PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
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, Roger Yoder
OTHERS PRESENT:
Catherine Cunningham, Timothy Hockworth, Desiree Rasmussin,
Jerry Turner, Jim Schiely, Dennis Schulze, Steve
Honeycutt, Kelly Dearwester, Sharon Dearwester, Sam Day, Chuck Day, Dave Cook, James Kennan,
Patty Harmon, Bob Muth, Erika Gibson, Jon and Lynda Fleisker, Ryan Horns, Joseph Whinnery,
Melody Whinnery, Charlie Fraas,
Eric Liehorntz, Remo
Williams, Larry Zimmerman, Steve and Deb Greenwalt,
Don Plank, Gary Schmidt, Jim Page, Dan Fitzgerald, Sandy Leiminger,
Mike Leiminger, Bill Pitt, Otto Beatty, Brian Palmer,
Greg DeLong, and Tammy Penhorwood- Secretary
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
Planning Commission Meeting- November 5,
2007- Mr. Kraus stated he met will Mrs. Penhorwood earlier today and gave her
some minor changes. Mr. Cunningham
stated his is on page 11, 7th paragraph, instead of the word “what”
to make it clearer, replace it with “the density”.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the
minutes as amended. Voice vote was
unanimous. Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATION
COMMENTS:
Mr.
DeLong stated he would like to remind people that if they have questions about
land use to contact the City. Some
people have been contacting the Chamber of Commerce and there has been
confusion as to what is being recommended.
The Chamber is the economic development for the city, not land use. Just to keep things consistent if you have
any questions regarding land uses please contact the Engineering department or
the Planning department.
Mr.
DeLong stated the other item he had is regarding the
January meeting. That night
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to move the January meeting to
Tuesday January 8th. Voice
vote was unanimous. Motion passed.
Mr.
Palmer stated all of the commission members should have received the e-mail
regarding the flood plains. They are
having a public meeting next week regarding this matter at the Union County
Commissioners office.
CITIZEN COMMENTS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval of
Sketch Plan in Principle- Cooks Crossing - filed by Patricia
Harmon of Bird Houk Collaborative, Inc.- tabled from 11-5-07 meeting
Mrs. Catherine
Cunningham stated we have been before the commission on this sketch plan on two
prior meetings. For the final submission
we tried to combine the first two submittals to come up with a complete
submittal that we can call the final sketch plan submittal. What we are hoping to hear from the
commission is to get an approval tonight with a concept to move forward
understanding that there are refinements that will come with the preliminary
development plan. The biggest change is
the articulation of the PUD objectives and how we feel we meet the objectives. We also tried to also outline the code
provisions and do a summary and direct the commission to what we believe
complies with the code. There have not
been any major changes from what we have submitted before. The most significant change is the change of
the phasing plan. It is something that
can be refined as we go through the preliminary development plan. As the commission is aware the developer has
a user which is Meijer. The concept is
that the road will be developed by them immediately followed by the Meijer
site. With your wanting development
within two years under your code the idea was that we would get the road in and
create the service accesses which would be closely followed by the development
of the Meijer site.
Mr. Seymour
stated the resubmittal was detailed and addressed the
bullets specifically. I am pleased with
what I saw.
Mr. Kraus stated
a minor issue on the phasing map is that everything is phase II. Mrs. Cunningham stated yes. Mr. Kraus stated I don’t believe that was the
intent of that. Mrs. Cunningham stated
yes and no. We have debated this. We will be happy to have discussion on how to
handle the phasing. She stated some of
it is their struggle to accommodate what your code requires and the realities
of a planned development of this size.
We can identify phase I as the road as that will be the first thing to
be built. At the southwest side of the
development, is the Meijer’s site. With
a planned development of this size typically what we would see is that an
identified user would drive the next phase.
There is one identified user at this time.
Mr. Bergwall asked why the Meijer site was not classified as
phase II. Mrs. Cunningham stated they
could do that. The concern was just the
timing. Mrs. Cunningham stated your PUD
code anticipates platting along with the PUD.
The platting portion becomes problematic until you have the end
user. It is difficult to do anything
other than a large plat and then subdivide the smaller groups.
Mr. Bergwall stated what we are used to is residential developments
where a plat has to be filed every 12 months or you have to become compliant
with the most recent code. With this
development being mostly commercial office and the nature of this development,
that cadence probably won’t have the same necessity as it does for a
residential development. To pull ahead I
don’t think it would create a problem, it is where you start to push the
development out and the site becomes dormant for a period of time.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated it comes back to what happens when the code changes. When you have a PUD, as the commission has
mentioned we would be writing the standards and then you would never have the
issue of the time limit.
Mr. Bergwall stated that is only on the things that are
specified unique to the PUD. On the
things that are under the general code then there could be an influence.
Mr. Kraus stated
he is very satisfied with what they have submitted for sketch plan
purposes. I think it would be good to
spend a few minutes talking about what we expect to see at their next
submission in the different areas. For
examples in sub area A and B1, if they go back and look at the initial
development text and the types of uses that were in there, I think you will see
things that shouldn’t be in that area.
Mr. Soller stated he would prefer to see more phases on the
plan to give this area of the City more time to react to the development. As you put a large retailer in this area and
we already have traffic concerns in this area, we may have some control over
the timing of the growth so it is not too quick. I would rather see more phases on here rather
than the whole development as phase II, especially to give the property to the
north of this time to react to the development.
We’ve talked to about putting residential development into the northern
part, if it is a phase 4 or 5, it will give the adjacent property owners time
to analyze how they will develop their property.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he is not sure where phasing has to be presented in a timeline. If they want to come in and plat all 5
phases, I don’t think there is anything to stop them.
Mr. Seymour
stated in residential developments phasing is different. In commercial there are different kinds and
types of businesses that will drive what phase would be developed next.
Mrs. Cunningham stated the whole point of a PUD is to allow
flexibility in development to combine these uses and to have flexibility in
development so they can respond to the market.
Mr. Bergwall stated he can see how it would be difficult in
predicting the phasing of this development.
He stated there are two points with the new submittal and in reflecting
back to last month’s minutes and all of the discussion that took place. One is that there was suggestion that the
development Cook’s Crossing be changed to something
and yet the new submittal came back with the name Cook’s Crossing. The second item is that there was a fair
amount of discussion regarding the residential sub area on the north end and
the direction to downsize it and it has not been changed. I would like to hear what your considerations
were to those two items and why they were not addressed or clarified in text.
Mr. Schmidt
stated he does not have a good answer in regards to why the name change was not
addressed. I remember it being discussed
at the meeting but we have not talked about it amongst ourselves.
Mrs. Cunningham
stated Mr. Cook would like to have the Cook family name in the
development. Mr. Bergwall
stated that is fair.
Mr. Kraus stated
Crossing is the issue.
Mr. Schmidt in
regards to the residential sub area, I was the one defending it. I still don’t feel that a 30 acre residential
site is too large. I explained why at
the last meeting. This is what we are
proposing and I doubt that we will ever come up with a plan that every person
on this board will like every part of.
Mr. Yoder stated
he thinks overall all they have done a good job with meeting the intent of a
PUD. The big disappointment for me is
the E1. I am not convinced that residential
should be a part of this development.
Residential is something that should be reserved for development farther
north. I asked that there be
consideration to at least down size the residential area. Nothing has been changed. The thing that concerns me is that if
residential does get approved as part of this development, it should be at a
lesser density than R-5, maybe condos.
Mr. Cunningham
stated he thinks the residential buffer is a good idea. He stated he thinks that we are going to need
that type of housing in Marysville. It
will support not only the City but the businesses that will be going into this
development. I think they have come back
with a foot print of what could go in and it further convinces me that this is
a good idea.
Mr. Bergwall stated he thought the new
submittal relative to support to this as a PUD were very well presented and put
things in a good perspective. These sub
areas seem to be appropriate. Some of
the little details will get ironed out in the other stages. I was one that was strongly opposed to a
residential component in this development at all. The more I have heard and the more people I
have talked to from various perspectives, I have come around. I do not want to sound contrary from my
pervious questions. The way you have
defined the residential and depending on what you put in there, it can be a
positive.
Mr. Seymour
stated a lot of things that are being talked about now will be dealt with as
the project moves forward. To stay to
the purpose of the sketch plan tonight, we are looking at the uses, we are
noticing the intersections of streets and where they connect, so let’s stay
focused on that. If we see anything that
will not work in the preliminary plat or preliminary development plan at this
point, let’s cite that and move toward resolution.
Mr. Kraus stated
in sub areas A1, B1, and E1 have been addressed in terms of expectations for
the next submittal. I guess the question
now is are there any thoughts on the areas B2, B1, or
D2. Are there any questions or concerns
from the commission on the uses proposed?
The B3, has the commission accepted residential
in the business residential district. I
think it is important that in all of the areas they go back in the original
uses proposed and try to refine the permitted uses and maybe some conditional
uses. Try to stick with that concept
that is what I would expect to see the next time through. Also, enhance your walking trail kind of
thing around the pond. The next phase,
if you just look at the code requirements, it needs to be pretty complete. In best case it probably won’t be presented
at the January meeting but more like February to give you enough time to pull
all the information together.
Mr. Seymour
stated at the last meeting we talked about the cul-de-sac being lengthy, I
think we agreed that we would be moving forward with this having an emergency
access at the end. He stated he has also
heard a lot about traffic concerns. It
is a topic we will hit very hard at the preliminary plat stage.
Mr. Kraus stated
that he assumes they have a copy of Mr. Schulze’s letter dated November 29th. Mrs. Cunningham stated they received it
tonight. Mr. Kraus stated in terms of
the uses for A and B, I think it is a good starting point.
Mr. Seymour
asked if there were any specific objectives to this plan.
Mr. Yoder stated
he still stands on his position about the residential. He stated he thinks there is plenty of
housing on both sides of this property.
Mr. Dennis Schulze stated he is representing the residents of the
We will be addressing other issues such as
traffic, noise and lights later, as well as surface run off and utilities.
Mr. Dan
Fitzgerald stated the zoning if you approve it for this land will allow for any
type of multi family dwellings up to 12 per acre. What guarantee do I have that it is going to
be the type of housing that they are describing? What guarantee do I have that it will not be
the first person who wants to buy the land and put apartments in there? Why this particular spot that caps this
development off and stops normal development to the north? If everyone wants this so badly, why has no
one spoken in favor of this development?
He stated Mr. Bergwall spoke about
neighborhood type of developments that appeal to particular neighborhood
without trying to draw people from a long ways away. What you are talking about Meijer is a type
of retail store that will draw from a very large circle of miles. I would like to at least see the traffic
study that the City is supposedly in the process of developing before you
approve anything. I would like some kind
of guarantee on exactly what is going to be allowed on the property to the
north before I would like to see any of this.
Mr. Kraus stated
it might be helpful to review the process and the steps with the residents,
because even if it is approved in principal tonight it has a long way to go
before there is any zoning approved. The
next step is more of the kinds of details that would respond to Mr.
Fitzgerald’s comments.
Mr. Bergwall stated the comment Mr. Fitzgerald made toward the
R5 residential area, if this were a matter of taking this property and dividing
it into various zoning districts, then what you said would be true. If it was zoned R-5 then anything under the
R-5 permitted uses could go in. Under
the PUD process, the R-5 designates it as residential with a general density,
but through the PUD there will be additional documentation through the
development that will protect that area from any and all use. The fact that they are developing this entire
property and not just selling off zoned acreage, the development will have it’s
integrity such as what we talk about, what we agree to, what goes into the
development plan will be imposed on the property; or they would have to come
back and amend the PUD for some other use.
I would like to have verification that how I understand it is correct.
Mr. Kraus stated
yes, the applicant can put limitations and restrictions; it will not be a
blanket R-5. It simply starts there as a
comparison base.
Mr. Cunningham stated another avenue of safeguard is that any
building that would want to go on the lot after the plan is approved will still
have to go before Design Review.
They can’t just throw anything up there, it has to be what they
told us it will be or it will not be built.
Mr. Bergwall made a motion to approve the sketch plan in
principle for Cook’s Crossing as submitted with the addition of the map passed
out tonight.
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Yoder No
Mr. Soller Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes
Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS:
Zoning Amendment
– generally located between Mill Rd. and St. Rt. 31, north of US 33 (formally
the Twigg Greenhouse) – 15 acres- zoning change from
BR to B-1 - filed by Donald Plank of Plank & Braham.
Mr.
Donald Plank stated he is the attorney for Casto
which is the developer of this property.
He stated Mr. Charlie Fraas is with me tonight
from our office. We are requesting to
zone approximately 15.61 acres of property from BR to B-1. The property is north of SR 33 to the west of
SR 31 and south and east of
Mr.
Seymour stated he wants to reemphasize that the purpose of this meeting is a
request to change zoning; it is not to discuss projects. The judgment should not be based on any
project that is proposed for this land.
The best use of the land is what the rezoning is about.
Mr.
Kraus stated there is about 2.9 acres at the southwest corner, is there a
reason it was not included in this rezoning request?
Mr.
Plank stated it was his recommendation.
BR is the current zoning and people are used to the BR, we can change
it.
Mr.
Kraus stated he doesn’t think it makes much sense to leave that parcel zoned
Mr.
Griffin asked if the proposal includes the current Twigg
home. Mr. Plank stated yes.
Mr.
Bergwall stated relative to the comment of the BR vs.
B-1, while many of the components allowed in the BR are typically found in a
grocery store. The nature of the stores
is different from what is found in a grocery store. To minimize the difference is a significant
departure.
Mr.
Fraas stated from a stand point from what they are
actually selling, there is not much difference but from an operation stand
point, there is a difference. What we
are trying to show is the actual impact of the use.
Mr.
Plank stated the uses permitted in the BR would lend themselves more toward a
strip center vs. free standing buildings.
We find that the grocery store is a magnet in making the development
successful.
Mr.
Charles Fraas stated when you have an anchor tenant
they are usually there for the long haul.
They want to pick a location to stay at for a long time. That then brings the other smaller retailers
in.
Mr.
DeLong stated the comp plan does define this property
as office and commercial. The other
thing which I would like you to consider is our own definitions of the
districts. The BR is to be transitional,
but there is nothing to transition from.
I was also questioning the remaining 2.91 acres of land. I think it should be included in the
rezoning.
Mr.
Fraas stated if this property were to stay BR it
would allow for what we figured to be 160+ apartment units.
Mr.
Kraus on the map with the surrounding property zonings, didn’t we change
Northwood’s zoning from OR to R-2.
Commission stated yes.
Mr.
Timothy Hackworth stated he lives in the Northwoods
subdivision. My biggest concern is for
the citizens that live on this strip. If
you rezone this for something bigger, my bedroom window will be looking right
at it and I don’t want lights coming in my bedroom window. The other item is traffic. The interchange is crowded as it is. The truck traffic for deliveries would rattle
my windows when they would come and make deliveries.
Mr.
Seymour asked if we had a rating on
Mr.
Steve Honeycutt stated his main concern is traffic.
Mr.
Seymour stated just to reiterate a comment that was made earlier, any project
that would come to this location will have to go through the Design Review
process. He stated I can assure you that
buffering, mounding, trees will certainly be a requirement of this.
Mr.
Yoder stated in his mind traffic is the biggest concern of all of the issues
being listed. He stated he would not
want all of the truck traffic coming up and down his street if this were in his
neighborhood. My question is, is it fair
to say that this project wouldn’t even begin until after the traffic study has
been completed and it has been reviewed since it could impact Mill Rd. such as
the width of the road and traffic flow.
Could this project start without the traffic study being completed and
in hand?
Mr.
Seymour stated he would think the follow up question to that would be is there
a project study for the traffic study.
Mr.
Palmer stated to Mr. Yoder’s direct question, I don’t think there is a way for
us to prevent them from starting their project.
He stated to the other question, we have a meeting Wednesday with the
consultant to find out where this is and where they are going to be headed.
Mr.
Yoder stated his next comment would be then would it be unreasonable to make
sure we have the results of the study before we allow construction of this
project to begin.
Mr.
Kraus stated once the zoning is approved I don’t think other than going through
the process that there is much we can do.
Mr.
Seymour stated from a zoning standpoint the discussion is BR vs. B-1. There are several other zonings
possible. We are here tonight to decide
what is correct for this property. In BR
vs. B-1, both would drive parking spaces, lights of the same height, multi buildings vs. one larger building. When you start weighting the two, the net
impact has similarities. He stated someone
else alluded to a 24 hour operation vs. one that is not and my experience is
that even with the 24 hour operations, in the late hours the traffic is very
minimal.
Mr.
Leininger stated he lives on the
Mr.
Joseph Whinnery stated he understands this is only on
the zoning but what are the uses allowed in B-1 that would have a negative
impact on this area.
Mr.
Kraus read some of the permitted uses aloud in B-1.
Mr.
Seymour stated for comparison he read some of the permitted uses in B-R
Mr.
Whinnery stated so zoning B-1 would allow more
possible uses. Commission stated yes.
Mr.
Seymour stated the decision is whether or not B-1 is the most appropriate
zoning.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he knows the primary focus needs to
be what is the right use by zoning for this parcel of
property. I don’t think that the
overall plan was laid out by accident with the initial zoning. So to change that I have a difficult time
saying it is okay to migrate to B-1 not understanding what else is going to be
done in terms of infrastructure improvement to make it suitable for the higher
traffic more intense use. If all we are
going to do is approve B-1 and then say we’ll take what comes with the road
improvements, then I would intend to vote no.
If I could better comprehend how the problems for the surrounding
properties and the potential is going be achieved in the course of this
development, as a B-1 I could be more comfortable. In your own words you stated it would not
substantially diminish or impair property values.
Mr.
Plank stated the property is zoned BR now.
With the uses that are permitted in BR now, it could affect property
values as well. When we met with the
City early on, we were assured that a traffic study was being done and that we
would be expected to participate in some regard. We are going to have to do an access study to
show how the access is going to affect
Mr.
Bergwall stated yet in the proposal for B-1 you have
not given any explanation or documentation as to what you are going to do to
enhance the site for it to be B-1.
Mr.
Fraas stated what they were thinking was because this
was straight zoning that we would have to come back and deal with more of the
project issues. One of the reasons we
feel that this is a better deal than leaving it BR is that you will probably
find that with BR it would probably be split off to multi owners and users and
it would not be a cohesive project. We
are trying to develop it all and plan it all at one time. When we come back we will have to show how
that will work with buffering, lighting and such. Clearly we know that you have certain codes
and expectations that we will have to meet.
Mr.
Plank stated we took the opportunity ourselves to send out letters to the
immediately adjacent property owners. We
are looking for a spokesperson and to be able to talk to them to work out
problems.
Mr.
Fraas stated we sent out letters to everyone to see
if there would be a time to have a meeting so that we can get a cohesive
project going that will be agreeable to the neighbors.
Mr.
Seymour stated with regard to development the message needs to be clear that
whatever goes in here, the infrastructure will have to be adequate. This project will have to go before the
Design Review Board.
Mr.
Plank stated we are aware of this. We
have met with the City up front because we have the same concerns.
Mr.
Kraus asked if any consideration was given to the NC neighborhood commercial
zoning. It has a much more limited use
list. One of the permitted uses is a
grocery store.
Mr.
Cunningham stated but you have to look at letter h under NC.
Mr.
Kraus stated there is a maximum floor size of 20,000 s.f.
Mr.
Plank stated that wouldn’t work.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what size store they are looking at
putting in.
Someone
from the audience stated the new store would be approximately 90,000.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he is not sure the question was
answered as to what you are offering to do for the intersection and
Mr.
Plank stated we would not know that until the traffic study is done.
Mr.
Bergwall stated we should have a pretty good idea
that the traffic is going to increase and it is of concern to the residents
that live in that area.
Mr.
Plank told the commission how traffic studies work.
Mr.
Bergwall stated in the past we have had concerns
about traffic and developers would be responsible for putting in “x” amount of
dollars into a fund for future improvements.
Mr.
Fraas stated the traffic study is what will tell us
what will need to be done; we can’t do that until we get through the traffic
study.
Mr.
Bergwall stated in this case I don’t think it would
be acceptable to say that the grocery will take up 40% of what will need to
done and the improvements then could not
be done until the rest of the property developed and by then it would be a
mess.
Mr.
Seymour stated these points are good infrastructure issues.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he feels this is relevant to the
issue of whether or not this should be zoned B-1.
Mr.
Cunningham stated infrastructure is not part of the zoning.
Mr.
Fraas stated if it is zoned BR, when the traffic
study is done it will show at a maximum of what can go on the property and the
study will be based off of that. If we
were not here today, it would be based off of if this land is zoned what it is
today, what is the maximum that could go on this property and base on all off
of that. That is what they would do for
this property whether we were here or not.
Mr.
Seymour stated if the property owner came to us with no development in mind
asking to rezone from BR to B-1 with the potential of nothing happening for the
next 15- 20 years, the question still
remains as to is this the best zoning for the property. It is not how it will be corrected today, it
is on the appropriateness.
Mr.
Plank stated having BR on a property that is along two major highways, it not
the best use for the property. This is
typically where you see your higher uses.
Mr.
Fraas stated one thing he noticed on the comp plan
north of US 33 besides this property is that it calls for residential. This property would be the service for all of
the residential.
Mr.
Kraus stated he just wants to remind who ever makes the motion that we need to
include the 2.91 acre parcel as the applicant has agreed.
Mr.
Fraas stated they would be happy to include the 2.91
acres to this application.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion regarding the zoning amendment for the 15± acres to be
changed from BR to B-1 be amended to include the additional 2.91 acres to the
southwest and that a recommendation to City Council be that the application be
approved.
Mr. Griffin No Mr.
Yoder Yes Mr. Soller Yes Mr. Kraus No
Mr. Bergwall No Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Potential Rezoning of multiple properties
within the City to GOV zoning.
Mr. DeLong stated what the commission has in front of them
tonight are letters from Mr. Zimmerman, representing the schools, Mrs. House,
City Administrator, comments from Mr. Stolte,
Mr. Kraus stated GOV first started because we have some property
north on SR 4 that still has township zoning.
The majority of the uses are governmental entities. We had a request from a county commissioner
that would keep the property to a government use. That way if they ever wanted to change that
they would have to go through a rezoning process. This is where it all started. It then developed into something where why
shouldn’t at least the larger governmentally owned properties in the city be
under the same zoning. The City’s
current wastewater treatment plant is currently under M-2. This city will probably abandon that plant
when the new plant comes online. Heavy
manufacturing does not make sense in this location. The whole idea was if the government use was
to discontinue, it doesn’t prevent it from going into the private sector, it
doesn’t prevent it from someone coming in and asking for a rezoning, it just
puts it in front of the public for a due process. Mr. Zimmerman is not going to tear down the
high school that he is currently adding on to, but if he did, that land is
zoned R-5 which doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The two that are the biggest concerns is the county property to the
north and the school property on SR 4 S.
Both of those are under township zoning and need to have some type of
City zoning.
Mr. DeLong stated there are two uses that are currently on the
SR 4N property that are not listed under the GOV district. They are the Humane Society and the OSU vet
clinic. If the zoning was changed to GOV
they would be legal non-conforming uses.
Mr. Zimmerman
stated his biggest question was why does the rezoning only
include part of the schools. For
example
Mr. Griffin
stated the thought process was that some of the schools are already in
residential districts and if the school was to disappear it would not impact
anything. We are trying to see that if
something were to go away it wouldn’t negatively impact the area.
Mr. Seymour
asked Mr. Zimmerman if there were any other properties that he thought should
be included.
Mr. Zimmerman
stated Northwood Elementary is 17 acres, but in a residential area. He stated the site right beside the high
school was bought from a developer. What
is the zoning on that?
Mr. Kraus stated
he believes it is R-2.
Mr. Zimmerman
stated if the school properties fall best under the GOV district then we would
have no problem with that.
Mr. Otto Beatty
stated he is representing the
Mr. Bergwall stated he would like to get
clarification in the GOV district that would allow for this type of
application. To say they shouldn’t be in
the governmental district. I am not
inclined to go that direction. If for
some reason OSU would move and they want to sell the land, someone who is not
compatible with the surroundings may want to go in there. The legal hang up about OSU not being a
governmental organization to me is different than protecting the intended use
of that property.
The OSU vet
clinic is willing to work with you so that there is a winning situation for
everyone. What they are concerned about
is how the definition is tonight; they would not be in compliance.
Mr. Bergwall stated we should be able to find a way to make
them conforming.
Mr. DeLong stated there are two options. One is to try and change the uses permitted
under the GOV district. Two is to put
the vet clinic under some other city zoning.
Mr. Beatty
stated that OSU wants to maintain their flexibility.
Mr. Bergwall stated what do you mean
by flexibility.
Mr. Beatty
stated we don’t want to be stuck at a particular square footage. We may want to build a small office building
for additional personal.
Mr. Kraus stated
he is not sure how the OSU would be defined.
We need some help as to how to accurately describe their current and
reasonable future expectations.
Mr. DeLong stated as we see OSU vet clinic it would be a
conditional use under AR, and a permitted use under B-1, TOC and SD-1. Next door we have the humane society which is
not being addressed. The only district
where both of these uses fall would be under AR.
Mr. Bergwall
stated the property is owned by OSU.
Mr. Beatty
stated yes.
Mr. Bergwall
stated from a legal standpoint isn’t
Mr. Beatty
stated it is a state charted university, but is not a governmental entity.
Mr. Kraus stated
ownership doesn’t matter; the zoning is based on the land use.
Mr. Soller stated the intent of the area is not to focus on what
the current uses are. We want to
preserve the area for future government use.
Part of the economic development plan is to include agricultural
uses.
Mr. Seymour
stated the other letter we have is from Kathy House, can anyone speak on behalf
of this.
Mr. DeLong
stated the only information he is familiar with is what is in the letter. He stated she is at a conference and that is
why she would not be able to be here tonight.
Mr. Cunningham
asked if anyone explained to her that this was done on purpose and that it
would affect the future sale of the property but it would give us more time to
be more deliberate to determine the zoning.
Mr. DeLong
stated she is aware of all of that but their thing is the future use of the
properties and putting limitations on them.
Mr. Kraus stated
M-2 is not the proper zoning for the waste water treatment plant or the water
plant.
Mr. DeLong
stated he thinks there has been discussion on the two most important properties
in the city. If there are hang ups on
the inner city zonings, we can deal with them later.
Mr. Bergwall
stated he takes exception to this approach.
The idea of classifying them GOV is to make sure there is one more step
in the process. To make sure there is
due consideration before the property gets sold off and used for a different
purpose.
Mr. DeLong
stated there are many ways to look at this and the property to the north has
been in the city for several years and has never had city zoning. It remains out of our control. I am not here to speak on behalf of Mrs.
House.
Mr. Kraus stated
he would like to deal with the properties that we know we can do. We have time to assess the others.
Mr. Seymour
stated there is another letter from Mr. Stolte and it
asks if 435 N. Maple and at
Mr. Kraus stated
both of the properties were included in the original assessment of properties.
Mr. Bergwall
stated he thinks the limitations of the GOV district should be expanded. Such as building height and
so on.
Discussion held
on limits in GOV
Potential Rezoning of property on
Mr. DeLong stated he has not heard anything from the property
owner.
Mr. Kraus stated
it should be put on the agenda to rezone the entire property to R-5.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Don Bergwall- None
Pete Griffin- None
Roger Yoder- None
John Cunningham
- None
Alan Seymour -
None
Pat Soller- None
Ken Kraus-None
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting
was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.