KENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sean Kaine John Gargan Melissa Long Peter Paino Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Assistant Law Director I. Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call: Mr. Gargan, Ms. Long, Mr. Paino and Mr. Kaine 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 the 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 1115 of the Zoning Code. Anyone interested in appealing a decision of the Planning Commission is advised to seek private legal counsel.
Page (2) IV. Administration of Oath by Assistant Law Director 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. Minutes: October 19, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Gargan moved to approve the minutes of October 19, 2010. Motion was seconded by Mr. Paino. The motion carried 3 0. (1 abstention) IV. Correspondence Copy of the motions approved were received from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Ed Kintz project, a cover letter from Mr. Kintz to the Board of Building Appeals, and a copy of code section 1201 regarding Riparian Buffers also a letter from Ms. Long. VII. Old Business A. PC10-019 ED KINTZ 1000 Mogadore Road Site Plan Review The applicant is seeking Site Plan Review and Approval in order to construct self-storage units. The subject property is zoned I: Industrial District. Mr. Kaine asked the applicant to present his project. Ed Kintz (3225 Congress Lake Road, Mogadore, OH) stated that at the last meeting some issues were raised so he took a better look at the project. He said a couple places on the end have been created for snow storage. He said parking spaces have been taken out near the overhead door to allow for access in and out. He said he has spoken with the Fire Department and they have agreed to allow him to put in a 20'- gate instead of a 25' gate. He showed the gutters that tie into the storm water system. He said a variance for the setback in the Riparian has been approved by the Board of Building Appeals also. He said a plan for landscaping has been include as well.
Page (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS Dan Smith, Economic Development Director for the City of Kent, stated he has been working with Mr. Kintz for quite a few years. He said the property where Mr. Kintz is doing this project had fallen into disrepair prior to his ownership. He said he is very pleased to see what Mr. Kintz is doing and impressed in what the building is becoming. He said Mr. Kintz has put in a couple of business in there. He said Mr. Kintz has made a sincere effort to accommodate the concerns that were raised. The project is located in an area of town on Mogadore Road that is basically industrial. He felt Mr. Kintz's request was a reasonable one. His neighbors attended the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and endorsed his project. He would like to see more investment like this in Kent and is in favor of the project. John Reigns stated he was a Portage County resident. He stated Mr. Kintz has been in business for a number of years and he supports the project. There were no other public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone went over the changes since the last meeting. She said a scaled plan has been submitted. There are 26 parking spaces which is the required number of spaces per code and the parking layout has been revised to meet code and the overhead door is no longer blocked. She said there is underground storage for the storm water system and the catch basins will have drops at the bottom for collecting debris and sediment. A portion of the site falls within the Riparian setback for the Cuyahoga River so a variance was requested and granted from the Board of Building Appeals to construct the units that fall within this area. The minutes from the Board of Building Appeals meeting have not been approved as of now so the language in the motion comes from the draft minutes. The signage and the lighting and dumpster plans have stayed the same. She said no landscaping is proposed other than grassing the entrance that will be closed. She said the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variances and that the Planning Commission was provided a copy of the variances granted. She said staff is recommending approval subject to Technical Plan review. Ms. Long found everything in order but was not happy that the project extended back to the railroad but the Board of Building Appeals approved the variance Mr. Paino stated that it was a better site plan and the applicant had received approval for the variances he needed. He said the applicant had addressed everything. Mr. Gargan asked the applicant if he needed any signs for the storage units.
Page (4) Mr. Kintz replied eventually they might be needed. Ms. Barone stated that no signs were being asked for now. Mr. Fink stated that the applicant does not need to do it right now but if he needs signs later; he would have to make sure that all the signs comply with all the requirements. Mr. Gargan stated that the applicant has done a great job improving the property. Mr. Kaine stated he would be more comfortable if there was more of a buffer in the northwest part of site but the applicant did get a variance for the setback so this is no reason to disapprove the application. He stated that the back property line is about 3' higher than the existing grade which is something that would be reviewed in the Technical Plan Review. He suggested a condition be included in the motion that vehicle and vehicle storage be limited to the approved parking spaces. Mr. Kintz stated there will be no lingering cars in that area. There were no other comments so Mr. Kaine asked for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Gargan moved that in Case PC10-019/Ed Kintz, that the Planning Commission approves the Site Plan to construct self storage units at 1000 Mogadore Road. Subject to the following: 1. Technical Plan Review. 2. Vehicles and Vehicle Storage are to be limited to the designated parking spaces. Ms. Long seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 0. VIII. New Business A. PC10-020 ACORN ALLEY - PHASE II Alley #4, West Erie Street & South Depeyster Street Conceptual Plan Review The applicant is requesting comments for Conceptual Plan Review to continue south with the Acorn Alley project for a mixed use, multiple building project that will consist of commercial, restaurant, retail, outdoor seating and office uses in two 3 story buildings and one 1 story building.
Page (5) Mr. Kaine asked the applicant to present the project. Doug Fuller from Fuller Design Group, 133 East Main Street, Kent, Ohio, stated he was at the meeting to represent Ron Burbick's project Acorn Alley, Phase II. He passed out new plans to the Planning Commission. He said they would like comments from the Planning Commission and hoped to have the project approved by the Planning Commission at its next meeting. He said if it is approved then, they will be breaking ground early next year; possibly even in late December. Construction of the buildings could begin in early spring and the first restaurant will open July4, 2011. He said this is a mixed use development between West Erie Street and Alley #4 just west of South Depeyster Street that will include retail stores, restaurants, possible office space and third floor residential units. He showed where the hotel conference center would be located on another block as well as the location of the multi-modal building on another block. He said the first part of this phase will focus on shops and buildings on Erie Street and up to the corner of Depeyster Street. In one building that faces Erie Street there will be a restaurant on the corner, clothing store and a specialty soup store and a coffee shop on the first floor. On the second level there will be an Italian restaurant and retail shops. There is no second floor in one of the buildings because of site topography. The third floor will be residential. He said Mr. Burbick stated that the restaurants will be unique in that there might only be one or two others, if any, that exist. He said there is a 12' grade difference in grade at the Erie Street level and the alley. He said Phase II will have small shops adjacent to the alley. He said the parking shown is not the final parking because it will change when Phase II begins. He located the different businesses that will open in this phase. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Long asked if everything was handicap accessible. Mr. Fuller replied yes. There will be handicapped parking spaces, elevators in the lobbies and all buildings will be 100% accessible. Mr. Paino asked if there will public access to the building from both sides. Mr..Fuller replied yes.
Page (6) Mr. Kaine asked if there will be a drive-thru. Mr. Fuller replied the coffee shop will have a drive-thru one way off alley 4. He said there will be a total of 5 places for cars; one at the window and four spots to stack. Ms. Long asked if the other alley was a walking one. Mr. Fuller replied yes. There will also be an east-west alley for pedestrians. Mr. Kaine stated the drawing received at this meeting is very different. He verified where the dumpsters would be. Mr. Fuller agreed with where he located them. He said as part of the City of Kent's redevelopment it will put in an embedded walkway in the alley. He said there will be a 6' metal sculpted black squirrel that will be lit as part of the Kent State University's and the City Of Kent's sculpture mile. He said Mr. Burbick has made private arrangements for tenants to park off site downtown which will continue even after this phase is done. The multi- model building will offer added parking as well as parking on the street. Customers can also park in the public lots too. Mr. Kaine asked if there was any provision for trucks to load and unload. Mr. Fuller replied that no semi-truck can unload in the back parking lot. He showed where they can back in and unload and use the stairs to deliver. He said it is not the most convenient delivery area but is typical of urban type deliveries. He said there will be temporary parking on Depeyster while the City of Kent reconstructs Alley #4. He showed where a raised platform for outdoor seating will be located at Erie and Depeyster Streets after Erie Street is reconstructed. He said Acorn Alley continues through the Fairmount's project. Mr. Paino asked if the outdoor seating will be in the right-of-way. Mr. Fuller replied yes and that they have asked for a permit to occupy that area. They have asked the City of Kent to put in two accesses in the right-of-way. He said the landscaping plan will be coming in when Phase II is presented. He said they will put in a little landscaping where they can. Mr. Paino asked if the temporary parking area will be paved. Mr. Fuller replied they will be rough coated and striped. Mr. Paino asked what the requirement is for residential parking.
Page (7) Ms. Barone replied the developer has to have a parking plan. Mr. Fuller stated that there will probably be about 8 residential units in this phase and Mr. Burbick plans on having assigned spaces for the residents as well as employee spots. There will be no public parking in the area being discussed. Mr. Kaine stated that it would be nice to have some sort of screening along Depeyster Street adjacent to the parking lot. Mr. Fuller replied that he and Mr. Burbick agreed with Mr. Kaine. He said what they might end up proposing in Phase II may depend on how quickly things evolve into something else. He said the signage will be conservative as seen in the pictures that he passed around. He said the street lights will be the same as in Phase I which include goose neck lighting, lamps, sconces and street lamps. He said the City of Kent will also provide lighting along the street. There were no other comments or questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Walt Adams (336 High Street, Kent, OH) stated he would like to encourage the Planning Commission to emphasize green space. He said the City has the opportunity to have a different city scape if a little more green space is provided. Green space is something the City of Kent can insist upon. He said there is very little green space around the multimodal building. He said he is a concerned about the lack of green space. Mr. Paino agreed that he would like to see more green space in the City of Kent's development as well as the private development. He asked if the turn from the alley into the coffee shop will be possible. Mr. Fuller replied they are looking at that. Mr. Paino asked if there was enough dumpster space. He said there is a lot of trash created with a restaurant. Mr. Fuller showed where the permanent dumpster site will be located after everything is developed. He said there might be a masonry enclosure around the dumpsters so the truck can pull in and back out. The final location of the dumpster in Phase II might end up someplace else so daily pick up could be done for the restaurants. Mr. Paino stated he would like to know the width of the sidewalks.
Page (8) Ms. Barone said he could get a drawing from her. Mr. Fuller asked the commissioners to call if they had any additional thoughts. He said they are going to try to incorporate all the comments they have heard. B. PC10-023 Kent Planning Commission Repeal or Amend Ordinance No. 2009-110 The applicant is seeking comments to repeal or amend the language Chapter 1147.02(a) (3) for a recommendation to Kent City Council. in Ms. Barone stated that new language was added last year to section 1147.02(a)(3) that allowed for scientific, educational, religious, charitable, indoor and outdoor recreational, and residential uses which do not qualify as a permitted used under (a)(1) permitted uses. Common student dining hall, food courts, confectioneries and lounges are permitted if they are part of a residential, educational, or recreational facility. She encouraged the Planning Commission to determine what it wanted to do with; either amend it or repeal it. She said they could come up with language at this meeting of have staff write something up for the next meeting to make recommendations to Kent City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS Walt Adams (338 High Street, Kent, OH) stated he was glad that the Planning Commission wad considering this. He said this was something that Kent City Council had put together, not the Planning Commission. He said the Council created something of a monster because the University District was created specifically to cover the university itself and state property. He said the City of Kent has no jurisdiction over this district so has no control over what is developed. He said there is a lot of potential for development to the west of campus. He stated that this is a major issue around the university as to how it should be developed and redeveloped. He said the University District is not appropriate for private owners. He said a study should be done for zoning of proposed projects. He urged the Planning Commission to appeal the ordinance. He said he believed that most citizens do not want something like this. He said this is a difficult problem and the first step is to get rid of the amendment that Kent City Council enacted a year ago. Mr. Fink stated that the Presbyterian Church will not be affected unless they do not pull their permits. He said other proposals that have not been approved yet would be affected by the change.
Page (9) Mr. Kaine stated that he did not believe that this was an attempt by the Planning Commission to rescind the approval that was already granted. He said once it saw what was granted the commissioners realized that other controls are needed to protect property rights. Mr. Fink stated the Planning Commission should be careful not to undo anything the Presbyterian Church was trying to do. Ms. Long asked if this leaves the City of Kent and the Planning Commission open and vulnerable if this amendment is rescinded. Mr. Fink stated that private developers have very limited opportunities under the University District and would have to meet the permitted uses listed under (a) Permitted Uses. Mr. Paino reviewed the uses permitted in the University District. Mr. Fink stated that there are also conditional uses permitted. Mr. Paino stated that (a) (3) was added and the discussion was to amend or strike (a) (3) under Permitted Uses. Mr. Fink agreed that they are discussing amending or appealing sub-paragraph (3). Mr. Paino agreed that the Planning Commission needed to seriously look at this issue. He suggested looking at some other type of university zoning class or a sub-chapter. He said the Planning Commission has to also determine the zoning of all the parcels that Kent State University bought and tore down. Mr. Fink replied that the parcels that Kent State University bought remain the same as what they were when they were purchased. A parcel does not automatically become U classification just because the university owns it. Ms. Barone stated that the City of Kent has no control. Mr. Fink stated that once Kent State University buys a parcel of land, it becomes subject to the State rules and the City cannot touch them. Ms. Paino stated as Kent State University spreads it becomes similar to annexation without any rules. He said something is going to happen in the area around College and Erie in the next 15 years.
Page (10) Ms. Barone stated that is has been discussed about developing a plan on how the City wants that area to look like. Ms. Long suggested checking the downtown zoning in other cities that also have a university in their city. Mr. Fink stated that no city has any control over what a university does. Ms. Long excused herself and left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Adams stated that the Planning Commission has to remove the availability of private property owners the right to develop in the University District. The second thing the Planning Commission should look at is the area between Kent State University and downtown Kent to determine and what they want to see in that area and how it is redeveloped. Mr. Kane stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to recommend repeal of (a) (3), it will have to include a well tailored conditional use or separate district. It was decided to recommend repeal of the section. He asked if a letter should be written discussing their discussion and decision. Mr. Fink stated a letter would have to be drafted at the meeting tonight. Mr. Kaine asked for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Paino moved in Case PC10-023/Kent Planning Commission, to recommend to Kent City Council to repeal Chapter 1147.02(a) (3) in the City of Kent Zoning Code. Mr. Gargan seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 0. IX. Other Business There will be a joint meeting discussing the area around the University District. Ms. Long's letter about a pre-meeting prior to the Planning Commission meeting will be added to the agenda for the next meeting. X. Adjournment MOTION: Mr. Gargan moved to adjourn. Mr. Paino seconded the motion. The motion carried 3 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.