PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2006

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dennis Schulze, Catherine Cunningham, Faye Cox, Phil Roush and Tammy Penhorwood, Secretary.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Planning Commission Meeting- October 2, 2006- Mr. Seymour made a motion to approve the minutes as written.  Voice vote was unanimous.  Motion passed.

 

Planning Commission Special Meeting- October 16, 2006- Mr. Bergwall stated there were a couple of corrections on page two, second paragraph from the bottom, second sentence.  It should read, “He stated the property owner made the comment that they noticed a problem with traffic flow out there because all they could do off of SR 31 is a right in.  There is no right out.”  Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Voice vote was unanimous.  Motion passed.

 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: 

 

Mr. Roush introduced Mr. Brian Palmer to the commission as the new Assistant City Engineer.  He stated Mr. Palmer was a member of the Planning Commission in 2003-2004.  Mr. Roush stated the city has also hired a City Planner, Greg DeLong, who will be starting on November 20th.

 

Mr. Seymour asked Mr. Roush what is the status of South Park.  Mr. Roush stated there was a meeting this morning and the hope is that by the end of the week there will be equipment in the park working on the issues. 

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS:  None

 

OLD BUSINESS:  None

 

Approval of Final Plat – Galbury Meadows – filed by Mid-Ohio Holding Co.- tabled from 10-2-06

 

Mr. Dennis Schulze stated the financing for the project is still being worked on.  We are back to four banks from three.  He stated they may be up to the 42 lots in the original phase one.  He stated we don’t know if we are going to come to you with 20 or 42 lots for the first phase.  He stated we need a little more time to get all of the things in order.  He stated he is going to ask for a month extension.

 

Mr. Kraus stated because of the way this project has gone, does it make sense to table this  project until the spring with the stipulation that if all documents needed are turned in in sufficient time to make a regular meeting agenda, then it is deemed sufficient enough to bring it off of the table. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated they don’t have a problem with that.  He stated they would really like to get it in sometime this year. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated this would avoid the project coming back monthly. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated it would help if we have a little bit of flexibility.  This project is not going to end like the other one.  It just takes a lot of planning to get the financing going.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked Mrs. Penhorwood when the preliminary plat was approved.   Mrs. Penhorwood stated she is not sure off hand, but it doesn’t make a difference at this point because the code states they have 12 months to file the final plat and that has been done.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he does not see the disadvantage in postponing it on a month by month basis.  Be it represented or be it via a message to get the status of the project.  Putting it far out and not knowing the status, it wouldn’t take that much time to do it month to month.

 

Mr. Schulze stated they could submit something to Mrs. Penhorwood each month if that would help.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated you are asking for a month to month tabling an opposed to Mr. Kraus’s suggestion of tabling it until the spring.  Mr. Bergwall stated he doesn’t see the real advantage of pushing it far out and then if they can come in sooner then they can come in sooner.  I just rather take the action and agree that is okay for them to go another month. 

 

Mr. Seymour stated what it would do is set a precedence that we tend to go that route on other projects.  He stated the monthly updates are not a bad idea to keep the project in check.  It may not have to be a part of the agenda, just something in writing letting us know the status. 

 

Mr. Schulze stated he can’t see this going past December.  Mr. Bergwall asked Mr. Schulze what his request is.  Mr. Schulze stated it is to postpone this to February with the option of coming in earlier. 

 

Mr. Bergwall made a motion to table the approval of Final Plat for Galbury Meadows, at the request of the representative, until the regular meeting in February unless the developer can provide the necessary information in time to make a prior agenda. 

 

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

Mr. Cunningham    Yes    Mr. Griffin   Yes    Mr. Soller    Yes

 

Motion passed

 

Approval of Final Plat - Woods at Mill Valley North Phase 1 Part 11- filed by R.D. Zande and Associates – tabled from 10-2-06

 

Mr. Roush stated the administration would recommend approval of the final plat.  He stated we have received the appropriate bond for this project. 

 

Mrs. Cunningham stated she is here for the approval of part 11 of the Woods at Mill Valley North.  She stated the final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat and therefore asks for approval.

 

Mr. Kraus asked Mrs. Cunningham if she had any discussion with Dominion regarding the walking path in the park.  Mrs. Cunningham stated she did have discussion with them regarding making park improvements in advance of when it was regularly scheduled.  They stated they are not able to do this at this time.  It is in the plans to do this, but with the rate of the building market right now it’s not feasible.  They are already making improvements in advance for a slower market and they just don’t feel that they are able to advance any additional infrastructure improvements.  They recognize that it is their responsibility with the next phase to dedicate the land to the city as a park and make those infrastructure improvements. 

 

Mr. Seymour asked if there was a forecast for the next section.  Mrs. Kraus stated it would be within a year or they loose their preliminary plat zoning protection. 

 

Mr. Bergwall asked along with the next phase have you conveyed to them the potential that the length of the blocks are not in compliance with the code.  Mrs. Cunningham stated she did generally alert them that they should be talking with Mr. Roush in advance of that submission.  She stated their obligation is to be in compliance with the preliminary plat and they are the blocks that were shown on the preliminary plat.  She stated she is not sure it falls within the definition of a block. 

 

Mr. Bergwall stated he just wants to make them aware in advance so when they do come in it doesn’t delay the project.  He stated he thinks the commission has been negligent in that area in past phases, but that does not mean that we should continue to be negligent now that we are aware of it. 

 

Mr. Soller stated there was some land behind Chiprock that was to be designated for part of the walking path, has that been dedicated to the City.  Mrs. Cunningham stated the obligation of Dominion on the plats as they have come forward is that when the last phase that is adjacent to the park is platted then they are to make the park improvements and dedicate it to the city as a park.  The next phase is the last phase adjacent to the park, so that is when they are obligated to do the improvements.

 

Mr. Roush stated he thinks the question Mr. Soller is asking is about the property between Mill Wood Blvd. and this section.  There is another section that has not been dedicated to the city yet.  He stated there have been discussions with Dominion but we have not received the deed to the property yet.

 

Mr. Cunningham asked if it was part of Woods of Mill Valley North or the Woods of Mill Valley.  Mr. Roush stated it was the Woods of Mill Valley.  Mrs. Cunningham stated that is not part of this.  She stated it has been completely built. 

 

Mr. Kraus asked if the Planning Commission has already approved the preliminary plat for the remaining phases and if it was approved with block lengths longer than the code permits, what is the legal status in terms of making adjustments after the fact.  Mr. Roush stated he would pass the question on to Mr. Aslaner.

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the final plat for the Woods of Mill Valley North Phase 1 Part 11 as presented.

 

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

Mr. Griffin   Yes    Mr. Soller    Yes    Mr. Kraus    Yes   

 

Motion passed

 

Approval of Final Plat – Chestnut Park – filed by David Walker, ME Companies -Tabled from 8-7-06

 

Mr. Schulze stated they do not have a buyer for the Chestnut Park project yet.  If we had someone waiting in the wings for this project we would be begging and pleading but we don’t.  We are probable going to have to start over with a new preliminary plat when we get a buyer.  We are not ready to proceed.

 

Mr. Roush stated Mr. Kraus was in earlier with the question of if we abandon this process at this point, what does that mean for the TIF.  Mr. Roush asked Mrs. Penhorwood to relay the information she received from Mr. Morehart to the commission.  Mrs. Penhorwood stated Mr. Morehart was not absolutely sure on the answer, there were a couple of people he needed to check with.  He was unable to do this in the short amount of time given.  She stated what he did believe would happen, is that the TIF is based on property taxes and the city would still receive the money from the undeveloped land.

 

Mr. Schulze stated he would like to ask for a one month extension to work out the details of what would happen with the TIF.

 

Mr. Kraus made a motion to table this project to the regular December meeting at the request of the developer.

 

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

Mr. Soller    Yes    Mr. Kraus    Yes    Mr. Bergwall                  Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

NEW BUSINESS:  None

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

 

General Issues

 

Mr. Cunningham asked if there were any updates on any of the items on the To Do List.

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:

 

Ken Kraus- None

Don Bergwall – He stated relative to the previous discussion going from preliminary plat to final plat.  If we can’t entertain changes between the two then my previous comments were inappropriate but if all we are doing is rubber stamping something as it goes from one phase to the next, I would like to understand it better.  Mr. Cunningham stated when we were crafting the revision to the process, we wanted to make sure the preliminary was the point were we considered all aspects of the code and make sure the developer and the plans were in compliance with the code.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated in this particular case for this development half of this commission was not a member when this preliminary plat was run through.  He stated we have all become a little brighter in the mean time as well.  We might set a bad precedence by saying if we find something later there is nothing we can do about it.  We also have to be fair and not creating a hardship.  He stated he would like to get a legal opinion to find out for sure if we can do something at this point.

 

Mr. Seymour stated until we approve the final plat, if we have a chance to make something better, we should be able to make the change. 

 

Pete Griffin – He stated he went out to Coleman’s Crossing and looked at the new retail center that is built.  It looks quite nice but thinks everyone should drive around it now that it is up, so we can understand what we have approved.  The other thing is that there is a major grade change where the landscaping is on the rear of the property.  We just need to make sure we are comfortable with the end product so we know what to do for future projects. 

Roger Yoder - absent

John Cunningham - None

Alan Seymour - None

Pat Soller – He stated he would like to reinforce that the property in Woods at Mill Valley should be pursued with diligence to get it dedicated to the city.  He stated in regards to the TIF, he believes it would still be in place even if it stays as agricultural land. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he would like to set up a time for a special meeting.  We need to continue our work on our special projects.  Decision made to hold the meeting on the 29th at 6:30 to go over items that were on the last special meeting agenda.

 

Mrs. Penhorwood stated she just wanted to remind the commission that since the rewriting of the Design Review Code it makes the Planning Commission responsible for the landscaping plans for subdivisions.  This item will be coming before the commission next month.  She asked the commission if they could look at the process for amending PUD’s. It is not spelled out in the code.

 

ADJOURNMENT:      

 

Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.