PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ken Kraus, John Cunningham, Don Bergwall,
Alan Seymour, Pete Griffin. Pat Soller and Roger Yoder – absent
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Page, Myron and Pricilla Gallogly, Andrew Maletz, Scott Diesler, Larry Zimmerman, Mike White, Phil Roush, Brian
Palmer, Greg DeLong and Tammy Penhorwood, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning
Commission Meeting-
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Mr. Roush stated he would ask the commission to
consider switching the order of business under new business and hearing the
recommendation to City Council of the Final Development Plan before the
acceptance of the final plat of the Oaks.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to switch the order of
business under new business as requested by Mr. Roush. Voice vote was unanimous. Motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS:
Approval of Final Plat – Chestnut Park – filed by David Walker, ME Companies -Tabled
from
Mr. Cunningham stated it is his understanding as the commission has been
informed that the voting down of this project will still keep the TIF in
place. Is that correct?
Mr. Roush stated that is our
understanding from Brickler and Eckler. He stated what’s happened with the Chestnut
Park TIF is you have to have a development agreement signed and recorded in the
county recorders office and it is there feeling that because we have taken that
legal step that it would save the TIF.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the Chestnut Park Final Plat.
Mr. Bergwall No Mr. Seymour No Mr. Cunningham No
Mr. Griffin No Mr. Kraus No
NEW BUSINESS:
Recommendation to City Council – Final Development Plan – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering
Mr. Roush stated
he sent a letter to the commission stating there are some changes in the final
development from the preliminary development plan. The most important item is probably the
changing of
Mr. Seymour
stated in other words the plans in front of tonight do not reflect the
changes. Mr. Roush stated they are
changed, but they are not in conformance with the preliminary plan.
Mr. Cunningham
stated the point is this is a significant change from the preliminary plan and
the final development plans are not to be as such.
Mr. Bergwall
asked Mr. Roush, in regards to the street names, one of the things we talked
about before was that Royal Oak Dr. T’s into
Mr. Roush stated
correct. The developer has agreed to
change the
Mr. Gallogly state that was an oversight on our part, the
drawings have all been changed to reflect that, but
they have not been submitted.
Mr. Cunningham
asked Mr. Gallogly to address the moving of the condo
access to SR 736. Mr. Gallogly stated Mr. Roush suggested that the final plat,
which is the final plat of phase one not the final plat for the entire project,
and the development be thrown together in discussion. He stated the city has approved the final
construction drawings for phase 1. The
final plat for phase 1 that is in front of you is consistent with those. There are no issues with the administration
that we are aware of, with the final plat for phase 1. He stated he is concerned that the final plat
be approved as quickly as possible because I can not make any sales until the
final plat is recorded. The development
plan only has two items that are different from the preliminary development
plan that was approved at the last meeting.
One is the intersection with SR 736 out of the condo area. After further reflection, you may recall that
is the way is was shown in our first submission and in order to make things
easier with the discussion we made the change of taking it down and through the
residential area and only having one tie into SR 736. On further reflection and discussion with
condo developers and the idea of the traffic from the 80 some units down
through the residential area really was not desirable. So we would like to do what we think is a
better plan and would like to have a variance to put the access onto SR
736. The other issue is now a non issue. We have met with the City Engineer and his
staff and they have no issue with the lift station location. It was actually moved to make it more
accessible for service. There is only
one issue then and we would like to improve the project by getting permission
to have the access onto SR 736 so the condo area is separated from the
residential area for traffic.
Mr. Page stated
as Mr. Gallogly stated earlier we were going to have Wynburn dead-end into the condo section. After a people talked to Mr. Gallogly about purchasing the condo area, they all stated
did not want to run the condo area through the residential area. As far as coming out onto SR 736 with two
entrances, we will not have the 1000 ft. space between the drives. You gave us a variance for this same
situation on SR 38. These state routes
are not very heavily traveled roads compared to other routes.
Mr. Roush stated
it is not the idea of having the extra drive out onto SR 736, but an amendment
to the preliminary development plan needs to be done so it conforms to this
final development plan.
Mr. Page stated
what the administration has an issue with is the fact that we are making a
change from the preliminary plan. He
stated to me this is a minor change.
Mr. Seymour
stated he agrees with Mr. Roush that this is a major change. Mr. Griffin stated he fully expected them to
come in here tonight with an amended preliminary plan. He stated if we have both of the items we
could deal with them at the same time.
Mr. Gallogly stated if that is the
process, then we will submit the revised preliminary plan and asking for the
variance then that is no problem. The
final plat for phase 1 does not have any issues and none of this discussion
relates to it. Mr. Roush stated that is
not true. The final plat can not be
considered until the final development has been approved by City Council.
Mr. Gallogly stated this is the final plat for phase 1 and the
phase 1 construction plans have already been approved. None of the discussion we are having has to
do with phase 1.
Mr. Seymour
stated the final development plan as a total project is what needs to go before
City Council and that has to be approved before the plat can move forward.
Mr. Gallogly stated we are not asking for approval of a plat
for the entire project, we are asking for approval of the final plat for phase
1. You are saying this is your
procedure? Does the final plat have to
go before council also? Mr. Cunningham
stated no. He stated we are going to
have to go through the readings of council for the preliminary development plan
and the final development plan and three readings for each one. I am asking procedural questions so we know
what has to happen.
Mr. Seymour
stated the final development plan is what council approves.
Mr. Kraus stated
to clarify, the preliminary development plan and the final development are all
part of a concept and it deals with zoning.
Until the final development plan is approved all you have to work with
is the underlying zoning. This body can
not approve a plat that does not comply 100% with SR zoning until council
approves the final development plan.
Mr. Gallogly stated the final plat for phase 1 does comply with
the zoning. Mr. Kraus stated then you
will be taking a risk that council makes no changes. If council makes any changes then the final
plat has to be amended also. He stated
procedurally you do not have zoning until council approves the final
development plan.
Mr. Seymour
stated then the plan we have before us, page four, includes all of the changes
that we have agreed too. Mr. Bergwall
stated except for the change in street name.
Mr. Roush stated
the final development plan as submitted including the change in the
intersection with the condos with SR 736, seem reasonable to us, it is the
procedural way it is being done. Because
it is a PUD, we feel the final development plan has to be approved by city
council before the final plat can be approved.
Mr. Griffin asked how difficult is it to
reconstruct the preliminary development plan. Mr. Page stated it will only take a few
minutes, but we thought there was going to be a major issue with having the two
entrances on SR 736, so we didn’t change the preliminary plat until we got the
approval from you.
Mr. Gallogly stated what he is hearing is we are talking
procedure not issues. Mr. Griffin stated
yes. Mr. Gallogly
stated we have the replacement pages to slip in place of the ones that need
changed. The only thing we don’t have is
a revised preliminary plan. How do we
expedite this process?
Mr. Seymour
stated the point is we truly have the same document in front of us that we
would use for the preliminary plan. The
message to the citizens did not announce that this was approval of the
preliminary; however it is the same document.
If the applicants would state that they are requesting the approval of
the preliminary plan tonight, in one motion, and then the final plan in another
motion.
Mr. Gallogly stated he could request that.
Mr. Roush stated
from a procedural standpoint, I don’t think it would be acceptable.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated in the past we have required developers to submit a separate document
that is properly labeled amendment to the preliminary development plan. Also, per code it states that requests for
variances must be submitted at the time of the preliminary plat in
writing.
Mr. Seymour
stated the technical aspect is the application for the variance.
Mr. Gallogly stated what he thinks he is hearing is that if he
comes back to the next meeting with a revised preliminary plan and a variance
request regarding the street access and also have a packet which is the final
development plan and the phase 1 final plan, then you would be able to, if you
choose to, able to refer the final development to city council.
Mr. Seymour
asked about any time frame issue. Mrs.
Penhorwood stated Mr. Gallogly would have to agree to
a tabling until next month. At the next
meeting he could present the amendment to the preliminary development plan and
if you approve that the next item on the agenda could be the final development
plan recommendation to city council.
Mr. Gallogly stated he takes from this discussion that no one
in the room at this point anticipates arguing against the second access. Mr. Bergwall stated he has a question about
that. He stated he asked the question as
to where these two exits lines up to the exit to the Links. Links access pointed out on a map.
Mr. Page stated what you need is a preliminary development plan, a
final development plan reflecting the preliminary development plan changes, a
request for a variance, and the phase 1 final plat. Mr. Roush stated we can’t do the phase 1
plat. Mr. Griffin stated we can accept
it. Mr. Cunningham stated we can’t
accept it because then we would have to act on it before council has acted on
the final development plan.
Mr. Gallogly stated he would agree to table the final
development plan until the next regular meeting.
Mr. Seymour made
a motion to table the recommendation of the final development plan at the
request of the developer until the next regular scheduled meeting.
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
Mr. Kraus Abstain Mr. Bergwall Yes
Motion Passed.
Acceptance of Final Plat – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering
Mr. Roush stated
as it was discussed with the final development plan, once the final plat is
accepted it still can not be approved until council has approved the final
development. So it is both accepting the
final plat and then tabling it until after council approves the final
development plan or tabling this request at the request of the developer until
the development plan is approved.
Mr. Cunningham
stated on the final plat we are tied to the Ohio Revised Code and have to make
a decision within 30 days. Mrs.
Penhorwood stated that is one if the developer does not agree to a
tabling. Mr. Cunningham stated that is
what I am requesting is a request to table the acceptance.
Mr. Gallogly stated it is his understanding that there are two
steps, acceptance and approval, and they don’t happen at the same time. He stated he didn’t think there was any
problem with the acceptance.
Mr. Cunningham
stated the dilemma is that we would have to act within 30 days and we would not
have the action from council. Mr.
Seymour stated he suggests to what until the second reading in council and then
we would know if there were going to be any issues.
Mr. Gallogly made a request to table.
Mrs. Penhorwood
asked are we accepting the final plat tonight and then once it is accepted the
developer will request a tabling of the approval. Mr. Cunningham stated no we are tabling the
acceptance so we don’t start the 30 day clock.
Mr. Seymour stated they could request to remove the item and then bring
it back at a later date.
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated what we have done with past plats is accept the final plat and then
tabled it until after City Council approved the final development plan and then
brought it back. Mr. Kraus stated the
tabling didn’t take affect until the meeting after the acceptance.
Mr. Griffin made
a motion to accept the final plat for the Oaks.
Mr. Bergwall stated if we vote yes then we are approving something that
we really can’t deliver on. Mr.
Cunningham stated we are not approving anything, only accepting. Mr. Bergwall stated if we accept this then we
are into the 30 day routine and we can’t deliver on the 30 days because of the
other items.
Mr. Palmer
stated his concern would be that we would end up with a City Gate situation
where if we don’t have a quorum on the second then it is automatically
approved. Mr. Cunningham stated we can’t
operate under the assumption that we may not have a quorum.
Mr. Bergwall
stated these are the drawings for the final plat that we are accepting. Is there any potential that in all of this
other update work that these are going to change at all? Mr. Page stated no, because the final
construction plans for phase one have already been approved.
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Abstain
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Motion Passed.
Mr. Griffin stated before we move on I thought we were going to make sure
that we had no outstanding issues on the final development plan that way when
they come back next month they don’t have any unexpected issues. Mr. Cunningham asked do you have outstanding
issues. Mr. Cunningham stated it is his
understanding everyone had that opportunity.
Approval of Street Trees – The Oaks – filed by Page Engineering
Mrs. Penhorwood
stated the developer did not list specific trees; they were leaving it up to
the commission as to what they wanted to put in.
Mr. Griffin
stated we have to select from the approved list and because of the development
name, I assume you would like to have a lot of Oak trees.
Mr. Cunningham
stated there is a list of approved trees.
If we want to table this tonight and then you can choose the trees from
the approved list and then we can vote on it.
Mr. Griffin
stated he thought we were going to make a recommendation as to the type of tree
to be planted.
Mr. Gallogly stated he thinks it is silly to plant trees in the
woods, but he knows it is a requirement to plant them. He stated he doesn’t care what type they
are. If you have a list I can name a
tree and you can tell me if you agree or not.
Mr. Griffin
stated as you go through the plan, some of your street names are actual
trees.
Mr. Gallogly stated he would like to sit down with Mr. Griffin
and then we can come up with the types of trees.
Mr. Cunningham
stated why don’t we do that and table it until the next meeting so we can
address it.
Mr. Seymour made
a motion to table the approval of the street tree plan at the request of the
developer until the next regular meeting.
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Kraus Abstain Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes
Motion Passed.
Mr. Page stated he would like to compliment the engineering staff in
being able to schedule a meeting on a moments notice this morning to resolve
the pump station issue.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Marysville Intermediate and Middle School – located at SR 4 and
General Issues
Mr. Scott Desler
stated he is with the architectural firm representing Marysville Schools. We are here to keep the city informed as to
the site plan and future site plans for the site located at SR 4 and
Mr. Roush stated he would like to pass a copy
of the map that shows what portion of the land is included in the first
annexation. There is also a copy of the
developer’s agreement we have with the schools.
We had them go to the Design Review Board because we expect them to
comply with city standards.
Mr. Deisler stated
the first page of our submittal is the current proposed site plan for the new
Intermediate and Middle School. As you
can see we have two private drives coming in off of SR 4. The dives are approximately 800 ft.
apart. They loop the building and we
have adequate parking per Marysville City Zoning. We also have the bus lot which also serves as
event parking. The building itself is a
166,000 s.f. building. There are two entrances. There two separate schools under one
roof. We have turn lanes; we have
submitted traffic studies to both Marysville and ODOT. The City of
Mr. Bergwall asked how many students this
school will accommodate. Mr. Deisler stated 900 students.
Mr. Seymour stated if this were already annexed
property and you were bringing it to us for review, I expect we would challenge
your 800 ft. distance between entrances.
Our code currently states it should be 1000 ft. for a development. I don’t know if this would fit that same
category or not. Mr. Disler
stated these are both private drives.
There will not be as much traffic as a public roadway would have.
Mr. Bergwall stated he doesn’t understand
that. The only difference would be that
you will have all of your traffic at a certain time. He stated if you could get the two entrances
to the 1000 ft. distance it would be more in conformance.
Mr. Andrew Maletz
stated one factor that was considered is that on this portion of SR 4 there is
a significant dip as you go down toward the creek. They were very concerned about a safe sight
line for buses entering and exiting the site.
This is what forced the minimization of the distance between the two
driveways in an effort to keep them at the crest portion of SR 4.
Mr. Cunningham stated he brought this up at the
Design Review meeting and it came up at City Council, the issue of
sidewalks. Even this is a rural setting
for the school; Councilman Marshall stated he did not want to happen with this
school the sidewalk problems we’ve had with other schools, particularly the
school on SR 31. I know we talked about
when the high schools is built there will be egress because they may have
siblings at the other school. It is not
real clear where the walks will be vs. drives.
Mr. Deisler asked if he was talking
about sidewalks on SR 4 or within the campus.
Mr. Cunningham stated he would say on the campus, Mr.
Mr. Cunningham stated being a school; the
safety is going to be more of a concern for you than it would a regular
business.
Mr. Larry Zimmerman stated what they commented
on last time was that as the second and third building get located on the site
then you have to have walks along Southard Rd. and walks across probably along
a road that will connect our front property to Southard Rd. As development occurs across SR 4, you will
get a better idea of what is need from a sidewalk standpoint. This is a whole different package then our
current middle school. It was there long
before the housing developments were put in down the road. Then the development was put in there should
have been sidewalks put in by someone besides the school. For reasons of safety, I don’t think there
needs to be sidewalks along SR 4. From a
school standpoint, I think sidewalks are going to need to be put in around approximately
phase 2 of the project.
Mr. Griffin asked if the road on the drawing
that shows the prospective 2015 site, there is a road that connects SR 4 to
Mr. Bergwall stated one of the things you need
to consider when looking at the long term plan is the support structure. Bringing together this many people in one
location, you need to have a mix to include some commercial property relatively
close.
Mr. Griffin stated there is a TOC lot right
across the street from this property.
Mr. Zimmerman stated to keep in mind that this
future plan is just the best guess. I
have no idea if there will be a second high school at this location. It is how it is planned, but you never
know.
General Issues
Mr. Cunningham asked if the commission wanted to set up a special meeting
for later this month. We reviewed some
of our To Do List items at the last meeting and are ready for another tweak
session.
Mr. Kraus stated given that it is December, I
don’t think things are that pressing.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Ken Kraus – He
stated developers need to come in with a street tree plan that has specific
trees on it. I don’t see us getting into
a tree discussion.
Don Bergwall -
none
Pete
Roger Yoder - absent
John Cunningham -
None
Alan Seymour –
Mr. Seymour stated at URT an issue came up that in the B3 district you are not
permitted to have lawn signs. It is an
item we need to look at.
Pat Soller - absent
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m.