PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY
HALL,
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011
PLANNING AND ZONING WORK SESSION
6:30 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Blake opened the Planning and Zoning Work
Session at 6:30 P.M. with the following members present: Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blair.
Others present were Jeff Fix, Cristie Hammond,
Bill Vance, Susan Crotty, Joseph Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky
and Karen Risher.
2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Presentation
by Mitch Banchefsky of Schottenstein,
Zox and Dunn, and discussion regarding Planning and
Zoning Commission responsibilities, policies and practices.
Mr.
Blake stated it has been a while since the Commission has had a work session
and that it is good to go over what we did well, and not so well, in 2010. He also welcomed Mr. Gavin Blair as
Mr.
Vance stated training is a fantastic thing to do and the City plans more
training in the future to ensure that everyone stays coordinated and on the
same page as to our responsibilities as a local government, and the different
levels thereof. He further stated with the economic challenges that all levels
of government are facing, it is best if we, as a City, can provide the best
customer service possible to maximize all opportunities to secure outside
investment into our community. When staff
is on the same page with everyone it allows us to do our jobs better from
square one. Mr. Banchefsky is here to conduct the
training of Planning and Zoning Commission as far as what we are supposed to be
doing in accordance with the City’s zoning codes and regulations.
Ms
Crotty stated that customer service is very important. We have been fortunate to have a couple of
applicants come in with just the type of development that we are looking
for. It is staff and Planning and Zoning
Commission’s responsibility to enforce our code and regulations however she
does encourage everyone to be as flexible as possible, to work with the
applicants and be as fair to everyone as possible so that the applicants feel
they have gone through a fair process and have been treated well by the City. Mr. Vance stated as the new City Manger, it
is good for him to go through this training as well so he is educated as to how
he can best be of service to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated it is not possible to do
comprehensive training in a one hour period.
He stated this is not the only session that can be done, if there is a
need or desire to tweak things, or there are specific areas you want to discuss
more in depth that can be done. He
stated he would skip over open meetings and conflicts of interest as the
Commission has been very good about pointing out things to him that could be a
conflict of interest for the members.
When there is a conflict of interest the member can’t vote on the issue,
and they also can not participate in the discussion. Mr. Banchefsky did
state that it would be helpful that, if possible, the Commission members let
him know in advance so that it can be researched if necessary.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated the making of a record is important
and it really does not make any difference what is being considered, whether it
is a zoning or an administrative matter. The record is what a reviewing Court
or a reviewing Tribunal will look at to see what was done. They may take live testimony but in many
cases they won’t. In an Administrative
Appeal they will just look at a transcript.
When the record isn’t clear as to the justification for why you decided
as you did, there is a strong risk you will be overturned. The Judge doesn’t
know what you were thinking and unless you say it and explain why you did it
then the Judge is left to speculate and they won’t do that. They will just make a decision for the other
side. The other important thing is that you
are to consider only facts and not opinions.
An example is when you have a group of neighbors come in that don’t like
what is being considered and they stand up and state things like their property
values are going to go down. We don’t
know that, and they haven’t stated they are trained to make that evaluation or
that they have had an appraisal done or anything like that. You have to weed out the emotion and focus
only on the facts. Mr. Banchefsky further stated that
this works the other way too, when you are considering an item and you start
your sentence with “I think” or “In my opinion it might be better this
way”. There are a lot of ways to do a
development and just because you don’t like it, it doesn’t appeal to you or you
think it should be done differently, if it complies with the code that should
be the end of that discussion. When it
complies with the code you have very little discretion other than to approve
it. When it doesn’t comply with the code
then you can make all the comments and suggestions that you want.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated the Commission deals with two types
of action. You deal with legislative actions and administrative actions. The legal standards for these two types of
actions are different. If it is a
legislative action you are establishing policy, making recommendations on laws,
as in a rezoning where you are doing something that not only affects the
property owner but the entire municipality. Sworn testimony is not needed for
this type of action. This is where you
have your broadest discretion, if you do not think a rezoning is appropriate,
or if for example the community plan doesn’t support that, you can turn it
down. Having a good record as to why you are turning it down or taking that
action is important. In a legislative
action you have very broad discretion to treat it any way you want. In
legislative action the Commission is not the final decision maker, you are
making a recommendation to Service Committee or
Mr.
Banchefsky stated when doing administrative actions
you are applying an existing law to somebody’s property and the Commission may
be making the final decision. There may be an appeal to
Mr.
Banchefsky stated in an administrative action where
the Commission is making the final decision it would go to court as an
administrative appeal. In the Ohio
Revised Code, section 2506 is the administrative appeal section. That says that
when someone goes through the entire process with the City and they receive an adverse
decision they have a time period, typically 30 days, in which to file an
appeal. When they file an appeal they have to issue a praecipe
to the City and to the Court directing the City to prepare a transcript of
everything that went on. This includes
the submission by the applicant, the staff report, any documentation that went
with the staff report, slides that were shown, and a verbatim transcript of the
discussions that went on at the Planning Commission. The goal for the Court in
the 2506 hearing is to limit the evidence to what’s in the record. The City will then have 45 days to prepare
the transcript and file it with the court.
The Court in theory will then read all that information, look at the
law, and then invite the lawyers in to do an oral argument. If the transcript is not fully complete with
everything just referenced then typically the applicant’s attorney is going to
ask for a hearing which means you are going to have a trial. People will be called
in to testify and evidence will be presented.
It is a longer, more cumbersome and expensive process. If we have done
our job right and we have a complete transcript there is no need for that. If
the transcript does not clearly show the reason that the Commission made the
decision the Court will pull that reasoning out of the record and if there is a
motion as “I make a motion to deny this because of the following and list the
reasons, a., b., etc. That is ideal and is the best record you can have. You
don’t need to have that level of detail if you are going to approve something
but if it looks like it will not be approved, the more evidence and rationale
that we have as to why the decision was made allows the court to not have to
guess. At some point the Court will say
I can’t tell why they did this, it doesn’t make sense to me and they will send
it back for further hearings or find in favor of the applicant. Mr. Banchefsky stated he cannot stress enough how important
that record is.
Mr.
Nicholas clarified that the meeting minutes will suffice as the transcript,
however Mr. Banchefsky is more comfortable with
having the tape of the meeting sent out to a court reporter and
transcribed. Mr. Banchefsky
stated a good attorney can make a good Planning Commission member look stupid
if they say something that can be taken out of context or say something stupid
in an off the cuff remark. The other attorney will beat that to death in the
oral argument before the court. Comments such as this guy said “This will never
happen on my watch” or “How dare you bring that in” or “This doesn’t comply
with anything we have ever done here, it’s just a piece of garbage”. The other
99 percent of what that person said can be totally appropriate and right on the
money but that won’t be heard. Mr. Banchefsky stated
his job is to be the referee and to make sure that we are on the straight and
narrow and when he senses that we are veering off or someone is overplaying
their hand, his question is whether to jump in then and say we can’t go there
or let it play out. The dynamics of the Planning Commission meeting are that
you have an applicant that wants to do a project and a City that wants to get
the project done. The applicant is
willing to go a little farther than is
necessary to get it approved and the Commission is more than happy to
see them go a little farther to develop what we view as a nicer project. He
further stated if he jumps in and says stop then it might not get to where you
want it to be. One school of thought is that the attorney advising the Commission
should immediately put a stop to it.
There are other times that by going down that route it would be making a
record that is beneficial to the other side.
He stated this Commission is good and this is not something he has to do
often.
Mr.
Vance stated that whenever possible, it is the obligation of staff to bring the
Commission a successfully completed application. When we have that where all
regulations of the City have been abided by within the application, it is his
understanding that the job of the Planning and Zoning Committee at that point
is to verify that all the documents associated with the application are in
order and the applicant is prepared to move forward. There may be times when
the applicant proposes something that might be different than the way an
individual member of the Commission would do it and there might be a
recommendation made whether the applicant would consider changing this or that.
If they have a successfully completed application in accordance with all our
regulations, their might be a response where they indicate they have a
preference not to. That is not necessarily a wrong response. Most of the time
the applicants that come before P & Z want to satisfy this Commission, but
these days where the flexibility is not what it used to be the applicant might
be confined to a certain proposal, so if they have a proposal that meets their
needs and the regulations they have to abide by, there may be times when they
do stick to it.
Mr.
Blake stated that Mr. Banchefsky has been to a lot
other City’s Planning and Zoning meetings and he requested that before the work
session is over he would like Mr. Banchefsky to
clarify what the Commission is doing well and what they are not doing quite so
well and where we could improve. There
is always room for improvement.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated he cannot impress upon the
Commission the importance of making the record.
Something that comes up is that there will be an application that has
gone through the process, staff has reviewed it, written the staff report, it’s
on the agenda, and then the applicant comes in to the meeting that evening with
a revision. Do you allow them to submit that?
The applicant will be walking around handing out a revision to everyone
that staff and the Commission members have not had a chance to look at yet. We
do try to be developer friendly but typically that should send them packing.
The applicant should be told that is not going to be considered tonight. The risk is that there is a nice staff report
that was prepared and everyone has seen and then you have this additional
document, or it may be a new exhibit board brought in that is different from
what they have shown before. Does that get into the record, do we keep that
exhibit board with our records because we know we might have to make a
transcript? The transcript then becomes confusing and then at that point you
have two and one half strikes against you. Mr. Vance stated in that regard
staff would not be advocating changes at the last minute. Our goal is to make sure that the Commission
has a responsibly completed application within the packet and we are not
seeking to introduce any last minute items. If last minute items are proposed
to be introduced, staff would take the position that we cannot support this because
we have not had time to investigate the ramifications associated with what is
proposed. Staff cannot advocate at that
point in time that everything being provided is in accordance with the
regulations for the City. Staff would not be receptive to any last minute
proposals either.
Mr.
Blake stated typically what he has seen in the past is that the applicant will
present an application that does not meet staff recommendations on three, four,
seven etc. items. Typically when they
come in and they have changes they come to the meeting and states they are now
prepared to meet items three, four and five. His concern is what does the
Commission do at that point? It is
usually not that they want to change something, it’s that the want to meet the
recommendations. Mr. Henderson stated where we have to be careful is, if they
are trying to meet the conditions that are set at the meeting, we say we are
approving your plan that was previously submitted the month prior with those
conditions. What you are proposing now meets those conditions and staff will
review at the zoning certificate level that meets those conditions and staff
signs off on it. He further stated that we see that happen a lot. Last month Skilken came in with their ground signs. Ground signs for multi tenants have to be two
colors and they came in five or six colors.
The applicant read the conditions in the report, said he could meet that
and then brought into the meeting a copy of sign plans that met our conditions. Mr. Henderson stated he told the applicant to
hold on those. The applicant was willing
to meet the conditions and it will be approved at the Zoning Certificate level
and there is no need to confuse everyone by now having two copies. Mr. Banchefsky stated that he does not have a problem with
minor changes that are absolutely clear as to what they are changing and what
they are willing do doing. Mr. Henderson
stated if it is a large scale change, like a design change, he is more
comfortable with it being tabled so that staff can review it. Also, at times
the reports are sent to our architectural consultant, our engineering
department and building department for review, so there are other departments
that their thoughts, opinions and requirements will be included in the reports.
Mr. Henderson further stated that if the applicant is moving an access point
then he wants the City engineer to look at it to make sure it meets the Access
Management Plan and makes sense, versus the applicant coming here and showing
it at the meeting. The City engineer does not attend all of the Planning and
Zoning meetings. On larger scale items it would be best for it to be tabled and
brought back the next month.
Mr. Banchefsky
stated he absolutely would agree with that. The other issue is someone comes up
and there are 13 items where there are issues or there is a lack of an
agreement, and they come in and say they agree with everything in staff report
and will do that. Depending on staff’s
position on that, the Commission could approve that. Then it falls upon the applicant to convince
staff that they have met that. He
further stated he thinks staff’s position would be that when the applicant
comes in and there is a disagreement, if staff does not feel the applicant has
met the conditions then it is going back to the Commission as they are the
final arbiter. Mr. Banchefsky stated he does not like
that whole scenario, he thinks that puts too much of a burden on staff. If
something comes in and the report has a lot of conditions on it, that’s a red
flag. The Commission could spend 90 minutes going over this and redesigning
their plan for them, but is that what you want to do? Mr. Banchefsky
stated he would argue that doing so is not the job of the Commission. Mr. Blake stated he agreed.
Mr.
Vance stated negotiating at a Planning and Zoning Commission is not ideal as
not all of the different positions can be thought out as they should be if we
are trying to discuss some last minute changes and proposals. If we have an application with 10 or 15
proposed disagreements as to whether or not the applicant should adhere to City
regulations, he does not see how staff can take the position that this is a
successfully completed application. Mr.
Blake stated he agrees with this. Mr. Banchefsky stated at some point if an applicant is not
going to do what staff says needs to be done and there are outstanding issues,
then it will have to run through the process.
That doesn’t mean spending two and half hours redesigning it, it can be
a normal discussion and then a vote. At
times there may be ulterior motives that the Commission is not even be aware
of. There could be a contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller
and it says that the buyer, seller or someone has to run this through the
process and get it done within a certain time period. The applicant may not
even care what the result is; they are just worrying about getting sued for not
complying with the contract. Mr. Vance
stated staff’s goal to make things work, to find ways to say yes, find ways to
accommodate the needs of development interests and of course with our
regulations. If we provide too many
variances in regard to a certain application at what point do our regulations
lose merit? How do we substantiate
dealing with everybody equally and fairly if a variance in relation to
everything that we request or necessitate according to our regulations is
possible? If we are having a problem
with our regulations, potentially the sign colors for example, it seems that
there have been accommodations made in the past according to how many sign
colors are proposed in relation to a sign for development and we need to be
sure that we position ourselves in a manner that we can substantiate treating
everybody equally. If we give variances for one commercial sign as to how many
sign colors are allowed, are we in a position to accommodate all similar
requests? If we deny a certain request,
how do we substantiate that denial in a manner that is sufficient to protect
the City from somebody else having an issue with how they were treated?
Mr.
Banchefsky stated those are the negative side of
things going wrong with potential issues.
There is a flip side that too.
You could have a major corporate headquarters that wants to locate in
the City and they would say you are on our selection list but we have to have a
decision made with the next 45 days which is typically outside the scope of our
normal process. There are ways to
schedule special meetings. He further
stated he has had scenarios on development issues where an applicant knows
there is going to be community resistance to it and it could end up on a ballot
that could be on a referendum filed against the zoning, and they say this has
to get processed before the March filing deadline for the Board of Elections to
put it on the ballot. If there is going
to be a referendum and getting it on the ballot goes to another year, the
applicant is going to be long gone. This is the reality of the business
environment that we are in. This does
not violate any laws; basically what you are doing is expediting a schedule.
There is an element of flexibility that has to work both ways, within reason.
Mrs.
Evans stated she thinks almost everything Mr. Banchefsky
said is great in her opinion, and that the Commission needs to be reminded of
that. Her concern is giving staff the
impression that they have to be very precise and that the applicant does not
have much of a voice or place to go if there is an issue that they want to be
heard. She would not want it to go back
to where Planning and Zoning was just a rubber stamp of what staff
recommends. She stated she thinks we
need to be careful regarding this. Mr. Banchefsky
stated he is not advocating that. There
are going to be legitimate differences about the applicability of a code
section or a code provision or a requirement. There may be legitimate
disagreements or, for example, if it’s a planned district or something that may
need flexibility. There is a difference between that and the applicant who
comes in and just hasn’t done their homework. There are developers that know
how to do it and then you have people who have never done this before or just
don’t care and do as little work as possible to slide it through. The veteran staff that the City has will be
able to identify that and resolve that.
Mr. Vance stated staff’s personal opinions don’t come into play, our job
is to make sure that the regulations that we are paid to administer are adhered
to, to the best of our capability. If a development application discounts 50
percent of what the regulations indicate they have to provide then obviously
there are issues with that. It is not a
personal opinion as to whether or not they should adhere to those regulations. Our professional opinion is we have
regulations and are supposed to negotiate to the best of our ability our
flexibility within those regulations to successfully complete applications
before they come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff is not trying
to discount the voices of folks who might have a difference of opinion of some
of the things that the City necessitates within our regulations. We are trying
to make sure that they adhere to as many as possible to complete the
application. The applicant does have a voice, they can come before the
Commission and provide a variance request and staff is going to be in the
position at times that we cannot support everything that is proposed because it
becomes a policy nature. The first thing
we want to convey to whoever is looking to develop in Pickerington is that our
first goal is to successfully complete the application in accordance with the
City’s regulations and this is what we concentrate on, in a customer friendly
way.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated that a couple of important issues
that come to Planning and Zoning Commission are rezonings
and text amendments. This is a legislative matter and the Commission is making
a recommendation to City
Mr. Blake clarified that if there are
conversations taking place of a modification at the applicant’s request, the
question is presented to the applicant before a motion. Mr. Banchefsky
stated that if you are going to pass a rezoning that has a provision in it that
the Commission modified, and the applicant is not willing to do that we are not
really accomplishing much. He would
rather they advise the applicant the Commission is going to vote on what the
applicant has agreed to, and they are going to table it or they will give it a
negative recommendation and the applicant can argue their case to
Mr.
Banchefsky stated the main premise on a Conditional
Use is that the use has to be suitable for the particular location and the code
does list out the approval criteria and is in section 1286. It says in
considering an application for conditional use the Commission must make an
affirmative finding that the proposed conditional use is to be located in a
district wherein such use may be conditionally permitted and that all
conditions for the approval of the conditional use have been met. In doing so the Commission may request proof
that applicable requirements for conditional uses have been met. The key to
this is affirmative finding and that is something that needs to be in the
motion that says we have looked at this, we find that it is appropriate for the
zoning district that is listed and the applicant has agreed to the conditions
that have been discussed. He further stated that you can glean this from the
meeting minutes or the transcript but it is easier if it is packed into the
motion. This is a little different than
what we do but isn’t difficult.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated that outdoor service facility
regulations in the code is 1286.34 and it states where these can be placed, in
what zoning districts and that they must be harmonious in accordance with the
general objectives of the zoning code.
He stated that this is very broad language. The general objective of the zoning code is
to have everything look nice and look well.
It is written this way intentionally as it gives the Commission the most
discretion. The code also states that
outdoor service facilities must not be hazardous or have a negative impact on
existing or future surroundings and outdoor service facilities must not involve
activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation
including, but not limited to, hours of operation, that would be detrimental to
any persons, property or general welfare by reason of excessive production of
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odor or other characteristics not compatible to the
uses in the zoning district. The last
one is that the outdoor service facility must not impede normal, orderly
development. There is no guidance in the
code regarding side curtains and this is the issue that we have been struggling
with. We had a consultant that went to
Mr. Vance stated the problem with that, as he
sees it, is that there are a lot of limitations associated with side curtains
as to additional options. It is canvas
and plastic as far as he is aware of and if the Commission does not like canvas
or plastic then you don’t like side curtains.
Some of the bigger issues he sees with side curtains are that they be
installed in accordance with state building regulations and he thinks there
should be definite involvement of the building department within the
installation of those side curtains. He
further stated some of the safety aspects of side curtains outweigh some of the
aesthetic positions. Mr. Blake stated he
agrees. Mr. Banchefsky stated something like that, or
that they are attached so that they are not flapping in the wind. Operationally you can specify how you want
them and work and that could serve to weed out some of the cheaper material
that you can buy at the hardware store.
Right now we have nothing, so anything is better than what we have now.
Mr.
Nicholas stated he had been doing some side work on this topic. Number one is regarding professional ethics
on his part and also trying to find language from other Planning and Zoning
communities regarding their zoning code. Last week he was made aware of three
communities outside of
Mr.
Banchefsky stated he has not looked at the AIA
requirements relative to Mr. Nicholas’s profession. However he thinks if Mr.
Nicholas is designing someone’s outdoor patio that the answer would be that
yes, he would be required to tell them they have other issues. He further
stated that in the context of being a member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, he does not think Mr. Nicholas is under that obligation however
this is something he is not going to advise Mr. Nicholas on that at this point.
The Commission can mention it but the City does not enforce it, the State of
Mr.
Banchefsky stated that in the Old Downtown
Pickerington Village Guidelines there is a provision that states that the
approval or denial shall occur within 30 days unless it is tabled at the
applicant’s request. These are the types
of things that staff will probably keep the Commission updated on in terms of
where you are. From a time frame
perspective, we have an item tabled on tonight’s agenda for a cellular tower
and there is an FCC generated shot clock time provision. He is not concerned about that in this case
because the applicant keeps requesting that the matter be tabled. There are
some things we table routinely but there are time frames that have to addressed
and acknowledged as part of the tabling motion.
Mr. Banchefsky stated he would skip over the
Certificate of Appropriateness as he thinks the Commission knows how this
works.
He further stated that with preliminary and
final plats the presumption in the Ohio Revised Code and the Pickerington code
is that the preliminary and final plats are going to be approved. The zoning has already been approved and they
are coming in now with how it is going to be divided into lots and the roadway
and utility locations are being identified. That doesn’t mean you have to
rubber stamp whatever is brought in. If
there are deficiencies in it then you can deny it or table it. If it is denied you have to specify the
reasons why it is being turned down. They can then go out and fix the
deficiencies. In theory they should be
technical, such as a set back issue, a drainage issue, a thoroughfare access
issue or something that should be fixable. Mr. Vance stated in that regard
there are requirements that have to be adhered to and addressed. If somebody
refuses to provide for a requirement in the code or regulations, then the
Commission just identifies that refusal.
It is something that can be adhered to, somebody would just have to
choose not to. Mr. Blake clarified at that point, if there is a glaring discrepancy
between the code and what the applicant is presenting, staff can put in their
report that they recommend this item be tabled for further review with staff
and the applicant. Mr. Banchefsky stated that staff can certainly do that at the
conclusion of the staff report. The report should list the outstanding issues
and that they are working with the applicant and haven’t had a chance to
resolve the issues. The problem you have
with that is the next section states that the Commission shall act on the preliminary
plat within 45 days after filing unless such time is extended by agreement of
the sub divider. To table will require
the consent or approval of the applicant and if they aren’t willing to do that
and there are outstanding issues the Commission has to move it forward or turn
it down.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated something that does not come in
often but is on the agenda is telecommunications. There is a long section in
the code about telecommunications facilities, where it is preferred they be
constructed and where it is preferred they are not constructed. Planning Commission has a review on that. The
key would be that there are extensive submittal requirements. They have to show
where it will be, how tall it will be, how the antenna will look, how the screening
will be addressed for the ground units etc.
Those criteria make the job of approving these easier because you can
tick through those.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated he did not see any reason to go
over the sign code. Mr. Fix clarified that there are parts of our code that
seem to come up time and time again that perhaps need to be reviewed, addressed
or changed. Mr. Banchefsky
stated that our Code has been around for awhile and there have been a lot of
amendments and sometimes they do not mesh.
The Ohio Revised Code in the municipal law and zoning does not mesh
either. A comprehensive update would not hurt at all. As to whether there are
things that reoccur, he would direct that to staff. Mr. Henderson stated one of the two biggest
issues will be addressed tonight and that is temporary banners, both at the
planning level and the code enforcement level.
The other is the issue of colors on signs. Mr. Henderson stated that
staff will spend two-five hours a week on colors on signs and that is time that
staff could use somewhere else. Mr. Fix clarified that any modification would
come through Planning and Zoning for approval just like any other zoning
change. Mr. Banchefsky stated that what he does see,
and this is a financial issue, is that it is a lot of work to do a
comprehensive rewrite of the code and this is something that typically goes to
a consultant. Absent that, you can focus on specific chapters one at a
time. For staff to try to do that along
with the daily work they have to do is usually a bit of a challenge.
Mr.
Fix stated that one end of the spectrum would be a comprehensive code review
and on the other end would be to do nothing. Perhaps addressing the hot issues,
sign colors, side curtains and a couple of things that seem to take up a lot of
the Commission’s and Mr. Henderson’s time and making the changes short term to
those while we look to a more longer term solution of full code review would be
an option. Mr. Banchefsky
stated that is a viable option, to address the ongoing, nagging issues. To try
to do an entire code rewrite in that manner, by the time you would get done you
would have to start over. Mr. Henderson stated staff is making a proposal next
month to changing the temporary signs. On the signage color issue a middle
ground has been found so that is being left as is. He further stated Mr. Vance has mentioned
reviewing parts of the code and bringing this type of thing before Planning and
Zoning Commission monthly or bimonthly as staff has time to do so. Mr. Vance stated those would be piece meal
efforts. He stated that he has been
involved with a comprehensive revision of land usage code and it cost $125,000.
He stated that we do need to concentrate on of some of the hot issues and that
we also need to work on being sure our
construction specs are up to the building regulations for the State of
Ohio. We haven’t concentrated a lot on
that and this is another issue that we need to be working on. Mr. Fix stated he
spoke with Mr. Hopper at the last City Planning, Projects and Service Committee
meeting regarding this and encouraged him to bring the Committee potential
changes to the code that need to be made.
He stated he is asking this group to also come to the City Planning,
Projects and Service Committee with similar changes if they feel it is
appropriate. Mr. Fix inquired if there
is a way to proactively involve the business community that would be impacted
by code changes in the process before we make the changes. Mr. Banchefsky stated that there are built in public hearings
both at this Commission and
The
Planning and Zoning Work Session recessed at 7:30 P. M. and reconvened at 8:10
P.M.
Mr.
Banchefsky reviewed the following primary duties of
the Planning and Zoning Commission found in section 1272.04 which establishes
the Planning and Zoning Commission. There are 5 primary duties and they are as
follows:
1. To prepare zoning code amendments
recommended for the Municipality. This
is basically to make recommendations on that type of thing.
2. To
review and make recommendations on the proposed official zoning map and all
proposals and changes or rezonings forwarded along
with Commission’s recommendations to
3. Review
development plans within planned districts and make recommendations to
4. Review
unlisted uses to determine their classification as permitted conditional,
accessory or prohibited uses.
5. Review
and authorize the issuance of Conditional Use Permits to petitioners who
specifically meet the requirements for such a permit listed in the Zoning Code.
Mr.
Banchefsky stated some of the good things about the
Commission are that we allow a fair and full hearing to applicants, they have
complete input and he does not think anyone ever leaves a Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting with the feeling that they have not had the chance to be
heard and to have their issues addressed.
He stated he thinks staff does an excellent job; considering the size of
the staff, they do a phenomenal job in his opinion. He further stated he has
worked with many Zoning Departments in the past and seeing the size of their
staff, versus the size of the staff here, it is very impressive what the staff
here is able to accomplish.
He
further stated there is not a lot that is negative. One thing he advised on is to pay attention
to the criteria that is in place for whatever you are reviewing. This will prevent any problems and could
potentially shorten the review process a little bit. This will give you a very clear understanding
of what you are here to do and how to do it and if it ever gets reviewed in
Court they will look at and say here is what the criteria was and this is what
the Commission addressed
Mr.
Blake started that this Commission has a lot of experts in all their fields and
we have a fair, concerned and open minded Commission. He stated that he believes the Commission has
treated all of our applicants fairly and that the Commission members put
themselves in the applicant’s shoes. He further stated that the one thing he
was concerned about is that Volunteer Energy was here a couple of months ago
with a request to have a decision made by the Commission reconsidered and they
were in that situation due to their builder. The Commission did not give them
the opportunity to speak and declined on the request. He feels if this
Commission has ever let anyone down it was them. He further stated in his
profession he is in the business community with the developers, the builders
and land use people and he hears good things about this Commission and staff on
a continual basis. That was not the case
five years ago. He further stated he has never spoken to anyone who has left
here that did not feel they were treated fairly and thanked the Commission
members and staff for the wonderful job that they do here. Mr. Fix stated he
agrees that we have come along way with this Commission and staff in the past year
or so. He also stated he appreciated the
comments regarding Volunteer Energy. Staff works very hard to be pro business
and we need to do that in all areas of the process. This Commission is an important part of that
and everything you can do to help the City be pro business and still uphold the
standards and codes is important.
3. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn, Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blair voting
“Aye”. Mr. Bosch had a prior commitment
and departed at 8:00 P.M. Motion
carried, 6-0. The Planning and
Zoning Commission Work Session adjourned at 8:12 P.M., January 25, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen
Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Susan
Crotty, Development Director