VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 17 POSTED ON: 6/3/2010
MEDINA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2008, 6:30 P.M. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM Attendees / Representing: Ray Jarrett, Medina Township Karen Schoonover, Lafayette Township David Lewis, Granite Golf Jason Brenner, Granite Golf Craig Koenig, Deerfield Farms, NCK Properties Alliss Strogin, Medina/Lafayette Townships Ray Hanley, GGP Development Co Mike Cavey, GGP Development Co Andy Conrad, Highway Engineers Bill Doraty, Bill Doraty Kia Becky Harris, Bill Doraty Kia Al Nimer, Medina Foods Brad Winter, Lafayette Fire and Rescue MCPC Members and Alternates in Attendance: MCPC Members: Lynda Bowers, Vice President Buck Adams, 2nd Vice President Rita Holt Mark Kolesar Kathleen Scheutzow MCPC Alternates: Evelyn Czyz (for Pat Geissman) Rob Henwood (for Steve Hambley) Ron Rhodes (for Colene Conley) Elayne Siegfried (for Sharon Ray) MCDPS Staff: Patrice Theken, Director Cheryl Schmock, Admin Assistant Zach Greatens, Associate Planner Susan Hirsch, Deputy Director Chris Bartell, Associate Planner Vice President Lynda Bowers called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Ms. Schmock called the roll. Ms. Bowers, Mr. Adams, Ms. Scheutzow, Mr. Kolesar, Ms. Holt, Ms. Czyz, Mr. Rhodes, Ms. Siegfried, and Mr. Henwood were present. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 1 II. MINUTES Ms. Bowers asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the November 5, 2008 minutes. There were none. Mr. Adams moved to approve the November 5, 2008 minutes as presented. Ms. Czyz seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Deerfield Farms Subdivision, Preliminary Plan Extension Request, Medina Twp, 164-2008 PP- Ext The above captioned subdivision is located on the south side of Fenn Road approximately 2,000 feet west of Huffman Road. The current proposal is for the extension of the Preliminary Plan extension for two years, the time period set forth in the Medina County Subdivision Regulations in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. B. Shale Creek Subdivision, Preliminary Plan Extension Request, York Twp, 166-2008 PP-Ext The above captioned subdivision is located on the west side of Marks Road between Spieth and Hamilton Roads. The current proposal is for a one-year extension of the Preliminary Plan for Shale Creek Subdivision. Mr. Henwood moved to approve the Consent Calendar for Deerfield Farms and Shale Creek Subdivisions, both Preliminary Plan Extension Requests. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved. **Ms. Bowers removed herself from the room for the upcoming agenda item in Lafayette Township, 7:02 p.m. Mr. Adams took over. V. NEW BUSINESS B. Wedgewood Villas PUD Subdivision, Preliminary Plan, Lafayette Twp, 165-2008 PP Ms. Theken presented the staff report to the Commission regarding the above captioned subdivision located on the south side of Wedgewood Road (SR 162), west of Ryan Road, and east of Lake Road. The Wedgewood Villas PUD Subdivision, formally known as Medina Country Club North Subdivision, is a single family residential planned unit development subdivision with 47 units within an existing golf course. The subdivision is accessed from Wedgewood Road (SR 162), approximately 1,000 feet from the intersection of Ryan and Wedgewood Roads. The proposed Granite Boulevard, a 60 foot public right- of-way, aligns with Tyndale Lane on the north side of Wedgewood Road in the Medina Country Club North Subdivision. Granite Boulevard ends in a temporary street stub. Access to the west toward Lake Road appears to be viable. A tunnel for a cart path for bicycles, golf carts and maintenance equipment is proposed to be constructed under SR 162 approximately 200 feet from the entrance into the subdivision. Retention basins are proposed on the east side of Granite Boulevard, with associated storm drainage easements. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 2 Staff recommended Disapproval of the Preliminary Plan for Wedgewood Villas PUD Subdivision with these recommendations: 1. Boulevard entrances and cul-de-sac islands are not permitted. The Medina County Commissioners must grant a variance from the Engineering Code for a boulevard entrance. Lafayette Township Trustees must provide a written acceptance to vary from their township road resolution to allow an island in a cul-de-sac. 2. A variance for the intersection spacing on SR 162 must be obtained from ODOT. An access permit must be obtained from ODOT. 3. Township zoning approval documentation for the Preliminary Subdivision Site Plan and Golf Community Planned Unit Development (GCPUD) Overlay District designation must be submitted. Revisions required by Lafayette Township to the Site Plan may result in the alteration of the Preliminary Plan. 4. Correct subdivision name on Preliminary Plan. 5. Homeowner association documents must be reviewed. 6. Correspondence to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District regarding the proposed development of this property must be submitted. 7. Agency comments must be addressed. Ms. Theken requested that Ms. Hirsch present her staff report before any comments or motion was made as the Preliminary Plan and the Site Review go together. A. Wedgewood Villas PUD Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Lafayette Twp, 176-2008 SP Ms. Hirsch presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned subdivision located on the south side of Wedgewood Road (SR 162), west of Ryan Road, and east of Lake Road. The Wedgewood Villas PUD Subdivision, formally known as Medina Country Club North Subdivision, is a single family residential planned unit development subdivision with 47 units within an existing golf course. As of November 25, 2008 the plan submitted for Preliminary Plan review is to function as both the Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Site Plan. The subdivision is accessed from Wedgewood Road (SR 162), approximately 1,000 feet from the intersection of Ryan and Wedgewood Roads. The proposed Granite Boulevard, a 60 foot public right- of-way, aligns with Tyndale Lane on the north side of Wedgewood Road in the Medina Country Club North Subdivision. Granite Boulevard ends in a temporary street stub. Access to the west toward Lake Road appears to be viable. A tunnel for a cart path for bicycles, golf carts and maintenance equipment is proposed to be constructed under SR 162 approximately 200 feet from the entrance into the subdivision. Retention basins are proposed on the east side of Granite Boulevard, with associated storm drainage easements. Staff recommended Disapproval of the Preliminary Site Plan. There is insufficient information to adequately review the Site Plan in accordance with the Golf Course Community PUD Overlay District regulations. Also, the HOA Documents were not submitted in time to get comments from the Prosecutor‟s Office and the Township. The HOA documents are critical for understanding the Open Space ownership, maintenance and dedication. Jason Brenner, Lewis Land Professionals, stated while he knew there was a laundry list of things Planning has raised, he did not have any objections to the comments or questions from Planning Services, but he wanted to take the time to go over them from his point of view. He said he did not feel the items were very monumental and could be worked through. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 3 He said for the subdivision comments they did meet with the Lafayette Township Fire Department yesterday, and they are not objecting to fire hydrants every 300-feet because that is the requirement. They are not objecting to the parking signs. The developers are going to be meeting with the fire department regarding the residential sprinklers, getting information and try to work with the home builders to institute sprinklers into this. Mr. Brenner addressed the Highway Engineer‟s comments on the boulevard and cul-de-sac islands and said they are meeting with the Trustees on the 15 th of December to request the variance. They have a letter to Andy to present to the County Commissioners for the boulevard island. However, knowing that the County Commissioners are going to ask what the Township‟s decision was, they are holding it until they meet with them. If either party says they do not want the boulevard/cul-de-sac islands then the applicant has no objection to pulling them out. Mr. Brenner said they were just following the zoning code that said they were encouraged. Mr. Brenner continued saying the gas lines were roughly shown on the plan and will be relocated. He said the sidewalks are their responsibility across the open space just like any other development. They will be analyzing the impact on the northern retention basin and the developer has indicated it should be shifted to the north. He said they are 18-feet above the creek bed and will satisfy any Board of engineering requirements. The stormwater permit is a requirement through the OEPA, and Mr. Brenner said it is no different than working with them on any other project. He stated that he has spoken to Tax Maps and they have reserved the subdivision name and all the street names for them for the north and south side. The street name “Granite Golf Drive” was acceptable for Tax Maps and was reserved for the applicants. Regarding disposition of the Open Space Blocks, the applicants recognize the two different school districts will have a Block “A” and a Block “B”. They are talking with the developer for the clubhouse area to show this facility as a third Block, which could be more easily taxed as a community or business type block as opposed to being an open space block. Mr. Brenner addressed the comment from Alliss Strogin regarding the 75-foot setback on sublot 1. He said if you read the zoning code it says, 75-foot setback from building. The property itself in sublot 47 can encroach into that 75-foot setback. They are not saying the actual corner of the foundation will be there, but it can be there and work with mounding and landscaping to make the lot pleasing. The developer has indicated that they would be a model home in that location and would be doing the landscaping all at one time. Mr. Brenner stated that the lack of a landscaping plan was an oversight on their behalf. Working with the Township on the north side, they dealt with the landscaping after the plan was approved and felt they could handle that in the same manner. He said as far as ODOT is concerned they have been working with Julie and Dawn for the past two to three months on the north side in conjunction with the south side. As Ms. Theken stated at the Concept meeting this is one giant subdivision on both sides of the road. He said they are approaching ODOT because they are working on both sides of the road all at one time and working on the engineering plans being approved. The variance request is for both sides of the road east to Ryan Road, not the Golf Course clubhouse area. A letter has been formally submitted to ODOT requesting that variance. Mr. Brenner said the traffic impact study has been approved with some minor comments. He said that there was name confusion on the north side in June when this was presented under the name “Medina Country Club North” on the north side. The name change that was applied for is for that subdivision D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 4 only because they wanted to name it Wedgewood Estates. It has been discussed that the south side name be changed to Country Club Villas. This way there will be two distinct names. He apologized for getting the homeowner documents to the Planning office late. He said back in June the north side [HOA documents] was not given at the same time as the plan submittal so the urgency of submitting them was overlooked. The Army Corps of Engineers delineated the south side, but where the sample points are located and where they are working are 18 to 20-feet on top of the ridge. It is high and dry as well as golf course; there are no wetlands. He said he has documentation supporting their saying they are not impacting any wetlands or touching the creek area so they do not need a wetland permit. David Lewis, Lewis Land Professionals, addressed the Site Plan and apologized saying they did not submit a Site Plan for review. They looked at this as Planning Commission has jurisdiction over the subdivision process, so they submitted the subdivision plan to the office. There has been some confusion all along as to whether the subdivision plan is the same as the site plan, or if they were two separate plans. He said they came to the conclusion at the Township meeting last evening that they would go ahead and prepare a full site plan showing all the detailed landscaping, what the dwelling units look like, and the driveways. He said this will be a complete comprehensive site plan which the Township has jurisdiction over. His understanding was the vote on the site plan from the Planning Commission was a recommendation to the Township and just a recommendation. The vote on the subdivision plan would be a final approval for the subdivision plat. Addressing the site plan comments, Mr. Lewis said they will stay away from the major creek drainage way; obviously it is a non-buildable area. Based on the Soil Conservation District recommendations, they will stay as far away from it as they can. The closest point they are to it is over 100-feet at the pinch point which they exceed the recommendation for the riparian setback. The proposed street does follow a ridgeline and this was done on purpose to maximize the views from the units. Mr. Lewis stated that the waterline looping was back to the main feed line. The sanitary sewer comes in from this point and the reason for this is “bucking grade”. He said they cannot sewer anything further south than the cul-de-sac. When it is said that the plan lacks some creativity, it is because they are limited to where the buildable area is. The frontage is already developed with the Medina Country Club. There is also the old cemetery and the waste water treatment plant for the country club, the park barn, and the clubhouse in that area. Mr. Lewis stated the present layout was the least disruptive to the golf course taking into consideration the existing course. Mr. Lewis said in summary, they are preparing a landscape plan and would submit it to the Township and the Planning Services office. They would continue with the approval process for the subdivision plan as directed and they would certainly comply with the staff recommendations. Mr. Lewis wanted to let the Planning Commission know before they voted that he did have a letter to ask to be tabled until the next meeting, but he wanted the Township to have a chance to speak. Alliss Strogin, Lafayette Township Zoning Inspector, complimented Ms. Theken on a very thorough review. She said the Township (full board) went over it with the applicant and had them explain as they did here as to the different items that Ms. Theken brought up in her staff report. She thought as everyone heard the developer state, the vast majority if not all, with the exception of the landscape plan, has been addressed. She said they did talk about the Blocks and the applicant did come up with at least three Blocks. The first would be the clubhouse area and associated buildings. The second block for the open space is for one of the school districts and the third block for the other school district. She said she was not sure why a Block was needed for the cul-de-sac and boulevard if in fact a variance goes through. She thought it would be part of the declarations and covenants. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 5 Ms. Strogin said from the Township‟s perspective they feel comfortable with the design and with the information that has been supplied. All lots meet the Township‟s minimum size so when the applicant comes in for a physical permit they will have to have the front, side, and rear yard setbacks on them. She said the lots as they are configured with a tentative 50‟ x 60‟ building envelope inside the lot, so that it is obvious there is going to be a place to build. On lot 47 there was a lot of discussion and the consensus was that the building itself has to be 75 feet away, and the lot must be landscaped. She said Mr. Cavey, Lewis Land, and the Township has discussed this on numerous occasions. The goal is to have extensive mounding and landscaping up at the front so that when drivers pass by a subdivision with 47 to 50 houses, they are not visible. Ms. Strogin said as far as she was aware there were no active or inactive gas and/or oil wells on the property. She stated she received the HOA restrictions last night so she has not had a chance to read them at this point. It is a very important document that needs to be reviewed by the Township, Planning Services, and legal counsel. However, it was not unusual to put a conditional approval on a site plan with a recommendation of the Planning Commission of having the different items approved. She looked at recommendation number one and said that they knew the cul-de-sac and boulevard entrances were not allowed. The Township put it in the document because they wanted to show support from the Township that they encourage the developers to do that because they think it is a nice idea. The Township just has to convince the County Commissioner‟s it is a nice idea, but that is why they put it in their Overlay District. She said as long as those types of things were part of the declarations and covenants and maintained by the association she thought they were very attractive. Obviously the goal is to have them maintained in a proper and attractive fashion. She did not feel that was a reason to disapprove the plan. Ms. Strogin said for the variance on the intersection from ODOT; again the paperwork has been applied for. The question is when it will get here, and many times subdivisions are approved contingent upon the approval and is not held up for that. The Township did not formally approve the Preliminary Plan last night because they wanted to wait and see if there was some other issue that came up that they were not aware of. The consensus of the Board last night was that with the landscape plan the Township would approve the site plan because it does comply with Township zoning and intent. They would only be waiting on the landscaping plan. Ms. Strogin said even though all of the points needed to be corrected right now, they have been agreed upon and if not already corrected they are in the process of doing so. She felt it was not detrimental to go ahead and give a conditional approval based on all conditions of the Planning staff be met. Ms. Strogin added one condition and that was the landscaping. She said it was mentioned at the top, but not in the staff comments. She said the Chair of the Zoning Commission was here tonight and she concurred with her. Ms. Strogin said that Karen Schoonover, chair, nodded her head, „yes‟ in agreement. Mr. Henwood asked if in the Overlay District there was any differentiation between golf course open space and what is often considered open space for a subdivision. He asked if the golf course got to count as open space. Ms. Strogin answered that the golf course was needed to get the density so they went up to the 90 acres. She said they did not compromise the density, they merely allowed the applicant a way to have a different opportunity of presenting that. The Township required a minimum of 40% and they have considerably more. Ms. Strogin stated that once that portion is recorded as open space for that development that will be the open space into perpetuity, as long as the subdivision is there. Mr. Henwood clarified that the golf course does get to count towards the open space of the subdivision. Ms. Strogin said yes. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 6 Ms. Scheutzow clarified that the open space was going to be in the declarations and covenants as well as the open space that would be golf course. She asked if at some point in the future it ceases to become golf course, then will that portion of the golf course be part of the homeowner‟s association responsibility. Ms. Strogin answered that if for some reason the golf course becomes not a golf course the 80 acres that is part of the subdivision will remain. If it is no longer a golf course it can go fallow if that is what the homeowner‟s association wants, but it would be up to the homeowner‟s association to make any decisions. Ms. Strogin said this was no different than any other golf course/subdivision communities that are around. The main factor is that the golf course is the open space because it is a safe assumption that the vast majority of the individuals that are going to buy these homes are going to want to walk out their back door onto the golf course. She added that the Township required that 50 units have social memberships to the Medina Country Club so that there would never be a possibility of them not being able to utilize the golf course. The declarations, if they are written correctly, will protect the golf course and the individual so that they should live in good harmony. Ms. Scheutzow asked if those had an overlap where a portion of the open space is golf course and where part of it is not. Ms. Strogin reiterated that she received the documents last night and had not read them. She said that is what they should be doing and if they were not, they will, or the Township will not approve them and the Planning Commission‟s conditional approval would be null and void. If the applicant does not comply with all items listed on the conditional approval, then the approval would be no good. Mr. Adams wanted to note for the record that Mr. Rhodes, the alternate for Colene Conley, came in at 6:33 p.m. Ms. Schmock said she had written it down. Ms. Holt asked if in the ODOT traffic studies they were looking at a [traffic] light at that location. She said a lot of traffic will be generated going in and out on both sides of the road. Mr. Brenner said no, they are not looking at a traffic signal. She asked if he thought it might be an advantage to their development. Mr. Brenner said that may be true, but the traffic being generated does not warrant a signal so they can not put one in or ask for one at this time. Ms. Holt asked as far as the landscaping, where was the common space and was that going to be deeded to each homeowner. Ms. Strogin stated that the homeowners will own a portion and pay through their maintenance fees to maintain it. Ms. Holt clarified that they will own a portion of the golf course. Ms. Strogin said yes. Ms. Holt asked if this was agreeable to the owners of the golf course. Ms. Strogin said Mr. Cavey, the owner, is shaking his head yes, for the record. Mike Cavey, owner, stated that in the Shale Creek project they had the green space, and they maintained the green space. It is a public golf course, so obviously everyone has access to that. Mr. Cavey said that with this project everyone owns their own lot, but the association will pay for the maintenance and landscaping on any common ground that is left for the homeowners association. He said just like at Shale Creek, they maintain all of the golf course; the only thing they maintain is the boulevard entrances. If the turnaround is allowed he would like to landscape that and have that be part of the homeowners association, but that would all be done by the same one contractor. Mr. Adams questioned if that was all in the homeowner association documents that have yet to be reviewed. Mr. Cavey said yes, these are pretty much a mirror of what the County had approved with Shale Creek. Ms. Hirsch stated that one of the reasons that Planning Services needed the homeowner‟s documents in this situation and not the other one [Wedgewood Villas] is to be able to distinguish between common areas that would be governed and maintained by the association and that which is part of the golf course. She said it is also in a different zoning district north of Wedgewood D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 7 Road. She added that this is a different situation. In the document they do distinguish between golf course property and common homeowner property and that was why she stated the plan should show which is which and that is why they might need more blocks. Ms. Strogin thought part of the confusion was initially a year and a half ago the applicants came in with this subdivision for both sides as one, which required zoning changes on both sides of the street. The Township was receptive to rezoning the parcels on the north side of the street because they were very similar to what was already there and it was a logical move to make. There was a tremendous amount of resistance by everybody, except the developers, to rezone any property south [of Wedgewood Road]. After much discussion an overlay district was decided upon because this gave the applicant the opportunity to do what he wanted, it gave the Township the ability to say they have not changed the density (one unit per 2 acres), and if the applicant never decides to put the Planned Unit Development in, the zoning remains at 2 acres. She said the Township felt this was a win/win situation if they chose to go ahead and activate the zoning with the Overlay District and if they did not, the zoning basically would not change. Ms. Strogin said because of that the north and south properties had to be split. The north came in first because that was a fairly easy situation. The south would come in later because the Overlay District had to be written and approved. Mr. Rhodes asked if the golf course was removed from the open space how much open space would remain. Ms. Strogin said probably very little. She said the whole idea of a golf course Planned Unit Development is that the golf course is the open space. Mr. Rhodes said that a business, which this is, has become the open space. Ms. Strogin said golf courses are profitable places, but they are part of the recreational. Mr. Rhodes told her he was not against her; he was just looking for clarification. Ms. Strogin said it was considered a recreational [use]. Mr. Rhodes said technically if this was an airport it would be considered open space as well. Ms. Strogin said it was a possibility. Mr. Rhodes stated it was a business open space also. Ms. Strogin said this may be true, but this was written as a golf course overlay specifically and not written as just an overlay district. Mr. Rhodes considered it a “very slippery slope”, but said it was their Township. Mr. Henwood moved to approve the applicant’s request to table the Wedgewood Villas PUD Preliminary Plan until the January 7, 2009 meeting. Mr. Lewis said they brought the letter to table this project and if that were the wish of the Board, like Alliss stated, if there were enough support for it and they felt comfortable with voting on it, to approve it with conditions. Ms. Siegfried told Mr. Lewis it was not the Planning Commission‟s choice whether he would table it or not, that would be up to him. She asked if he was actually offering it or was he teasing. Mr. Lewis said he has been before the Planning Commission before and the conditions in the past this Planning Commission has approved subdivisions with very similar conditions. He felt the changes were very minor and if the Planning Commission felt the same and would be willing to vote in favor of the plan he would obviously proceed in that direction. Ms. Siegfried asked if Mr. Lewis was asking the Planning Commission what their vote was going to be first and then he would decide what direction he would take. She told him it did not work that way. Mr. Lewis respectfully asked to be tabled until the January 7, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Henwood again moved to approve the applicant’s request to table the Wedgewood Villas PUD Site Plan Review until the January 7, 2009 meeting. Ms Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved. Ms. Siegfried moved to approve the applicant’s request to table the Wedgewood Villas PUD Preliminary Plan until the January 7, 2009 meeting. Ms Scheutzow seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 8 **Ms. Bowers returned to the room and resumed her role at the Planning Commission table and Ms. Holt left the table for the upcoming Medina Township Text Amendment, 7:06 p.m. C. Medina Township Text Amendment, 163-2008 TA Ms. Theken presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned text amendment regarding Article VI, Signs Section 603 General Requirements E Movement – Inflatable Devices. According to the application, the applicant requests, “to amend zoning text to read: „allow inflatable devices like every other homeowner in the township‟” to Section 603 E of the Medina Township Zoning Resolution. Section 603E of the Resolution states: “Movement – No sign shall employ any parts or elements which revolve, rotate, whirl, spin or otherwise make use of the motion to attract attention. No sign or part thereof shall contain or consist of flags, banners, posters, pennants, ribbons, streamers, spinners, balloons, and/or any inflatable devices, search light or other similar moving devices. Such devices, as well as strings of lights, shall not be used for the purpose of advertising or attracting attention when not part of a sign.” Staff recommended Approval with Modifications of the text amendment to Section 603E of the Medina Township Zoning Resolution. Bill Doraty, applicant, asked what “clarifying inflatable devices” meant and if the Township needed to address that. Ms. Theken said the Township should review Section 603E and clarify the intent of the inflatable devices and differentiate them between the commercial and residential. Ms. Scheutzow said she thought it was difficult to define “intent”. She said wanting to define the intent and that the turkey was to celebrate Thanksgiving as opposed to someone who has a gorilla someplace where they are trying to attract attention to the business were two different things. She said temporary seasonal signs with nationally recognized holidays; she was thinking if they were having signs that were advertising, they should be discussing advertising. If they have signs that are homeowners yard decorations at the holidays, she was not sure this does it. Ms. Bowers told Mr. Doraty that the difficulty is typically when a zoning amendment comes before the Planning Commission it is language that is spelled out, and they know what the intent is. She said in this case it is raising a question and at some point somebody has to draft language that can be recommended for approval or disapproval, be that himself or the Township. Ms. Bowers said that is not what is before the Planning Commission. She asked Mr. Doraty what the intent was. Mr. Doraty said it was not a sign, it is a display; it says nothing on it. Ms. Czyz said it is to attract business. Mr. Doraty said he would not deny that. Ms. Czyz said as a homeowner they are not selling anything, they clearly are celebrating that holiday. Mr. Doraty agreed, but said he was not asking for anything different than a homeowner. Ms. Bowers said that was a decision for the Township to make. Mr. Doraty said he understood that. Ms. Bowers reiterated that the difficulty the Planning Commission has is there is no language to recommend one way or the other. Mr. Doraty thought that was why there were commercial districts for this purpose. Ms. Bowers asked if this was more in the nature of addressing the sign regulations as opposed to a holiday inflatable. Mr. Doraty said he would like to have an inflatable when he chooses on his business, he felt he should be allowed to make those decisions in accordance with the local government. He just did not agree with the inflatable being included in a sign. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 9 Ms. Scheutzow asked if he had been cited or has the Township said to him that his inflatable is in violation of their sign ordinance. Mr. Doraty said yes. Ms. Scheutzow said what he was trying to do then was to be sure that the inflatable is not in violation of the sign ordinance by amending it, and she thought what muddies it up was when they start questioning or adding the residential aspect. Perhaps something needs to be added to the zoning regulations that allow the seasonal, temporary, or use of large inflatables as an attention getting device. Mr. Doraty said it (residential) became part of his argument. Mr. Doraty introduced Leo Snell from Inflatable Images. Mr. Snell said he could answer any structural or definition question the Planning Commission might have. He said there are no laws on inflatable‟s and they have fought this around the country with different cities. He said Mr. Doraty is correct saying that they are used for attention getting devices. Mr. Doraty clarified and said that the inflatables would be themed and tasteful. Mr. Doraty asked what more could he present before the Planning Commission. Ms. Bowers said as a Planning Commission they as not permitted to give him advice and tell him how to handle his application. Mr. Snell interjected and asked if there was any language to go from. Ms. Bowers said the Planning Commission cannot give it to them, but they could perhaps work with the Township to develop that. Her concern was that the application in front of them will not get the applicant where they want to go anyway. She thought that Ms. Scheutzow made a point that there was a different mechanism that would have to go that way. Mr. Adams stated that some appropriate language from the definitions that were offered in number three of the staff comments would lead to the potential change that should be requested at the Township zoning. Ms. Bowers said that the way the recommendation is made to the Township is made it basically says „come up with some language and consider these things‟. She asked Ms. Theken if that was a fair summary. Ms. Theken agreed. Ms. Bowers informed Mr. Doraty if this gets approved it will not give him anything and he will be dealing with the Township drafting language. Mr. Doraty said he understood. Mr. Adams added he had a place to start with at number three in the staff comments. Alliss Strogin, Medina Township Zoning Chair, stated that the Planning Commission asked if Mr. Doraty knew that these were against Township zoning. She said he came to a Trustee meeting and asked if he could put it up and the Trustees told him no, they were illegal and he could not put them up. The only avenue he would have is to go through the process to see if the Township was willing to change its zoning. That meeting was Thursday night; Friday morning there was a pumpkin up. Ms. Strogin said so much for “citizen of the year” following the community‟s rules. Ms. Strogin said the Township has never had any trouble differentiating from residential and commercial. She did not think they ever suggested siting something that has gone to Wal-Mart. But a 10-foot high pumpkin; this inflatable is much larger. More to the point in the Township‟s definitions, the definition of a sign is: “..sign is a structure or a natural object such as a tree, rock, bush, and the ground itself, or part thereof, or device attached thereto or painted or represented thereof, including any letter, word, banner, flag, balloon, or other inflatable device pendant, badge, or insignia of any government agency or any other charitable or religious educational or similar organization, and/or search lights which shall be used to attract attention to any object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization, or business. The word “sign” shall include a writing, representation, or other figure of similar character located on the interior of a building only when (1) illuminated; (2) located so as to be viewed from the exterior of the building.” D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 10 Ms. Strogin said when the applicant says the inflatable is not a sign, according to Medina Township zoning it is a sign, and the Township has sign regulations for the commercial districts. She said as far as roof signs go, the Township has a provision for roof signs. They are allowed, but not to exceed a maximum of 80 square feet. She read more from the Medina Township zoning code: “Roof signs shall conform to dimensional restrictions described in the preceding paragraph, (I.1) Roof signs shall not project above the roof of the building with a flat roof, nor shall a roof sign project above the eave line or peak of a building with a gambrel, gable, hip or mansard roof. Roof signs shall not project outward beyond the bottom of the eaves of the building.” Ms. Strogin thought it was very clear from a zoning perspective that inflatables are signs. She said the Township did not see any issue with the residential and felt inflatables per their zoning and definitions were definitely signs. Anything that is designed to bring attention is considered a sign. She said on Mr. Doraty‟s application he wanted the opportunity to display an inflatable without restrictions of time or duration. At this point, Ms. Strogin stated, with that type of application request it could lead to severe consequences for the Township that would not be desirable regardless of what good intentions there may be. Ms. Czyz asked Ms. Strogin what consequences she foresaw for the Township. Ms. Strogin said if there were no limitations, and the applicant wants none, that means there is no limit on the amount or the size or how long it could be there. In theory someone could put up 100 balloons or inflatables on their property. Ms. Bowers said staff had to make some provisions in order to come to where they are and the recommendation was for applicant and the Township to work together to see if there are some regulations that would allow him to put inflatables up at certain times. She suspected that would have some regulations with it as to size, time, duration; any of those things. She asked if the Township would be willing to work on language. Ms. Strogin said they are always open to discussion. Ms. Bowers said that was what the recommendation is. Ms. Strogin said this application is for unlimited duration and without restrictions and she thought that was unacceptable. Ms. Theken commented regarding the location of the Section of which Mr. Doraty had proposed to make the change. It was part of the general requirements under Section 603 and those regulations say that they apply to signs in all zoning districts. She said that was why staff was saying he should differentiate between residential and commercial, because right now it says it is for all zoning districts and there is a point here. She stated if they are not allowed to have inflatables in commercial, then they are not be allowed to have inflatables in residential, because that is what it says. They are not allowed to have flashing lights or Christmas lights that run in sequence. Ms. Theken said there should be something in the zoning code in another section where they discuss the commercial district and specifically put a time limit on it. Ms. Strogin thought that Montville did not allow anything in residential or commercial. Her Township has never addressed the residential and they felt it is addressed basically to the commercial and that has been their interpretation. This is because it is considered a sign and typically residential properties are not involved in signage. Ms. Theken countered that they do have signage issues in them and this does say “all zoning districts”. Ms. Strogin said that can be corrected to say these rules apply to all businesses. She said the Township was open to those types of suggestions. Mr. Doraty asked if the zoning resolution could be changed just like Ms. Strogin stated in the business districts. Ms. Bowers answered that is what his application was asking to do and the Township can do that as well. Ms. Doraty said that Ms. Strogin is saying the Township would change just the business districts. Ms. Siegfried informed Mr. Doraty that there is a process that the Township will have to go through for that zoning text change, but that is exactly what he has asked for of the Township is to D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 11 change the zoning text. She said the Planning Services staff struggled with it and came up with what they thought maybe would be the best way to handle this. They are looking to see if the Township officials could have a dialogue and take a look at it and maybe make a compromise. She thought that was what the suggestion was here. Ms. Strogin said it was not worded that way. The staff report suggested approval, but it does not say approval of what because the language is not there. Ms. Siegfried said there was suggested language to be used so she thought the Township could take that to heart and work with something that everybody can live with that addresses the Townships‟ concerns and also addresses the concerns about not enforcing this in a residential way but a commercial way. Ms. Bowers said the staff recommendations that were received on the application is to recommend to the Township that they take a look at it and work with the applicant; that was the best the staff could do with this. Ms. Strogin said she had no issue with that, but she did have issue with the approval because approval of what. She said did that mean approval of the Township talking to the applicant; and if that is what it was, it did not come out. Ms. Strogin stated that if the staff wanted to re-word the report to suggest that, that would be fine. Ms. Theken said the approval was for modification of the text in a way that would incorporate what the applicant was requesting, but still meet the desire of the Township and still be fair to both sides. Ms. Strogin said if the staff report could be re-worded to state that she would be happy. Ms. Scheutzow said where she is struggling with this is there is a request to amend the zoning text and the exact wording on this is, “request to amend zoning text to read”. Typically the Planning Commission should have some language with a Section of the code and what they want changed, added, deleted or replaced. She said this reads, “To allow inflatable devices like every other homeowner in the Township”. Ms. Scheutzow thought that this was the struggle and it did not fit into zoning code language. If the Township wants to address this or if Mr. Doraty wants to, it should have come to the Planning Commission with a specific he wanted to either amend the Section that says, “Applies to all districts”, to say, “Applies to residential”, or have it apply to commercial, or Mr. Doraty should have come in and specified the Section of the code. Mr. Doraty acknowledged he did not do that. Ms. Scheutzow said the process that the State law requires is that the language is brought to the Township by the Trustees, the Zoning Board, or the applicant, and the language then be sent to the Planning Commission for review and approval to go back to the Township for their public hearing. She said now the Planning Commission must vote on what is in front of them. Mr. Henwood moved to Disapprove staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications and moved for Disapproval for the Medina Township Text Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. A hand vote was taken. Mr. Henwood and Mr. Rhodes voted AYE. Ms. Bowers, Mr. Adams, Mr. Kolesar, Ms. Holt, Ms. Scheutzow, Ms. Siegfried, and Ms. Czyz voted NAY. The motion for disapproval fails and the original motion of Approval with Modifications passes. Mr. Doraty questioned the motion and what it meant. Ms. Bowers explained that he needed to go back to the Township and work some language out with them. **Ms. Holt returns to the Planning Commission table, 7:40 p.m. D. Litchfield Township Map Amendment, 167-2008 MA Mr. Greatens presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned map amendment rezoning approximately 1.8 acres from Residential to Commercial. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 12 The current proposal is to rezone approximately 1.8 acres of parcel no. 024-04A-21-013 and 024-04A- 21-031 from R, Residential to C, Commercial. The parcels are located on the south side of Crow Road, approximately 0.75 miles west of Avon Lake Road (SR 83). Staff recommended Approval with Modifications for the proposed Map Amendment subject to the following: 1. Provide a more accurate description of the area to be rezoned. 2. The zoning district line should go to a distance of 330 feet south from the centerline of Crow Road as shown in the maps provided. 3. No portion of parcel 024-04A-21-031, 9752 Crow Road should be included in the proposed rezoning to Commercial. Al Nimer, applicant, said having that parcel on there was a mistake. He also said they were looking for 360 to 400-feet in depth. He acknowledged the 360-feet would get him close to the creek, but he said he needed the space in order to have trucks turn around in the back area. Mr. Greatens recommended against having a stream in commercial just for the sake of protecting the stream. Mr. Nimer said the stream will not be in the commercial. Mr. Greatens said that could be included in his legal description showing the accurate dimensions of what is going to be rezoned. Mr. Nimer said up to the stream, but the stream will be west of the property and in residential. Mr. Greatens clarified that Mr. Nimer‟s intent was to combine the properties. Mr. Nimer said yes, he wanted to combine the parcels and make it one for commercial and have a rear lot with hay farming. Mr. Greatens said since that was the case a legal description would have to be written anyway and a survey done. Mr. Rhodes asked if the present business was commercial. Mr. Nimer said yes. Mr. Rhodes asked if the Township recognized this as commercial. Mr. Nimer said yes, the building was there before anything else. Ms. Scheutzow moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the Litchfield Township Map Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All members voted AYE and the motion was approved. **Ms. Scheutzow and Ms. Czyz left the room for the upcoming amendment, 8:22 p.m. E. Brunswick Hills Township Text Amendment, 169-2008 TA Mr. Russell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned text amendment to amend Section 303-11, Riparian Setbacks. The current proposal is to amend Section 303-11, Riparian Setbacks, Subsection A, Purpose and Subsection C, Establishment of Riparian Setbacks. Staff recommended Disapproval of the proposed text amendment to Section 303-11 A, Riparian Setbacks, Purpose. Staff recommended Approval with Modifications of the proposed text amendment to Section 303-11 C 1 Establishment of Riparian Setbacks with the recommendation that the term D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 13 “ordinary high water mark” be defined and that appropriate maps showing the Setback areas be adopted by the Township and made available to the public. Mr. Adams said while he would like to have Riparian Setbacks because it keeps people out of harms way, he encouraged the Township to change their language. Mr. Adams moved to approve staff recommendations of Disapproval for the Brunswick Hills Township Text Amendment to Section 303-11 A, Riparian Setbacks, Purpose. Mr. Henwood seconded the motion. All members voted AYE and the motion was approved Ms. Holt asked if in two years the stream can change, and will the change occur in the setback. She asked if those would have to be altered every so often. Ms. Theken thought they would be and did not think it would be in two years time. Ms. Holt said she was told that in two years time that a change could occur in the stream depending on weather and things of that nature. She said she always wonders when a stream is always changing if a town will keep up with it. Ms. Theken thought the maps could be changed to keep up with the stream changes over time. If it appears that there has been a significant amount of rain in a particular time period maybe it is something that needs to be investigated. Ms. Holt asked if the Soil and Water office would investigate that. Ms. Theken said yes, or the Highway Engineer‟s office. Mr. Adams said typically they do not change that fast. Mr. Jarrett questioned section C-4 and if they knew for a fact that the Township has a watercourse draining in an area greater than 300 square miles. Ms. Theken said she did not know that for a fact, but it was something they could look into and address if need be. Mr. Kolesar moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the Brunswick Hills Township Text Amendment to Section 303-11 C 1 Establishment of Riparian Setbacks. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All members voted AYE and the motion was approved. **Ms. Czyz and Ms. Scheutzow return to the table, 8:29 p.m. F. York Township Text Amendment, 170-2008 TA Mr. Bartell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned text amendment regarding Sections 902, 403.01.1, 403.04.B, and 404.02 The York Township Zoning Commission proposes to amend the York Township Zoning Resolution regarding Sections 902 Definitions as well as Sections in Article IV Sign Regulations. Staff recommended Approval with Modifications of the proposed text amendment for Section 902, Definitions and Article IV, Signs based upon staff comments. Mr. Rhodes moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the York Township Text Amendment. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved. Ms. Bowers asked the Planning Commission to go back to the Medina Township Text Amendment regarding Mr. Doraty. She said it is not too often they have a motion presented to the Planning Commission in the form of a negative, but sometimes that happens. After the motion was done she had a concern and she conferred with Patrice who concurs that when the Planning Commission make a motion in the negative and vote to disapprove something, the fact that the motion fails does not necessarily give them a recommendation of Approval. She felt it would be prudent to backtrack since D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 14 the motion to Disapprove failed and make a motion to approve staff recommendations just so they had a clean motion. Ms. Czyz moved to Approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications and moved for Disapproval for the Medina Township Text Amendment. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. A hand vote was taken. Ms. Bowers, Mr. Adams, Mr. Kolesar, Ms. Scheutzow, Mr. Rhodes, Ms. Siegfried, and Ms. Czyz voted AYE. Mr. Henwood voted NAY. Ms. Holt abstained. The motion for disapproval fails and the original motion of Approval with Modifications passes. Mr. Rhodes said it seemed that Mr. Doraty came to put up a balloon and the Township told him no, it does not fit in the zoning. Beside the fact that he put an inflatable up anyway, Mr. Rhodes wanted to know if it was Mr. Doraty who put this change to the Township zoning. He was told yes. Ms. Bowers said he took out an application. She said anyone has the right to make an application. Mr. Rhodes asked to change anyone‟s zoning. Ms. Bowers said yes. Ms. Holt stated that the Zoning Board chair was instructed to work with Mr. Doraty on the language because they did not expect a neophyte to come in and use the proper language but instead they just sent it on the Planning Commission to “clog up the works”. VI. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Ms. Theken said the monthly budget report was before the members for review. She said we are ending the year in good favor with some dollars left over to turn back in to the General Fund. VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no Public Participation. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Czyz said as some of the members knew this was going to be her last meeting. She resigned effective Friday, December 5, 2008 from the Planning Commission. She has been on this board 15 years, and it has been a pleasure and she has learned a lot. She thanked everyone for the opportunity. Ms. Theken thanked her for taking the time to be on the Planning Commission for 15 years; that is a big commitment. Ms. Bowers said she may not be coming back either. Ms. Theken stated that Larry Landis is now the Mayor of Seville so he will not be coming back. Ms. Theken said she would like to go back to the items on the Work Session that they were unable to review before the meeting began. Consent Calendar Ms. Hirsch stated for the last six months they have been trying the Consent Calendar and she has not heard anything negative so they have moved forward. They would like to add that under “Procedures” in the Bylaws under Section 1.05 and understood it may need some renumbering. She said Planning Services has been placing Preliminary Plan extensions on the consent calendar and final plats on as long as everything had been in order. It does make for a more efficient and timely meeting. Ms. Hirsch said there was a question as to if a member of the audience wanted to hear the plan. The way it is written now they would have to be notified ahead of time if someone had a concern and they wanted it pulled off the agenda. She said they may want to consider the fact that after the meeting it could be pulled. The Planning Commission may want to consider pulling the item in question off the D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 15 agenda ahead of time if they feel there may be an issue. Ms. Bowers thought that language was covered in b. Ms. Hirsch thought in g. it could be inconsistent. Ms. Scheutzow thought it may be better handled in advance of the meeting. Ms. Siegfried said if someone sees it on the Consent Calendar she did not think they would know that means they will not be able to hear it. She suggested when the Planning Commission gets ready to adopt the Consent Calendar to tell the audience members to verbalize the fact that if anyone wants to hear one of them they should let them know before it was adopted. Mr. Henwood asked if any presentation material was available if asked. Ms. Theken said no. Ms. Bowers said it just gives that person a chance to be heard. Ms. Theken said for example the two extensions that were on the Consent Calendar this evening was requested to be pulled off they could easily have spoken to them without a presentation. Ms. Siegfried felt the Consent Calendar was working well. Ms. Bowers said it has been a very positive addition. Ms. Theken questioned if the public made a comment about something on the Consent Calendar did that mean the Planning Commission would automatically take that plan off the Consent Calendar or would they address the question. She felt it was not up to the public to say they want it pulled; it would have to be the Planning Commission members that would want it pulled. Mr. Henwood said it would have to be a significant amount of questions or raises a red flag. Ms. Theken agreed. Ms. Scheutzow commented on 2e saying this is what bothered her. Ms. Bowers said asking if anyone has a problem resolves that. Ms. Scheutzow said also having the staff report ready may alleviate the problem by giving the affected party a copy of it. Numerous conversations. Goals for 2009 Ms. Theken said they could see where some amendments have been made from what was in the packet. She said she would refer to what is in red on page two; they changed some of the communities they knew that they have worked with and replaced them with the ones that they will work with in 2009. She said under Community Assistance 2e, they added something under Projects and Susan was going to address that. Ms. Hirsch said the thought was in honor of World Town Planning Day, rather than having an open house every year, staff could have an open house every other year. On the alternate years some kind of community project could be done such as, a community garden, a school garden, a rain garden, doing something with Habitat for Humanity, weatherizing a home for the elderly, helping with a playground, planting trees on Arbor Day, or clean up a stream. Susan said these were some of the ideas that they had discussed in place of having the open house every year. Zach suggested a canned food drive. Ms. Bowers said there is no charge for a lot of the workshops so that would be a good opportunity to ask participants to bring in canned goods for a drive staff would be having. Ms. Bowers, Ms. Siegfried, and Mr. Henwood liked the idea. Ms. Theken said the idea does not just stay with the Planning staff. Anyone who would like to participate may do so as well as any agency. She said Planning was going to try and include other agencies as well. Ms. Scheutzow asked if they were going to delete all of b. or were they going to say that the housing network has had a study prepared. Ms. Theken wanted to delete all of b. but the explanation for it is that they have had a study prepared. She did not actually go through the deletion process because it puts it in the little box over to the side and the members may not see it as readily. D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 16 Ms. Scheutzow asked if the network study will be updated periodically. Ms. Theken said it was something that the Housing Network commissioned and she did not know what they were going to do with it. She told them that Tom Russell is on the Housing Network and he has asked for a copy but staff has not seen it. Ms. Theken moved onto education saying in 2009 the staff intends to continue the workshops. There is a possibility that they will change somewhat. Planning has always partnered with Ohio State University Extension for those workshops and the locations tend to vary with OSU providing the refreshments. Ms. Theken said there has been some discussion with the University of Akron for Planning to partner with them and having the workshops in that location. She said Planning has put together a schedule of workshops for 2009 with the first one being “the basics of zoning” that Bill Thorne presents. The issue in 2009 is similar to the issue that most business is dealing with at this time. Ms. Theken said it will be a budgetary issue providing a workshop and providing refreshments like they have done in the past. They are looking at asking different communities or certain groups to be a sponsor or the workshops which would be providing coffee and refreshments. She said they do want to be careful who sponsors them because they do not want to have any kind of a conflict. Ms. Scheutzow said one last year was done in conjunction with Medina County Township Association meeting. She said when they get together for the January meeting if anyone had ideas to give them to her and she would pass them by the Association. Ms. Theken said she would let her know what is tentatively scheduled and Ms. Scheutzow could show it to her board. Ms. Theken added to the list a program called “Junior Achievement”, which Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Bartell participated in. They were provided with kits and worked with the students from Ella Canavan Elementary School. Ms. Hirsch said she was impressed with the program. Ms. Scheutzow asked what the age group was. Ms. Hirsch answered third grade. Ms. Theken stated that under Environment she added, “Participate in Earth Day activities” and made some revisions to Sustainability under number eight. Ms. Siegfried asked about the Food Congress. Ms. Hirsch said it was the Northeast Ohio Food Congress which was a two day seminar. She stated there were a number of seminars over the two-day event that could be chosen from of which Urban Farming was one. IX. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Bowers moved to adjourn the December 3, 2008 MCPC meeting at 9:03 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Lynda Bowers, Vice President Cheryl Schmock, Admin Asst D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\e43ac7e3-7254-49a8-9260-61d822b2373d.doc 17
"December - MEDINA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION"