MEDINA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007, 6:30 P.M.
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
Attendees / Representing:
Andy Conrad, Highway Engineers
Alliss Strogin, Medina Township
Michael Poklar, Gallucci/O’Brien
Doug Drushal, Chippewa Partners, LLC
Greg Pacholski, Arbor and Bridgewater
Roxan Rohrich, Tax Maps
Karen Schoonover, Lafayette Township
Morris Stutzman, for T. Kratzer
Bob Dorner, Gallucci
Mark Crumley, Medina Fire Department
Larry Bensinger, Westfield Township
Tim Kratzer, Westfield landowner
Gertie & Gary MacPhaie, Westfield Township
Jim Likely, Westfield Township
John Miller, Westfield Township
Stan Scheetz, Attorney
Melissa Spitzer, Westfield Township
Michael Cook, Westfield Township
Kathryn Truman
MCPC Members:
Colene Conley, President
Buck Adams, Vice President
Ron Rhodes
Elayne Seigfried
James Kamps
Evelyn Czyz
Rob Henwood
Kathleen Scheutzow
MCDPS Staff:
Patrice Theken, Director
Cheryl Schmock, Admin Assistant
Susan Hirsch, Deputy Director
Tom Russell, Associate Planner
Chris Bartell, Associate Planner
Zach Greatens, Associate Planner
Lisa Kukowski, University of Akron Intern
President Colene Conley called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
Ms. Schmock called the roll. Ms. Conley, Mr. Kamps, Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Adams, Mr. Henwood,
Ms. Czyz, Ms. Siegfried and Ms. Scheutzow were present.
II. MINUTES
Ms. Conley asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the October 3, 2007
minutes. Ms. Siegfried had a few corrections, which she had spoken to Ms. Schmock prior to this
evenings meeting. On the cover page her name was spelled incorrectly, but throughout the
minutes it was spelled correct.
On page 14, 3rd paragraph, last sentence, Ms. Siegfried stated, “I had talked to Commissioner Ray
and she knows ahead of time if there’s an issue she wants to be here on (regarding Montville
Township), we’re going to coordinate that, but so far she hasn’t felt the need or concern that I’m
not meeting at this level.” Ms. Siegfried would like it to read as follows, “so far Commissioner
Ray had felt the coordination between Ms. Siegfried and herself would satisfy Montville
Township issues.”
Mr. Rhodes moved to approve the October 3, 2007 minutes as corrected. Mr. Adams seconded
the motion. Ms. Scheutzow abstained. All other members voted AYE and the motion was
approved.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Ms Theken presented the letter to Judy Emrick, zoning inspector from Montville Township, from
Chandler Stalvey. She said she wanted to provide that letter to the Commission so they were
aware that there were ongoing discussions regarding Cobblestone Park Subdivision issues. She
reminded the Commission that during Public Participation Mr. Stalvey may want to address the
Commission.
The next item was a letter that was faxed to the Planning office from Donna Young regarding
some elections issues, and she wanted to make sure that the Commission had a copy for this
evening’s meeting.
There were two letters from Judy Emrick, zoning inspector from Montville Township. The first
one of them being a letter that she had written to Chandler Stalvey in response to the letter that
Ms. Theken had spoken of earlier indicating a meeting with Bill Thorne that spoke of this issue
that was not yet resolved. Also, Ms. Emrick put together with the assistance Jeff Van Loon, Soil
and Water Conservation District, an educational workshop regarding what Soil & Water can help
the Townships with. It is scheduled for Thursday, November 29, 2007 between 10:00 am and
12:00 noon, located at the Montville Town Hall. Ms. Emrick invited all zoning inspectors,
assistants, and anyone who would be interested in attending and finding out what Jeff Van Loon
has to say. Jeff has not had an opportunity to meet many of the zoning inspectors in Medina
County yet, so this may be a good opportunity.
Ms. Theken also introduced Lisa Kukowski, the intern from Akron University Planning and
Geography Department, and she would be presenting one of the staff reports.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 2
IV. OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Zsarney Subdivision, Replat, Medina Twp, 188-2007 R
Mr. Greatens presented the staff report to the Commission regarding the above captioned
subdivision located at the southwest corner of Fenn Road and Pearl Road (SR 42).
The current proposal is to replat sublots 1, 2, and 3 and incorporate four additional parcels into
the subdivision creating sublot 1A. The site has one access point on Fenn Road and two access
points on Pearl Road (SR 42).
Ms. Conley asked why they decided to combine the lots. Mike Poklar, representing Pat O’Brien
Chevrolet, said it was in the interest of making it easier. There were seven parcels of various
sizes of which one parcel was a very tiny sliver and when they entered into the contract they
proposed a combination to have one tax bill, one legal description. As they got into the process,
they applied for new signage, the Township required Mr. O’Brien to replat prior to getting his
signage approval.
Alliss Strogin, Zoning Commission chair, stated that this was brought about due to the fact that
Gallucci’s has been there for a long time, and no one recognized at the time that there were six or
seven parcels involved. It has been the practice not only of the Township, but of the Tax Map
office to have the lots combined. When the ownership changes they need to come in for site plan
review and at that time the Township would look at it and try to correct any or all violations and
update the current zoning wherever possible. One of those was to combine the lots into one
parcel and that was done at the change of ownership. The other issue with signage was that the
Township would not issue signage to a business that was not in compliance because it was not
under one lot. Until this was combined into one lot they would not issue any formal signage
permits. The change in use was issued and the applicant was in place operating under the name
of “Pat O’Brien”.
Ms. Strogin said the Township did not want to have a commercial entity the size of this being put
into a residential subdivision, especially one from the 1960s. It was created as a subdivision
because they created more than five lots from Fenn Road. She said there were no open space, no
homeowners, and no common space; there was nothing that had to be protected in terms if land
was removed from the subdivision.
Ms. Strogin suggested speaking with the Tax Map office or the Prosecutor’s office and when she
had sent her email, Roxan did send a fax stating that, yes, it could be done, and she knew 711.17-
23. However, Ms. Strogin spoke with Mr. Thorne and had a letter from him. The items quoted
by Roxan was for municipalities, and the letter she had from Mr. Thorne dated November 5,
2007, stated, “pursuant to our discussion and based upon facts as related, it would appear to me
that an easier way to resolve the problems with the Gallucci lot, would be through a utilization of
Section 711.25 and 26. 711.25; A person owning platted town lots, not within a municipality,
corporation, can vacate these lots by giving notice of intent two weeks in the newspaper
published in general circulation in the county in which the land lays. The notice of the intent
vacation has to be personally delivered to the owner of the lots involved. It is my understanding
in this case that the individual who wants to vacate the lots, own all the lots. Pursuant to 1126, if
no notice of injunction granted against from the vacation of the lots under 711.25, it is served
upon the County Auditor of the County where the land lies by owner of any such lots within 10
days after completion of the notice required by 711.25. The Auditor is required to make the
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 3
transfer and it would thus appear that the lots involved can be vacated without a great deal of
difficultly under the facts as related”.
The Trustees and the Zoning Commission do not want to have these combined into the
subdivision; they want them combined by themselves into the commercial area. They feel that
was the best way to go.
Ms. Strogin said according to the letter (in her hand) that can be done, 10 days, publish it in the
Gazette, 10 days later it could be finished, and the Planning Commission would not be involved;
only the Recorder’s and Auditor’s. This would be the recommendation of the Township. She
stated that she did not know if the Commission wanted to approve this project or not, but the
Township would only accept it if they combined the lots.
*Mr. Henwood arrived, 6:50 p.m.
Roxan Rohrich, Tax Map office, apologized for not thinking of this earlier, said her proposal
would solve both problems and eliminate the time delay, would be instead of making this Zsarney
Subdivision Replat # 2, to make it O’Brien commercial subdivision. It would be one sublot, one
commercial subdivision, which she believed Medina Township allowed, and it would be one
parcel. It would be the same plat that the applicant has gotten drawn up, but just change the name
to sublot one. Ms. Strogin asked if it would be part of the other subdivision. Ms. Rohrich said
no, it would replat those pieces that were in the Zsarney Subdivision, that were owned by
O’Brien, they would become sublot one; all of them together in one piece of O’Brien Commercial
Subdivision.
Ms. Strogin said the Township’s concern was just to make sure it does not belong as part of a
residential subdivision. Ms. Rohrich said it would be removed from the residential subdivision
and become the new commercial subdivision, one lot, and one parcel number.
Mr. Greatens asked Ms. Rohrich if by creating the new subdivision it would vacate the three that
were currently there. Ms. Rohrich answered that it would replat those and take them out of the
Zsarney Subdivision, and makes them part of the sublot one of commercial subdivision.
Mr. Poklar said a simple name change would be the easiest for him. Ms. Theken said it was not a
simple name change. She said they would be creating a new subdivision which means they
would have to go through the Subdivision Regulations requirements. Ms. Strogin said then the
10 days advertising it in the paper was the easiest way to go. Ms. Theken said the easiest way to
go was to go where they were going now because the paperwork has already been filed and
everybody has reviewed it. Ms. Strogin said as discussed three weeks ago, this was not what the
Township wanted, but she understood this was the way the Planning Commission could handle it.
She said there was a legal way to handle this not involving the Planning Commission that would
accomplish it with the 10 day legal notice.
Ms. Conley said she thought it was up to the applicant to pull his application or table the project.
Mr. Poklar said it depended on what the Commission was going to do. He said when Gallucci
bought this parcel the use changed because this entire was zoned B-1. Ms. Strogin said the entire
parcel down 1,500 feet was B-1.
Ms. Conley said she did not understand why the Township was not accepting the project. Ms.
Strogin explained that the Township did not want commercial business put into a residential
subdivision. Mr. Rhodes asked where that was happening. Ms. Strogin said along Fenn Road.
Ms. Conley asked if it was that way now. Ms. Strogin said yes it was, but it should not be and
they were not aware of it being six lots and now that they are they would like it combined into
one lot. Ms. Conley asked if that was in the zoning code or where they were getting that
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 4
requirement from. Ms. Strogin stated that there had to be one principle parcel for a business. Ms.
Conley said this was a grandfathered business. Ms. Strogin said that was fine, but the Township
was requiring them to combine the lots into one parcel. Ms. Rohrich said she preferred
everything in one lot, but the Tax Maps office had no power. Ms. Strogin said when the site plan
review meeting was held Mr. O’Brien said he would combine the lots. Mr. Poklar said that was
true, but not to go through a difficult procedure to get there, that was what they were trying to
avoid.
Mr. Henwood asked Ms. Theken if the Township signed the Replat. She said no. He said it
seemed to him that there were a number of issues that needed to be worked out, and maybe the
applicant would consider taking time until next month to try and sort out what the best way was.
Mr. Poklar said it did not matter to him as long as he had the sign, because the Township granted
them temporary signage. Mr. Henwood said it seems everyone is going over the same
information repeatedly, and there are some unresolved issues that could be resolved outside of
this arena. Ms. Strogin said she did not think this belonged in a subdivision. If Ms. Rohrich
suggestion would work without going through the subdivision procedures, she would say okay,
but since that would cause the applicant more grief, and all this would require would be a notice
in the paper that they would be vacating and the lots that would be vacating are owned by him so
nobody would contest it.
Mr. Henwood said by vacating it may be deemed injurious to the other owners of the subdivision
which make them signatories to that Replat. Mr. Poklar said the key issue was that this was
grandfathered and has been that way forever. Mr. Henwood said his point was there seemed to be
a lot of unresolved issues that would not be resolved tonight. Ms. Strogin said the subdivision
were the lots on Fenn Road that were cut off in the 1960s, and she thought that those people
probably did not even know they were even in a subdivision. Mr. Henwood said that does not
mean they are not. Ms. Strogin interjected saying she understood that and said if it were published
for 10 days and no one objects because there was no HOA, or dues, etc. Mr. Henwood said the
question was would they be required to sign the Replat or not and that was a question for Mr.
Thorne. Ms. Theken said she also questions the remaining residents in the other sublots because
they have to sign off. Mr. Henwood once again said he did not think they had all the answers and
he did not think they were going to get them at this time. Ms. Strogin said she stood by the legal
counsel of the Township that said this was the best way to proceed and that was the way the
Township preferred it. Ms. Conley asked if the Trustees said that. Ms. Strogin said it was
brought up at a meeting when this was brought through at a regular Trustees meeting. Ms.
Conley said the letter she had was dated November 5, 2007 so they (the Trustees) do not know
about it. Ms. Strogin said that they did because she did inform them.
Mr. Adams said that there appeared to be quite a few technical issues that need to be resolved
with the applicant and he suggested the applicant table this project and resolve the issues and if he
has to come back next month that was fine. He asked Ms. Strogin if the Township would let him
keep the signs so he could continue to do business while the issues were worked out. She said
yes. Mr. Poklar said he would table the project.
Mr. Adams moved to approve the applicant’s request to table Zsarney Replat Subdivision. Ms.
Siegfried seconded the motion. All members voted AYE and the motion was approved.
B. Arbors of Bridgewater Crossing, Final Plat, Brunswick Hills Twp, 189-2007 FP
Ms. Czyz informed the Commission that she would be abstaining from this proposal.
Ms. Hirsch presented the staff report to the Commission regarding the above captioned
subdivision located at the northeast corner of Marks and Grafton Roads. The current proposal is
for the Final Plat approval of Phase Four being a replat of Block A-3, creating Block A-5, Blocks
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 5
B-1 through B-8, Blocks D-1 through D-9, Blocks R-1 and R-2 and sublots 17-28, 55-58, 62-73,
and 77-83.
All of the streets within the subdivision are private and include a proposed 60-foot wide water
main and utility easement. The applicant has dedicated an additional ten feet of R-O-W on both
Grafton and Marks Roads as requested by the Highway Engineer. Access to Phase Four will be
from Marks Road through Phase Three and from Grafton Road through Phases One and Three.
Roxan Rohrich, Tax Map office, said apparently what had not been mentioned to the Planning
commission was the developer will be filing a plat of correction prior to Phase Four correcting
some minor survey drawing errors. The drawing that the Commission has showing Block A5 it
would be A4 and it completely goes to the north. A5 extends to the northerly blue line, so it is a
larger area. The D blocks that were designated as driveway area, she did not know what that
meant, but that was the designation. Ms. Hirsch clarified that the Revised Plan would need to
request this change as well.
Greg Pacholski, developer representing Parkview Homes, said he would answer any questions.
Ms. Scheutzow asked if there were fewer units from the Preliminary Plan. Mr. Pacholski said he
thought there was one unit in Phase Four that was lost. As far as Block A5 future plans are to
build homes there, it was just for cleaning up purposes for the subdivision, making sure
everything has been recorded so it can be turned over to the HOA. Ms. Czyz thought it was more
than one unit that was lost.
Mr. Henwood questioned Block A5 including the Block in the northeast corner that was not
shaded. Ms. Rohrich said it was labeled A4 on the plat.
Mr. Kamps moved to approve the staff recommendations of Approval for the Arbors of
Bridgewater Crossing Final Plat Subdivision. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. Ms.
Scheutzow and Ms. Czyz abstained. All other members voted AYE and the motion was approved.
C. Woodford Commons Subdivision, Preliminary Plan, Montville Township, 190-2007 PP
Mr. Adams moved to approve the applicant’s written request to table the Woodford Commons
Preliminary Plan Subdivision until the December 5, 2007 MCPC meeting. Mr. Henwood
seconded the motion. Ms. Siegfried abstained. All other members voted AYE and the motion was
approved.
D. Montville Township Text Amendment, 191-2007 TA
Ms. Kulkowski presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above
captioned text amendment regarding Section 430.1E and Section 430.3B4.
The proposed text amendment was initiated by Montville Township Zoning Commission at
Montville Zoning Commission meeting of September 26, 2007.
Ms. Scheutzow questioned the last sentence in that section and if the word, “such” was necessary.
Ms. Theken said no. Ms. Scheutzow said it led her to what the Commission was reviewing with
the commercial development and wondered if that was an extraneous word that was needed.
Mr. Henwood moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the
Montville Township Text Amendment. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Ms. Siegfried abstained.
All voted AYE and the motion was approved
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 6
E. Montville Township Text Amendment, 184-2007 TA
Mr. Russell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment to delete existing Section 330.6 (SOB’s), and replace with proposed text.
The proposal was initiated by Montville Township Zoning Commission. The amendment was
essentially the same as that submitted and approved with modifications by the Planning
Commission in June 2007. Changes made in this submittal are the buffer distances around
protected land uses are given and a Staff comment regarding Day Care facilities was addressed.
Mr. Rhodes moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the
Montville Township Text Amendment. Ms. Czyz seconded the motion. Ms. Siegfried abstained.
All other members voted AYE and the motion was approved.
F. Westfield Township Text Amendment, 185-2007 TA
Mr. Russell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment regarding Articles II, III, (New Section 308), IV, V, and VIII to establish a new
General Business (GB) District. The applicants were Timothy and Linda Kratzer.
The amendments establish a new General Business Zoning District.
Mr. Russell did inform all that this was directly related to the upcoming Map Amendment and it
was difficult to separate one from the other.
Morris Stutzman, representing Tim and Linda Kratzer, said while the Westfield Development
Plan, including the update, does not specifically mention the encouraging larger commercial
establishments for creating new commercial district as such, it certainly does recognize the impact
of the state and the regional highways which pass through it. It specifically mentions the
likelihood of increased developments along those corridors of those roads that pass through the
Township.
He said with regard to the Planned Unit Development the Township code did not have a provision
and as a result to going that direction it would require, for example, an applicant to submit a text
and a map amendment; the same way as what was being this evening. As mentioned the
Township Zoning code does have two commercial districts at this time, Local Commercial and
Highway Commercial District. The intent of the Business District that was submitted really was
to provide an alternative to the Highway Commercial District for property that was located along
the major highways through Westfield Township. Mr. Stutzman said it would provide for a
greater variety of uses than does the Highway Commercial District which was intended to
provided accommodations and services for through truck and automobile traffic, so that was the
intent for submitting the proposal to begin with.
Mr. Stutzman recognized the need for a traffic impact study if a development like this occurs. He
also acknowledged the concerns regarding the interchange area and the potential need for road
improvements. The cost of all the studies was significant and while they may be incidental to a
major development, certainly they are a significant expenditure to a landowner such as the
Kratzer’s, particularly when a question remains as to when whether they could utilize the property
for the purpose they were proposing. He hoped that would be taken into consideration.
Mr. Stutzman wanted to express his thanks for the acknowledgement that a commercial
development properly sited and designed could be a real asset to the Township and the County.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 7
Ms. Conley asked if there was a professional hired to write up the code. Mr. Stutzman said the
text amendment was patterned after the Medina Township Business District. Ms. Conley clarified
that there was not a professional planner brought in to help the Township. Mr. Stutzman said no,
this was proposed by the applicant. Ms. Conley said as a trustee just knowing what Mr. Russell
was proposing with the Planned Unit Development, if the correct type of person were brought in
and the whole community were involved in the theory of developing the area, it would be more
positive than what has been going on because there everyone could have input and participation.
She said there are many professionals here that have worked in other areas of the County.
Mr. Kamps referenced the letter from the Medina County Soil and Water District and asked Mr.
Stutzman if there were any professional consulting engineers hired to do a study of the land and
how it would affect the proximity around the outside and the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy
District. Mr. Stutzman said there were people consulted who were in the development business,
but in terms of engineers, he was not sure. Mr. Kamps explained someone who would be able to
figure the hydrology out, etc. The letter from the Soil and Water District stated that it was not a
suitable area for development especially of a commercial site. It may very well cause a mitigation
problem, and may have some grow back (?) with the Corps of Engineers. The letter indicated that
a large portion, if not all of the property could possibly be considered wetlands and Mr. Kamps
was concerned regarding the potential effect of Stormwater questions that a development on that
property may bring forth. That has become a major component of worry in Northern Ohio and his
concern was those specs be out and present before he would be able to vote for it.
Mr. Rhodes asked if Mr. Kratzer wrote the language to go into the zoning. Mr. Stutzman said no,
he wrote the language. Mr. Rhodes asked if he worked for Mr. Kratzer. Mr. Stutzman said yes.
Mr. Henwood recommended looking at the NOACA 2000 Retail Study particularly when there
was discussion on increasing the amount of commercial property. He said the NOACA Study
speaks to an existing glut of commercially zoned land, and there was a recent Cleveland State
update that updates those numbers specifically applicable to Medina County and can be very
valuable for evaluating this type of text amendment and the following map amendment as well.
Mr. Russell said he did look at the NOACA study and was aware of the excess commercial land.
He was not sure how applicable it was this far south because of the two Interstates and the
NOACA Study aims to the north. He added this may be different enough in this area because of
the Interstates. He also looked at the update and it dealt with mainly small businesses and for
those reasons he did not site the study in the staff report.
Ms. Scheutzow said one of the things she found to be troubling was the proposed General
Business District, was for a rezoning that would allow for a number of those types of small
businesses. It would be for a variety of office, retail, and service establishments; to her it sounded
like shopping centers or something similar. She felt it changed the zoning and if they thought
back to the Planned Unit Development and look at the plan for the Township and if it were good
for the Township then they should be looking at adjusting their plan to say what is within the
long-term vision of the Township and then adjusting their zoning code to make sure that vision
becomes implemented. She said this looked to be doing it sort of backwards.
Ms. Conley asked if there was a rush to get this done. She suggested looking into the Planned
Unit Development, involving the community and the people from Seville. She said rather than
taking someone else’s zoning code and using it because there were so many other professionals
that could look at his situation and create something create unique for their Township rather than
pulling it from somewhere else. Mr. Stutzman said it had not developed to a point where there
was a site plan.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 8
Mr. Adams moved to approve staff recommendations of Disapproval for the Westfield Township
Text Amendment. Mr. Kamps seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
G. Westfield Township Map Amendment, 186-2007 MA
Mr. Russell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
map amendment for 105.440 acres and 1.7897 acres RR, Rural Residential and LC, Local
Commercial to GB, General Business District (proposed). The property was located on the north
side of Greenwich Road, south of I-76 and I-71, west of Ryan Road.
The applicants were Timothy and Linda Kratzer.
The applicant was requesting to rezone approximately 107 acres (2 parcels) from Rural
Residential District and Local Commercial to a proposed General Business District. Concurrent
with this amendment, a proposed text amendment was submitted to create a General Business
(GB) District. The text amendment was reviewed in a separate staff report.
Mr. Henwood moved to approve staff recommendations of Disapproval for the Westfield
Township Map Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion
was approved.
H. Granger Township Text Amendment, 182-2007 TA
Ms. Theken presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment to Section 305 C-3, Highway Commercial District and Article XI, Definitions.
Granger Township Zoning Commission proposes to replace the existing C-3 Highway Interchange
Commercial District with C-3 Interchange Commercial District language.
Mr. Adams moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modification for the
Granger Township Map Amendment. Mr. Rhodes seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the
motion was approved.
I. Granger Township Map Amendment, 183-2007 MA
Ms. Theken presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
map amendment rezoning from R-1 Residential to C-3, Highway Commercial. The property
fronts on Remsen Road, south of I-271, and west of Ridge Road.
The Granger Township Zoning Commission proposes to rezone approximately 19 acres on
Remsen Road from the existing R-1, Residential District to C-3, Highway Interchange
Commercial District.
Ms. Theken said she did take some time to go over the legal description with Roxan and there
were a number of errors on it that would cause the amendment not to be consistent with what the
intent was.
Mr. Kamps said looking at the map and being familiar with the area he believed it fell in the
current “thing” that Jeff Van Loon was looking at for the Lake Erie Commission. He said that
particular stream flows to the south and it flows into the west branch of the Rocky River, so it was
within that study area that Mr. Van Loon has been working on and it may or may not be consistent
with what had been recommended as for development areas. It was his (Mr. Kamps) thought that
it should be part of the study before anything was proposed, and it was obvious looking at the map
a large portion was in the 100-year floodplain or was floodprone soils.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 9
Ms. Czyz moved to approve staff recommendations of Disapproval for the Granger Township Map
Amendment and suggested the Township be part of the Balanced Growth project. Ms. Siegfried
seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
J. Lafayette Township Text Amendment, 192-2007 TA
Ms. Hirsch presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment regarding creating a new District, Section 308, Chippewa Resort (CR) District.
The proposed text amendments were initiated by Lafayette Township Zoning Commission at the
request of Chippewa Partners LLC. A public hearing has been set for November 15, 2007.
Ms. Hirsch suggested that the Planning Services Department be part of this process.
Alliss Strogin, zoning inspector, said the Township was brought a proposal to consider this type of
rezoning, and the Township had taken a look at it; there was a concern that if someone wanted to
go in and develop into a commercial fashion it would be far more detrimental to the surrounding
to the surrounding areas than what the proposal shows. As far as Ms. Hirsch’s comments were
concerned they were good to have and simple to fix. She said they had “met at the kitchen table”
and fixed a vast majority of the comments and appreciated that Ms. Hirsch brought those to the
Township’s attention. This will be brought to the Board in its revised version next week for the
public hearing.
Ms. Strogin said addressing on of the comments; the District was designed so it could have two
primary uses. One would be straight single family use and the second option would be the resort
portion. This would require having a minimum of 50 acres because the second option would
allow the multi-family, the single family detached, and attached clusters. It could all be tied into
with the hotel, spas, and things of that nature being part of the open space was the way the
Township was looking at it.
Ms. Strogin said a lot of the items mentioned needed to be addressed in the actual Site Plan. She
referenced a for instance with Mr. Kamps and the floodplain. She said all that would be addressed
at the Site Plan review when all the other agencies that was there to protect the Township and
surrounding areas looking at the project. There was a Site Plan requirement in Section 216 and it
has been referenced. They referenced all the different areas of the zoning that needed to be done
so that the developers can refer to them.
As far as cabanas were concerned, there were to be no cabanas out there without her final
approval, so short of writing that into the zoning, she said that had to be an accessory use. She
stated a cabana could be a tent or a permanent structure if it was in the ground. A barbeque
facility could be something that was bought from the “Home Depot” and brought in or the stone
and brick structures.
The environmental concern was under the Chippewa Watershed and that was referenced in the
text because the Township felt it was important, and it should be part of the Site Plan review.
Even though there were many issues in the area, the Township’s goal was to help in some way.
Ms. Strogin said another one of Ms. Hirsch’s main concerns was to wait until the Comprehensive
Plan was completed. In theory that was great, but practicality was they did not believe they had
the time to wait for another year or year and a half because they were not even close to having it
finished. Rather than leave the area exposed into the possibility of development that was not
what the Township now feels that ought to be conducive, they would strongly recommend that the
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 10
Planning Commission change the recommendation to approval with the staff comments, which the
Township has already taken into consideration and modified per Ms. Hirsch’s suggestions.
Karen Schoonover, Lafayette Township Zoning Commission chair, said there was a lot of interest
expressed by the members of Comprehensive Plan Committee Board and they have come to a
portion of that where they have stalled. Her concern was that Lafayette Township was not an area
with a large tax base with a lot of businesses. Whether or not this developer was the one who
develops it she believed that the zoning commission would go forward with drafting language that
they felt comfortable with for this area.
Ms. Conley asked if the Township made it a Planned Unit Development. Ms. Schoonover said
no. Ms. Conley asked if she understood what a Planned Unit Development could do for her. She
said yes and no. Under principally permitted use Ms. Schoonover read, “Mixed use which may
include the following and is subject to contiguous 50 acre minimum requirements”. She also said
they have that 216 that was very old language Site Plan Review, but they have the Technology
Park that was very new language. The problem remains that the entire Technology Park would
not be applicable to this type of business, but if they could put the two together.
Ms. Theken suggested if there were revisions made, and there going to have to be considerable
kinds of revisions based upon Planning staff review and the fact that it was not written well,
perhaps it may be better for the Township to go back to the drawing board and then re-submit it to
the Planning office so they can re-evaluate it. Ms. Conley said they would listen to the developer
next and hear their explanation
Mr. Doug Druschel, attorney representing Chippewa Partners LLC, said some comments from the
Planning staff they had no problem with and were incorporated as Ms. Schoonover rough drafted
a refinement of this that would include most of the comments. He said they did not like the
Planned Unit Development, because it was not appropriate for the area nor was it permitted. He
said this was a large project being over 90 acres total with part of it being in Westfield Township
and it would be done in phases. He agreed that approval with modifications would be the
appropriate result, because they are under a time constraint with the contract for the purchase of
the property.
Ms. Hirsch addressed the Planned Unit Development not being allowed. The ORC permits any
applicant to request a site specific Planned Unit Development on any land so the CR District
could be written as a site specific Planned Unit Development. Mr. Druschel said he understood
what Ms. Hirsch was saying, but it was not a desirable zoning change for the reasons he
mentioned. Mr. Hirsch went on to say that a Planned Unit Development could be written for
Phases and yes, they would have to come back through with the changes.
Ms. Theken said that a Planned Unit Development was absolutely appropriate for the area. It
would provide the Township with some protection and give the developer the ability to have some
creativity and flexibility, but it also gives the Township protection over what kinds of things the
developer proposes. It also would then allow the other agencies to have their comments be
known. She said there were many issues about the environment that needed to be known on this
property. There were concerns about the development with the spa and the hotel and the location
of those particular buildings on the property and their relationship to the emergency services. She
thought that the Fire Department needed to be more involved in the process as well. She did not
see in the proposed text any reference to distance between buildings, for the hotel, for accessory
buildings, for the spas, etc. She said without a site plan she could not see where the hydrants were
going to go or where the fire plugs on the buildings were going to be, so the Fire Department can
do their jobs. With the Planned Unit Development all those things could be addressed and the
Township could feel comfortable that they have looked at everything for the safety of its
residents.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 11
Mr. Druschel said when they met with the Fire Chief he was at the hearing not articulating any
concerns, but giving them directions on what they would have to do. Site Plan approval would
have certain requirements that Mr. Druschel had no problems with, but he said these were site
plan issues, not zoning issues. Mr. Adams said when a statement like that was made, site plans
were drawn based upon zoning requirements, specifications, and standards that are in place. If the
time was not taken to properly write the standards first, then the review becomes a head-butting
affair. The document that was reviewed for tonight’s meeting, he felt staff gave a quality review
and has suggested to the Township that they need to do more work. He thought the Township has
an adequate amount of time to develop the appropriate zoning standards, the appropriate zoning
text and get it ready to go and bring it forward. Mr. Adams felt the Commission should not be
asked to give an approval based upon what was done at “a kitchen table”. He would like to see
and would like to hear professional staff recommendations based upon the language the Township
intends to put into the Township’s zoning.
Mr. Adams moved to approve staff recommendations of Disapproval for the Lafayette Township
Text Amendment. Mr. Henwood seconded the motion.
Mr. Rhodes said the Township seemed to be in a hurry to complete this. Ms. Schoonover said no,
they wanted to do what was best for the Township that was her overall first goal. He asked her
what she thought after hearing all of what Mr. Adams had to say. Ms. Schoonover said that the
Township had a lot of work to do and it was something that could be done in a timely manner, but
she appreciated all Ms. Hirsch’s work. Mr. Rhodes clarified that she understood and accepted
Mr. Adams motion. She said she did.
Ms. Conley commented that they grew up with the lake. Even though they may not live right by
it, they still want the best for that area, so they were asking them to take their time, consult with
the staff and do a beautiful job so we can go there and enjoy your development.
All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
K. Lafayette Township Map Amendment, 193-2007 MA
Ms. Hirsch presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
map amendment rezoning R-R, Rural Residential and L-C, Light Commercial to CR, Chippewa
Resort District. The property was located north of the boundary with Westfield Township, east of
Chippewa Lake, west of Lake Road, and south of Longacre Lane.
Lafayette Township has submitted the Zoning District map amendment initiated by Chippewa
Partners LLC. The map amendment proposes to rezone approximately 86.8 acres east of
Chippewa Lake from the existing R-R and LC district to a proposed Chippewa Resort District
(CR) District. The applicant has also submitted the text for the proposed CR district.
Mr. Henwood moved to approve staff recommendations of Disapproval for the Lafayette
Township Map Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion
was approved
L. City of Brunswick Text Amendment, 199-2007 TA
Mr. Bartell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment regarding Ordinance No’s. 110-07, 111-07, 112-07, 113-07, and 115-07.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 12
The proposed amendments to the Codified Ordinances of the City of Brunswick have been
initiated by the Brunswick City Planning Commission to allow Mural Signs as a conditionally
permitted use in the commercial zoning districts.
Mr. Rhodes moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the
Brunswick City Text Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the
motion was approved.
M. City of Medina Text Amendment, 200-2007 TA
Mr. Greatens presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment regarding Chapters 1135.02(b), 1137.02(b), 1138.02(b), and 1153.04(a).
The current proposal was to amend to Chapters listed by adding the following new sections:
Chapter 1135.02(b)(11); Chapter 1137.02(b)(8); and Chapter 1153.04(a)(40). Also, to amend
Chapter 1138.02(b)(1).
Mr. Greatens did read an email that Greg Hannan sent to him.
Ms. Czyz moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the Medina
City Text Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was
approved.
N. City of Medina Map Amendment, 201-2007 MA
Mr. Greatens presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
map amendment rezoning R-1 (York Township) to I-1, Industrial.
The northern most parcel is located on the south side of Stone Road, west of the intersection with
Norwalk Road (SR 18). The central parcel is located on the north side of Branch Road,
approximately 2,000 feet west of the intersection of Branch Road and Commerce Drive. The
southernmost parcels are located on the north side of Smith Road, approximately 2,500 feet west
of the intersection of Smith Road and Commerce Drive.
The current proposal was to rezone four parcels (31.8318 acres) of land from R-1 Residential in
York Township to I-1, Industrial in the City of Medina. The parcels were annexed to the City of
Medina in 2003 as part of a CEDA agreement with York Township.
Ms. Czyz clarified if a parcel on Branch Road was part of the CEDA agreement. Mr. Greatens
said no, but he was not sure why. Ms. Conley said it could be because they were different owners.
Ms. Siegfried moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the
Medina City Map Amendment. Mr. Kamps seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion
was approved.
O. City of Medina Map Amendment, 204-2007 MA
Mr. Greatens presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
map amendment rezoning I-1, Industrial to C-1, Commercial.
This site is located on the north side of Lafayette Road (US 42), just east of the B & O Railroad.
The current proposal is to rezone a parcel from I-1, Industrial to C-1, Local Commercial.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 13
Kathryn Truman, applicant, asked what the long term detriment from a C-1 on an I- 1 district
would be. Mr. Greatens said that was referring to the C-1 Commercial District permitted uses that
do not seem to fit with what was currently used on the property to the east which was Industrial.
Ms. Truman said the property immediately adjacent to it was a dry cleaner which was a C-1 use
even though it was zoning I-1. The property across the street was an ice cream parlor and there
also was a car wash. The industrial uses were light at best and the rest were commercial.
Ms. Conley asked if she was aware of the conditional use permit. Ms. Truman said yes she was.
Ms. Conley asked if she made an application. Ms. Truman said no because she was going to be
investing a substantial amount of money into renovating the property. Her long-term plan was to
keep it, but if they were to re-sell she wanted to have the maximum amount of use for it. If she
applied for a conditionally permitted use, she would be limited as to what it could be used for or a
future buyer would then have to re-apply. She said it was largely a Commercial district already
even thought adjacent properties were zoned Industrial. She said this meets the City’s long term
plan for the zone.
Ms. Czyz said that building has been vacant for at least a couple of years.
Ms. Conley asked Ms. Truman if she approached the City to possibly take a look at the area and to
see if they wanted to do an overlay. Ms. Truman said she spoke with Greg Hannan regarding that
and he told her they would consider doing that, but not until after the first of the year. He
suggested to her that she apply for a zoning change after understanding what her intent was.
Mr. Henwood asked about the Comprehensive Plan for Medina City for that area. Mr. Greatens
said he looked through it and could not find anything.
Ms. Truman produced a letter from Greg Hannan, and read his comments.
Ms. Czyz said because this property has been vacant for a couple of years, the city of Medina was
collecting the minimum of taxes from the property as opposed to having someone wanting to
occupy that and then them being the highest and best use out of the property. She did not
understand when there was so much commercial property why this was being such a problem.
Ms. Conley said that it was the City of Medina that would decide if they want to re-zone the
property. This Board just makes the recommendation.
Ms. Czyz moved to accept the applicant’s request for the Medina City Map Amendment and
suggested that the City re-evaluate the area for the I-1 District. Ms. Siegfried seconded the
motion.
Ms. Scheutzow asked if there was a substantial difference in a tax treatment that this was zoned
Industrial with a conditional office versus a commercial property with a permitted use on it. Ms.
Conley said the Auditor taxes the property as what use it is.
Ms. Siegfried asked Mr. Greatens if he received a copy of Greg Hannan’s letter. Mr. Greatens
said he did not. Ms. Theken asked for a copy of that letter for the Planning Office’s file.
Ms. Theken said if the Planning Commission did not accept staff recommendation, but goes the
other way, could it be recommended that the Medina City Planning Commission re-evaluate the
area and the use for it for the I-1 District.
Ms. Conley said she felt another reason for the motion was the recommendation from the 2006
Comprehensive Plan that was read by the applicant which was not available to the staff.
All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 14
VI. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Ms. Theken asked the Commission to look over the meeting (Concept and MCPC) times for 2008
so they can be approved at the December MCPC meeting.
In from of the members were proposed revisions to the minor subdivision section of the
Subdivision Regulations as well as the addition of Article VII for Large Lot Developments. This
was provided to them last month, but in the meantime, more comments were handed in from
Andy Conrad and Bill Thorne so that can be also added to the December meeting.
She asked the Planning Commission approved this as a text amendment so that they could begin
the process and have this in front of them for a public hearing in January.
Ms. Scheutzow asked if what was in front of them a modification from what was mailed to them.
Ms. Theken said yes.
Ms. Scheutzow moved to approve the Article V Minor Subdivision and Article VII Large Lot
Development language and set a public hearing for January 9, 2008. Ms. Siegfried seconded the
motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
Ms. Hirsch reminded all about the Open House on Friday, November 9, 2007 at the A.I. Root
Company, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There was no Public Participation.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no Other Business.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Henwood moved to adjourn the November 7, 2007 MCPC meeting at 9:05 p.m. Ms. Czyz
seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
________________________________ _________________________________
Colene Conley, President Cheryl Schmock, Admin Asst
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\a2ac9668-bc59-4904-8ba5-66a13008c7b8.doc 15