CITY OF CHARDON PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 16, 2016 Members Present: Andrew Blackley, Vice-Chairman Chris Grau Al Hunziker Kenneth Miller, Chairman Dan Meleski James Pruce Mary Jo Stark Members Absent: Also Present: Doug Courtney, City Engineer Jim Gillette, Law Director Steve Yaney, Planning and Zoning Administrator Mr. Miller called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Roll was called. Mr. Miller said everyone received copies of the minutes of the March 21, 2016 meeting. He asked for any corrections or additions. There were none. The motion was made by Mr. Hunziker to approve the minutes. It was seconded by Mr. Blackley. Mr. Miller asked for any discussion on the minutes. All were in favor to approve the minutes. Mr. Miller reminded all that were present to sign in for the meeting. Mr. Miller explained the procedure of the hearing. He swore in City Staff. He asked if there was any old business. There was none. PC Case #16-056 Mr. Yaney explained the applicant Adams Signs is requesting a sign deviation to decrease the minimum setback of the sign in the public right-of-way at Consumer Tire from 10 ft. to 4 ft. Mr. Yaney explained the new ground monument sign will replace the current pole sign and will not impact any road projects. Mr. Yaney requested that in the future for any municipal projects the sign be moved at the owner s expense. Mr. Grau made a motion to approve the sign deviation with the condition of any road projects or improvements, the sign be moved at the owner s expense. It was seconded by Mr. Blackley. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the deviation was granted. PC Case #16-072 Mr. Yaney explained the applicant St. Mary s Church is requesting a concept plan approval for a lot consolidation involving eight (8) parcels. Mr. Yaney explained the current eight lots vary in size and shape and the Church would like to make it one parcel. Mr. Yaney said the concept plan has be reviewed by the County Engineer and it has approved the plat; and the City Engineer has approved of the lot consolidation. 1
Mr. Hunziker made a motion to approve the concept plan for the lot consolidation. It was seconded by Mr. Blackley. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The concept plan was approved. PC Case #16-079 and #16-080 Mr. Yaney explained both cases are requested by the applicant Elm Investments in regards to the Willow Development Project. He explained the applicant is requesting a concept plan approval for the Willow Development Project and approval for the proposed re-zoning of the C1 portion will become zoned R3; and the R3 zoned areas will become a PRD. Mr. Yaney reviewed the development layout s greenspace areas, lot sizes and development features. Mr. Yaney explained the applicant will need to submit a yield plan. The Phase 1 portion of the development opening will line up with the nursing home on Water Street. Once Meadowlands Extension is built, that opening will become a mounded landscape. Mr. Yaney provided the Commission with a draft Announcement of Decision and Municipal Approval for conditions of approval. Mr. Yaney explained Planning Commission will be making the recommendation to City Council and City will have final authority for approval. The preliminary plan will still be submitted for review to Planning Commission and construction plans will be submitted for staff review. Mr. Gillette asked for clarification regarding item #7 on the Announcement of Decision; which refers to the roadway improvements as the extension to Meadowlands Drive. Mr. Yaney said yes it will be through that project, all the way past what the City has committed to with Meadowlands Drive. It can include extending the road to Wilson Mills Road as well. Mr. Gillette clarified any road improvements the City would be constructing would be extension of Meadowlands Drive out where it ends on the current plans to Wilson Mills Road. Mr. Yaney said yes. Mr. Gillette asked Mr. Yaney to add to item #10 regarding City Council s final approval, the rezoning of the three parcels to a PRD. Mr. Blackley asked if on page 709, pavement in the grey shading will be installed by the developer. Mr. Yaney said no (and shows on the displayed projection, where the developer will be responsible for.) Mr. Blackley suggested in the legend for page 6, it include shading for the pavement that will be built by the developer. Mr. Dustin Keeney was sworn in. Mr. Keeney said the honey comb hatching shows the developers responsibilities. Mr. Blackley asked for in Phase 1, the utilities on Water Street to be specified on the frontage. Mr. Blackley explained utilities coming in from Water Street will need an easement because there will be roads that do not exist. That current development is going to be a standalone development he explained. 2
Mr. Blackley suggested a sidewalk be built to connect the future Meadowlands Extension to the sidewalk that is being proposed in the plans, understanding the topography is difficult. Mr. Courtney explained that will have to wait until the Meadowlands roadway is connected to Phase 1. Mr. Blackley asked if the sanitary sewers for this project are not projected to be built until after the railroad trunk sewer project. Mr. Courtney said yes. Mr. Courtney explained in Phase 1, it cannot get across to the southwest property and will have to go to Water Street. A development schedule has been requested. Mr. Courtney said by the time the first house is built, the City should be done with its improvements; and the issues that exist today, should no longer exist. Mr. Blackley asked if there is an existing sanitary sewer line on the south side of Water Street and if this development is proposing to tie into the sewer line. Mr. Courtney said yes. Mr. Blackley asked for clarification in regards to Mr. Yaney s comments in item #18, extending the roadway past the private drives to the eastern boundary of the subdivision. Mr. Yaney said the development will extending to the end of their property. Mr. Yaney said that is the City s eastern property. Mr. Blackley asked if all geometry has been worked out. Mr. Courtney said yes. Mr. Blackley asked if the City is a Phase 2 EPA mandated community; which regulates and monitors water quality. Mr. Courtney said the City is not Phase 2, however, we regulate water quality through Geauga Soil and Water s regulations that the City has adopted. Mr. Blackley asked if it would be for the construction phase. Mr. Courtney said yes. Mr. Yaney explained Chagrin River Water Shed said the developers are meeting the requirements. Mr. Blackley asked if the developer will come back to Planning Commission for the riparian setbacks. Mr. Yaney said yes. Mr. Blackley explained it is a natural filter and promotes an ecosystem for the creek; much like a buffer area. Mr. Yaney said the developer will not be able to build on that area. Mr. Meleski referred to page 6, and asked where Meadowlands Extension is ending. Mr. Yaney showed the details on the displayed plan. Mr. Meleski asked for clarification of the honeycomb shading on the map in Phase 3. Mr. Keeney explained that part of the text is incorrect. Mr. Yaney said it can be built, but the builder would be responsible. Mr. Jim Wiech of 559 Water Street was sworn in. Mr. Wiech explained he owns the property next to the proposed development and is upset up the properties being close to one another and does not want development abutting his property. Mr. Yaney explained there is a 50 foot buffer between the property lines. Mr. Blackley said the developer has the ability to clear to the home owner s property line. Mr. Blackley suggested adding a requirement for a buffer between the properties in the conditions of approval. 3
Mr. Grau asked if there are woods there now. Mr. Wiech said yes. Mr. Sam Cannata was sworn in. Mr. Cannata explained he was not aware of the position of the house but he is willing to meet with the homeowner to reach an agreement to create a buffer zone. Mr. Blackley said he would like to see that be a written condition. Mr. Yaney said that will be presented in the preliminary plan that will come before Planning Commission for the Phase 1 development. Mr. Gillette explained concept plans will need to be given to City Council as well. Mr. Cannata asked if he should attend the Council meeting. Mr. Yaney said it is a good idea. Mr. Blackley said Mr. Cannata has the option of relying on Mr. Yaney to present the information. Mr. Yaney said approval for the concept site plan will go before the July Council Meeting. It will need to be advertise thirty days prior. Mr. Blackley made a motion to recommend approval to go before City Council, the concept site plan, with the conditions of approval as discussed. Mr. Hunziker seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The recommendation of the concept site plan was approved. Mr. Grau made a motion to recommend to City Council to be in the Planning and Zoning Code, the approval of re-zoning the C1 District to a R3 District. It was seconded by Mr. Meleski. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The recommendation for the re-zoning to go before City Council was approved. Mr. Hunziker made a motion to recommend to go before City Council, to be in the Planning and Zoning Code, the approval of re-zoning the re-zoned area to a PRD. It was seconded by Mr. Blackley. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The recommendation for the re-zoning to City Council was approved. Mr. Miller expressed he is looking forward to the development and believes this development is what Chardon needs. Mr. Blackley agreed and said this is the right development for the City. There was no need for an executive session. Mr. Blackley inquired about the memo Mr. Gillette provided to the Commission. Mr. Gillette explained it is for the Commission s information. The Maple Avenue Project will include putting in new aprons where the transportation area is at the High School; and there is a requirement of maximum widths of driveway aprons. Mr. Gillette explained Mr. Courtney brought to his attention it will not work with the school and the school was going to request whether or not they needed to come before Planning Commission for a variance or approval. Mr. Gillette said the school did not have to because governmental entities, such as a school district, have the authority to exercise eminent domain but are required to conduct best efforts to comply with the municipal s planning and zoning code s requirements. However, if it is impractical or unreasonable for them 4
to do, then they do not have to comply. For this instance and talking with Mr. Courtney, and reviewing the diagram and sketch Mr. Gillette explained, it was concluded the school district has good grounds not to be held to the thirty foot wide apron. Mr. Blackley wanted to make sure the school board could not construct a building or something similar without coming to Planning Commission. Mr. Gillette said if the school board acted in an unreasonable effort or a manner not in the best interest for residents of the City, the City could take the matter to court and block their efforts. Mr. Hunziker made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Blackley. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted: Rebecca Repasky, Secretary KENNETH R. MILLER, CHAIRMAN 5