see that is because that is the way
property can reasonably develop. We are
trying to do this here and we are trying to do that in compliance with your
code but when I come to the meetings and listen to what everyone is stating and
the statement that the comprehensive calls for office here, you don’t have a
classification that calls for just office.
We want to work with you to get this in a way that everyone understands
and we are incompliance with your code.
I understand that you have a comprehensive plan that calls for office
here. I think it is unrealistic to think
that you can take 170 acres at this location, when you have things developing
down the
Mr. Bergwall stated the code we have to live and work with as the
guide. Your comments about the confusion
are appreciated because there may be things we need to address in that regard. The opportunity you have with the PUD is to
come up with something that is creative that best fits this site, meets the
needs of the community and provides a point of pride as this area develops for
the community. That then becomes
attractive and then competitive because of the way this was planned and
developed. You also have the latitude to
redefine some things or more clearly define them to what works for this
particular area. When I think about the
differences between office, commercial and retail, one
of the things that come to mind is the use from a traffic standpoint. When we first talked about A1, it was an
office area that employees came to for their point of work but not generally
open to the public. This makes the
traffic pattern more predictable. When
you move into more commercial office it is where services are rendered. Then you get into retail where people are
going in to buy stuff.
Mr. Seymour
stated I think what I’ve heard from the commission is that sub area A1 should
be office.
Mr. Soller
stated for the sketch plan the developer has laid out what should go into
related districts. As we go into
preliminary plat then we can get into permitted uses. I don’t think we should get caught up into
semantics of the title of each area, but look at the related district that is
going in there.
Mr. Seymour
stated in general I think we’ve heard less R-5.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he had heard that there was a layout of this area.
Mr. Schmidt
stated they did do an illustrative plan and it was based on a building
footprint, but we don’t know for sure what is going to go in there.
Mr. Cunningham
stated the reason he is asking is because he thinks the density we are going to
end up with in that acreage of land will probably be less than what we are
expecting just because of the layout of the land.
Mr. Schmidt
stated with 30 acres it is less than 20% of this site as residential. It will be a good transitional use for the property
to the north.
Mr. Griffin
stated he likes the comments Mr. Phillips made about the possibility of
revisiting the use of the land several years down the road.
Mr. Schmidt
stated either that or do not lock them in to tightly which is what we would normally
try to do with a PUD. No one knows what
the future is. We try to set the
parameters so that the things we want to see can occur. If we do the job right there is flexibility
for some of that to happen so we don’t have to rezone it in 3-4 years.
Mr. Seymour
stated in the B1 and B2 areas which is identified as Suburban Office. He stated his objection to the B areas is
having any residential at all.
Mr. Kraus stated
he didn’t know if going through each district was what should be done
tonight. I think they are trying to get
a general idea.
Mr. Seymour
stated the only other area in which City Council might challenge in relative to
the comprehensive plan is the C2 area.
You do have the entire area designated as retail.
Mr. Bergwall
stated he needed to understand what is being said. The C1 area is okay but the C2 area is not.
Mr. Seymour
stated he thinks the C2 area takes it over the
Mr. Cunningham
stated he doesn’t see the sustainability of just having one major retailer in
the C1 area and retail no where else.
Mr. Bergwall
stated relative to Mr. Seymour’s comment, for the way the traffic is going to
flow through there and what the intent is for the C1 property, I think the C2
for some other commercial building is very compatible and supportive.
Mr. Cunningham
stated one thing he wouldn’t want to see there is that Meijer put a big box on
the C1 area and then have to settle for strip mall type commercial on the C2
area. If the developer would define the
uses for the C2 area to prevent that type of area, I would be in favor of it.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated their hope is that if they come back next time we will have something in
a format that is deemed appropriate. If
you are not inclined tonight to approve the sketch plan, we would at least like
to be able to come back with a format that you would feel like you can make
some minor adjustments and approve it then.
We would like to move beyond the sketch plan stage.
Mr. Cunningham
stated Mr. Seymour asked for the written presentation which is required by code
but I think we already have it. The one
thing I think we haven’t seen is how this fits into the comprehensive plan, but
other than that I think everything is in there.
Mr. Schmidt
stated on the comprehensive plan, in my opinion we covered it in two ways. One was in the cover letter that I sent with
the application and the second was in the power point presentation that we
showed last month.
Mr. Bergwall stated there is one other question that I have in
regards to the sketch plan. It is still
not clear to me who the developer is.
The reason that is important is I want to know who is going to be the
enforcer to make sure each parcel is compatible from several standpoints. It needs to be made sure that you are not
just selling off lots and there is no one to make sure it is cohesive.
Mr. Schmidt
stated the Cook’s are the developers.
Everyone that buys a lot that will be bound by the development
text. As far as a POA, there will
probably be several.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated we own approximately the
same amount of acreage just to the north of this development. I am glad that a local person is developing
this land. We appreciate the fact that
the two roads were put in instead of the single road which lead to our
pond. What I want to make clear is I am
absolutely against the multi-family residential abutting property. I think it significantly decreases the values
of our land and the future developable possibilities of our land. The thought that all of this could not
develop into office space doesn’t make sense to me. What you are asking is for a bunch of
apartments with families and children that will try to cross the State Routes
to get to school. We know there is a
traffic problem. From a standpoint of
what is good for the town and the development, I can’t buy that this is a not a
better spot than A1 for offices. It has
access that the rest of the property doesn’t have. On the traffic, a traffic study was done but
didn’t consider 33, 4 and 31 and the interchange and how it affects the
property. I don’t know how you can make
any decisions without knowing the final result of the traffic study or the
final result of what is going to happen when it is fixed by the state. Lastly, I know this all is happening because
Meijer wants to buy this one piece of land.
Consider the fact that in the last 2 ½ years we’ve almost tripled the
available square footage of retail in this town. I would just like you to
consider these things.
Mr. Dennis Schulze stated he is representing the residents of the
Clark Addition. We have made a good
start on our involvement in this matter.
We have met with Mr. Cook, his attorney, and his engineer. We have met with committees from the Clark
Addition and had a meeting at the library.
Our purpose is for protection not protest. We are here to insure that their lives are
disrupted as little as possible. In
order to accomplish this we have hired Paul Clappsaddle. We have met with the City Attorney. We’ve met with the Township Trustees and in
fact we have to remember that this area of residents is not part of the city at
this time. We are concerned with surface
water run off, buffering, land uses, traffic, access, noise and lights, having
a professional development and maintenance.
We will continue to work with the developers. You know me I usually work with developers, I
understand development. I know it is not
our job to tell them what to put in there.
It is our job to express what we don’t want in there. We are not the ones that need to figure out
what economically make this thing work.
You mentioned about putting in all of the permitted uses in TOC which
would include a professional race track.
That puts a shock on the resident’s faces when I told them that it has
not been excluded yet. I don’t believe
for a minute that they intend to put in a race track. We are concerned about things way beyond the
sketch plan. I am not going to get into
all of them. Buffering is wonderful, mounds
and trees, but you are altering the landscape.
There are areas that if you don’t have good runoff we are going to
create as many problems as we eliminate.
The administration through City the Engineers office has made some
suggestions. They have talked about
moving the road up next to the Clark Addition.
I don’t think we are in favor of that.
They have also suggested that they don’t just want emergency access but
for the roads to connect. The residents
do not want that kind of traffic coming through their subdivision. We want to work with everyone but we need to
have the resident’s interest protected.
Mr. John Marshall stated he is a resident of
Mr. Schulze
stated he has already discussed this with the developer, but I also represent
Coleman’s Crossing. They are not crazy
about the name of this development. It
makes it very susceptible to confusion.
Mr. Seymour
asked the applicant what their request was for tonight.
Mrs. Cunningham
state she would be thrilled to have an approval of the sketch plan or if the
commission does not feel that is appropriate we will come back next month with
whatever format you feel is appropriate.
Mr. Seymour
stated there has been a lot covered and I know you have taken several pages of
notes. He stated his thought would be
that you digest that and make sure you are comfortable with what you propose.
Mr. Kraus stated
from his standpoint, we need to have some definitions as to what is commercial
vs. retail. The percentage as to what
the office vs. retail is going to be. I
understand it will be a range and an estimate.
I would like to see the document in 1145.09.
Mr. Cunningham
asked what part because he is not sure what is missing.
Mr. Kraus stated the part as to how it complies, goes along with the comp plan
and the benefits. There is more than
what we need in the development text. I
realize that it is early in the process but I would like to understand where
you see the Design Review and landscape portion being addressed.
Mr. Seymour
stated in the end we want success. That
means a development plan that is going to pass planning commission and city
council. I do recommend that we have a
joint session.
Mr. Cunningham
stated as far as what we have received so far, I think we’ve received everything
we’ve required. Unless we are telling
them something very specific to change on this plan, which I am not hearing,
they’ve given us everything.
Mr. Kraus stated
he thinks the things he is asking for is important for approving the sketch
plan. With a PUD it is more than just
the standard information. I am not clear
in the information that is supposed to be provided in 1145.09.
Mr. Bergwall
stated that is why he was asking questions earlier on the types of use. The long cul-de-sac which I initially did not
favor, with the emergency drive onto Echo Dr. and with the uses being geared
more towards office. The only
reservation is with regards to residential.
I was one of those that questioned the residential unless it is
something unique and that it would encompass less area.
Mr. Yoder stated
he agrees with Mr. Bergwall on the residential area. Also, the cul-de-sac area, we’ve talked about
it being an issue but we have never seen anything as an alternative. I think we should put this off for another
month and have the meeting with City Council.
Mr. Soller
stated according to our definition of sketch plan, I feel the applicant has
satisfied all of the requirements of the sketch plan. It states this is a step to give them an idea
of the directions to head. My
understanding is that the commission is comfortable with the concept of this
development with a few minor items. I
think it is going to be up to the applicant as to whether or not approval
tonight is going to save them time and expense in moving forward. If it is not going to save them time or
expense I would suggest that they table it.
Mr. Seymour
stated the sketch plan as you said is conceptual. If a line changes here or there relative to
the preliminary those things can occur.
Mr. Kraus stated
he thinks Mr. Soller is right on if you are talking about a standard
subdivision, sketch plan is strictly principle.
But because this is dealing with zoning issues and it is new to all of
us, I am not sure I am comfortable tonight but I think I can be at the next
meeting, especially if they can get us something in advance based on what we’ve
talked about tonight so we have a chance to look at it and digest it. He stated he thinks the chart that was
provided tonight was a great start but I just saw it tonight, it wasn’t given
to us in advance. I would be much more
comfortable if it were tabled until the next meeting.
Mr. Seymour
asked Mrs. Penhorwood if the applicant met the proper timelines and if they
have provided everything.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated as far as the information that was submitted tonight, it has not been
seen by anyone for review in administration.
With the submittal itself there are a few other things that I would need
for it to be official. If the two pages
they gave us tonight are the official record then there is information missing
per code. Trying to pull the information
from the original submittal and what they submitted tonight, I would ask that
they submit a collaboration of what they want for the official submittal.
Mr. Bergwall
stated relative to traffic in this area, Mr. Fitzgerald made a comment
regarding how can you look at this without looking at
traffic studies. I think it would be
fair to request from the engineering department some what ifs. There is only a certain amount of potential
that can happen relative to expansion for increased traffic. We are not going to find in some traffic
study that we are going to move SR 31 or SR 4, but we might be doing some lane
work and additional lights. It seems
like we should be able to say when the traffic situation gets to some point,
this is what is going to happen and it can be accommodated or there needs to be
some provisions made with this property to accommodate these what if’s. I don’t know if we need to have all the
specific data. Just that there is
adequate right-of-way and opportunities that will be able to handle additional
traffic.
Mr. Cunningham
stated in response to Mrs. Penhorwood’s comments,
when I read Mr. Schmidt’s letter, the book was submitted as the sketch plan and
what we received tonight was supplemental based on our comments at the last
meeting.
Mr. Schmidt
stated what we submitted tonight was not given through the proper channels. This is not new information, it is just
reformatted. We tried to simplify
this. We did do a traffic study and I
thought it was turned in.
Mr. Palmer stated the traffic study has been received. ODOT still looks at this as a rural intersection. This is something that we will have to work
with internally. The study is under
review and there are some general comments to be made.
Mr. Seymour
stated some open issues that I see are what is the retail vs. office shift in
relation to the comp plan, preference is the R-5 be reduced, residential is to
be eliminated in the descriptions and emergency ingress and egress was another
point. Mrs. Penhorwood had mentioned a
condition of incomplete information.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he disagrees, it is all in there.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated the reason for her comment was because in conversations with Mrs.
Cunningham prior to this meeting, she mentioned to me that since they have
submitted the development text book and they would, after talking to the
commission, decide which direction they would go. Whether it would be to retract the
development text book that was originally submitted and submit what was given tonight
as their submittal. These are the
conversation that I’ve had with Mrs. Cunningham. If what they submitted tonight is their
official submittal there are things that are missing. I don’t think it is up to me to make the
determination as to what needs to be pulled from the original submittal to go
with the stuff submitted tonight.
Everything needed is probably here in collaboration, but I need it all
together.
Mr. Kraus stated he would move that with the agreement of the applicant to table this item until the next regular meeting and in the interim provide us with a clean sketch plan submittal in advance so