Anthony Catalano Melissa Long Peter Paino Greg Balbierz (arrived at 7:18 p.m.)

Transcription

1 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: John Gargan Anthony Catalano Melissa Long Peter Paino Greg Balbierz (arrived at 7:18 p.m.) Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Assistant Law Director Sheila Uzl, Transcriptionist I. Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call: Mr. Gargan, Mr. Catalano, Ms. Long, Mr. Paino, and Mr. Balbierz were present. III. Reading of the Preamble The Planning Commission operates in accordance with the provisions of the Kent City Charter, the Kent Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations, all of which establish the powers and duties of the Commission. Members of the Planning Commission are appointed by Kent City Council and serve without compensation. Certain cases such as Conditional Zoning Certificates, Special Zoning Permits, Overlay District Projects and Zoning Amendment require Public Hearings before the Planning Commission. During the Public Hearing, any person wishing to address their concerns to the Commission will be provided the opportunity. Once the Public Hearing is closed, it shall be the discretion of the Chair whether to allow any additional public comment. Cases such as Site Plan Reviews and Subdivision Projects do not require a Public Hearing. However, the Chair will allow public comment on each case as it is taken on the agenda. In each instance where the Commission receives public comments or conducts a Public Hearing, those persons wishing to address their concerns to the Commission will be required to do so under oath or positive affirmation. The oath or affirmation shall be administered to all who wish to speak at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Once a decision has been made by the Planning Commission on a case, the Case is closed for the Commission, as there is no provision to reopen a case. With the exception of cases falling under the Subdivision Code, any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City s Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the Chapter 1109 of the Zoning Code. Anyone interested in appealing a decision of the Planning Commission is advised to seek private legal counsel.

2 Page (2) IV. Administration of Oath Mr. Fink instructed those members of the audience wishing to be heard on any of the cases presented at this meeting to rise and raise their right hand. Mr. Fink administered the Oath, Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Please say I do. The participants responded, I do. V. Meeting Minutes September 4, 2012 September 18, 2012 MOTION: Mr. Paino moved to approve the amended September 4, 2012 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gargan The motion carried 4 0. (Mr. Balbierz was not present during vote.) There was no vote taken on the September 18, 2012 minutes because there were not enough members present who had attended the meeting to vote on those minutes. (Mr. Balbierz was not present) VI. VII. Correspondence None Old Business None VIII. New Business A. PC DAVID SOMMERS & ASSOCIATES, LLC 525 East Main Street Site Plan Review The applicant is representing Dunkin Donuts requesting Site Plan Review and Approval for a revised site plan for the construction of a new two story building with a drive thru. The subject property is zoned C-R: Commercial- High Density Multifamily Residential. Mr. Catalano asked the applicant to present the project. Ken Blum, owner and developer of the site, stated they have acquired another lot to the north of the original site. He said fewer variances are required.

3 Page (3) Elizabeth Eaken (136 North Water Street, Kent, OH) stated she is the project architect with David Sommers & Associates. She said this is a permitted use in a commercial district. She said the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for a 17.5 foot variance from the 20-foot front yard landscaping requirement to allow a parking area along University Drive. The curb cut will be further away from the intersection. They no longer need variances along the rear property line. She said there is no building setback variance needed. She said 9 parking spaces are required but they now exceed that number with 11. The menu board went from 18 feet to 32 feet from the rear property line. Ms. Eaken said they have incorporated some of the suggestions from the Architectural Review Board. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sally Burnell (114 University Drive #2, Kent, OH) read a letter: Imagine waking up one morning and reading in the newspaper that the place that you have called home for nearly 30 years may be torn down, leaving you hurt, angry, confused and extremely stressed about losing your home. Imagine that this is the only place that you can possibly afford and that paying higher rent could mean struggling financially even more than you already have been. That is the situation in which I currently find myself at the moment. I know that I am but a renter and I essentially have no right where my home is concerned, but this house is more than just another run down student rooming house that must be swept away in the name of progress. This is my home, a well-kept apartment with a brand new bathroom and a newly redecorated kitchen. The living room and bedroom were repainted and plastered not terribly long ago as well. I am on a fixed income, as I work in a fairly low paid public sector job where I have not had a raise since around the time of the Clinton era, not even cost of living. This apartment is the only thing between me and homelessness. So I am coming to you tonight with a proposal. I have lived proximate to the Wendy s restaurant the entire time that I have resided in this house. In that time I have noticed that their parking lot is mostly unused, as it seems that the lion s share of their business is their drive through customers. It s rare that they have anyone in their dining room, and even then, it is mostly during peak lunch and dinner hours, and I have counted no more than a dozen cars in their very large lot at any given time during those hours. They are not open for breakfast hours and do not open in the mornings until 11 a.m. I am assuming that the lion s share of Dunkin Donuts business will be during the breakfast hours when Wendy s isn t even open and a large parking lot next door will be empty and available. If your store is in such dire need of extra parking, why not use Wendy s lot since their store isn t open for breakfast? Perhaps a deal can be arranged for them to cede 4 to 6 spots along the eastern edge of their parking lot for use of your customers since their lot is so rarely used. There is a precedent for this in our city. Wild Goats Coffeehouse on the near west side shares its parking lot with the West River Medical

4 Page (4) Center and suffers no adverse effects to their business giving up some of its parking to its next door neighbor. It would seem a real waste of a large empty proximate parking lot that is not used in the morning when your business is likely to be at its heaviest. I propose that you can save money on this project by going this route instead of tearing down a neighboring house for a mere four parking spots that could instead be had next door when that business is not yet open. I want it clearly understood that I and my fellow tenants of 114 University Drive do not oppose the building of the Dunkin Donuts store on the former gas station lot, but when I first heard about this project, I never imagined that the house in which I make my home would be threatened and we tenants were given no warning of this. We had to read about it in the newspapers instead, much to the shock and chagrin of all of us tenants who call this house our home. We were blindsided completely, never told that our house was a part of this deal or might become a part of it and we resent the fact that we were never consulted by anyone about our options. We ask you to reconsider and let us remain in our home. If our landlord is that intent on selling the house to someone else, we understand and we will pay our rent to our new owner, only we ask that whomever that may be not raise our rent as this is one of the few affordable and walkable homes out there and none of us has a lot of money. I am on a fixed income, my neighbor across the hall is a recent college grad with loans to pay off who just landed her first full time job and our neighbors downstairs are young women still in college and racking up huge amounts of debt while so doing and can t afford to live in one of the many upscale apartments that have just been built. Please consider this proposal and please let us remain in our home. We will support your business and be your customers as well. But we do not wish to relocate as none of us has the money or desire to do so. We feel that your business can best be served by the use of already existing parking next door to you. It only makes sense to use what is already available rather than go to the extra expense of razing a house and creating more parking when none is needed in the first place. We hope that you take this proposal under consideration when making your decision tonight. Thank you. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone stated that it is a permitted use. She said the Planning Commission had reviewed a site plan before but this is a new one and a better plan. She said there is more stacking distance and the curb cut is further away from the intersection. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a 17.5-foot variance from the 20-foot front yard landscaping strip requirement. She said staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. She said the layout is more horizontal than vertical. The Architectural Review Board did make suggestions.

5 Page (5) Mr. Fink stated that the suggestions made by the Architectural Review Board were not made in the form of a motion. No vote was ever taken. The suggestions would have carried more weight if a motion had been made. The suggestions made by the Architectural Review Board are merely advisory. He said the Planning Commission must consider Section to determine if it is a permitted use and that to determine what conditions are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Ms. Long stated that she was glad to see the additional property. She said there will be more parking and it will be easier to navigate the site. Mr. Gargan asked the applicant how they felt about the suggestions from the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Eaken replied they did incorporate many of the suggestions from the Architectural Review Board. She reviewed the changes made. She said they added windows on the lower and the upper level. A bike rack has been added and a sidewalk is shown at the service door. She said they changed the color of the band around the building, but did not incorporate the base around the building. She said they prefer the horizontal sign. She said they tried hard to incorporate the suggestions made. She said the site will be in full compliance with the City s noise ordinances. Mr. Gargan told Ms. Burnell that he understood her concern, but based on the guidelines the Planning Commission had to follow it had very little leeway to not approve the site based on her reasons. He said she raised some very legitimate concerns. He asked Ms. Barone if the zoning officer has checked the house at 118 University Drive. Ms. Barone replied that the zoning officer has been at the house several times but has been unable to prove that it was operating as an illegal rooming house. Mr. Paino stated that the building is fine but he had a problem with the lack of landscaping. He had pictures of businesses along Main Street and said the buildings along East Main Street have landscaping and green space. He said the outdoor seating could be removed so green space could be added. Mr. Blum replied that they would like to have more landscaping but the site is tight. He said they are actually adding more landscaping than what was there before. He said in a perfect world, more green space would be possible. Mr. Paino stated that the City wants a unity in look along Main Street. He asked if the building could be setback. He said a 5-foot strip of grass is not good and would like to see more landscaping. He liked the site plan but did not like the lack of green space.

6 Page (6) Ms. Eaken stated that the site is hard to keep clean when there is grass. She said a second curb cut would not be added because it would be too close to the intersection. Mr. Balbierz stated he did not understand why they could not have green space. He said there is no green in the images. He said the neighboring businesses have quality green space. He said there are above ground options such as planter boxes and paver blocks that allow grass to come through. He said no one is perfect but perfection can be pursued and they have done nothing to show green space. He said they are going to be on restaurant row and asked for quality landscaping. Ms. Eaken replied that the drawings are a tool to show the building but does not show the whole site. Mr. Blum stated that shrubs and planter boxes will be added. He said they could remove the outdoor seating and put in landscaping. Mr. Balbierz asked if a traffic study had been done regarding the impact that the new restaurant would have. Ms. Barone replied a traffic engineer did evaluate the site and saw no problem with the site. Ms. Eaken stated that she did not disagree that it would be nice to have more green space, but they did the best they could with what they had. Mr. Balbierz stated he was sure there were ways to pursue the excellence of the site. Mr. Catalano stated that the Planning Commission had to follow the code in making their determination. He asked the applicant if he had or would consider sharing parking. Mr. Blum replied it would not be viable. People would have to walk through the drive. He said they are competitors of Wendy s and that in other areas Wendy s does offer breakfast. Mr. Catalano stated that adding the extra windows and incorporating the suggestions of the Architectural Review Board was good. He said the elimination of the outdoor seating will be a loss. He said the site does comply with Section of the code. Mr. Balbierz suggested that the Planning Commission table Case PC12-023/David Sommers & Associates, so the applicant could submit revisions at a future meeting. Mr. Gargan stated he was not in favor of that and wanted to make a motion for the case.

7 Page (7) Ms. Barone stated that the site plan could be approved and have the applicant return with a landscape plan to be approved by the Planning Commission. MOTION: Mr. Gargan moved that in PC12-023/David Sommers & Associates, LLC, property located at 525 East Main Street, that the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan to construct a Dunkin Donuts. Subject to the following conditions: 1) Technical Plan Review. 2) Install an active self-regulated noise reducing system on the order board and be in compliance with all relevant local noise ordinances. 3) Install a sidewalk to service delivery area. 4) Install 4 to 6 bike racks in the patio area. 5) Incorporate storm water management if the Development Engineer determines it is necessary. 6) Incorporate the suggestions for the Architectural Review Board which the applicant indicated at the meeting he intended to incorporate. 7) Approval of the landscape plan by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Balbierz. The motion carried 5 0. B. PC KLABEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 1035 West Main Street Conditional Zoning Certificate & Site Plan Review The applicant is seeking a Conditional Zoning Certificate and Site Plan Review and Approval in order to operate a car dealership on the subject property. The subject property is zoned IR-C: Intensive Commercial Residential District. Mr. Catalano asked the applicant to present the project. Al Klaben (1089 West Main Street, Kent, OH) stated he is before the Planning Commission because they want to expand their current operations by operating a vehicle sales office from the existing building, to display vehicles in the sections designated on the site plan, and to allow additional customer parking as designated on the site plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE

8 Page (8) PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone stated that it is a conditional use in the zoning district. She said conditions are listed in the staff report and that staff believes that the applicant has met all those conditions. She said the traffic remains essentially the same. A grass strip was removed on the west side so that there will be a better driveway to their service area. The utilities currently exist. She said the stormwater management needs to be evaluated by the Development Engineer. The applicant does have a problem on this property because the Akron Water line has three easements to this property, so the applicant cannot put anything in those easements. The site plan shows the parking up towards the property line and they will adjust the inventory display so it will not fall within the 20-foot front yard parking/landscaping setback. She said they are requesting three signs that are not to exceed 100 square feet, which include the Service entrance sign, Klaben building sign and a Used Car entrance sign. The applicant will add a couple parking lot lights. The staff recommends approval with conditions. Mr. Klaben stated that all three signs meet the 100 square foot requirement. Mr. Fink stated this is a conditionally permitted use. The staff believes all the conditions listed in the staff report have been met. He said the use has to meet the factors listed in Section Mr. Paino asked what will keep parking off the 20-foot strip. Mr. Klaben replied there will be striping and the area between the lots is pervious grass. Mr. Paino asked what was in front. Mr. Klaben replied it is paved. Mr. Gargan stated that making a vacant building viable was a good action. Ms. Long stated that there was no problem with the plan because it fits very well into the other auto dealers. She asked if there would be visitor spaces for this building. Mr. Klaben replied yes there will be customer parking. Mr. Balbierz asked if the storm water management calculations and the signage requirements will be handled in the Technical Plan Review. Ms. Barone replied yes. She said the applicant is allowed to have a total of 100 square feet and Mr. Klaben has indicated that all three signs add up to 100 square feet. She said they will have to get a sign permit and the sizes will be verified.

9 Page (9) Mr. Catalano thanked the applicant for using the empty building. There were no other questions. He asked for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Gargan moved that in PC12-025, Klaben Property Management, LLC, property located at 1035 West Main Street, that the Planning Commission approves the Conditional Zoning Certificate and Site Plan to operate a car sales business. Subject to the following conditions: 1) Technical plan review. 2) Adjusting the inventory display so as to not fall within the 20 front yard parking /landscaping setback or obtain a variance from the Building of Zoning Appeals. 3) Incorporate storm water management if the Development Engineer determines it is necessary. 4) The building sign and USED CAR entrance signs total square footage shall not exceed 100 square feet. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. The motion carried 5 0. IX. Other Business 1. Adding photos as a requirement for Planning Commission application 2. Member Appointment 3. Tardiness 4. Requesting Sustainability Committee to identify and suggest ways to preserve green space. Adding photos as a requirement for the Planning Commission application Mr. Paino stated that it would make it easier for the Planning Commission if photo(s) were submitted with the applications. Ms. Barone stated that Mr. Fink had drawn up language for this request. She said it is a zoning code change, so it will have to be sent to council. A copy of the language proposed was reviewed by the commission. She said if this is the language the Planning Commission wants another discussion has to be put on the agenda at a public meeting. After that a recommendation from the Planning Commission would go to City Council. MOTION: Mr. Paino moved to approve the wording that Mr. Fink has proposed to require photographs or other digital representation of the site to be submitted with an application and to add Kent Codified Ordinance Chapter (b)(11). The motion was seconded by Mr. Gargan. The motion carried 5 0.

10 Page (10) Member Appointment Mr. Fink stated that he has been working with City Council to see if there was some legislation that can be proposed that will be consistent with the Charter. He said he is getting a lot of resistance, but they are talking to him about. He said Council is satisfied with the system. He said Council believes that it is working well enough because not enough people are complaining. He said they do not see a need to fix something, if it is not broken. Mr. Catalano offered to talk before City Council. He said the Planning Commission is asking for help and it is not a major change. Mr. Fink said a more streamlined process is needed and the standing rules will have to be changed in order to do that. He said Council is comfortable with their standing rules. He said they are concerned that all standing rules will come up for discussion. He said City Council has been bogged down with issues, but things seem to be clearing up. Mr. Catalano recommended that people discuss the issue with their Council representative. Mr. Fink stated that they are trying to get the bylaws for the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals and Architectural Review Board revised to be in line with the charter. He said he would like City Council to approve the bylaws for all three. He said perhaps they could add a clause to the bylaws about appointing people to the boards and commissions. The bylaws need to be uniform. In reply to a question from Mr. Balbierz, he said the Planning Commission was not on the Council s short term or long term agenda. Mr. Paino said he would like to have a better idea as far as landscaping and how to make the City look nicer. A discussion on landscaping could be put on the agenda for the second meeting in November, Tardiness Mr. Gargan asked if there was anything in the bylaws about tardiness. Mr. Fink replied he was not sure. He said that the charter does say that if a person misses three consecutive meetings that is grounds for being terminated from a board or commission.

11 Page (11) Mr. Gargan asked Mr. Balbierz what the problem was with him being late to most of the meetings. Mr. Balbierz replied the reason was work. Mr. Gargan told Mr. Balbierz that he had taken on a position on the Planning Commission and part of that was being on time. He said his tardiness was unacceptable. There were only two commissioners at the last meeting so they had to wait until Mr. Balbierz showed up to start the meeting late. He said this is an ongoing issue. He said Mr. Balbierz s lateness is inconsiderate and he was telling the other commissioners that his time was more valuable than theirs. Mr. Catalano stated that Mr. Balbierz routinely goes through the minutes to make corrections but he is not at the meetings to approve the minutes. He said Mr. Balbierz is creating more work for staff member, Ms. Hadden. He felt that Mr. Balbierz s actions were unacceptable. Mr. Balbierz replied he does not routinely do that. Mr. Catalano stated that it has become routine enough that he has heard about it several times and it is not appropriate if he was not going to be at the meeting to approve the minutes. He felt that Ms. Hadden was being hassled. Mr. Balbierz replied he wanted that language struck from the record because there is no hassling going on. He did not approve of this kind of language or format. Mr. Catalano asked what language he did not approve of. Mr. Balbierz replied there has been no hassling. He said it was an inappropriate use of language. Mr. Catalano stated he felt that Mr. Balbierz was hassling Ms. Hadden. Mr. Balbierz stated it was not being done and he could ask her about it. Mr. Catalano replied he has asked her about it. He said Mr. Balbierz is giving her a hard time about minute issues and he is subsequently not at the meeting to approve the minutes. Mr. Balbierz stated that was not his intent. Mr. Catalano stated that might not have been his intent, but that is what is going on.

12 Page (12) Mr. Paino asked if something could be done to get to the meetings on time. Mr. Balbierz replied he was working on that, but he does not know an answer at this time. He will continue to work on it. Mr. Gargan told Mr. Balbierz that he knew when the meetings were held when he was appointed. Mr. Balbierz replied he did know when the meetings were held. He said there are other communities that have their meetings at 7:15 p.m., 7:30 p.m. or even 8:00 p.m. Mr. Catalano stated that the Planning Commission recommended that Mr. Balbierz make every effort to get to the meetings on time. Requesting Sustainability Committee to identify and suggest ways to preserve green space Mr. Catalano stated that he would like to have a motion to request a meeting with the Sustainability Committee to identify areas that are currently green space and devise ways to preserve more. Mr. Fink stated that any time anyone is submitting a proposal for a conditional zoning certificate or a special permitted use the code states that they have to present a landscaping plan for the project. That does not apply to permitted uses. He spoke to staff member Suzanne Robertson about having the Sustainability Committee review whatever projects the Planning Commission thought was most appropriate. Ms. Robertson said they could do that but not until the fracking debate was concluded. Ms. Long asked if Ms. Robertson was head of the committee. Ms. Barone replied she is the staff representative that is the liaison person. Ms. Long had understood that the Sustainability Committee has not met regularly. Ms. Barone replied that when Mr. Locke became ill, the committee had not met for quite a while. Mr. Fink stated Ms. Robertson volunteered to be the liaison when that happened. He said the Sustainability Committee cannot meet in the Council Chambers without having a staff member present. Ms. Long asked if the Sustainability Committee was supposed to have a certain number of members to meet.

13 Page (13) Ms. Barone stated they do need a certain number but was not sure if that number was currently met. Mr. Gargan asked if a vacancy on the Sustainability Committee was advertised in the Tree City Bulletin. Mr. Balbierz replied yes and that someone has been appointed and that was to bring the committee to full capacity. Mr. Catalano said he would like the Planning Commission to reach out to the Sustainability Committee, either through a motion or another appropriate measure, to get its input. He said he would like to know what the Sustainability Committee does. Mr. Balbierz felt that the Sustainability Committee could offer information about available green space because it does impact areas. He said they need to know what the areas there are and they need to find if the code should be changed to accommodate the green space or if the City should purchase the land to preserve green space. A discussion was held regarding preserving green space in several areas. MOTION: Mr. Catalano moved that the Planning Commission requests that the Sustainability Committee identify and suggest ways to preserve green space in the City of Kent. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. The motion carried 5 0. Mr. Balbierz asked if the language describing the responsibilities of the Sustainability Committee was going to remain the same or be changed. He said the Sustainability Committee has not worked with the Planning Commission. Mr. Fink stated the Sustainability Committee could be invited to a meeting in November or December. X. Adjournment MOTION: Mr. Paino moved to adjourn. Mr. Gargan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.