KENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 15, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Anthony Catalano John Gargan Melissa Long Greg Balbierz Peter Paino Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Asst. 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, Ms. Long, Mr. Balbierz and Mr. Catalano were present. Mr. Gargan moved to excuse the absence of Peter Paino. Mr. Balbierz seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 0. 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
Page 2 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. 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. Mr. Gargan moved to change the order of the agenda so that the Planning Commission could hear PC13-016, College Town Kent, LLC, before PC-13-013, City Of Kent Zoning Code Text Amendment, Proposed Chapter 1168. Ms. Long seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 0. V. Correspondence Ms. Barone stated she had distributed some additional information that had to do with the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Case PC13-016, College Town Kent, LLC. VI. New Business A. PC13-016 COLLEGE TOWN KENT, LLC 215 & 295 South Water Street, 100 East Erie Street and 210 South Depeyster Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment The applicant is seeking review and approval of the modifications to the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Buildings A, B, and C. The subject property is zoned C-D: Commercial Downtown District. Mr. Catalano asked the applicant to present the project. Norm Elbin stated they were requesting a modification to the Comprehensive Sign Plan that was approved previously. The Bricco sign on Building C will project at a 45 degree angle off the northeast corner and will be lit with spotlights. The Landmark sign above the residential lobby door will have LED illumination with only the border shining through. The Smithers Oasis sign will be at the corner with backlighting and the second sign with individual letters will be above the lobby canopy. The logo signs in the windows are in the conference room and will be vinyl. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE
Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone stated that this is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan that was approved on June 19, 2012 to add the Smithers Oasis signs on Buildings A and signage on Building C. She said it was standard and matches what they originally had approved. She said the Architectural Review Board met today and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted for all the signs. The Architectural Review Board had a discussion about how the Landmark sign would be attached to the building. It is like a free floating sign that is attached above the canopy. The Architectural Review Board wanted to give the applicant the freedom of which location they wanted to use. She told the commissioners they need to include a comment in the motion, that either location can be used at the applicant's discretion. She said staff is recommending approval with the conditions that the applicant obtain a zoning permit within two years of Planning Commission approval, obtain a sign permit and submit the performance guarantee prior to installation of the signs. A third condition listed, issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, has already been completed. Ms. Long asked if the Landmark sign will be illuminated during the day. Mr. Elbin replied that it would not be. He said that half of the white area of the sign will be lit at night. Ms. Long asked if the etchings will be seen. Mr. Elbin replied they are not prominent but the vinyl will be seen not the etches. Mr. Balbierz asked if the frosted crystal vinyl window graphic was their official logo for the Smithers Oasis. Mr. Elbin replied yes but that it was not necessarily the frost color. Mr. Balbierz asked about the projecting residential sign stating the building name. Mr. Elbin replied that has been withdrawn. Mr. Balbierz asked Mr. Elbin to comment on how the supply and demand is going for the apartments and the marketing for Bricco s. Mr. Elbin replied that was not his area of responsibility, so he was not sure. Mr. Balbierz understood that Bricco s is under construction and they plan to open towards the end of the year. The residential units will be ready for occupancy in the spring.
Page 4 Mr. Gargan said everything looks very tasteful. He asked if internally lit signs were permitted. Ms. Barone replied there is nothing in the code to prohibit them. She said there has been a discussion about that but she understood that was not in the code. Mr. Catalano stated that it looks very nice. Ms. Long asked about Bricco s blade signs. She wanted to know which one of the standards of the sign code that these would come under. Ms. Barone replied that both Buildings A and B have bracket signs for businesses on the first floor. They are part of the Comprehensive Sign Package for this developer. The size, type and number are all elements that the Planning Commission can approve as part of a Comprehensive Sign Package and does not fall under the regular sign area of the code. There were no other comments. Mr. Catalano asked for a motion. Mr. Balbierz moved that in Case PC13-016, College Town Kent LLC, that the Planning Commission approves the modifications to the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Buildings A, B & C at 215 and 295 South Water Street, 100 East Erie Street and 210 South Depeyster Street subject to the following conditions: 1) Obtain a zoning permit within two years of Planning Commission approval. 2) Obtain a sign permit and submit the performance guaranteed prior to installation of the signs. 3) The Landmark sign can either be floating or on top of the canopy. Mr. Gargan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. VII. Old Business A. PC13-013 CITY OF KENT Zoning code Text Amendment Proposed Chapter 1168 The applicant is seeking review of the proposed language to add Chapter 1168 entitled Landscaping, Buffering and Screening to the City of Kent Zoning Code. Ms. Barone stated the Landscape code has been discussed at several of the Planning Commission s meetings. She said the City s Development Planner helped her go through
Page 5 some of the more recent cases that have before the commission to determine how the new language in the code would impact those cases. Information is provided in the staff report for several of those projects such as the Art & Heart Tattoo, Dunkin Donuts and Hungry Howies. The Art & Heart Tattoo did not have any requirements under the new proposed code because there was no building expansion. She said they looked at what was required under the old code and then what would be required under the proposed code. She said they tried to determine the requirements for sites and actually whittled down the number of trees or shrubs required. Mr. Paino contacted her and said he thought the requirements were still a little on the high side for landscaping. She did want to ask the commissioners if the numbers should be whittled down a little more. She said if the commissioners were happy with everything, they could recommend approval to Kent City Council to add Chapter 1168 entitled Landscaping, Buffering and Screening to the City of Kent Zoning Code. She said the previous version just had the landscape area and they struggled with what that meant. The language was revised to tie the required landscape to the acreage of the parcel. Mr. Gargan stated the charts were very helpful. Ms. Barone asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Mr. Gargan asked about the proposed code what would require ten (10) trees for Dunkin Donuts. Ms. Barone replied that the new code will require general landscaping as well as buffering landscaping for the yard and parking areas. Mr. Fink stated that Section 1168.11, Flexibility in Requirements is also included in the proposal and gives the Planning Commission the authority to look at a proposed landscape plan and determine if it is consistent with the general purposes of the landscape code and sign off on it even if it does not meet the precise number required. The applicant could still go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance if the Planning Commission refused to deviate from the code. Mr. Gargan was glad to see this chapter in the zoning code. He said the staff did a great job. Ms. Long stated it was good to have guidelines and the Planning Commission could always reduce the requirements. Mr. Balbierz thought the staff did a good job. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to hear from Mr. Paino before approval was pushed forward. He said the purpose is strong and he was glad to see requirements. He asked if it would be beneficial to have a diagram in Section 1168.04(C), Sight Distance, regarding the sight triangle information. He referred to Section 1168.05(C), Existing Vegetation, and asked if the public should be made aware that the staff is available and willing to be of help and to answer any
Page 6 questions in this regard. He asked if it would beneficial to include a schematic showing the different buffering types, Section 1168.12, Types Landscaping and Buffering(A)(B)(C). He said he would like to hear what Mr. Paino has to say. Ms. Barone stated that the City of Hudson does have a sketch in their code that shows the buffering types and this could be added to Kent s code if that is what the Planning Commission wanted. She said the sight distance is stated elsewhere in the code and she does have a schematic of the sight triangle if anyone ever needs to see it. Mr. Balbierz asked if the commission wanted that information left with the staff or included in the code. Ms. Barone spoke with Mr. Paino about the proposed modifications and he thought it was great. He did ask about the variance process and the flexibility that the Planning Commission would have. Mr. Gargan stated that a matrix is included in the back that shows what the requirements would be. It was decided to add schematics for the buffering yards. Mr. Catalano stated this was the third time this has been before the Planning Commission and felt that the Planning Commission should move forward with it. Ms. Barone stated that she did not feel that it was appropriate to put in the code that the staff was available for assistance and to answer questions. There were no other questions or comments. Mr. Catalano asked for a motion. Mr. Balbierz moved that in Case PC13-013, City of Kent, that the Planning Commission recommends to Kent City Council to add Zoning Code Chapter 1168 Landscaping Buffering and Screening and to include any needed schematics. Ms. Long seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. VIII. New Business B. PC13-017 GOLDEN POND LLC/NRP Group Sunnybrook Road and State Route 261 Park Fee Review The applicant is requesting approval of the fee in lieu of dedicating park land for the Maplebrook at Golden Pond Senior Housing facility in accordance with the regulations of Chapter 1191. The subject property is zoned N-C Neighborhood Commercial District.
Page 7 Ms. Barone stated the Park Fee has to be blessed by the Planning Commission. She said there is a letter from John Idone talking about the fee, and there is a letter from the NRP Group that states they are okay with the fee. Mr. Fink stated that in the City of Kent s Code, under the Park Fee section, the Planning Commission has the authority to review the fee to make sure that the agreement is in the City s best interest. Generally speaking, a developer is required to donate land so that there are enough parks available to Kent residents. It is not possible for every developer to donate park land so they have the opportunity to donate money back to the City of Kent s Parks Department. The City of Kent uses that money to buy land or use it for some of its parks development. There is a procedure to follow if the Parks Department and the developer do not come to an agreement. The Parks Department and the developer did come to an agreement in this particular situation. The final fee was $53,100 but the developer was given credit of $26,250 for a 10 wide shared area for the hike and bike trail on Sunnybrook Road. Mr. Balbierz asked if there were further details available or more coming in that regard. Ms. Barone replied it was included in the site plan that the Planning Commission approved about a year ago. Mr. Fink state that there might be one or two cases coming before the Board where the parties are not in agreement. Mr. Balbierz asked if the Board could ask for a friendly update on the improvements, enhancements and completion of the hike and bike trail. He referred to Mr. McCabe s question in his letter and asked what the next step would be for the developers. Ms. Barone replied the next step was coming before this Board. She said they are supposed to be paving the hike and bike trail next week. Ms. Long recused herself. Mr. Gargan stated that if Mr. Idone was good with the fee, he was good with it. Mr. Catalano stated the Parks and Recreation Department has done an excellent job. Mr. Gargan moved that in Case PC13-017, Golden Pond LLC/NRP Group, that the Planning Commission approves the park fee in lieu of dedicating park land in the amount of $26, 850 for the senior housing facility at 5231 Sunnybrook Road. Mr. Balbierz seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0. (Ms. Long Abstained)
Page 8 IX. Meeting Minutes: August 6, 2013, August 20, 2013, September 6, 2013 Mr. Balbierz asked if the tattoo gallery on South Water is moving forward in meeting the conditions the Planning Commission added to the motion that was approved. Ms. Barone replied their Technical Plan has been approved and they have obtained a permit and the fee has been paid for the bond and the construction agreement. Mr. Fink stated that no one from the Community Development Department has contacted him to pursue this. Mr. Gargan moved to approve the August 6, 2013 meeting minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Gargan moved to approve the August 20, 2013meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Balbierz. The motion carried 3 0. (Mr. Catalano Abstained) Mr. Gargan moved to approve the September 3, 2013meeting minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. The motion carried 3 0. (Mr. Catalano Abstained) X. Other Business 1. The Planning Commission request for update of illegal activities related to new student housing facilities. Ms. Barone stated that the Planning Commission had a memo from Chief Lee dated August 27, 2013 that included the number of incidents at the three new student housing facilities. Verbally Chief Lee told staff that there have been fewer problems than anticipated. 2. Chair Anthony Catalano request to consider a support letter for the Police Station s proposed tax levy on the November ballot from the Planning Commission to City Council. Mr. Catalano stated he wanted to request that the Planning Commission send a support letter for the Police Station s tax levy on the November ballot. Mr. Fink stated that the Planning Commission could do this, but it was not obligated nor would it be binding. Mr. Gargan asked if the Police Department would come before the Planning Commission, if they did build a new police station.
Page 9 Mr. Fink replied yes. Mr. Gargan stated that if a commissioner was in favor of the concept it might show prejudice when it comes before the commission. Mr. Balbierz stated he toured the police department building and it definitely needs improvements. He agreed with Mr. Gargan. He said there are two documents that discuss city services at risk. He said there is a critical financial decision that will have to be made so that this facility meets code and safety guidelines. Ms. Long agreed with Mr. Gargan. She could not endorse the letter and did not think the Planning Commission should commit to an endorsement since the project would be coming before the commission. She said voters should be encouraged to vote for the tax levy. Mr. Catalano asked if there was any verbiage or endorsement either official or unofficial that the Planning Commission could use to draw public awareness for the need without violating or compromising the commission s trust. Mr. Fink replied the answer is for the Planning Commission to not have a vote on it. Mr. Catalano encouraged citizens to be aware of the issue. 3. Bike Racks Mr. Balbierz stated that Ms. Barone had stated at the Planning Commission s meetings in August 2013 that if bike racks were needed, the City of Kent could buy some and install them. Locations mentioned for bike racks were Kent City Hall, Riverwalk off the Bridge, Haymaker Parkway, the Esplanade, PARTA, Buildings A, B & C downtown and Locke Lane. Ms. Barone replied that PARTA already has bike racks as part as the multi-modal location. Mr. Catalano asked if a study could be done and then presented to see where bike racks are needed. Ms. Barone stated that there is a program and movement to identify where there is a need for bike racks as well as identify where the trail needs to be connected. She said the City Engineer is actually the person who asked if more bike racks were needed. She thought more would be added in the downtown area but was not sure where they would be. Acorn Alley already has some bike racks. Mr. Gargan stated that there are bike racks on both sides of Summit.
Page 10 Mr. Catalano asked if they could have recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Balbierz felt that would be a good idea. Mr. Catalano asked if the Planning Commission should make a motion to increase the number of bike racks and what else could they do to help to further this. Ms. Barone did not recommend that the Planning Commission make any kind of motion. The City Engineer could forward information to the commission advising them what the City is planning on doing and where the racks will be put. She said the City Engineer could attend a Planning Commission and discuss the program with the commissioners. Ms. Long asked if motorcycles could be parked in the new PARTA garage. Ms. Barone replied that as far as she knew motorcycles could be parked in the garage but there is an issue of the gate coming down or the motorcycles getting around the gate. X. Adjournment Mr. Balbierz moved to adjourn. Mr. Gargan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Ms. Barone said there would not be a meeting the first week of November 2013.