Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									                           MEDINA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
                           MINUTES OF MEETING
                           WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2008, 6:30 P.M.

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.


         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

         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.


         There was no correspondence.

      A. Deerfield Farms Subdivision, Preliminary Plan Extension Request, Medina Twp, 164-2008 PP-

          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.


         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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”.


         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.


         There was no Public Participation.


         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

         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

         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.


         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

To top