ALLIANCE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2014 MEETING 4:30 P.M.

Transcription

1 ALLIANCE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2014 MEETING 4:30 P.M. Attendance: Chairman John Gross, Mayor Andreani, Kim Henderson, Colby DeHoff, Cheryl Lundgren, Curtis Bungard and Jennifer Odey. Cheryl Lundgren made a motion to excuse Brad Goris. Seconded by Colby DeHoff. Motion carried. 1) Election of new officers. Mark Locke nominated W. John Gross as Chairman. Seconded by Kim Henderson. Motion to close nominations by Cheryl Lundgren. Seconded by Colby DeHoff. W. John Gross elected as Chairman for 2014 by unanimous vote. Cheryl Lundgren nominated Mark Locke as Vice Chairman. Seconded by Colby DeHoff. Motion to close nominations by Cheryl Lundgren. Seconded by Kim Henderson. Motion carried. Mark Locke elected as Vice Chairman for 2014 by unanimous vote. Mark Lock nominated Brad Goris as Secretary. Seconded by Cheryl Lundgren. Motion to close nominations by Cheryl Lundgren. Seconded by Colby DeHoff. Motion carried. Brad Goris elected as Secretary by unanimous vote. 2) Minutes of the December 18, 2013 meeting. Cheryl Lundgren made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 18, 2013 meeting. Seconded by Colby DeHoff. Motion carried. 3) Site plan for Dunkin Donuts exterior lighting, 1041 W. State St., Alliance, Ohio, submitted by Howells & Baird, Inc. and tabled at December 18, 2013 meeting, ( PC). The site plan for Dunkin Donuts will remain tabled per the proponent s request. 4) Replat for Joseph & Jennifer Reese of 1232 Parkway Blvd., Alliance, Ohio and Charlotte Busche of 1261 S. Rockhill Ave., Alliance, Ohio, submitted by Akins Land Surveying ( PC). Bob Akins was sworn in by Chairman Gross. This replat will clean up the area. Engineering recommended approval of the replat. Planning & Development had no comment. There were no questions or comments from commission members. Mark Locke made a motion for recommending to city council for approval. Seconded by Cheryl Lundgren. Motion carried. Page 1 of 8

2 5) Replat for Triple R Associates Ltd, Lots 29, 30 and at 105 W. State St., Alliance, Ohio, submitted by Akins Land Surveying ( PC). Bob Akins stated that this is to clean up the lots by replatting into one lot. Engineering recommended approval. Planning & Development had no comments. There were no questions or comments from commission members. Mark Locke made a motion for recommending to city council for approval. Seconded by Colby DeHoff. Motion carried. 6) Site plan for Drummond Financial Services Inc., 105 W. State St., Alliance, Ohio, submitted by Hettler Engineering, LLC ( PC). Variances under the jurisdiction of planning commission: 5 foot variance to reduce front parking setback to 5.0 feet 3 foot variance to reduce side yard parking setback to 2 feet 7 foot variance to reduce side yard parking setback to 3 feet against Penn Avenue John Gross to Mike Hettler: Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this planning commission is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Mike Hettler: I do. John Gross: State your name and your relationship to the proposed. Mike Hettler: My name is Michael Hettler. My address is 1225 N. Main St. and I am the civil engineer for the site improvement project. The project that we re discussing is a proposed site plan on the parcel that you just voted on for the replat on the corner of Penn and State St., the northwest corner. The parcel currently has an existing building on it, it used to be a gas station many, many years ago, a service station. The client is proposing to keep that building where it is and install site improvements, complete site improvements around the building. Currently there is asphalt on all four sides of the building. We have reduced the asphalt in the back and on the west side so there is only parking in the front and on the east side. We re showing nine parking spaces which is the required amount. As I said, the building will stay as it is. The site is very small, very tight and with the building staying as it is in the location it is, we are asking for three variances, for your consideration. The first variance is a 5 variance. There s a front parking setback of 10. We can only provide 5 because of the tightness with the proximity of the building to State Street. So, we re asking for a 5 variance there. We have a 5 setback requirement on the west side and in order to provide a handicap space close to the building and meet the ADA requirements for slope, we re requesting we reduce that 5 variance or 5 setback to 2 so it would be a 3 variance. On the Penn side in order, because of the proximity of the building to Penn Avenue we don t have enough room to get parking in to fit in there, so Page 2 of 8

3 we re requesting a variance from the 10 parking setback along Penn. We re reducing the impervious area quite substantially. The back part and the west part will be grass. John Gross: Is that it? Mike Hettler: Yes, sir. John Gross: Engineering. Curtis Bungard: Thank you. Mr. Hettler and I He submitted several variations of parking layout. Originally it was they were trying to fit some diagonal parking in front of the building but that made it so you could it was difficult exiting out this direction. So by putting these couple parking spots off to the side, he was able to make this two-way to where when you are exiting. You can get your car turned and perpendicular to the road to pull out, which is the appropriate way to do that. You should note that to the north there where they are asking for the variance, most of that paving is so the last spot can back out and turn around. You see that little bump-out here, the little bump-out here at the edge of the pavement. That s so that these cars can back out and turn. This currently is all drive apron cut along Penn. You can drive in and out of here willy nilly. That has been removed and a drive apron put in which brings that much more into compliance for the current site requirements. So, and then there s some landscaping and some reduction of this was all asphalt pavement back here. It has all been removed at the back of the building. So I think this site, this site plan, brings the site much more into current compliance as how it sits now. The way it sits now is, would never be allowed by our current codes. I think the three small variances are appropriate and similar to others. They are reducing, I should mention, they are reducing this drive apron to make it more in compliance with our current codes and also to make room for these cars to back out and pull out. So, I think with the size of the site and the parking that s required, I think they did a good job and I recommend approval. John Gross: Thank you. Planning. Vince Marion: Ah, yes Mr. Chairman, I have several comments. And ultimately my recommendation is going to be denial. This is going to be the first time the engineer and I disagreed on a submitted plan. I do agree that there is significant work being done here to try and comply with the zoning code and the specifications that are required for parking and setbacks and maneuverability and the location of the building. It is a small site as we heard but although there are just three variances, those variances account for 50% in one case, it s a 70% request variance in another and a 60% request variance in the third. This area was significantly discussed during our comprehensive land use planning meetings that we held. The comprehensive land use plan led to the subsequent development of our current zoning code. I would like to share with you some, I doubt very much if you read the comprehensive land use plan recently. It is language that I want to share with you and go over on how this area is to be looked at in terms of development and how it should fit with the institutional uses of the hospital as well as with the University of Mount Union. The first page you have there is directly Page 3 of 8

4 from our zoning book. I highlighted the significant portion of what I think is the important statement and if you will bear with me, I ll just read that. The purpose of B-3 and this is the B -3 zoning in the City of Alliance, mixed commercial district is to promote the following objectives: to encourage a mix of commercial, office, institutional and mixed residential uses developed in a manner consistent with the recommendations identified for the institutional service future land use area in the city s comprehensive land use plan. That then takes you to the next page. And again I have highlighted two different sections within the comprehensive land use plan, the first one being: The city should partner with Mount Union College, The Alliance Community Hospital and other property owners in the area to create a vision for the area of the city that addresses the needs of the institutions, the local businesses and neighboring residents. Historically, since we have adopted this, any development that has been proposed in that immediate area of the university, my department and if the hospital has been involved, entered into discussions on how that property should look, what the use is going to be, what type of aesthetics are going to be at the facility. The two, I guess the two biggest examples would be the Walgreens building and the Sheetz building. The initial Sheetz building that we received was the old type Sheetz architecture with the really bright yellow canopies, large canopies over the gas stations, over the awnings coming in and out of the building. I believe it was not a brick building that was proposed originally. We ve had many discussions with Sheetz and the Sheetz that is here in Alliance is the first Sheetz built with that architectural style, with the mellowed down red and the brick fasad, the canopies that aren t so bright as you pull in you can see them from the street. That is now the model they use for all their Sheetz buildings. The Walgreens building initially had some parking along State Street. We were able to work with them and move that to the Union Ave. side and in the back of the Walgreens building. If you go through this entire comprehensive land use plan, you will see that area is supposed to be more pedestrian friendly, closer to State Street, Union and the main corridors with walking being the ideal mode. Both of those organizations, Sheetz and Walgreens worked with us and did the best they could. With partnership with the university at that time we were able to get those architectural changes made. To the next page, at the top that says 99 and this is under the institutional service terminology in the comprehensive land use plan. We were using what now B-3 zoning was meant to be called institutional service zoning. During the talks we decided to use B-3 just to go in with B-1 and B-2 and B-3 in our current zoning codes so there was a numerical and a letter organization to the zoning code. Preferred uses in these areas on the future land use map include a mix of residential, commercial, office, service, research, institutional, and support uses designed to complement the college and hospital, while also serving as an additional focal point for local commercial activity in the City. It s my understanding that this is proposed to be a quick cash checking location or a bring your car title in loan type activity. I haven t confirmed that but I have been led to believe that is true. And I think you ll hear from some folks in the audience that that is not conducive to what the institutional type activity is for that area between the university and the hospital. Based upon the size of the variances requests, once again I am recommending denial. The way these plans were written were meant to change the face and to change some of the appearance as well as the operations of property in the city of Alliance. In the 14 years that I have been here, I cannot ever remember any business located on this site. For at least 14 years. That kicks in by the way of the code as the plan has been written, kicks in the opportunity to start making some Page 4 of 8

5 of those changes and start bringing in that vision that was identified by the comprehensive land use committee which was a team of fifteen to twenty individuals of various organizations from throughout the city of Alliance. As further evidence, we are partnering once again with the University of Mount Union to develop the Clark Avenue parking lot. Without giving a whole lot of details that would be a mixed commercial/residential development. We have entered into a partnership and identified a developer. This is not only beneficial to the university and the institutional services they are providing, but also beneficial to the community as a whole. And with that Mr. Chairman, I am recommending denial based on how the size of variances and how the use affects the immediate area. John Gross: Thank you. Commissioner DeHoff. Colby DeHoff: What environmental, or does anybody know what the environment implications are? Have the tanks been removed, was there a phase 1 and phase 2 study here or is that beyond the scope of John Gross: My understanding is it s still listed on the Buster and that what s going on here involves no digging down. It s not a new building. It s utilizing the same premises and painting it up in the front of the building, but I don t think it disturbs the soil so probably it s not applicable at this point in time. Colby DeHoff: OK. No other questions at this point. John Gross: Commissioner Locke. Mark Locke: Yeah, Thank you. You know a lot of us in this room have spent many, many hours sitting in this room right here to put together the city s land use plan and when we were done I felt that we had a really nice plan put together for the City of Alliance. And now, that plan has been approved and if we re not going to follow that plan, then we wasted a whole lot of time even putting it together. I mean, I just don t think this is a fit for that area. It doesn t fit into the university or hospital environment and it truly does not serve the students. Right now I will probably end up voting no. John Gross: Commissioner Lundgren. Cheryl Lundgren: And I would agree with everything Mark said including probably voting no but I do have a question. Looking at the site plan, are there three entrance egress entrances with that little spot? Curtis Bungard: This, all of Penn used to be the entrance. It s been reduced to that. This existing one they are proposing to keep that gives good entrance and exit point for these and then this third one is an existing one that they are narrowing down. Mark Locke: So then there are three. Page 5 of 8

6 Curtis Bungard: There used to be two in the front and the entire side. These are smaller. Cheryl Lundgren: So are these grandfathered in? I mean that seems like a lot of parking exits for Curtis Bungard: No, it s not grandfathered in. Cheryl Lundgren: Ok. Well, then looking at the site plan that would be a problem for me to have three entrance/exits. I don t see that the one to west, on the western boundary is um, to the west of the front property is necessary but I also regret that the landscaping area has been reduced so much so that I think we can t expect anything to really grow there with that fill dirt. Those are two of my concerns and it isn t according to the land use plan has already been established. John Gross: Commissioner Henderson. Kim Henderson: Well, as long as I have been around they have always talked about how that ground is contaminated and I don t think that building is the right building for our street. And I think something that has the image or the look, no matter what they do, we all know it s there and we know there s an issue. I don t believe it s best for the community. That s my thinking. John Gross: Thank you. Your Honor. Mayor Andreani: The environmental issue is mine but it s been addressed and I m still curious about the changes made on your two, putting in more grass areas, you still have to do some digging to do that, curbs, you ll have to do digging and I m not sure what s underground having dealt with Buster in the past. I know they get very sensitive about digging and having testing done on that, so I have some questions about that. But the larger picture is, and having sat in this room for all those meetings from multiple versions of these plans over the last ten years, it seems to me we need to follow our plans as I recommend on all occasions. John Gross: Thank you. I recognize that there is an institutional interest and I notice that the University of Mount Union is present and I would like to give them an opportunity to address the university s point of view. Blaine Lewis: Blaine Lewis, director of physical plant, the University of Mount Union, representing the university. We appreciate and support commercial development in every possible manor all around the City of Alliance, especially in the area along State Street, such a high profile corridor. We believe that the variances are not appropriate and we do not support them. We would like to see something done with that building, with that property, hopefully in a more responsible manner. I did take the liberty of going down to the building department to look at the submitted renovation plans which are public record and there was a specific note that no exterior improvements are planned for this building. And that has us concerned also. Page 6 of 8

7 We appreciate your consideration and respectfully oppose it. John Gross: Thank you. Anything further from the general audience concerning this site plan? If not, is there a motion on the table or to be put on the table. You can put on two motions. You can put on a motion to approve, you can put on a motion to deny. Cheryl Lundgren: Motion to deny. Mark Locke: Second. John Gross: Moved and seconded to deny. Is there discussion on the motion? Mike. Mike Hettler: Can I ask a question? John Gross: Yes Mike Hettler: So I understand, because I have to relay the information to the owner s representative, it would be because of the use of the proposed building for business that does not fit with the comprehensive plan of the city. John Gross: That s part of it, yes. Mike Hettler: OK John Gross: As well as the amount of variances. Mike Hettler: OK John Gross: That s not sufficient to the criteria and the mission of the land use plan. Mike Hettler: OK. Thank you. John Gross: Any further discussions or questions? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion which is a motion to deny the site plan and the requested variances. The motion carried. 7) Site plan for Rental Corral, 2239 W. State St., Alliance, Ohio, submitted by Hettler Engineering, LLC ( PC); Variances under the jurisdiction of planning commission: Variance to waive the Type B screening along the West and North sides of property. Page 7 of 8

8 Variance to allow existing asphalt pavement/parking to remain within front yard setback, side yard setback on East and West sides of property, and within the rear yard setback on the North. Existing setback 0 feet, variance 10 on front, 5 on sides, and 10 along rear. Variance to allow existing asphalt pavement/parking to remain within front yard setback, side yard setback on East and West sides of property, and within the rear yard setback on the North. Existing setback 0 feet, variance 10 on front, 5 on sides, and 10 along rear. Variance to allow existing asphalt pavement/parking to remain within front yard setback. Existing setback 3 feet, variance 7 on front. Mike Hettler stated this site was purchased by Rental Corral. They have outgrown their current site on S. Union Ave. They started making interior renovations. They rent large and small equipment. This building was vacant over a year and requires approval from planning commission. Mr. Hettler asked for approval of the site plan with variances as listed above for 2239 W. State St., 2237 W. State St. and 2235 W. State St., all part of this site plan. Engineering stated that the site will require buffering of the front and park entrance area. Suggested that the 25 buffer required north of the properties be reduced to 1 and install wood or vinyl fence north of 2239 W. State St. and 2237 W. State St. Engineering provided a mark-up of suggestions and written list of proposed conditions. Recommended conditional approval. Planning & Development asked if a conditional use permit was necessary. Zoning officer Bill Hawley stated that they do need a conditional use permit. Chairman Gross said the planning commission could not act on the site plan without the conditional use permit. Commissioner Lundgren had questions on the fence and storage of large items. Mike Hettler then withdrew the site plan due to need of a conditional use permit. 8) Other business. There was no other business. The next meeting will be February 19, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Mark Locke made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Cheryl Lundgren. Motion carried. 5:25 p.m. Page 8 of 8