1 Public Hearing Roll Call: Alf Belew Horsley McAllister Moeller Samoviski Smith

Transcription

1 Planning Commission March 19, 1:30 p.m. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio Tom Alf Teri Horsley Dale McAllister David Belew Commission Member Commission Member Commission Member Commission Member Patrick Moeller Michael Samoviski Joshua Smith Mayor Commission Member City Manager 1 Public Hearing Roll Call: Alf Belew Horsley McAllister Moeller Samoviski Smith Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Commission: Kathy Dudley, Assistant Law Director Approval of Meeting Minutes- Written summary and audio recording for the following dates: 1. October 2, February 19, November 16, March 5, February 5, 2018 Alf Belew Horsley McAllister Moeller Samoviski Smith New Business: Agenda Item #1 - Public Hearing Request by Marvin Spradling (Applicant), on behalf of Craig Rhodis (Owner) to Amend the Planned Development for Arbor Springs Subdivision, Residential Planned Development RPD, 1036 Arbor Springs Drive, City Lot #30075 (Parcel ID: P ), located in the City of Hamilton, Ohio, First Ward, South Side. (Marvin Spradling - Applicant). Staff: Michael Ionna Alf Belew Horsley McAllister Moeller Samoviski Smith Board Training / Continuing Education Liz Hayden, Director of Planning Department Miscellaneous Reports: 1. Verbal Report on Architectural Design Review Board Meetings 2. Verbal Report on Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings 3. Verbal Report on previous Planning Commission cases in progress Other Business: Adjournment: The City of Hamilton is pleased to provide accommodations to disabled individuals and encourage their participation in city government. Should special accommodations be required, please contact Community Development s office at (24) hours before the scheduled meeting.

2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 2, :30 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairperson Dale McAllister. Roll Call: Members Present: Mr. Dave Belew, Ms. Teri Horsley, Mr. Dale McAllister, and Mr. Tom Vanderhorst for Joshua Smith Members Absent: Mr. Tom Alf, Mr. Mike Samoviski, Mayor Pat Moeller City Staff Present: Mr. Ed Wilson, Mr. Mike Ionna, Mr. Daniel Tidyman, Mr. Ken Rivera, Ms. Kathy Dudley Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Commission: Members of the audience were sworn in by Ms. Kathy Dudley. Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for August 21, 2017: Mr. Belew made a motion to accept and approve the minutes of the Planning Commission s August 21, 2017 meeting. However, there was no second to the motion. The present commission members believed that there were not enough votes of members present for the meeting in question. As a result, the August 21, 2017 meeting minutes were tabled. New Business: Agenda Item #1 Public Hearing Staff: Ed Wilson (Planning Department) Request by Community Design Alliance, on behalf of Robert Shane Kelley, for a Conditional Use approval to allow the expansion of an existing Automobile Sales Facility use on property zoned B-2 Community Business District located at 2128 & 2204 Dixie Highway, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (Community Design Alliance / Robert Shane Kelley, Applicant/Owner). 1

3 Introduction: This was a request submitted by Community Design Alliance (CDA), on behalf of Robert Shane Kelley, for a Conditional Use to allow an expansion of an existing Automobile Sales Facility to operate on the property zoned B-2 Community Business District located at 2128 & 2204 Dixie Highway as shown on the attached (Exhibit A) map. The property is zoned B-2 Community Business zoning district (Exhibit B) and measures approximately 36,526 square foot property and is comprised of four (4) separate parcels (City Lot Nos , N40, S10, and PT 10943) (Parcel Numbers: P , P , P , and P ). Automobile Sales Facility uses are Conditional Uses in the B-2 Community Business Zoning District and require review by the Planning Commission (Section ) and approval by City Council. Background Information: Mr. Wilson also noted details from the previous attempt at a conditional use for the properties in question. The Applicant and Owner had previously applied for a Conditional Use approval for the expansion of the existing Automobile Sales Facility for 2124 Dixie Highway, on March 24, The proposal involved the expansion of the existing auto sales and service use to the three (3) contiguous lots to the south. This also included the demolition of two (2) buildings to accommodate the project. The future plans for the proposed conditional use involved the erection of a new building as a larger automobile showroom and garage facility. The plans also showed the provision of five foot (5 ) green buffers for the northern half of the South Erie Blvd. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, and recommended approval of the proposed plan with conditions at the April 18, 2016 meeting. The commission added an extra condition, That no part disassembly may be done on the premises other than repair, and it must be done indoors, suggested by then Planning Commission Secretary, Eugene Scharf. City Council reviewed the proposal and did not approve the request for a Conditional Use at the May 25, 2016 council meeting. Due to this, the applicant and owner could not resubmit for the same Conditional Use for a period of one year. With the one year time period having elapsed, and the Applicant and Owner have resubmitted for the Conditional Use with revisions. 2

4 Proposal Synopsis: Following this, Mr. Wilson presented a summary of the current conditional use proposal for review; that the proposed project is very similar to the previous Conditional Use application. The proposed project is the expansion of the existing Automobile Sales use, Quality Auto Center, located at 2124 Dixie Highway (City Lot No ) onto the three (3) contiguous lots to the south (City Lots: N40, S10, and PT 10943) / (P , 34, & 35) as 2128 & 2204 Dixie Highway. Two buildings are to remain on the property, while the southernmost building has been demolished. Like the previous plan, the southernmost structure was demolished for parking. The building demolition was through a normal application, Staff review and approval in May, The existing Automobile Sales use is located on a 25,234 square foot property; the addition of the three (3) lots would add 11,192 additional square feet to the automobile sales use once combined the property would measure 36,526 square feet. Plans indicate that the addition of the properties would comply with the vehicular setback and landscaping requirements for Automobile Sales uses. The public sidewalk would be extended along the South Erie Boulevard frontage of the property. Vehicular access to the new parcel will be maintained from the existing driveway located off of Dixie Highway that serves PT Lot / (P ), and the driveway aligned with Belle Avenue. It was noted that there were no proposed changes to the existing parcel where Quality Auto Center is currently located at this time. Mr. Wilson also detailed the Conditional Use Review Criteria per Section of the Zoning Ordinance and the Applicant s answers to the criteria. Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of 40 properties within 500 feet of the property in question. At the time this report was written, there have been no phone calls received concerning the proposed conditional use for 2128 & 2204 Dixie Highway. 3

5 Proposed Recommendation: If the Planning Commission approves the request for a Conditional Use, the Planning Department requests that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request for a Conditional use subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) Construction drawings and documents for the proposed improvements and work shall be revised subject to any future review requirements of the City of Hamilton Departmental Review. 2) All improvements and work indicated on construction drawings/document approved as part of the Conditional Use be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Conditional Use (this includes: landscaping, pavement/walkway surfaces, and parking lot striping). 3) No exterior storage or sales of accessory materials or merchandise other than operable automobiles. 4) Landscaping shall be provided as follows: All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. (Deciduous trees minimum of 2 ½ inches caliper, evergreen trees minimum of six (6 ) feet in height, shrubs/bushes minimum of 12 inches). Landscaping selection to be coordinated with the Municipal Arborist. 5) The four (4) separate parcels to be combined into a single parcel by way of a Lot Combination. 6) Any areas of the site that are not used for building, landscaping, or approved parking to be planted with grass. 7) No Dismantling or Disassembly of Automobiles on the property. Public Hearing and Discussion: Michael Dingeldein, 236 High Street, spoke to the matter first. Mr. Dingeldein spoke as the Architect and representative of the owner, Shane Kelley. Mr. Dingeldein discussed the differences between the previous project proposal which was denied by City Council and the current proposal for review. Mr. Dingeldein also gave a synopsis of the proposal and detailed the intended conditional use as part of this discussion. Mr. Dingeldein then voiced moderate changes to the conditional use as presented in the staff report and in the presentation by Staff. That there was no way to meet the setback and parking buffer requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and proposed a consistent frontage along the South Erie Blvd Frontage (Eastern property line). Mr. Dingeldein explained that due to the pie shaped form of the property, and double frontage (along South Erie Blvd, and Dixie Hwy), the setback and buffer requirements would limit the amount of paved area for storing of cars for sale and vehicular access of the property. 4

6 Robert Mitchell, 2217 Dixie Hwy spoke to the matter next. Against. Mr. Mitchell also owns 2215 Dixie Hwy. The majority of Mr. Mitchell s comments were related to the denial of an auto related use, car lot, when he had applied for the use, and that there should not be an expansion of the subject car lot since he was not permitted. Steve Ricketts, 1026 Fox Avenue spoke to the matter next. Against. Mr. Ricketts expressed that he and Mr. Mitchell were told that no more car lots were needed in the city, and believes that everyone should be treated the same on that issue. Mr. Ricketts also noted the traffic from test drives and made remarks about people being brought into the neighborhood and trespassing on his property, and the safety factor of the dumpster being across the street from the subject lot. Following this, Mr. McAllister asked Mr. Dingeldein the reasons City Council denied the previous conditional use application. Mr. Dingeldein explained that Councilperson Wile proposed rejection of the plan due to the lack of a Route 4 Plan for the direction of the corridor. Mr. Dingeldein then noted that it has been 18 months of time and the city has not generated a plan, and that it was also time Mr. Kelley, could not use the property as he had intended. However, Mr. Dingeldein did cite the effort of Plan Hamilton, the City s Comprehensive Plan progress, and the inclusion of a Route 4 Corridor Plan component. Mr. Mitchell spoke once more, further detailing his situation and property. This involved minor questions from Mr. McAllister for reference and clarification. Mr. Mitchell had a used car lot from 2004 to 2010 but was made to shut down, and that now he is allowed to do nothing with the property. Close of Public Hearing: With no else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. McAllister asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Horsley made a motion to close the public hearing, with a second from Mr. Belew. The motion carried and the Public Hearing was closed. There was brief discussion and deliberation by the commission regarding the proposal. Mr. Vanderhorst stated that he had attended four of five Plan Hamilton meetings (part of the aforementioned Plan Hamilton, Comprehensive Planning process) as well as the Route 4 public meeting. Mr. Vanderhorst noted that he and Staff had heard from the public that there are too many car lots and auto uses, a proliferation of such businesses, and that he did not agree with the proposal for expansion of a conditional use for 2128 & 2204 Dixie Highway, that it was not a step in the right direction. Mr. Belew asked if they could see the area intended for expansion, once more. Mr. Wilson highlighted the item on screen for Mr. Belew s and the commission s review. Ms. Horsley asked if there was any further opposition received by Staff concerning the proposal. Mr. Wilson answered that they had received none. 5

7 Mr. McAllister asked for another look at the overall site plan and aerial, voicing questions for clarification of the overall situation. Motion: Mr. Vanderhorst made a motion that the Planning Commission deny the request for a Conditional Use for 2128 & 2204 Dixie Highway, with a second by Ms. Horsley. With a roll call vote of 2 Yea 2 Nay Horsley and Vanderhorst, Yea ; Belew and McAllister, Nay The motion is a tie. Due to the tie vote, the motion fails. Ms. Dudley cited that the Planning Commission has to make a recommendation and suggested the tabling of this application until next meeting for further review and in order to make a recommendation to City Council as needed. Ms. Horsley made a motion to table the request for a Conditional Use until the next Planning Commission meeting, with a second from Mr. Vanderhorst. With a roll call vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay, the Motion carried. Mr. Wilson specified that the next Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for October 16, Mr. Wilson explained that the next steps of the conditional use (City Council process) were now delayed due to the tabling of the application. Verbal Reports Mr. Wilson summarized the verbal reports of other boards related to the Planning Department. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) 1715 Fairgrove Avenue the applicant sought a variance for signage which was granted. Architectural Design Review Board (ADRB) 425 North Forth Street Porch, Siding, Painting. The item was denied due to vinyl siding and need for further information. 639 High Street Roofing and Chimney. The roofing was approved. 142 South E Street Exterior Work. The item was denied. 406 North Third Street Exterior Work. The item was approved. 6

8 Following this, Mr. McAllister asked for the status of the Fairways at Twin Run. Mr. Wilson explained that there were no further developments, but that the applicant and residents were still talking. Adjournment: With nothing further, Mr. Belew made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Vanderhorst. Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 2:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mr. Ken Rivera Secretary Mr. Dale McAllister Chairman 7

9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 6, :39 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 1:39 p.m. by Mr. Mike Samoviski, as Acting Chairperson. Roll Call: Members Present: Mr. Dave Belew, Ms. Teri Horsley, Mr. Mike Samoviski, Mayor Moeller, and Mr. Tom Vanderhorst for Joshua Smith Members Absent: Mr. Tom Alf, Mr. Dale McAllister City Staff Present: Mr. Ed Wilson, Mr. Mike Ionna, Ms. Liz Hayden, Ms. Kathy Dudley Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Commission: Members of the audience were sworn in by Ms. Kathy Dudley. Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for August 21, 2017 and September 18, 2017: Mr. Belew made a motion to accept and approve the minutes of the Planning Commission s August 21, 2017 meeting, seconded by Mayor Moeller. With all votes as Yea, the motion carried. Agenda Item #5 was moved to #1 as it is likely to take less time than the other more lengthy discussions that are expected to occur with the other agenda items. New Business: Agenda Item #1 Non-Public Hearing Staff: Ed Wilson (Planning Department) Request by Paul Brokamp, VSWC Architects on behalf of the property owner Community First Solutions for a Minor Amendment to the Final Development for the Berkeley Square Development, proposed Phase 13, located at 100 Berkeley Drive, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (Paul Brokamp, VSWC Architects/Community First Solutions, Applicant/Owner). 1

10 Proposal Synopsis: An amendment to the Planned Unit Development was approved at the July 3, 3017 Planning Commission which would allow a split of the property. However, due to some of the parcels being encumbered by financing agreements, a minor change is needed to the PUD to leave the subject property as is without a split or combination. There is no other deviation from the Amendment approved previously. Recommendation: The Planning Department recommends approval of the minor amendment to the PUD. If approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission use the following motion: That the Planning Commission approve the requested minor amendment to the approved amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Berkley Square Phase 13. There were no questions or comments from the audience on this matter. Mr. Vanderhorst made a motion to approve the minor amendment, seconded by Mr. Belew. The motion carried with a vote of 5 Yea 0 Nay. Old Business: Agenda Item #2 Public Hearing Staff: Mr. Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request by Etta M. Reed, Bayer Becker on behalf of the property owner Beck Hospitality Inc. III to Amend the Final Development Plan for the Fairways at Twin Run Development, comprised of approximately 55 acres, located at 2135 Pine Valley Drive, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (Etta M. Reed, Bayer Becker/Beck Hospitality Inc., III, Applicant/Owner). This item was tabled at a previous Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Moeller made a motion to remove the item from the table and bring it forward for discussion. The motion was seconded by Ms. Horsley and carried 5 Yea 0 Nay. Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna presented the history of the development from 2002 forward then moved on to the proposed Amendment to the Development Plan. The existing development consists of one-story structures comprised of three attached residential units per building. The front façades are made up of stone and brick. The sides are vinyl siding. 2

11 The amendment requested would allow for the construction of 123 detached singlefamily dwellings instead of attached single-family dwellings. Two-story units would be allowed whereas the past development has been one-story units. Also, there would be the inclusion of vinyl siding in addition to the current hard surface materials being used on the front and sides of the structures. The proposed plan states that all dwellings are to have a basement. All ranch style buildings are to have a minimum of 1,200 square feet not including the basement or garage. All two-story dwellings are to have a minimum of 1,400 square feet not including the basement or garage. The landscape plan includes 140 street trees to be located in the amended portion of the development. The trees will be 2.5 inch diameter. The City of Hamilton s Municipal Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree species and found that they are appropriate for Hamilton soil. In addition to the street trees, the applicant proposes to plant two trees in the front yard of each newly-created lot. This would be an addition of 246 additional trees in the development. The plan also indicates that the wooded area on the site will be maintained as open space. The currently developed portion was developed prior to the passage of Section of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes a minimum threshold of Site Amenity and Open Space/Recreational Points that must be met for a development proposed in an RPD Zone, and therefore, was not subject to the aforementioned requirements. However, in the event that a major change is made to a development, as proposed by the applicant, the entire development is required to meet the regulations. The applicant is required to achieve a minimum of 15 points. The applicant proposes to achieve the required points as follows: 3 points for the provision of passive open space no less than 5% of the total development s acreage. 2 points for the provision of passive open space that is greater than 10% of the development area. 1 point for the provision of open space being located within ¼ mine radius of 75% of the proposed dwellings. 3 points for the provision of two road connections into the development and connect to all adjacent or planned road connections. 2 points for the provision of decorative street light fixtures. 3 points for the provision of an eight feet wide multi-modal path that traverses at least 75% of the development. 1 point for having a total of two trees provided in the front yard area per dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting a waiver on: Section which states that no more than 40 of concrete foundation wall may be exposed on a residential dwelling. The applicant states that due to the topography, 3

12 there will be a number of proposed homes with walk-out rear elevations which require more than 40 of concrete foundation to be exposed A which states that a buffer shall be provided along the entire perimeter of the development. The applicant indicates that they do not wish to provide this buffer. Section which states that the primary material used on the front of the residential building will determine the predominant finish material for rest of the building. The applicant would like to provide vinyl siding for the side and rear of the buildings which is consistent with current development on the site. Section which states that lots with a frontage of 100 feet or greater will have a side-entry garage. The applicant states that there is only one lot in the entire development with a frontage of 100 feet or greater, so they are requesting a waiver on this section. Public hearing notices were sent out to the 104 surrounding property owners located within 500 feet of the subject property. Recommendation: If the Planning Commission choses to approve the amendment to the Final Development Plan for Fairways of Twin Run, the Planning Department recommends the following motion: That the Planning Commission approve the amendment to the Final Development Plan for the Fairways at Twin Run Development under the following conditions: 1. The findings of approval for the requested waivers and modifications are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for granting such requests. 2. The construction drawings for the proposed work, including site/engineering plans, to be revised, subject to any future requirements of the City Interdepartmental Review (IDR) Committee upon review. 3. Landscaping, site improvements, and all exterior finishes and other improvements be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Final Development Plan. 4. All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. All tree specials proposed for the front yard area of the new single-family homes shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist and listed in the approved Development Plan. 4

13 Public Hearing and Discussion: Etta Reed, Engineer with Bayer and Becker, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She indicated that the original number of 123 units would not change. The main change is that the type would change from attached to detached. Infrastructure is in place except for pavement, curb and gutter for the future section being discussed today. Utilities were put in underground by the previous developer. There would be three pocket parks. The main area between the existing development and the property being discussed is a wooded drainage way. This will remain as is. That property belongs to the HOA. At the meeting in August, they were directed to meet with the homeowners of Fairways of Twin Run to better understand what they were looking for and come to an agreement. They met in Mid-September and had a good exchange of information. Following that, they had conversations with the homeowner s representative. They met with City Staff in October to present the changes. Lot configurations did not change. The biggest change is that the 15 lots on Pumpkin Ridge will be restricted to singlefamily ranch-style homes that are detached, but the architecture and brick color will be as identical as they can get it to what is there now. The homes on Pumpkin Ridge will be a minimum of 1,400 square feet. For the rest of the new portion of the subdivision, the homes styles and materials were modified to eliminate any all-vinyl front façade. The front facades would be a combination of brick, stone, hardi-plank and vinyl with the other three sides being vinyl. There will be an 8-foot wide trail, decorative lighting and two trees in the front yard of every single-family home. All of the homes will have basements. Due to the topography, they are requesting a waiver on the 40 restriction of concrete foundation wall as a good many of the homes will have walk-out basements. This would be showing only on the rear and the sides and would not be visible from the road. They are asking for a waiver on the side-entry garage requirement for lots with over 100 foot frontage. There is only one house that has that this would apply to so the house would stand out. This lot is on Pumpkin Ridge and it would not match the aesthetic they are trying to achieve on that street. Another waiver they are requesting is regarding the requirement to have the predominant material used on the front façade also be the predominant material on the sides and rear. They are proposing the use of 50% brick, stone or hardi-plank and 50% vinyl. They are asking to allow the sides and rear to be finished in vinyl to match the existing structures. They are also asking for a waiver to allow them some leeway on the requirement that states that the garage cannot exceed more than one-half of the first floor building frontage. The existing units have garages that are more than one-half of the first floor building frontage. They cannot provide a buffers on the north, south and west due to utility easements and drainage ditches. On the east side there is a vegetative drainage way that creates a buffer. Joe Cristo of Cristo homes spoke on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that they are working very hard to use diverse materials for the construction of their homes to make sure the streetscape is paramount. They are investing a lot of time, effort and money to make sure this is a good development for the residents and for Hamilton. He has enjoyed the process and meeting the homeowners. 5

14 Kyle Rapier, attorney for the existing Homeowner s association, spoke. He indicated that the unit owners major concerns are price-point and aesthetics which was already covered at this meeting. In addition, the unit owners would like the Planning Commission to consider the following: That 12 ranch-style homes, rather than 15, be built on Pumpkin Ridge to allow greenspace between the communities; That the first six lots on Pine Valley be developed as ranch-style homes That the ranch-style homes be a minimum of 1,500 square feet That the average lot frontage should be 60 feet That Pine Valley be connected with Pine Court That the two-story homes be a minimum of 1,800 square feet That the City of Hamilton conduct a study of the roadway adjoining the community, specifically the entryway to Beissinger Road, to determine what, if any, changes need to be made for the safety of the unit owners and in anticipation of increased traffic. The Homeowner s Association took a vote, and they approve and support a change in the development. The Association believes that with some of these concessions and give and take by both the homeowners and Beck Hospitality, this community could be developed in a manner which is consistent with the aesthetics of the community. The Homeowner s Association supports a change with the recommendations of the unit owners. Mr. Samoviski asked if Mr. Rapier was proposing to have further discussion with Beck Hospitality about these suggestions. Mr. Rapier indicated that he had sent the suggestions to Mr. Parrish on Friday. He stated that they will discuss, but that he doesn t feel that they are that far apart compared to where they were when they started. He feels that with give and take it can be resolved. Mayor Moeller stated that it sounds like there has been improvement through discussion, but no agreement. Mr. Rapier stated that there is not 100% agreement. He indicated that he just had his meeting on Monday to get the consensus of the unit owners and just sent the list of suggestions to Mr. Parrish on Friday. In all likelihood, Beck Hospitality has not had time to respond. Mr. Rapier clarified that the Homeowner s Association voted only to approve a change to allow single-family detached homes. There was no discussion about square footage. This vote occurred in Mr. Bruce Jones of 2362 Castle Pines Court spoke on behalf of the homeowners. He stated that most of the homeowners that bought into the community years ago expected the entire community be built out in landominiums and to, for the most part, be senior persons living there. They don t want to stop the development of the community. They understand that done properly they will benefit. They do want to have input into how the community transitions from one style to the other, which is where Pumpkin Ridge and 6

15 Pine Valley comes into play. The Planning Commission asked them to meet. They met with just their community and came up with their five biggest concerns. He was asked at that time to be the spokesman for the community. Then they met with Cristo Brothers, Mr. Thornton and Etta Reed. At that meeting some of the misconceptions were cleared up. They originally thought the frontage would be 40 foot and they were all going to be slab homes. They appreciated that the parties showed up and answered their questions. Some things did get accomplished at the meeting. Further discussion with the community occurred and we went by majority rule for what they could ask for. He indicated that they would like only 12 additional homes on Pumpkin Ridge rather than 15. They also would like the homes at the beginning of Pine Valley to be ranch style up until the drainage green space. This would allow a good transition to the new style homes. The community voted and this is what they would like to see. They would also like the ranch style homes to have 1,500 square feet of living space and the twostory to have 1,800 square feet of living space. They would like Pine Leaf Court to come around and loop back in to Pine Valley as it was on the 2012 drawings. This would be better for school busses and emergency vehicles. They would like a traffic study to address the safety issues at the entrance of the community and Beissinger Road. The sight clearance is poor. They think the continuation of development is good. They do not want to stop it, but want it to be done in a manner that makes the community look nice and increases home values. Mr. Jason Martin of 928 Beissinger Road spoke. He owns the 12-acre agricultural property that butts up to the western boundary line of the development. He wanted confirmation that the Planning Commission received the letter from his lawyer. Mr. Samoviski confirmed receipt. Mr. Samoviski asked Mr. Martin when he purchased the property. Mr. Martin indicated that he purchased it in He also stated that he is in opposition of the no buffer zone. Etta Reed spoke to address a couple of the HOA s requests. They are willing to eliminate three homes on Pumpkin Ridge to have 12 rather than 15 homes to provide additional open space. As far as the request for ranch-style homes on the first six homes on Pine Valley, there are two-story structures across the street already. They feel it makes more sense to start two-story homes there rather than putting ranch homes across from two-story homes. They are proposing 50 foot lots. Currently there are three attached homes on 136 feet of frontage. They are proposing 3 homes on 150 feet of frontage, which is less dense. So they are requesting to keep it at 50 foot frontage. With regard to home size, the existing units are from 1,352 square feet to just over 1,400 square feet. They believe that their home product is in line, if not larger than the existing homes. Pine Valley is a large cul-de-sac, and they believe it is not necessary to punch Pine Valley through to make it a loop due to its size. 7

16 Bruce Jones returned to the podium to address Ms. Reed s comments. He explained that they asked that the first six homes on Pine Valley be ranch-style so that when you walk out in your backyard, you will see the same style home behind yours as you do when you walk out the other side. Joe Cristo of Cristo Homes returned to the podium. He stated that it doesn t seem equitable to be asked to build homes larger than the existing homes and be asked to make the lots larger than the existing lots. He stated that the average of the condos in the community sold in the last five years was $130,000. His product will start at $180,000. He offers a variety of products with 1,400, 1,600, 1,800 and 2,150 square feet. So, his average is going to be between 1,800 and 1,900 square feet. He feels that the project doesn t seem as feasible as it once was with raising the lot sizes which raises the lot prices, limiting him on product, imposing a point system that the other units didn t have and requiring him to do anti-conformity that wasn t required on the other units. He would like to move forward, but needs some understanding on whether or not it if feasible for this project to go forward. With no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Belew made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. With a second by Ms. Horsley, the motion carried with all Aye votes and the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Samoviski opened discussion for the Planning Commission Members. Mr. Belew stated that a lot of progress has been made since the last meeting and that they were moving in the right direction. Mr. Samoviski mentioned that a lot of progress has been made and some give and take occurred at this meeting. He then asked if the parties thought there was room for additional meetings or discussions. The meeting recessed for five minutes. Lee Parrish, attorney for the owner came to the podium. He indicated that the owner will agree to leaving three lots vacant on Pumpkin Ridge, building only 12 homes. The owner also agrees to build only ranch homes on the first six lots of Pine Valley and agree that there will be no building with less than 1,400 square feet. They do not feel that additional meetings will be necessary with the homeowners. They will stay with 50 foot frontage on the lots. The cul-de-sac is sufficient for emergency vehicles and the City has not raised any issue. Mr. Rapier, attorney for the HOA, spoke for the Home Owners Association stating that they agree the parties are as close as the entities can possibly be. They would like to leave any further details up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. They appreciate all the work and concession made on both sides. Mr. Samoviski expressed his appreciation for the parties getting together and working out the issues. 8

17 Ms. Dudley asked Mr. Parrish to confirm that they were amending the application to: have open space on Pumpkin Ridge, building 12 homes rather than 15; six ranch-style houses on Pine Valley; no house less than 1,400 square feet excluding garage; lots with 50 foot frontage Mr. Parrish stated that this was correct. After discussion, the Commission came to the conclusion that there would be no benefit to having the parties continue to meet to work out further details. Mr. Belew made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the request to amend the Final Development Plan for the Fairways at Twin Run Development and modify and add any additional provisions to the Final Development Plan amendment under the following conditions: 1. The findings of approval for the requested waivers and modifications are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for granting such requests. 2. The construction drawings for the proposed work, including site/engineering plans, to be revised, subject to any future requirements of the City Interdepartmental Review (IDR) Committee upon review. 3. Landscaping, site improvements, and all exterior finishes and other improvements be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Final Development Plan. 4. All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. With a second by Ms. Horsley and a roll call vote of 4 Yea 1 Nay, the Motion carried, and the proposal was approved with the conditions and amendments as discussed and agreed to in the hearing. Mr. Dave Belew Yea Ms. Teri Horsley Yea Mr. Mike Samoviski Yea Mayor Moeller Nay Mr. Tom Vanderhorst for Joshua Smith Yea 9

18 New Business: Agenda Item 3 Public Hearing Staff: Liz Hayden (Planning Department) Request to consider a Six (6) Month Moratorium on Riverfront Development. (Liz Hayden, Director of Planning Department/City of Hamilton) Proposal Synopsis: Ms. Liz Hayden provided background. She indicated that the City has been aware that redevelopment of the riverfront area was a key part of the revitalization of Hamilton. The original intent was that the riverfront plan would be part of the City s Comprehensive Master Plan (Plan Hamilton). Upon the realization that Plan Hamilton was going to be a 30,000 foot view of what needed to be done in the next 15 years, the City determined that to be effective with the riverfront development, very specific suggestions for development were needed. The City determined that it would be best to work with someone that specializes in this type of development and therefore hired a consultant. She indicated that the City is seeking public input for the plan. There will be a public input session on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Ms. Hayden noted that there was precedent for moratoriums of development in the City of Hamilton. There were three moratoriums and they were all associated with a master planning process or a zoning update where similar situations were in effect. The proposed moratorium would put a halt on development until there is a plan in place to guide future development. One portion of the River District Master Plan would be making better connections from the River to the community. Adding access points might affect the levees which might have environmental impact, flood prevention analysis might be needed, what kind of infrastructure is needed to meet future needs? These are just a few issues that need to be considered in this process of creating the Master Plan. The Six Month Moratorium would apply to all new residential and commercial development in the focus area of the Master Plan for six months commencing on the effective date of legislation adopting the moratorium. A map was presented at the meeting. It was pointed out that rehabilitation, addition to property or improvements to existing property would not be impacted by this moratorium. Mr. Samoviski asked if there were any projects in process that would be affected by the moratorium. Ms. Hayden indicated that anything that has been submitted so far would not be affected. She also mentioned that there is precedent for making exceptions to the moratorium if needed. Ms. Hayden indicated that the notification was sent to the 180 owners of properties within the area of the moratorium and 870 property owners within 500 feet of the 10

19 moratorium area. Eight phone calls were received requesting information about the moratorium. These callers did not object or support the moratorium. Ms. Horsley stated that she was one of the 870 property owners within 500 feet of the moratorium, so she would abstain from the vote. Recommendation: The Planning Department recommends approval of the Six Month Moratorium on Riverfront Development. The Planning Commission can approve or deny the request for a moratorium. Public Hearing and Discussion: Mark Higgins of 118 Grant Circle asked what area of the map will be impacted. Ms. Hayden clarified that only the black part of the map will be impacted. Alfred Barron of 123 Chestnut St. and owner of property on Central Avenue spoke. He had questions about bike paths. Ms. Hayden indicated that the specifics are not determined as of yet since the plan is not complete. He went on to ask if his property was to be affected since he had plans to combine lots. Ms. Hayden indicated that his property was not in the moratorium area but was within 500 feet, which is why he received a letter. Pastor Andrews of St. Paul s Church indicated that many of his church members have property within the area of the moratorium. These members are concerned about how the plan and the moratorium will affect them personally. They are asking him, as their pastor, if they should vote for the moratorium. So he wants facts so that he can make an informed decision. Mayor Moeller explained that the moratorium is just a matter of stopping and listening to each other to coordinate together to create a plan. Mr. Samoviski suggested that it might be beneficial to explain what is going to happen and how it is going to impact the property owners individually. Ms. Hayden indicated that they want to hear from the community as to what the plan should look like. The City wants a moratorium so that property values are protected during the process. The City is aware that declining property values presents an opportunity for developers to snatch up cheaper property and redevelop it for uses that the Community does not want. This is occurring on both sides of the river. The moratorium will put a halt to that activity while a master plan is completed which incorporates input from the community. 11

20 After that, regulations for that area can be changed so that the things the community wants are more likely to occur. The current regulations allow for less than desirable development on both sides of the river. Mr. Samoviski clarified that a moratorium does not prohibit the purchase of property. Bob Harris was concerned about how Beacon Pointe might be affected. He is concerned that they will be displaced. The people on Grant Circle for the most part own their homes. They have been asking Council if there is a strategic plan for the Second Ward and have been told there is not a plan. He indicated that the community has known for decades that there is a plan to acquire all of the property. He expresses the confusion that the homeowners are experiencing when they have property that was valued at $64,000 and then they receive a letter saying that it is valued at $25,000. All of the property values have dropped. The community sees politics. Ms. Hayden indicated that they are wanting input from the community on what they want. She also stated that she didn t think about the letters that were going out from the Auditor s office. She understands the concern and cannot do anything to change that concern, but assured him that they are not related. Jenny Beckman of 222 S. B Street asked if you can sell your property during a moratorium. Ms. Hayden confirmed that she could. Ms. Beckman then mentioned that the City recently purchased 108 N. B St. and asked if the City planned to purchase more property. Ms. Dudley indicated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to make those decisions. John Weeks, 409 N. D St. asked for a larger map. Ms. Hayden indicated that she would make it available online. Stephanie Tucker of 122 Gordon Avenue asked if the moratorium would mean that the shell of the paper plant would remain for the next 6 months. Ms. Hayden indicated that was correct. She then went on to ask how the traffic was to be rerouted with the Spooky Nook development. Ms. Hayden indicated that a final plan is not available yet and community input will be requested. Ms. Hayden indicated that she would contact Ms. Tucker. Ms. Tucker asked if the property values that the County sent were connected to the project. Mr. Samoviski assured her that it is completely separate. Mark Higgins of 118 Grant Circle spoke to the matter once more. Mr. Keegans asked if there was a way to add bullet points or content to the flyer for the public hearing in order to boast and generate a positive message and mindset for those wanting to attend the hearing. With nothing further from the audience, Mr. Belew made a motion to close the public hearing with a second by Mr. Vanderhorst. The motion passed 3 Yea 0 Nay 2 Abstention. Ms. Horsley and Mayor Moeller abstained. 12

21 Mr. Vanderhorst made a motion to approve the moratorium, with a second by Mr. Belew. The motion passed: 3 Yea 0 Nay 2 Abstention. Ms. Horsley and Mayor Moeller abstained. Agenda Item 4 Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio: Sections Definitions; AG, Agricultural District; R-1, Single Family Residence; R-2, Single Family Residence; R-2A, Single Family Residence District; R-3, One to Four Family Residence District; R-4, Multi-Family Residence District; RPD, Residential Planned Development District; R-0, Multi-Family Residence Office District; OPD, Office Planned Development District; B-1, Neighborhood Business District; B-2, Community Business District; B-3, Central Business District; BPD, Business Planned Development District; I-1 Limited Industrial District; I-2 Industrial District; IPD, Industrial Planned Development District; and Form-Based Zoning Districts. (City of Hamilton Applicant) Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna explained that this action would amend the list of permitted uses for all zoning districts in the City of Hamilton. He then went on to explain the history and background. The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in From that time, any newly-defined planned use was required to be within the Code. The City is proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the preclusion of medical marijuana sales, cultivating and processing. The update would make the definition consistent with the current best practices used to define medical marijuana sales, cultivating and processing. The Code Amendment would make it very clear within the Zoning Ordinance, that medical marijuana cultivation, processing, as well as retail dispensing, is a prohibited use in all zoning districts throughout the City. Notification was sent out as required by statutes of the Planning Commission as well as the Ohio Revised Code. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the request to prohibit medical marijuana sales, processing and cultivation in all zoning districts within the City of Hamilton. 13

22 It was mentioned that this item was actually Agenda Item #5 in the amended agenda and determined that the Commission would proceed with the matter as if it was #4 and continue on. Public Hearing and Discussion: There was no one wishing to speak on this matter. As such, Mayor Moeller made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Belew, the motion passed. Mr. Vanderhorst made a motion to approve the recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to approve the request to modify the Zoning Ordinances. Seconded by Mayor Moeller, the motion passed 5 Yea 0 Nay. Agenda Item 5 Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Amend Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio: Section Architectural, Landscaping, Design, Building and Site Development Regulations, Section Signs. (City of Hamilton, Applicant) Proposal Synopsis: This is a proposed amendment to the commercial design guidelines as well as signage regulations in the City of Hamilton. It was pointed out that the proposed amendments would only be applicable to new commercial development. No existing building would be required to be retrofitted to adhere to the new proposed guidelines. The proposed standards are being recommended to protect and promote the viability of the City as a place to live, work and play. The reason for the recommended amendments was discussed. There have been recent reviews of development applications for commercials sites that have revealed some inconsistencies with what is being proposed and what is the current best practices are for commercial buildings. Also, the City realizes that any new commercial development is going to be there for a long time. So, the City wants to be sure it is high quality and that what is put in will foster redevelopment and revitalization. The intention of the amendment would be to make sure that all new commercial development is brought up to a standard that is going to benefit City residents, promote reinvestment and encourage revitalization. The proposed amendment would: Require a mixture of materials (at least 75% of the building composed of high quality materials with 25% of some other complementing materials), Prohibit low grade materials such as corrugated metal, Plexiglas and plywood, Require more building articulation (3-D architectural elements), Require that windows are properly scaled to the size of the building, 14

23 Regulate fencing in the front yards of commercial property, Require loading and unloading areas be located in rear yard area of the site, Prohibit pole signs in all zones. Monument signs would be allowed with the base of the sign matching the commercial structure being built. Recommendation: The Planning Department recommends approval of the amendment. Public Hearing and Discussion: Mr. Vanderhorst asked if a business would be allowed to replace a pole sign with another pole sign if a storm destroyed it. Mr. Ionna deferred to Kathy Dudley for the answer. Ms. Dudley indicated that the storm would be an act of God and would not preclude the business from erecting a replacement pole sign. The new regulations would only apply to the voluntary replacement of a sign. With nothing further from the audience, Mayor Moeller made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Belew, the motion passed 5 Yea 0 Nay. Mr. Belew made a motion to recommend that City Council approve the request. With a second by Ms. Horsley, the motion passed 5 Yea 0 Nay. Miscellaneous: Mr. Ionna made a suggestion to move the Planning Commission meetings to Wednesdays at 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. to allow for better public feedback, and to better fit the Commissioners schedules. It was pointed out that there is an ordinance that states that the meetings will be held on Mondays. Staff will look into it and possibly bring it back to the Commission. Adjournment: With nothing further, Mr. Belew made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Horsley. Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ms. Liz Hayden Secretary Mr. Dale McAllister Chairman 15

24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, February 5, :35 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairperson Dale McAllister Roll Call: Members Present: Mr. Tom Alf, Mr. Dave Belew, Ms. Teri Horsley, Mr. Dale McAllister, Mayor Moeller, and City Manager Joshua Smith* Members Absent: Mr. Samoviski, City Staff Present: Mr. Ed Wilson, Mr. Mike Ionna, Ms. Liz Hayden, Ms. Kathy Dudley *City Manager Smith arrived at the meeting at 1:37 P.M. Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Commission: Members of the audience were sworn in by Ms. Kathy Dudley. Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for September 5, 2017: Ms. Horsley made a motion to accept and approve the minutes of the Planning Commission s September 5, 2017 meeting, seconded by Mr. Belew. The motion carried. There was a motion to amend the order of the Planning Commission Agenda. Mr. Moeller made the motion to amend, with a second by Mr. Alf. With a roll call vote of 6 Yea 0 Nay the motion carried. New Business: Agenda Item #1 246 North Second Street, Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request by Robert and Nancy Wile to amend the German Village Business Planned Development. The site in question contains an approximate area of 0.09 acres (3,920 1

25 square feet) and is located at 246 North Second Street, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio. (Robert and Nancy Wile, Applicant) Proposal Synopsis: The submitted application was to amend the approved Development Plan for German Village to allow for the construction of a detached single-family dwelling as an infill development. Note that per Section : Residential developments in a Business Planned Development shall comply with minimum requirements of Section RPD, Residential Planned Development. The applicant also sought variances/relief for setbacks from the property line to the North (street-facing side yard) and the East (the rear yard) associated with the construction of the proposed single-family residential dwelling and attached garage on the site. The site plan indicated a rear yard setback of 1 foot. The minimum required rear yard setback is 10 feet resulting in a variance request of 9 feet. The site plan indicated the minimum side yard setback on one side will be 4 feet. The minimum required side yard setback on one side is 8 feet resulting in a variance request of 4 feet. The site plan indicated a total side yard setback (both sides) of 9 feet. The minimum required total side yard setback (both sides) is 11 feet resulting in a variance request of 2 feet. The site plan indicated a total lot coverage of 64.5 percent. The maximum allowable lot coverage is 35 percent resulting in a variance request of 29.5 percent. Staff noted that German Village is a historic neighborhood with positive character and contribution to the City. With further development and events, particularly in downtown, there has been renewed interest for new business owner occupation and new residential occupation in German Village. The proposed Single-Family Residential appears to fit the character of German Village, including the need for zoning relief due to the predominance of narrow lots; and the related trends of development growth for the area, and the intent of both the Development Plan and Historic District. Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of Fifty (50) properties within 500 feet of the subject property. Two phone calls were received regarding this application for amending a Planned Unit Development approval for 246 North Second Street as of the date the report was prepared for the Planning Commission. Both phone calls were general inquiries into the proposal. Neither were in opposition to the development. 2

26 Recommendation: If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the amendment to the final development plan, the Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the following motion: 1) The findings of approval for the requested waivers and modifications are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for granting such requests. 2) The construction drawings for the proposed work, including site/engineering plans, to be revised subject to any future requirements of the City Interdepartmental Review (IDR) Committee upon review. 3) Landscaping, site improvements, and all exterior finishes and other improvements be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Final Development Plan. 4) All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. (Deciduous trees minimum of 2 ½ inches caliper, evergreen trees minimum of six (6 ) feet in height, shrubs/bushes minimum of 12 inches). All tree species proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist. 5) That the proposal for 246 North Second Street goes before the Architectural Design Review Board for review, per Zoning Regulations. It was also noted in the final deliberation of the proposal, that the variances would have to be included in the motion, should the Planning Commission opt for approval. Public Hearing and Discussion: First, Robert Wile, 54 Jeremy Court, applicant, spoke to the item. Mr. Wile noted the variance of the east side of the property being the most important. Carriage house/garage will be placed in the exact pad location as the former garage. Neighbor to the east is 5 feet from property line since the structure is brick, it will meet fire code. Further, the side yard variances are to have the structure balanced visually, looking like it is in the middle of the house, and that it would only need a 1 foot variation. The courtyard would be the space between the carriage house and main building. Mr. McAllister invited anyone else to speak to the matter. There was a member of the audience wishing to speak but had not been sworn-in. Ms. Dudley swore the individual in to speak to the matter. 3

27 Murnell Harrison, 118 Buckeye Street does not know about what is going on. However, Ms. Harrison wanted to talk about fixing the street. Ms. Harrison noted that in front of the door, she can step down and break her leg, if she is not careful. She said it is dangerous and it is unacceptable wants someone to do something. The manager (of the property) was supposed to put back the concrete, but he did not do what he was supposed to. Mr. McAllister asked if there was anyone else to speak to the matter. With no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Ms. Horsley made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Belew. With a roll call vote, the motion carried. Mr. Smith spoke about the 246 North Second Street, asking if it is about the same setback. Mr. Ionna noted that it is not. Mr. Smith asked if there was a concern about the site triangle. Mr. Ionna noted that it wouldn t affect it. Mr. McAllister said that it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood, and that he had no concerns about approving the plan as presented. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on notifications if anyone was against. Mr. Ionna noted they had received no contact from anyone against the proposal. Motion With nothing further, Mr. Alf made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the request to amend the Final Development Plan to allow for construction of a Single- Family Residence, as presented, with the recommended conditions and the sought variances. Mr. Belew seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 6 Yea 0 Nay, the motion carries unanimously. The proposal is approved. New Business: Agenda Item #2 Amend Hamilton Enterprise Park, Industrial Planned Development, Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request by Leesman Engineering on behalf of the City of Hamilton to amend the Hamilton Enterprise Park Industrial Planned Development. The site in question contains an approximate area of 15.8 acres and is located at the north corner of where Hamilton Enterprise Park Drive intersects with Tylersville Road, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (City of Hamilton, Applicant/Owner). 4

28 Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna presented proposed Amendment to the Development Plan. The submitted plans indicate a 15.8 Acre area located at the north corner of where Hamilton Enterprise Drive intersects Tylersville Road. The plans indicate that the proposed structures and development occurring on the site will be intended for an agricultural operation and use. This type of use, when located within an IPD Zone, requires specific approval from the Planning Commission The lot characteristics noted were as follows: 15.8 Acres of subject area 610 Feet, approximate, of lot frontage along Hamilton Enterprise Drive 114 Feet, approximate, of lot frontage along Tylersville Road 743 Feet, approximate, of general lot depth 20 feet front yard setback 35 feet side yard setback 5 feet rear yard setback Maximum Building Height of 45 Feet Development Plan The submitted plan indicated the following information: Location of amended development area is at the north corner of Hamilton Enterprise Park Drive & Tylersville Road. Construction of four (4) new buildings on the subject property. Three (3) new primary buildings and One (1) new storage building. The proposal indicates three Phases for construction. The total building area is approximately 229,800 square feet. o Phase 1A consists of a new building located closest to the corner of Hamilton Enterprise Park Drive & Tylersville. o Phase 1B consists of an addition to the Phase 1A building. The Total Phase 1 Main Building will be approximately 75,800 square feet and consists of a New Storage Building, with an approximate size of 8,800 square feet. o Phase 2 consists of a second building, approximately 72,600 square feet detached, and located directly behind Phase 1 s main building. o Phase 3 consists of a third, smaller building, measuring 56,600 square feet detached, and located directly east of the Phase 2 building. Access The site will be accessed by one asphalt drive from Hamilton Enterprise Park Drive. 5

29 There will be asphalt and concrete courses through the site to access and connect the proposed buildings throughout. Two 14 foot wide concrete drives are proposed per building for access purposes. Parking 91 Spaces Total, with 5 Spaces reserved as Handicap Parking. Parking is provided in smaller sets, from spaces, per Building Phase. Detention Ponds / Grading Two detention ponds are proposed for the site, at the eastern edge of the project area. The first detention pond is located at the southeast corner of the site The second detention pond is located along the eastern open area of the site, east of the proposed Phase 3 building. Landscape Plan - indicates the following: Landscape is proposed primarily for the frontages of the site: along Tylersville Road, Hamilton Enterprise Park Drive, and around Detention Pond Phase 1 at the southeast corner of the subject site. There is also significant landscaping along the parking lot. The plans indicate preservation of wooded areas on the site along the eastern, northern and western lot lines. Planted species by the applicant include the following: Autumn Spire Red Maple (1) Red Sunset Maple (10) River Birch (3) Skyline Honeylocust (6) Tulip Poplar (5) Leonard Messel Magnolia (5) Jane Magnolia (3) London Planetree (3) Weeping Willow (3) Bald Cypress (3) Princeton American Elm (3) Norway Spruce (6) Knock Out Rose (14) Goldflame Spirea (35) Gold Lace Juniper (19) Sea Green Juniper (12) Grey Owl Juniper (24) Eastern Red Cedar (5) Varigated Overdam Reed Grass (7) Blue Lyme Grass (30) Heavy Metal Switch Grass (11) Nothwind Switch Grass (14) The submitted landscape plan has been reviewed by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist and the comments provided are as follows: Substitute Norwegian Sunset Maple (Acer truncatum x A. platanoides 'Keithsform') for Autumn Spire Red Maple 6

30 Substitute Redpointe Maple (Acer rubrum 'Frank Jr." #16769) for the Red Sunset Maple Substitute Dura Heat River Birch ( Betula nigra 'BNMTF') for River Birch Substitute Kentucky Coffee Tree (Gymnocladus dioicus) for Skyline Locust. Substitute Shingle Oak (Quercus imbricaria) for Tulip Poplar Tree. Substitute Wildfire Blackgum for Weeping Willow Lighting The site plan indicates provision of the following lighting elements. Large Viper type lighting (count of 8) WGH Large lighting (count of 71) o The minimum foot candle is 0.00 o The maximum foot candle is o The average foot candle for the site is 1.3 o The maximum foot candle at a property line is as follows: North property line: 0.20 foot candles South property line: 0.02 foot candles East property line: 0.04 foot candles West property line: 0.29 foot candles o A foot candle is defined as a unit of illuminance or illumination, equivalent to the illumination produced by a source of one candle at a distance of one foot and equal to one lumen incident per square foot. A lumen is the quantity of light which falls on one square foot if the intensity of illumination is one foot-candle. Conceptual Building Elevations The submitted application Elevation Drawings note the following pertaining to the facades. Please review the elevation drawings for further clarification on the Conceptual Building Elevations: Glass Storefront for the entrance portions Wood Rain Screen for the accent panels towards a main entrance of a building Faux Metal Barn Doors dividing the glass door storefront entrance, from the rest of the storefront glass resulting in three distinct partitions for the entrance portion of the elevations. Brick above the glass storefront, with the Company Logo proposed for the center 7

31 12 inch vertical metal panel as the primary exterior surface for the buildings Signage the proposal contains no conceptual signage. Signage plans and permits would have to be submitted separately and comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of Twenty-Three (23) properties within 500 feet of the subject property. One phone call was received regarding this application for amending a Planned Unit Development approval for Hamilton Enterprise Park as of the date the report was prepared for the Planning Commission. There have been no calls in opposition. There were a couple of people attending the meeting concerning this proposal. Recommendation If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the Amendment to the Final Development Plan, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Amendment to the Final Development Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) The construction drawings for the proposed work, including site/engineering plans, to be revised subject to any future requirements of the City Interdepartmental Review (IDR) Committee upon review. 2) Landscaping, site improvements, and all exterior finishes and other improvements be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Final Development Plan. 3) All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. (Deciduous trees minimum of 2 ½ inches caliper, evergreen trees minimum of six (6 ) feet in height, shrubs/bushes minimum of 12 inches). All tree species proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist. 4) Any proposed garbage collection/dumpster facilities be enclosed from view from the public right-of-way and any enclosures be constructed of durable materials. 8

32 Public Hearing and Discussion: Tim Dwyer, the Applicant, spoke to the matter first. Mr. Dwyer noted the site plan and highlighted the changes that occurred with the proposed site plan: that the storage structure s moved location and being the first item as Phase 1A, then the main building as 1B and 1C. Ms. Horsley asked for an explanation of the intended use. Mr. Dwyer noted it was an indoor farm, and whatever is bought in grocery stores is produced inside. Mr. McAllister asked if the business currently grows things. Mr. Dwyer noted that it does and gave an example of the Este Avenue location, and that the company wants to invest in Hamilton. Mr. Ionna noted a previous approval of the applicant on Second Street. Mr. McAllister asked for clarification that Marijuana wouldn t be grown. Mr. Dwyer gave assurances that it was not the case. Mr. Smith then asked a question about a 12 in vertical metal panel on the front elevation for the rest of the building, and asked if there was anything similar to compare. Mr. Dwyer noted that it was conceptual, and the idea of the 12 inch vertical panel has a seam for definition. Mr. Smith voiced further questions on the site plan itself, citing that heading north, parking is mostly in front of the building, but asked if is this was necessary. Mr. Smith offered that the front façade could be hidden by parking. Mr. Dwyer noted that the grading plan and the land sits 15 feet above Tylersville, standing far above the street, and that the company had this parking configuration as a requirement. Mr. Dwyer highlighted that the buildings were large and hard to fit on the allotted space. Next Karrie Monroe spoke to this topic. Ms. Monroe indicated that she lived behind this proposed project. Her concern involved being able to see the rear of the building. Ms. Monroe asked what is the buffer for the building. Ms. Monroe specified that her property was in the back corner of the phase 2 property (northwest corner). Ms. Monroe then asked for timelines on Phase 2 and 3. Mr. Dwyer and Staff addressed the comments and concerns. Mr. Dwyer addressed the buffering specifying that for the phase 2 building is 54 feet, and phase 3 is 46 feet. However, Mr. Dwyer had answer on the timing of the structure, and could only offer estimates on Phase 1, approximating it as 24 months. Following this, there was a question on the shipping and loading, and a concern of heavy vehicles, including the potential for idling. Mr. Dwyer assured that there would be no diesels idling With no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Moeller made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Belew. With a roll call vote, the motion carried. 9

33 Mr. Smith asked a procedural question concerning the building elevations: when finalized what is the process? Mr. Ionna gave an explanation on what would happen. Mr. Smith wanted the elevations and landscaping, consistent with what was presented. Mr. Ionna gave assurances and further highlighted the process. Motion With no further comments or discussion, Mr. Smith made the motion to approve as recommended by City Planning staff, with all recommendations. Ms. Horsley seconded. With a roll call vote of 6 Yea 0 Nay, the motion carries. The proposal is approved. New Business: Agenda Item Hueston Street, Request to Rezone, Public Hearing Staff: Liz Hayden (Planning Department) Request to Rezone 116 Hueston Street (City Lot No.1730), located in the City of Hamilton, First Ward South Side, from R-4 Multi-Family Residential District to R-2 Single-Family Residence District. Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna provided background. The site was originally constructed as a two-bedroom home. The structure was built in The site was purchased by the City of Hamilton in The City intends to transfer the site and building to the Consortium for Ongoing Reinvestment Efforts (CORE) Fund to be rehabilitated into a single-family residential dwelling. Mr. Ionna briefly outlined Existing Site Conditions. The site in question, containing an approximate area of 0.05 acres, is located along the southeast side of Hueston Street, between Ross Avenue and Franklin Street. Current improvements on the site in question include a residential dwelling and open space. A site visit conducted by staff found evidence that the residential structure is currently vacant with no occupants. There is evidence that the structure was used in the past as a triplex containing three separate dwelling units. The existing structure on the site is in a deteriorating condition requiring significant work to make it a viable residential dwelling and a productive use for the community and surrounding areas. Mr. Ionna then gave a synopsis of the proposed rezoning. The application is requesting to change the zoning on the site from a multi-family residential zone (R-4) to a single-family residential zone (R-2). 10

34 The applicant has stated that they are requesting the zone change to in order to protect the property from potential reuse as a multi-family residential dwelling in the future. They have stated that the property will be transferred to the CORE fund to be rehabilitated as a single-family residential dwelling. Based on the resources invested in stabilizing and rehabilitating this property the City asks that the zoning on the site be changed to only allow for single-family residential use and not multi-family residential use. Mr. Ionna relayed the applicant comments: That they feel the proposed zoning is appropriate and the current zoning is not appropriate. The state that the site and the existing structure are not conducive to multifamily use due to the size and dimensions of the residential dwelling and the lot on which it is located. Allowing multi-family use on the lot would be detrimental to the quality of life for those residing on the site as well as within the surrounding areas as it pertains to the issues associated with the following: a. Limited off-street parking b. Restricted open space c. Extremely small dwelling units on the site d. General issues associated with overcrowding e. Garbage f. Poor living conditions g. Poor maintenance / declining building condition h. Destruction of the viability and potential for future reinvestment in the surrounding area. Notification: A total of sixty-nine (69) public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written no calls were received from individuals requesting clarification of the request. Recommendation: The Planning Commission can approve or deny the rezoning request. The requested zoning change from R-4 to R-2 would result in making the prior use as a duplex a nonconforming use. The requested zoning change to single family residence would conform to the original intention of the structure and align with the character of the area. The Planning Department recommended the following motion to rezone the subject property: 1) That City Council approves the rezoning of 116 Hueston Street from R-4 Multi- Family Residence District to R-2 Single Family Residence District. 11

35 Public Hearing and Discussion: Mr. McAllister asked if there was anyone to speak to the matter. Hearing none, Mr. McAllister asked the commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Alf made the motion to close the hearing with a second from Mr. Belew. With a roll call vote, the motion carried. Mr. Moeller asked if there was no construction and asked concurrent minor questions. Mr. Ionna answered. Both Mr. Belew and Mr. Alf noted that it is a positive move. Motion With no further deliberation or discussion, Mr. Alf made a motion to recommend approval of the request to Rezone 116 Hueston Street (City Lot No.1730), from R-4 Multi-Family Residential District to R-2 Single-Family Residence District. Mr. Belew seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 6 Yea 0 Nay the motion carried. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning to City Council. New Business: Agenda Item South C Street, Request to Rezone, Public Hearing Staff: Liz Hayden (Planning Department) Request to Rezone 128 South C Street (City Lot No. 1573), located in the City of Hamilton, First Ward South Side, from R-4 Multi-Family Residential District to R-2 Single-Family Residence District. Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna provided background. The site was originally constructed as a three-bedroom home. The structure was built in The site was purchased by the City of Hamilton in The City intends to transfer the site and building to the Consortium for Ongoing Reinvestment Efforts (CORE) Fund to be rehabilitated into a single-family residential dwelling. Mr. Ionna briefly outlined Existing Site Conditions. The site contains an approximate area of 0.16 acres, is located along the southeast side of South C Street, between Ross Avenue and Franklin Street. Current improvements on the site in question include a residential dwelling and open space. 12

36 A site visit conducted by staff found evidence that the residential structure is currently vacant with no occupants. The existing structure on the site is in a deteriorating condition requiring significant work to make it a viable residential dwelling and a productive use for the community and surrounding areas. Mr. Ionna then gave a synopsis of the proposed rezoning. The application is requesting to change the zoning on the site from a multi-family residential zone (R-4) to a single-family residential zone (R-2). The applicant has stated that they are requesting the zone change to in order to protect the property from potential reuse as a multi-family residential dwelling in the future. They have stated that the property will be transferred to the CORE fund to be rehabilitated as a single-family residential dwelling. Based on the resources invested in stabilizing and rehabilitating this property the City asks that the zoning on the site be changed to only allow for single-family residential use and not multi-family residential use. Mr. Ionna relayed the applicant comments: That they feel the proposed zoning is appropriate and the current zoning is not appropriate. The state that the site and the existing structure are not conducive to multifamily use due to the size and dimensions of the residential dwelling and the lot on which it is located. Allowing multi-family use on the lot would be detrimental to the quality of life for those residing on the site as well as within the surrounding areas as it pertains to the issues associated with the following: a. Limited off-street parking b. Restricted open space c. Extremely small dwelling units on the site d. General issues associated with overcrowding e. Garbage f. Poor living conditions g. Poor maintenance / declining building condition h. Destruction of the viability and potential for future reinvestment in the surrounding area. Notification: A total of fifty-seven (57) public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written no calls were received from individuals requesting clarification of the request. Recommendation: The Planning Commission can approve or deny the rezoning request. The requested zoning change from R-4 to R-2 would result in making the prior use as a duplex a non- 13

37 conforming use. The requested zoning change to single family residence would conform to the original intention of the structure and align with the character of the area. The Planning Department recommended the following motion to rezone the subject property: 1) That City Council approves the rezoning of 128 South C Street from R-4 Multi- Family Residence District to R-2 Single Family Residence District. Public Hearing and Discussion: Mr. McAllister asked if there was anyone to speak to the matter. Mr. Ron Sheyer, 121 South B Street, spoke to the item. Mr. Sheyer asked to specify on the map, the corner of Franklin and South C Street. Mr. Ionna clarified. Mr. Smith then clarified that the City is the applicant and that the City does not own the adjacent properties. Ms. Dudley elaborated, making clear the ownership situation of the two properties of Mr. Sheyer s inquiry. Mr. McAllister thanked Mr. Sheyer for the comments and input. With no one else wishing to speak to the item, Mr. McAllister asked the commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Alf made the motion to close the hearing with a second from Ms. Horsley. With a roll call vote, the motion carried. Mr. Moeller noted that this was a positive item, with Mr. Alf voicing agreement. Motion With no further deliberation or discussion, Mr. Alf made a motion to recommend approval of the request to Rezone 128 South C Street (City Lot No. 1573), from R-4 Multi-Family Residential District to R-2 Single-Family Residence District. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. With a roll call vote: 6 Yea 0 Nay the motion carried. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning to City Council. New Business: Agenda Item 5 Non-Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Assign Parcel Numbers to former railroad right of way associated with the Hamilton Beltline Railroad owned by the CSX Railroad Corporation located in the City of Hamilton, First Ward North and South Side. (City of Hamilton, Applicant) 14

38 Proposal Synopsis: The City s vision is to become a purposeful destination for working, living and playing. As such, our strategic plan goals that work towards the Play objective for are to: (1) Generate $20M in investment for recreational amenities with $10M around the Great Miami River; (2) Engage 50,000 participants annually in special events, arts, and recreational activities. On April 24, 2014, CSX Transportation filed for abandonment on an approximate 2.96 mile line with the Surface Transportation Board (STB). On May 23, 2014, the City of Hamilton was granted Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU). The STB s granting of NITU to the City provided the opportunity to allow the west side of the City to connect to the existing trail infrastructure as well as tying together our vastly different neighborhoods. Currently there are no bike paths on the west side of Hamilton. Pedestrians and cyclists need to use the sidewalks and streets to navigate their way around the City. This is dangerous as Hamilton sees thousands of cars traveling through the City every day. State Route 129 runs through the heart of Hamilton and over 30,000 cars drive on that route on an average work day. Notification was sent out as required by statutes of the Planning Commission as well as the Ohio Revised Code. The City is closing on the property in first quarter of The City has received some grant funding for Phase 1 of the construction of the trail from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The City knows this project is important because this path would run through three City neighborhoods and give them a way to better connect with the water tributary known as Two Mile Creek and the Great Miami River. It would also give residents an option to use alternative transportation to venture to the proposed sports complex that is directly next to the trail. This sports complex, or the Spooky Nook Sports Complex, would be located where the former Champion Paper Mill was on the rail line. The rail line was built to serve the Mill and with the new sports complex being developed on the site. The Sports Complex is not the only business to benefit from the trail. The shops on the City s Main Street are undergoing revitalization efforts and this path would help bring people these new businesses to help ensure that they are successful. These shops are choosing to rehabilitate historic properties that otherwise would have to be torn down. The Beltline Trail will help connect all of these neighborhoods and economic development initiatives together. Existing Site Conditions and Petition Review The entirety of the property is 36 acres spanning 2.96 miles from the active CSX rail line to the property direct behind the Great Miami Rowing Center on North B Street. The City is seeking 5 new parcel numbers assigned to unassigned areas of railroad right way along the Hamilton Beltline Property. This also includes one lot spilt near B Street. Each of the new parcels are highlighted on the attached maps. In general the new boundaries of these parcels will be the streets that currently intersect the property. 15

39 Parcel A: Acres Parcel B: Acres Parcel C: Acres Parcel D: Acres Parcel E: Acres Parcel F: Acres (Lot Split) The application requested to assign parcel numbers to unassigned areas of railroad right of way in the mentioned areas along with splitting one of the lots in question. The applicant has stated that they are requesting these actions in order to move forward ending the legal description process so title insurance can be issued as part of the land sale with CSX. These actions are being sought at the instruction of multiple grant agencies that are providing the City outside funding for the purchase of the property. The request would create parcels that do not conform to their respective zoning, thus making them non-conforming lots. Per the city s Subdivision Regulations, the creation of non-conforming lots requires approval by the Planning Commission. Recommendation: The Planning Commission can approve or deny the request to assign parcel numbers to the unassigned areas of railroad right-of-way, and single lot split, all as non-conforming lots. The Planning Department recommends the following motion: 1) Approval of the non-conforming right-of-way parcels and the related lot split. Discussion: Mr. Garuckas gave a background (after being sworn in by Ms. Dudley). Mr. Garuckas Gave a brief overview on the CSX beltline project and related background, as well as the City s efforts towards the project. Mr. Garuckas noted the legal descriptions being done, and the need to assign parcel numbers before the title step is done. Mr. Mayor asked for clarification on access points, if there were five (5) total. Mr. Garuckas confirmed and clarified for the Commission s benefit. With no further discussion, Mr. McAllister asked if there was a motion. Mr. Alf made the motion to approve the non-conforming right-of-way parcels and the related lot split. Mr. Moeller seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 6 Yea 0 Nay the motion carries. The non-conforming right-of-way parcels and related lot split are approved. 16

40 Miscellaneous: Mr. Wilson gave a minor summary on the state of the Architectural Design Review Board (ADRB) Mr. Ionna gave a synopsis on Board of Zoning Appeal items (BZA) Following this, Mr. Ionna gave a synopsis on Planning Efforts and works in progress around the city. Mr. McAllister asked about metal fencing for the 1555 Main the Goodwill, and how far it comes across. Mr. Ionna answered that it would cover the loading docks with how wide it is and also detailed the heavier landscape plan to screen the loading and unloading of vehicles. Mr. McAllister and the Commission noted thanks to Staff for the efforts on this endeavor. Next was 2980 Dixie Highway which Mr. Ionna noted, and noted the staff approval of the building colors. Ms. Hayden then continued and noted the Commission wanted to know things that were going on and getting different updates hence this section. She cited the Goodwill property and the rumors circulating around that as a basis; that having this information makes the commission more informed. She also explained the Conditional Use item for 2980 Dixie as well. Ms. Hayden also noted the lack of colors and guidance for Route 4 for several different reasons, Planning Dept is working on making moves for Route 4, and perhaps some design guidelines. Ms. Hayden also summarized efforts and progress regarding: Commercial Design Guidelines, ADRB Guidelines, DORA Designated Outdoor Refreshment Area. For the lattermost, Ms. Hayden described the recent meeting that took place, and the feedback from the public, including surveys and the 85% positive feedback and that the next step was City Council. Following this, Ms. Hayden noted the area for DORA after McAllister asked for clarification while Mr. Smith asked further questions to clarify the areas listed by Ms. Hayden. Mr. McAllister asked for clarification on the outside carry portion of DORA, which Ms. Hayden clarified. There was minor discussion on the implications and possibilities, particularly for those that might try to get around the rules of DORA. Ms. Hayden noted that the staff is working towards helping the enforcement and curbing such concerns. Ms. Hayden then detailed: 302 Main Street, 954 Pyramid Hill Blvd, Riverfront Master Plan with Ms. Hayden giving small details on the next meeting at BTW, next Monday Night, Board Training with Ms. Hayden explaining that she would be on the agenda for this item, and Infrastructure Update that such updates would be quarterly. 17

41 Mr. McAllister asked about the Brookwood project status (Hamilton West Shopping Center). Ms. Hayden noted that they have stopped the project. Mr. McAllister then noted the Gardner Ridge, the one development for Senior Citizens, leading to a minor discussion. Adjournment: With nothing further, Mr. Belew made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Alf. Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ms. Liz Hayden Secretary Mr. Dale McAllister Chairman 18

42 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, February 19, :35 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairperson Dale McAllister Roll Call: Members Present: Mr. Tom Alf, Mr. Dave Belew, Mr. Dale McAllister, and City Manager Joshua Smith Members Absent: Ms. Horsley, Mayor Moeller, Mr. Samoviski, City Staff Present: Mr. Mike Ionna, Mr. Tidyman, Mr. Ken Rivera (for Ms. Liz Hayden), Ms. Kathy Dudley Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Commission: Members of the audience were sworn in by Ms. Kathy Dudley. Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for November 6, 2017 and January 16, 2018: Mr. Belew made a motion to accept and approve the minutes of the Planning Commission s November 6, 2017 meeting and January 16, 2018, seconded by Mr. Smith. With all members voting Aye and no dissention, the motion carried. The order of the Planning Commission Agenda was changed, to allow the applicant for Agenda Item #1 time to appear for the meeting and deliberation of their agenda item. New Business: Agenda Item #2 246 North Second Street, Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Rezone City Lots: #25216 (Parcel ID: P ) and #25217 (Parcel ID: P ), Located in the City of Hamilton, First Ward South Side, from R-1 Single-Family Residential to RPD Residential Planned Development, and to Amend the Hickory 1

43 Woods Planned Development, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (Robert G. Rothert, Applicant) Introduction: Mr. Ionna gave a background on the Hickory Woods subdivision. In April 1993, Hickory Woods was approved as a PUD plan approval. In September 1993, the plan was revised and adopted by Planning Commission. The plan allowed for the construction of 87 Units for the whole of Hickory Woods. The plan was amended multiple times, including: Plat of Block A (15 Lots) in August 1994 Private roadway signage in December 1995 Revised Plan reducing the number of lots / density, in June 1997 o The revised plan would allow for 77 Lots Plat of Block B, (27 Lots) Phase 1 in October 1998 Plat of Block B, Phase 2 (11 Lots) in May of 2005 At present, there are approximately 40 single-family residential lots currently built out of 55 platted parcels in the Hickory Woods Subdivision. Proposal Synopsis: Site Location - The project site contains an area of approximately 1.1. acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Hickory Woods Drive and Millville Avenue. The project site is currently occupied by vacant land as well as a portion of Hickory Woods Drive. Hickory Woods Drive provides sole vehicular access to the Hickory Woods planned Development. Zoning - The project area consists of land that is currently located within two zoning districts. A portion of the site is zoned RPD Zone (Residential Planned Development) and is located within the Hickory Woods Planned Development. A portion of the site is zoned R-1 (Residential-One). Submitted Requests - The applicant is requesting the following: 1. Zone Change for the area zoned R-1 changing the zoning designation to RPD. 2. Amending a Planned Development (Preliminary and Final Plan) to allow for the creation of three buildable lots and the construction of three detached singlefamily dwellings. 3. The application is also requesting a waiver from Section which stipulates the minimum required points for RPD Consideration: o Required Points: 10 o Provided Points: 6 2

44 3 Points - Passive open space no less than 5% of the development 3 Points Provision of covered porch minimum size 4 feet by 6 feet on all units 4. The applicant is seeking waivers from Section , the anti-monotony standards for the proposed dwellings. The applicant is seeking to construct homes that are of the same or similar style, architecture, and materials to what has currently been constructed in the developed areas of the Hickory Woods Subdivision. In making their application the applicant has stated that it is possible that some of the homes may meet the requirements of Section Adherence to the standards would be based on the specific choices made by buyers pertaining to housing style, orientation, and materials. 5. The applicant is seeking a waiver form Section which require a minimum of 2 trees provided on Lots 1 & 2. Three trees are required to be provided on Lot 3. Development Plan The submitted Development Plan indicated the following information: Creation of 3 new building lots for the proposed single-family dwellings Lot #1, - Located on the southernmost lot, on the corner of Hickory Woods Drive and Millville. 8,792 Square Feet. Setback approximately 25 Feet from the Millville right-of-way Lot #2, - Located adjacent, in between Lot 1 and Lot 2. 7,195 Square Feet. Setback approximately 50 Feet from rear yard property line Lot #3, - Located on the northernmost lot. 13,749 Square Feet. Lot 3 to be setback 15 Feet from rear yard property line. Setback approximately 50 Feet from rear yard property line. Existing Parking Area would be removed The plan drawings and elevations indicated the proposed architecture, floor plan, and materials Approximately 1,940 Square Feet o (Living Space 1,500 sq. ft., Garage 440 sq. ft.) One-Story Ranch Built on 4 inch Concrete Slab (3,000 psi), over 4 Gravel Fill Front Façade: Vinyl Siding, and Lightweight Stone Side and Rear façade: Vinyl Siding Covered Porch Lot#25216 / Parcel ID: P per the Applicant, would remain as open space and driveway to continue access to Hickory Woods Subdivision. Existing trees and landscaping on the Open Space Lot near the subject entrance would remain. 3

45 Proposed setbacks for new development area will be the same as the approved Hickory Woods RPD Plan. o 15 Foot front yard o 5 Foot side yard o 10 Foot rear yard Mr. Ionna shared the existing photos of Hickory Woods and the proposal. Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of Forty (40) properties within 500 feet of the subject property. One phone call was received regarding this application, however it was of a general inquiry. Once information and questions were answered the citizen voiced no objection to the proposal. Recommendation: If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the amendment to the final development plan and rezoning of properties from R-1 to RPD, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the following motion: 1) The findings of approval for the requested waivers and modifications are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for granting such requests. 2) The construction drawings for the proposed work, including site/engineering plans, to be revised subject to any future requirements of the City Interdepartmental Review (IDR) Committee upon review. 3) Landscaping, site improvements, and all exterior finishes and other improvements be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Final Development Plan. 4) All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. (Deciduous trees minimum of 2 ½ inches caliper, evergreen trees minimum of six (6 ) feet in height, shrubs/bushes minimum of 12 inches). All tree species proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist. 4

46 Mr. McAllister had minor questions related to the proposal, for clarification. This was followed by general brief questions by the commission. Mr. Ionna answered the commission s questions. Public Hearing and Discussion: Mr. Robert Rothert with Abercrombie and Associates, 3377 Compton Road, Cincinnati OH spoke to the item as the applicant. Mr. Rothert also introduced Buck Rumpke with Stonewall Builders, the developer of the property and Jay Faust, the President of the HOA for Hickory Woods. Mr. Rothert commented that there are no vacant platted lots left in Hickory Woods, and then gave further background on the status of the development. Mr. Rothert also cited that the original development of Hickory Woods was in 1993 and before certain Zoning requirements, asking for the current proposal to be evaluated the same as Hickory Woods. Mr. McAllister had questions concerning a possible walking trail within the development. Mr. Ionna addressed the question with Mr. Rothert offering clarification. Mr. Rumpke, 6275 Maud Hughes Road, Middletown Ohio, then stepped forward to contribute to the discussion and address Planning Commission questions. Mr. Smith then asked about the possibility of asking more landscaping to the project, to visually block the new construction from the Millville Avenue property. Mr. Rothert voiced agreement with the thought, but wanted to assess the site further to plan appropriate landscaping measures. Mr. McAllister asked about putting in trees in the front yard, and Mr. Rumpke clarified that the houses have existing trees in the front yard and assured that the houses would be landscaped. Jay Faust, 112 Hickory Woods Drive, President of the HOA answered some minor questions from Mr. McAllister. Mr. Faust noted there were only one or two objections, but none of the other residents commented or objected. Mr. McAllister then asked about consideration of the City s Anti-Monotony rules. Mr. Rumpke emphasized that they have not built anything monotonous in the past. Mr. Rivera asked if the intent was to finish the look of Hickory Woods Subdivision. Mr. Rumpke explained that there was an intention for that, but increased costs and concerns of building prevented that. The three lots proposed today can be done now, and there are plans to speak with the City in a month or two about the possibility of construction for the loop. Mr. Rivera asked if there was any idea on the number of lots that would yield. Mr. Rumpke estimated that it would be 18 to 20 if the street continued all the way through, but highlighted that they still need to see the cost involved. There were then minor physical questions related to Fire Department access. 5

47 Mr. McAllister asked if there was anyone else to speak to the matter. With no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Alf made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Belew. With a simple vote in the affirmative, the motion carried. Following this, Mr. McAllister asked if the three items for approval could be separated. Mr. Ionna answered that they could, but noted the rezoning and amendment to planned development were dependent. Mr. McAllister asked the commissioners if they wanted to separate the items. Mr. Smith voiced that the items were adequate as a singular motion, Mr. Alf expressed similar comments. Motion With nothing further, Mr. Alf made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the request to rezone City Lots: #25216 (Parcel ID: P ) and #25217 (Parcel ID: P ) from R-1 Single-Family Residential to RPD Residential Planned Development, and amend the Final Development Plan to allow for construction of three (3) Single-Family Residences, as presented, with the recommended conditions and the sought variances. Mr. Smith offered a condition: that additional screening and landscape be provided along Millville Avenue to sufficiently screen the new development from the right-of-way and surrounding areas. Mr. Alf agreed and amended the motion. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay, the motion carries unanimously. The proposal is approved. After the motion, Mr. Smith excused himself from the meeting, due to another engagement, and introduced his substitute Mr. Tom Vanderhorst, Executive Director of External Services. New Business: Agenda Item # Dixie Highway, Specific Approval in BPD, Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request by Keith Lee Jr. on behalf of Hamilton Plaza Associates LLC for Specific Approval to permit a Gathering Hall with Live Entertainment in the Business Planned Development (BPD) Zoning District located at 2536 Dixie Highway, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio. (Keith Lee Jr., Applicant) 6

48 Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna presented the proposed Specific Use Approval for a use in Business Planned Development. Background: In 2011, the zoning on the site in question was changed from I-1 (Industrial-One) to BPD (Business Planned Development. The rezoning was requested in order to allow a business that provides adult classes such as Accounting, Administrative Service, Information Technology, Communications Skills, and Hospitality to operate within a tenant space located on the site. The rezoning aligned the site in question with the Route 4 Corridor Improvement Plan which identified those areas along the corridor currently zoned for industrial land uses be changed to zoning that more closely aligns with the projected uses called out in the plan as well as those uses currently existing along the corridor. In March, 2011, prior to the rezoning to BPD (see above), the land use within the tenant space in question was changed from a restaurant to a teen club. On January 29, 2018, Mr. Keith Lee Jr. submitted an application to operate an eating and drinking place that serves alcohol and provides live entertainment within the tenant space in question. This type of use is listed as a Special Use within a BPD Zone requiring a Special Approval from the Planning Commission. Proposal Review: The plan for review is a proposed Specific Use Approval for a sports bar with live entertainment located on 2536 Dixie Highway. This type of establishment is permitted within the B-2 Community Business District Zones and requires specific approval from the Planning Commission when located within a Business Planned Development Zone. The applicant intends to operate a sports bar and live entertainment venue with a full service kitchen, banquet room, dining, and a pool room as a place in the community for special events. The hours of operation will be between 11 am 2 am Monday through Friday. The applicant also stated that safety is a priority and security staff would be hired for outdoor and parking detail. The submitted plan indicates the following information: Proposed Use area (5,260 Square Feet stated on Floor Plan) o Pool Table o DJ Booth o Dance Area o Stage 7

49 o Bar o Private Banquet Room o Kitchen in rear o Corridor leading to restrooms Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of one hundred-three (103) properties within 500 feet of the subject property. As of this date, there were no calls regarding this specific use. Staff Comments - Compliance with Current Zoning Regulations Mr. Ionna cited the different comments from Interdepartmental Review involving this project. Staff noted that this use is similar to the previous permitted use on the site. Staff has relayed this application through the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental review and the departmental comments area as follows: Comments from the City of Hamilton Building Department: PLANS REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OBC REQUIREMENTS The referenced plans have been examined and found to have conditions, which do not comply with the Ohio Revised Code Sections 3781 & Required corrections and/or clarifications are as follows: Review #4: Item: Description of Information Required: 1 General: A) Under "Structural Requirements" B Use is referenced, this is an A3 Assembly Use, please correct. 2 Plumbing: A) Is it your intent to provide a floor sink for the service? If so, 2" drain required. B) Need to provide an indirect drain by an air gape on the 3 compartment sink. C) See Health Dept. comments. 3 Mechanical: 8

50 A) It is my understanding the kitchen hood and make -up air is existing, if not, show new work. a. As required for all equipment in the kitchen. 4 Electrical: A. Show meter and panel locations on floor plan. B. As required for all equipment in the kitchen. Additional corrections and/or comments could be required once the above information has been provided. Please submit the required number of complete sets of revised plans per the quantity indicated on the plan review with all changes HIGHLIGHTED in color. Please respond to all comments at the same time or same re-submission. Please feel free to contact me to discuss any of these items. William Simmons, Commercial Plans Examiner Comments from the City of Hamilton Health Department: 1/26/2018 Not approved, ed applicant and owner. Still missing plan review information. JNC Jonnica Creech, Licensed Sanitarian Comments from the City of Hamilton Utilities Department: According to our records, there is an existing 1000 CFH gas meter (serial number ) and an existing 1.5" water meter (serial number ). Both of these meters are supposed to be shut off. As long as there isn't an additional load, the gas, water and sanitary meters, services and lateral should be of sufficient size. The developer may want to verify the condition of the sanitary lateral. The water meter may need to be checked to make sure it isn't frozen or broken due to our recent winter weather. Joy Rodenburgh Comments from the City of Hamilton Fire Department The plans show the Occupancy as an A2 with an occupancy amount as 156. The 2011 Ohio Fire Code states Section Group A2 shall be suppressed if the occupant load is 100 or more. Also, will there be cooking in the kitchen that will require an extinguishing agent along with the hood? Deputy Fire Chief Ken Runyan Comments from the Hamilton Police Department 9

51 HPD has not had good experiences with these types of business models in that area. I would be opposed to granting approval for this usage. Mr. Ionna then read into the record, further comments from the Hamilton Police Department. The first was from Chief Craig Bucheit, via , that the police have had consistent problems with similar businesses, including disturbances and unmanageable crowds. Second, there were specific disturbances concerning the similar past uses, which were read into the record by Mr. Ionna. Ms. Dudley then asked for the conditions for specific approval. Mr. Ionna brought up the Section , General Planned Development regulations for the Commission to review, but noted there were no specific conditions for approval or denial. There were also minor questions to Ms. Dudley. Recommendation The Planning Commission can approve, modify or deny the request for a use requiring specific approval for the Hamilton Plaza BPD to allow a sports and entertainment bar located on 2563 Dixie Highway. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the amendment to the use requiring specific approval, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the following motion: 1) All current requirements from City of Hamilton Interdepartmental Review are completed to maintain compliance. 2) Any construction drawings for the proposed improvements and work be revised subject to any future review requirements of the City of Hamilton Departmental Review. 3) All improvements and work indicated on construction plans approved by the City of Hamilton Departmental Review be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Conditional Use. 10

52 Public Hearing and Discussion: Debra Lewis, 22 Joshua Court, Hamilton Ohio, spoke to the matter. Against. Ms. Lewis expressed that she was not in favor of the use. That Hamilton did not need a business of this type. Mr. Keith Lee Jr Ross Avenue, Cincinnati Ohio 45205, was then sworn in by Ms. Dudley, speaking to the matter as the Applicant. Mr. Lee addressed the relayed comments of the police and concerns of safety, claiming that the proposal will not jeopardize the safety of Hamilton. Mr. Lee explained that he employs for security and safety of the business. Mr. Lee then voiced other comments to address concerns of the commission related to safety. Mr. McAllister asked if the proposal was aimed for teens. Mr. Lee clarified that it was and elaborated the specifics regarding that, including a curfew. Mr. Alf asked for clarification if there would be events aimed towards children. Mr. Lee answered and clarified regarding Mr. Alf s concerns. Mr. Belew asked for clarification on the hours of operation, which Mr. Lee provided. Mr. McAllister asked for clarification on food related to alcohol, which Mr. Lee answered. There were questions of Mr. Lee related to experience operating such establishments. Mr. Lee explained and detailed the experience, including highlighting another proposed establishment in Evendale. This led to extended discussion between Mr. Lee and the commission. Mr. McAllister asked Staff if approved and Mr. Lee sold or transferred the business, would the business be allowed to continue. Mr. Ionna confirmed, though Ms. Dudley clarified that liquor licenses would be a separate transaction beyond zoning. This led to further comments and discussion related to liquor licenses in comparison to the proposal and the applicant. Mr. Ionna asked Ms. Dudley about any other possible conditions for approval of the proposal. Ms. Dudley answered the question and elaborated for the commission. With no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Alf made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Belew. With a simple vote, the motion carried. Mr. Alf then voiced concerns involving the proposal. Mr. McAllister expressed understanding of Mr. Alf s comments and offered similar concerns of any future owners/managers, of this business. Motion With no further comments or discussion, Mr. Alf made the motion to approve as presented. Mr. Belew seconded. With a roll call vote of 1 Yea 2 Nay 1 Abstention, the motion fails. 11

53 Mr. Alf Abstained Mr. Belew Yea Mr. McAllister Nay Mr. Vanderhorst for Smith Nay The proposal is denied. New Business: Agenda Item Glenway, Request to Replat, Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Replat City Lots #31885 (Parcel ID: P ), and #30613 (Parcel ID: P ), located in the First Ward, South Side, City of Hamilton Ohio (David Wittekind, Applicant) Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna provided background regarding the proposal. Bayer Becker has submitted a request, on behalf of Applicant, David L. Wittenkind, for Planning Commission review and approval of the Replat of 806 Glenway Drive, Part of City Lot #30613 and Part of City Lot # Mr. Wittenkind was first in contact with the Planning Staff for consideration of splitting a portion of parcel adjacent north of 806 Glenway Drive. Later in the process, Bayer Becker submitted this replat due to the nature of the project and properties in question. The replat is also necessary to address needed utility easements and continuity with the Britton Ridge Subdivision. The initial development of the Briton Ridge subdivision started in 1979 as the New London Manor subdivision. The Preliminary Plat for Briton Ridge, Section Six, Block B was approved in July 2004, and amended June The Final Plat was approved by Planning Commission in November Mr. Ionna briefly outlined the proposed replat. The Replat involves two different properties, to be combined as a single parcel, with the intent of constructing a Single-Family Residence. The first property: 806 Glenway Drive (City Lot #31885, Parcel ID: P ) is a Acre parcel, part of the Britton Ridge, Section Six, Block B Subdivision. However, due to a combination of factors: the small, atypical shape of the property; R-1 Zoning Regulations; 30 Foot Frontline Building Setback; and Utility Easements on the property, the standalone lot cannot be built upon. 12

54 The second property: (City Lot #30613, part of property Parcel ID: P ) contains a Acre portion to be split, and then combined with 806 Glenway to the south. The utility easements and building setback would be extended through to this parcel, to match that of 806 Glenway and Britton Ridge, Section Six. The New Lot (#32127) - would be Acres, Square Feet. Staff Review / Compliance with Current Zoning Regulations Upon review, Staff found the proposed development to be consistent and in compliance with the current zoning regulations. There was no objection from Interdepartmental Review. The New Lot (#32127) - would be Square Feet. The replat also notes the required front yard building setback of 30 feet, matching the R-1 Zoning and the Britton Ridge, Section Six development pattern. Recommendation: If the Planning Commission approves the proposed replat, the Planning Department requests that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council Approve the Request to Replat City Lots #31885 (Parcel ID: P ), and #30613 (Parcel ID: P ), located in the First Ward, South Side, City of Hamilton Ohio. Public Hearing and Discussion: Dave Wittekind, Britton Ridge LLC, 8038 Jeannes Creek Lane, West Chester Ohio 45069, spoke to the matter as the Applicant. Mr. Wittekind expressed excitement over the proposal, and that it would mean the completion of the development. Mr. Vandehorst asked if there was a plan of the house to be built. Mr. Wittekind clarified that there was not, and that he was not a builder, just a developer. Mr. Vanderhorst asked if Mr. Wittenkind had a buyer for the property, which Mr. Wittenkind answered there was no buyer. With no further questions from the audience or commission, Mr. Alf made the motion to close the hearing with a second from Mr. Belew. With a simple vote, the motion carried. Motion With no further deliberation or discussion, Mr. Alf made a motion to recommend City Council Approve the Request to Replat City Lots #31885 (Parcel ID: P ), 13

55 and #30613 (Parcel ID: P ), with a second from Mr. Belew. With a roll call vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay the motion carried. New Business: Agenda Item 4 Michael Avenue, Request to Replat, Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Replat Part of City Lot #25996 (Parcel IDs: P & P ) Located in the Fourth Ward, City of Hamilton, Ohio. (Butler County Water and Sewer, Applicant) Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna provided background regarding the proposal. Butler County Water and Sewer has submitted a request, for Planning Commission review and approval of the Replat of City Lot # For reference, the subject lot is located adjacent to 321 Michael Avenue. The replat will create a new division line for two properties on City Lot #25996, o P (Southern Parcel) o P (Northern Parcel). The replat also includes an Ingress/Egress Easement allowing access to the southern parcel This is related to the Butler County Transportation Improvement District, and a resolution approving and authorizing the disposition of excess Interests in connection with State Route 129, Butler County Regional Highway transportation improvement project. The Butler County Transportation Improvement District has been requested to convey property to Butler County for a public purpose: the installation and operation of a pump station and force main for water and sewer utility services. Mr. Ionna briefly outlined the proposed replat. The subject parcels, P & P , are currently divided into north and south. The proposed new division line, indicated by Tract 1 and Tract 2 of the replat, will continue the north and south division, now following a course parallel to the existing sound barrier wall, and offset by approximately 10 feet. Further, the division line would be shifted northward compared to the current parcel line, allowing an approximately 21 foot frontage and access off of Michael Avenue.. 14

56 Staff Review / Compliance with Current Zoning Regulations Upon review, Staff discovered the legal non-conforming status of both the subject property P and the adjacent northern property P , both being part of Lot # With a proposed division line, the subject property P would no longer be landlocked. Conversely, R-2 Zoning requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet at the building setback line. However, Section , notes that the minimum lot width may be decreased at the discretion of the Planning Commission after consideration of typical widths of lots in the immediate vicinity within a three hundred foot radius. Additionally, the subject property is an atypical lot, being part of and adjacent to other parcels used as right-of-way and related purposes for the State Route 129 Highway Recommendation: If the Planning Commission approves the proposed replat, the Planning Department requests that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council Approve the Request to Replat Part of City Lot #25996, (Parcel IDs: P & P ) located in the Fourth Ward, City of Hamilton Ohio. Motion With no further deliberation or discussion, Mr. Alf made a motion to recommend City Council Approve the Request to Replat Part of City Lot #25996, (Parcel IDs: P & P ), with a second from Mr. Belew. With a roll call vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay the motion carried. 15

57 Miscellaneous: Mr. Ionna noted the Architectural Design Review Board (ADRB) did not have a meeting, so there is no report. Mr. Tidyman gave a synopsis on Board of Zoning Appeal items (BZA), highlighting the upcoming March meeting and case items of that meeting. Following this, Mr. Ionna introduced Mr. Ken Rivera who gave an overview of the upcoming Cityview software, for permits and online application modules. Mr. Rivera emphasized that it would improve outreach for public notices, and the application process for applicants. Mr. Ionna highlighted the Riverfront Master Plan meeting and gave a minor update on that process. Mr. Ionna then gave a brief explanation of upcoming board training for the Planning Commission. Mr. Ionna then informed the commission that Mr. Jim Logan would be a special presentation for the Planning Commission, regarding right-of-way and large scale projects. This led to minor discussion of major projects and improvements in Hamilton, including South Hamilton Crossing. Adjournment: With nothing further, Mr. Alf made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Belew. Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ms. Liz Hayden Secretary Mr. Dale McAllister Chairman 16

58 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 5, :37 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 1:37 p.m. by Chairperson Dale McAllister Roll Call: Members Present: Mr. Dave Belew, Mr. Dale McAllister, Mayor Moeller and City Manager Joshua Smith Members Absent: Mr. Tom Alf, Ms. Horsley, and Mr. Samoviski, City Staff Present: Mr. Mike Ionna, Mr. Ed Wilson, Mr. Tidyman, Ms. Liz Hayden, Ms. Kathy Dudley Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Commission: Members of the audience were sworn in by Ms. Kathy Dudley. Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for October 2, 2017; November 6, 2017; February 5, 2018; and February 19, 2018: This item was heard after all other business of the Planning Commission, both New Business Agenda Items, and Verbal Reports. At that time, Mayor Moeller made a motion to table the minutes due to the commission s desire to ensure a larger quorum of members. City Manager Smith seconded the motion. With a vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay, the motion passed. The listed minutes are tabled. The order of the Planning Commission Agenda was changed, to allow the applicant for a New Agenda Item #1, Mr. Jim Logan, Executive Director of Infrastructure, City of Hamilton. The change of agenda order was to accommodate Mr. Logan s schedule. Page 1

59 New Business: Agenda Item #1 Presentation by Mr. Jim Logan, Executive Director of Infrastructure Mr. Logan spoke to the commission concerning certain projects under the helm of the Infrastructure Division of the City of Hamilton. Mr. Logan noted the Main Street realignment, River Road, South Hamilton Crossing, and Corwin Avenue as key items for the presentation. Mr. Logan also cited multiple projects and initiatives including: concrete resurfacing of certain streets, natural gas projects, water projects, and sanitary sewer projects. This led to sporadic questioning from Mr. McAllister, Mr. Belew, and Mayor Moeller, which Mr. Logan answered. New Business: Agenda Item #2 855 NW Washington Street - Public Hearing Conditional Use Veterinary Hospital in B-2 Community Business Zone Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request by Brent Fraley/Fraley & Fraley, LLC on behalf of the property owner 177 West Real Estate Holdings, LLC for a Conditional Use Approval, for a Veterinary Hospital, on 2.03 Acres or property zoned B-2 Community Business District, located at 855 NW Washington Blvd, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (Brent Fraley/Fraley & Fraley, LLC - Applicant). Introduction: Mr. Ionna led the presentation of 855 NW Washington Street and the proposal of an Animal Hospital, Veterinary Hospital as a Conditional Use. Mr. Ionna highlighted several key facets of the proposal including building, interior uses related to the proposed animal hospital, parking, access, and landscaping. Mr. Ionna gave the presentation for this Conditional Use Approval, clarifying that it was review of the use and not any related plat items. Page 2

60 Introduction and Background: The applicant, Brent Fraley (Fraley & Fraley LLC), has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Certificate to allow for the operation of a proposed veterinary hospital on a property located at 855 NW Washington Blvd. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District, The site in question, located at 855 NW Washington Blvd, contains a total area of 6.34 Acres. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into three (3) parcels for individual development. The proposed veterinary hospital would be located one of the parcels. The project area of the veterinary total size of the site is 2.03 Acres, noted as Proposed Lot #1 on applicant s submitted site plans. A second parcel noted as Proposed Lot #2 consists of 2.36 Acres located to the rear of the main subject property, with a 40 foot ingress/egress utility easement for access. A third parcel noted as Proposed Lot #3 consists of 1.90 Acres located west of Lot #1 and Lot #2, containing parking for the nearby El Mariachi s. Proposed Project / Proposal Review: The submitted application is for a conditional use to allow a veterinary hospital on property zoned B-2 Community Business District. Development Plan The submitted plan indicates the following information: Location of proposed veterinary hospital (on 2.03 Acres of property) Construction of a proposed building to be used as a veterinary hospital. The proposed structure will contain an area of approximately 7,750 square feet. The applicant has indicated the following pertaining to the proposed construction of the veterinary hospital. o Two parking lots, one front yard, one rear yard. Parking Lots measure approximately 110 x58 24 width between the two parking rows for access and maneuverability o Parking Spaces are typical, 9 x18 size. Page 3

61 o Vehicular Access provided by 40 feet, ingress/egress utility easement located immediately west of subject property (Proposed Lot #2, 2.36 Acres). o There are two access points proposed for the site. Both come off of the private Drive the proposed private drive, one to access the front and the second accessing the rear. o A 5 feet wide concrete walk would be provided at the front of the building and rear of the building. o Another 5 feet wide concrete walk would connect the building s curb walk to NW Washington Blvd. o Provided color renderings note a fenced area at the eastern elevation of the building, towards the rear of the structure. o 10 feet by 10 feet dumpster pad with 6 feet high brick walls and 6 feet high solid wood gate, located at the rear of the property. o Proposed gas service, water service lines are located at the rear corner of the property. o Proposed sanitary sewer is located at the front of the property, running perpendicular, through the proposed parking, to an existing sanitary sewer. o There are also proposed removals of existing curbing on the property to accommodate the proposed site and building configuration. o Landscaping to be provided for the property in multiple locations and quantities. The lot characteristics noted are as follows: o Main Subject Property (Proposed Lot #1) is 2.03 Acres o Lot Width is Feet o Front Yard Setback is approximately Feet o Western Side Yard Setback is approximately 20 Feet o Eastern Side Yard Setback is approximately 115 Feet o Rear Yard Setback is approximately 90 Feet Page 4

62 Storm / Drainage Plan (Grading/Erosion Control) The submitted plan indicated the following: Location of storm and drainage infrastructure 18 inch Stormwater is located on the southeast rear corner of the subject property (Proposed Lot #1). Lighting Plan The submitted plan indicated the provision of lighting and luminaire elements: Lithonia DSX0 LED P7 40K T4M (count of 2) o 20 foot tall, Pole lights: one located in front yard at the edge of the parking; one located in the rear yard at edge of parking Lithonia DSXW1 LED 10C K T3M (count of 2) o These are mounted on the building s western elevation Lithonia DSXW1 LED 10C K T4M (count of 2) o These are mounted on the building s eastern elevation The average foot candle for the site is 0.61 foot candles The maximum foot candle for the site is 6.7, source located at the western rear of the building, and from calculations, does not extend beyond the site. The foot candle at the property lines are as follows: o North property line: 0.0 foot candles o South property line: 0.3 foot candles o East property line: 0.1 foot candles o West property line: 0.1 foot candles A foot candle is defined as a unit of illuminance or illumination, equivalent to the illumination produced by a source of one candle at a distance of one foot and equal to one lumen incident per square foot. A lumen is the quantity of light which falls on one square foot if the intensity of illumination is one foot-candle. Page 5

63 Landscape Plan The submitted plan indicates the following: Summary of Proposed Plants Perennial (25) Ornamental Grasses (104) Deciduous Shrubs (35) Evergreen Shrubs (25) Trees (53 Trees Planted) Summary of Proposed Trees: The trees would be planted at a 2.5 caliper, except as noted Tree species include the following: o Fall Fiesta Sugar Maple (14) o Perkins Pink Yellowwood (8) o Royal Purple Smoke Tree (4) o Happidaze Sweet Gum (9) o Prairifire Crabapple (6) o Bur Oak (3) o Green Vase Zelkova (9) Summary of Proposed Tree Uses and Locations: Parking Lot Trees (16) Island Trees (5) Perimeter Trees (22) Landscape Trees (10) Nature of the proposed business Per the Application: The Veterinary Clinic is indicated as 24/7 (24 Hours a Day, 7 Days a Week). The proposed veterinary, Westside Animal Hospital has the following business use / interior floor plan: o 7,641 Square Foot Building 5,265 Sq Ft devoted to hospital 1,224 Sq Ft for boarding 1,152 Sq Ft for daycare Page 6

64 Significant areas of the proposed animal hospital include the following: o Hospital Reception area, including lobby and check-out o Two Outdoor Areas: one 16 x 24 and one 24 x 24 Outdoor Area o Doctor s, Manager s and Associate Office o Dog Daycare and Dog Ward o Cat Boarding and Cat Ward o Five (5) Exam Rooms o Significant areas related to animal treatment include: Treatment Area, Surgery, and other areas including Suite, Run, Grooming, and Food Storage are part of the facility. o Amenities related to the workforce/staff are part of the proposed facility such as provided workstations, laundry, and break room. Elevation Plan Elevation Drawings were not submitted with the Conditional Use application. Instead, three-dimensional (3-D) color renderings were submitted. Per the 3-D color renderings the following pertain to the proposed buildings o The main façade material was clarified during the discussion and by the Applicant. o Brick covers certain portions of the façade, base of façade elevations and columns. o Wooden features accenting portions of the architecture, including the windows, doors, and gables. o Roofing is gray in color and appears to be a vertical paneling, possibly metal. o A large white fence is proposed at the southeast corner, rear, of the structure At this portion of the presentation, Mr. Smith asked questions regarding design. The Applicant answered Mr. Smith s questions. Mr. Smith noted that the rear could look better, and could they add brick wainscoting, which the applicant agreed to verbally. Mr. Smith then asked about the white fence about it looking like wood wanting it to look like the wood trim. Specifically, a cedar fence with same stain to match the trim, was desired. The Applicant explained the choice of fence but agreed with Mr. Smith s suggestion. Mr. Ionna then continued his presentation. 7

65 Conditional Use Review Following this, Mr. Ionna briefly noted the specifications and requirements for Conditional Use Review: The proposed conditional us is required to meet Section of the zoning ordinance which establishes guidelines for evaluation of conditional uses based on the intent of the zoning ordinance and the preservation of public health, safety and general welfare Application and Review - The applicant shall submit an application to the Department of Community Development for a Conditional Use along with applicable fee. The applicant shall submit at least the following supporting information to be considered for a Conditional Use. For the Nine (9) Review Criteria the applicant s answers summarily reflect adherence to all criteria items. Answering in the affirmative, that the proposed use will comply with development standards, be harmonious to the area, served by utilities, and properly accessible And answering that the use will not be injurious, disruptive or hazardous to the area Staff Review / Compliance with Current Zoning Regulations Staff finds the proposed development to be consistent and in compliance with the current zoning regulations. Arborist Comments Municipal Arborist, Dave Bienemann reviewed the submitted landscape plans, and provided the following comments: 1. Substitute Green Column Black Maple (Acer nigrum Greencolumn ) for Fall Fiesta Sugar Maple. a. Reason: Green Column Black Maple is better adapted for dry hot conditions than sugar maples. 2. Substitute Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor) for Bur Oak. a. Reason: Swamp White is better adapted to high ph soils and dryer conditions than bur oak. 3. All other plant material is fine. 8

66 Interdepartmental Review The Conditional Use proposal has been through Interdepartmental Review. There was one objection noted in the project file. Any further construction drawings will go through interdepartmental review and must meet all applicable building and zoning regulations, and city department requirements. Planning received comments from Environmental concerning the submitted plans for Conditional Use: (From S.R.E): Objection: A reduced pressure backflow prevention device is required immediately downstream of water meter - test at installation, and annually thereafter. Submit results to engineering. Device location must be shown on plumbing plans and in isometric. A grease interceptor is required on outgoing sanitary (floor drains, wash machine, kitchen, etc). The flow rate & grease capacity must be provided on plumbing drawings. During the presentation, there was a question of whether the comment from Environmental would be addressed. Mr. Ionna and staff answered, noting that this and other requirements from the City s Interdepartmental Review would need to be addressed at the building permit stage. Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of 30 properties within 500 feet of the property in question. At the time this report was written, there have been no phone calls received concerning the proposed conditional use for 855 NW Washington Blvd. Recommendation: A review of submitted application and plans, compared with the nine Conditional Use Review Criteria General Standards found in Section , as well as the information submitted for the application (Exhibit C) provides the Planning Commission with the basic facts and circumstances of the proposed Conditional Use. After consideration of the Conditional Use Review Criteria General Standards, there is sufficient reason to consider approval of the Conditional Use with additional Conditions. If the Planning Commission approves the request for a Conditional Use, the Planning Department requests that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request for a Conditional use subject to the following conditions of approval: 9

67 1) Construction drawings and documents for the proposed improvements and work shall be revised subject to any current Interdepartmental review comments, and future review requirements of the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental Review. 2) All improvements and work indicated on construction drawings/document approved as part of the Conditional Use be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Conditional Use. 3) Landscaping shall be provided as follows: All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance and be approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist. Public Hearing and Discussion: Mr. Fraley, Fraley & Fraley LLC (7723 Tyler s Place, #101, West Chester, Ohio) was invited to the podium to speak to the commission. Mr. Smith had two more questions concerning the proposal. One question was about the signage and wanting monument signage. Mr. Fraley answered that they had not designed the sign yet. In response, Mr. Smith indicated that his motion would include the brick base for the signage as a condition. Following this, Mr. Smith asked about the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Frayley answered that it was a bricked in area with a now cedar fence. Mr. McAllister asked about how the pet daycare works. Mr. Frayley explained how the business and building work and how there would be soundproofing on interior and exterior walls. The daycare area is indoors, while the outdoor area was for natural needs of the animals. Mr. McAllister voiced a concern related to the noise of the animals as a possibility of this use. Mr. Moeller asked about the Environmental comments, which Mr. Ionna answered. Mr. Belew asked how close the development would be to El Mariachi s. Mr. Frayley answered the question and explained that there would be a parking easement. Mr. McAllister had a couple of setback questions. Mr. McAllister asked where the parking for the use would be. Mr. Frayley answered with Mr. Ionna, with the applicant giving further information on the adjacent parking of El Mariachi and the related easements. Afterward, Mr. McAllister asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak to the matter. With no one present in the audience, there was no one to speak to the matter. Mr. Belew made a motion to close the public hearing, with a second from Mr. Smith. With a roll call vote of: 4 Aye 0 Nay, the motion carries and the public hearing closed. 10

68 Motion With nothing further, Mr. Smith made the motion to recommend City Council approve the Conditional Use to allow a Veterinary Hospital, Animal Hospital, on 2.03 Acres located at 855 NW Washington Blvd with the following conditions: 1) Construction drawings and documents for the proposed improvements and work shall be revised subject to any current Interdepartmental review comments, and future review requirements of the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental Review. 2) All improvements and work indicated on construction drawings / document approved as part of the Conditional Use be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Conditional Use. 3) Landscaping shall be provided as follows: All proposed landscaping item sizes to conform to the minimum size requirements found in Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance and be approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist 4) A monument sign will be allowed, with the base material being consistent with the primary masonry material being used on the principle building. 5) The dumpster enclosure will be constructed with the primary masonry material being used on the principle building, and shall include a stained wood gate. 6) Any privacy fencing shall be cedar and match the stain of the wood accents on the building. 7) All elevations shall have a minimum of brick wainscoting. Mr. Belew seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of: 4 Yea 0 Nay the motion carries. The Planning Commission recommends to City Council, approval of the Conditional Use at 855 NW Washington Blvd for a Veterinary Hospital. 11

69 New Business: Agenda Item #3 Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton: Section , pertaining to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Public Hearing Staff: Mike Ionna (Planning Department) Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio: Board of Zoning Appeals (City of Hamilton, Applicant). Proposal Synopsis: Mr. Ionna presented the proposed text amendments to the City of Hamilton Zoning Ordinance, Section , Board of Zoning Appeals. Introduction: In accordance with the statues of the City of Hamilton Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Zoning Appeals is a board of five appointed members. The quorum requirements stipulate three members of the board be present at a meeting in order to conduct business. The voting requirements of the Board of Zoning Appeals stipulate that a supermajority of membership is necessary in order to take action to approve or disapprove and application. As such, in the event that three members are present for a hearing, an action to approve or disapprove a specific motion requires a unanimous vote of all three members. In meetings where less than five board members are present, applicants are permitted to have their application heard at a later date in order to have all membership of the board present to hear their application. In many instances, applicants have chosen to opt to a later date which at times has resulted in no business being conducted during a hearing. In order to provide a comprehensive review of applications by staff and the board, Planning Department staff has broached the board regarding issues pertaining to improving attendance to have a full quorum of the membership present at meetings. The feedback received was to allow for the provision of alternate board members. Proposed Zoning Amendment: The City of Hamilton proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide flexibility for member attendance for the Board of Zoning Appeals by allowing for the 12

70 provision of alternate board members. This amendment would allow the City Manager to appoint alternate members to the board to act in place of an absent member. This alternate member would have the same qualifications of the member they are appointed to substitute and possess all the powers and responsibilities of such member of the Board. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will amend Section Additionally, staff would like to use this opportunity to make administrative updates to Sections and to make the terminology consist with language that currently exists in other areas of the zoning ordinance. Recommendation If approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Department recommends the following motion: 1) The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio, Sections: Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing and Discussion: Mr. McAllister asked about existing BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) alternates. Ms. Dudley answered that it was for ADRB (the Architectural Design Review Board) and not BZA. Mr. McAllister noted that in several years prior, there was an arrangement with Mr. Bowling, former Planning Commissioner and the representative to BZA, and that Mr. McAllister was the alternate for him. Mr. McAllister asked about meeting attendance which Mr. Ionna answered. With no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mayor Moeller made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Belew. With a roll call vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay the motion carries and the public hearing closed. Motion With no further comments or discussion, Mayor Moeller made the motion to approve the proposed text amendments to Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance, Board of Zoning Appeals, as presented. Mr. Belew seconded. With a roll call vote of 4 Yea 0 Nay the motion passed. 13

71 Miscellaneous: At this point in the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Moeller departed the meeting at 2:15 P.M. Assistant Law Director, Kathy Dudley, explained that the Verbal Reports to Planning Commission could still occur, and they did not require a quorum. Mr. Wilson gave the bulk of the verbal report for the Architectural Design Review Board (ADRB), February 20 th meeting. 1 Millikin Street Signage Approved 246 North Second Street New Single-Family - Approved Mr. Ionna gave a synopsis on Board of Zoning Appeal items (BZA), March 1 st meeting Main Street Temporary Use Permit Approved 1956 Fairgrove Avenue Variances, Off Street Parking Denied 1474 Main Street Variance, Directional Signs Approved 1213 Maple Avenue Variance, Lot Size Conditional Use - Approved Mr. Ionna then gave a synopsis of Past Planning Commission cases and their status, and in conjunction delivered brief news of occurrences in the city. Ms. Hayden clarified for 1213 Maple Avenue and the proposed use, while Mr. Ionna explained that the Conditional Use still needed to be heard. Ms. Hayden asked about Twin Run for an update and Mr. Ionna gave minor updates on the plats coming soon. This was followed with comments and an update for Project T. Mr. Ionna gave further explanations on the intent and proposal regarding the project s operations. Mr. Smith departed the meeting at 2:28 P.M. Adjournment: With nothing further, Mr. Moeller made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Belew. Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ms. Liz Hayden Secretary Mr. Dale McAllister Chairman 14

72 For the Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 2018 To: Planning Commission From: Daniel Tidyman / Michael Ionna, AICP Subject: Agenda Item 1 Request to Amend Planned Development Located in the City of Hamilton, First Ward South Side, from R-1 Single-Family Residential to RPD Residential Planned Development, and to Amend the Arbor Springs Planned Development, City of Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio (Marvin Spradling, Applicant) Date: March 19, 2018 Applicant/Property Owner Architect/Engineer/Consultant Size of Property Current Zoning Proposed Revision Size of Revision BASIC INFORMATION Marvin Spradling, Multiple Design Solutions, Applicant Craig and Stacey Rhodis, Property Owner Abercrombie & Associates Approximately Acres RPD (Residential Planned Development) Amend PD for to decrease density of Residential Development Approximately Acres Comp. Plan Land Use Designation Residential Special Purpose/CRA N/A ADJACENT LAND USE/ZONING INFORMATION Direction Land Use Zoning North Residential RPD - Residential Planned Development South Residential R-1 Single Family Residential East Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential West Residential AG Agricultural District ZONING/DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION Current Zoning: RPD Minimum Required Existing/Proposed Minimum Lot Area Two (2) Acres 1. Existing Arbor Springs subdivision: Approx. 10 Acres 2. Proposed Amendment: Acres Minimum Lot Width N/A , , , , Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 Feet 50 ft Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet 20 ft Maximum Bldg. Height N/A /8 Other Requirements Section , Section Page 1

73 Introduction and Background Arbor Springs is a residential development located in the west side of Hamilton on the south side of Stahlheber Road. It was approved as a PD (Planned Development) in 2003 and amended and The approved Development Plan on the site shows the followings: Total development site of approximately 40 acres Subdivision of 115 residential building lots o Lots ranged from 6,500 square feet to 22,200 square feet Construction of 115 detached single-family dwellings o The homes were approved with the condition that At least fifty (50%) of the building elevation facing any public right-of-way be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco for a two-story home and one-hundred and one-hundred (100%) of the building elevation facing any public right-of-way of a singlestory (ranch) home be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco. Minimum building setback standards were established as follows: o Front Yard: 20 feet o Rear Yard: 20 feet o Side Yard: 5 feet Provision of approximately 14 acres of open space. Construction of two (2) detention ponds near the entrance to the development along Stahlheber Road. Construction of a bridge to serve the southernmost portion of the development. Conditions of approval included the following: Development shall include only single-family residential detached dwellings. An HOA shall be established to maintain open space, landscaping and features, site amenities, drainage facilities, private roads and access easements, subject to final reviews by City Law Development. Bridges and culverts on the private drives shall be of sufficient load bearing capacity and design to support fire, refuse and other service trucks as approved by the City Engineer. Development of various lots approved contingent based on City Interdepartmental Review. That the existing lane along the east edge of the site be established as an access easement through the open space to serve the rear of the six (6) lots along Elsmere Court with provisions that the benefiting lots be responsible for maintenance. Model home may be constructed subject to Planning Commission conditions of approval. Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 113, as shown on the Final Planned Development Plan, incorporate the above Condition #2 into the building elevations facing Stahlheber Page 2

74 Road. Amenities (gazebo, walking trails, fountains, landscaping) be installed as part of the development of the appropriate phase/section of the development. Current development on the site is inclusive of the following: Approximately 10 acres of the development have been improved. Approximately 30 acres of the development is undeveloped vacant land. Existing development is concentrated along both side of Arbor Springs Drive in the north portion of the development near Stahlheber Road. Approximately 20 single-family homes have been constructed or are in the process of being constructed in the area described above. Project Overview / Submitted Requests The applicant is requesting to amend the approved Development Plan to reduce the density of the development. The applicant is seeking approval for the following requests: 1. Amending the Planned Development to reduce the density of the development in southern portion of the development. o The proposal would keep 36 of the previously approved lots located along both sides of Arbor Springs Drive in the developed portion of the site. o The proposal would reduce the density of the southern portion of the site from 70 buildable lots to 5 buildable lots. 2. The applicant is seeking waivers from Section , the anti-monotony standards for the proposed dwellings. The applicant is seeking to construct custom style homes based on the choices of the purchaser. In making their application the applicant has stated that it is possible that some of the homes may meet the requirements of Section Adherence to the standards would be based on the specific choices made by buyers pertaining to housing style, orientation, and materials. Development Plan The submitted Development Plan indicates the following information: Creation of 5 new building lots for the proposed single-family dwellings Lot 1: o Located on the northeast most lot, closest to the Arbor Springs subdivision Page 3

75 o Area: 1.52 Acres o House: 2400 sq ft o Drive Way: 2400 sq ft o Setbacks: Front Yard: 50 ft Side Yard: 24.7 ft Rear Yard: 20 ft o Rain Garden Area: 158 sq ft 6 inch depth of containment for 1 inch of rainfall. Run off amount for house: 158 cf in a 1 rainfall (1896 gallons) rainfall. Driveway 158 cf of water in a 1 (1896 gallons) rain fall o Containment 632 sq ft or 6 deep or 421 at 9 deep Lot 2: o Located east of lot #1 o Area: 1.67 acres o House: 2400 sq ft o Drive way: 1500 sq ft o Setbacks: Front Yard: 50 ft Side Yard: 24.5 ft Rear Yard: 20 ft o Rain Garden Area: 158 sq ft 6 inch depth of containment for 1 inch of rainfall. Run off amount for house: 158 cf in a 1 rainfall (1896 gallons) rainfall. Driveway 158 cf of water in a 1 (1896 gallons) rain fall o Containment 632 sq ft or 6 deep or 421 at 9 deep Lot 3: o Located east of lot 2 o Area: 1.77 Acres o House: 2400 sq ft o Driveway: sq ft o Setbacks: Front Yard: 50 ft Side Yard: 22.3 ft Rear Yard: 20 ft o Rain Garden: Area 128 sq ft 6 inch depth Page 4

76 o Run off amount for house: 158 cf in a 1 rainfall (1896 gallons) rainfall. Driveway 158 cf of water in a 1 (1896 gallons) rain fall o Containment 632 sq ft or 6 deep or 421 at 9 deep Lot 4: o Located in northwest corner of project area near Brookwood Ave o Area: 1.93 Acres o House: 2400 sq ft o Driveway: 1500 sq ft o Setbacks: Front Yard: 50 ft Side Yard: 27.5 ft Read Yard: 20 ft Lot 5: o Area Acres o Construction of a farm style house on the site. o The location and setbacks of the home are not disclosed. Building Materials o Each home will have a combination of brick, stone, stucco (not EIFS), hardi systems, smart siding, cultured stone, and wood. There will be vinyl materials used. o Each home will be unique and no plans will be duplicated. Provision of a rain garden with plantings that can withstand flood and drought conditions. o Rain gardens are shown on Lots 1-4 o No rain garden is shown on Lot 5 Landscaping: o The applicant does not intend to significantly alter the existing topography of the site. The intent to accomplish least amount of disruption while maintaining as much of original land as possible. o Rain Gardens will be for functional and aesthetic appeal Bald Cypress trees Small Plantings Boxwoods, Burning bushes, Barberry, Roses, Clethera, Chokeberry, Winterberry, and Japanese Maple Page 5

77 Staff Comments The application has been circulated through the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental Review. Zoning Vision 2020 Update, the City of Hamilton s Comprehensive Plan, identifies all of the site in question for the development of single-family residential dwelling units. The objectives of the Land Use Section of Vision 2020 include the following: A. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Section for the City of Hamilton serves as a guide for the promotion of high quality and livable built environments that will promote and enhance the City of Hamilton s image by integrating land use planning, transportation, public facilities, housing, education, economic development, and the environment. B. Ensure that the City of Hamilton s Land Use Plan is consistent with the OKI Strategic Regional Policy Plan. C. Land is one of the most important resources in the OKI region. The effective and efficient use of land is key to ensuring the quality of life and long-term health and vitality of our communities. Land experiences tremendous changes in response to human activities. The term land use usually refers to the way in which, and the purposes for which, humans employ the land and its resources. (OKI, Strategic Regional Policy Plan p.94) D. The City of Hamilton s most important land development policy is to guide growth and development in ways that maximize the distribution of public services that people desire and need without wasting resources. As required from Section , the applicant has provided information to meet the required points for the PD amendment: Landscaping o Required Points: 8 o Provided Points: 8 Eight (8) points: for a development where all structures meet the minimum LEED certification or better as defined under the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Rating System for housing by the United States Green Build Council The City s Municipal Arborist has provided comments regarding the proposed landscaping: Page 6

78 Bald Cypress is a good selection as long the planting site 10 x 10 feet in size. If the planting locations are smaller than 10 x10, you can use Lindsay Skyward Bad Cypress. Japanese barberry and winged euonymus have declined dramatically in northern regions of the United States because these plants have been found to be invasive. Native plants are a desirable replacement for Japanese barberry and winged euonymus because they are not invasive, and can actually enhance the local ecology by providing habitat for wildlife and support for pollinators. Alternatives to barberry are as follows: Physocarpus opulifolius, commonly known as ninebark. Seward Summer Wine is a widely used cultivar that has purple bronze foliage and grows to 5-6 feet tall in cultivated landscapes in full sun. While, Summer Wine has pretty good resistance to powdery mildew, many of the older, large growing cultivars such as Monlo Diablo and Dart s Gold (among others) are highly susceptible to the pathogen. In recent years, there has been considerable breeding of ninebark to produce compact, purple or yellow foliage forms that are resistant to powdery mildew. Two new purple cultivars with improved mildew resistance are Donna May Little Devil and SMPOTW Tiny Wine. Each selection grows 3-4 feet tall. There is also a new yellow foliage cultivar, Berts Darts G Festivus, which stays under 4 feet tall and is reported to have improved mildew resistance. Another possible replacement for yellow leaved barberry is Rhus typhina Bailtiger Tiger Eyes, which has attractive, compound leaves that are blazing yellow. In comparison to the straight species, Tiger Eyes is slow growing, and as a result, remains smaller in stature with heights of 3-6 feet in managed landscapes. Alternatives to Burning Bush are as follows: Red twig dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) offers something ornamental in every season. Plants produce white flower clusters in spring, textural foliage in summer, red foliage color and white fruits in fall, and bright red stems in winter. Kelseyi Kelsey s Dwarf and Fallow Arctic Fire stay in the 3-5 feet range. Also in this size range is Bailhalo Ivory Halo, which produces variegated green and white foliage, and Neil Pucker Up, which produces unique, puckered glossy foliage. The second is gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa). Gray dogwood is a finer textured plant that tends to have a colonizing habit. Three excellent small growing (2-3 feet) forms include Hurzam Huron, Muszam Muskingum and Slavinii, all of which have reddish fall color. Gray dogwood is noteworthy for ivory fruits and coral red pedicels. Rhus aromatica Gro-low is currently one of the most popular native shrubs, because it s easy to grow, has a compact (under 1 foot) habit, and excellent orange-red fall color. The plant will establish in a wide range of landscape conditions, and it will even cover the most desolate parking lot islands. During the summer, the glossy, tri-foliate, high quality foliage takes on a unique blue-green color. Amidst the recent celebrity for Gro-low, use of the straight species as a replacement for winged euonymus has been largely overlooked. The species boasts the same broad adaptability and orange-red fall color as Gro-low, but in a taller (4-6 feet) form. Overall, the straight species is a closer match to winged euonymus than is Gro-low. Smooth viburnum (Viburnum nudum var. nudum) offers flat-topped clusters of white flowers and wonderful fall fruits with a kaleidoscope of colors, beginning with porcelain white and transitioning to pink then blue then purple-black. Winterthur boasts shiny, deep green foliage. A newer Page 7

79 cultivar is Bulk Brandywine, which is reported to have a heavy fruit set. Both cultivars stand 5-6 feet tall at maturity in cultivated landscapes. Sweetbells (Eubotrys racemosa) offers excellent red fall color. In my native shrub trials in parking lots on the University of Connecticut campus, it appears to be fairly adaptable and has shown strong deer resistance. Plant reach 5-6 feet tall in full sun cultivated landscapes and have a habit reminiscent of highbush blueberry. All other plant selections are fine. ~ Dave Bienemann, City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist Notification Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the owners of one-hundred eighty-three (183) properties within 500 feet of the subject property. No phone calls were received regarding this application for the Amending a Planned Unit Development approval for Arbor Springs for five new Single-Family Residential structures as of the date the report was prepared for the Planning Commission. Recommendation: The Planning Commission can approve or deny the Request to Amend the Final Development Plan for Arbor Springs to allow 4 lots with detached single family residential dwellings and may modify or add any additional conditions on to the Final Planned Development Amendment. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the amendment to the final development plan, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the following motion: 1) The findings of approval for the requested waivers and modifications are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for granting such requests. 2) That a rain garden be provided on Lot 5 to meet the minimum landscaping requirements. In the event that a rain garden is not provided, the applicant will be required to show compliance with the landscape requirements of the site. 3) The setbacks for the proposed single-family home constructed on Lot 5 shall meet the minimum required setbacks of the R-1 Zone. 4) The construction drawings for the proposed work, including site/engineering plans, to be revised subject to any future requirements of the City Interdepartmental Review (IDR) Committee upon review. 5) Landscaping, site improvements, and all exterior finishes and other improvements be installed and maintained in good repair and replaced as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved Final Development Plan. Page 8

80 6) All proposed landscaping items shall be revised and approved by the City of Hamilton Municipal Arborist. Attachments: 1) Exhibit A Location Map 2) Exhibit B Zoning Map 3) Exhibit C Applicant Project Proposal Letter 4) Exhibit D Approved Development Plan 5) Exhibit E Proposed Development Plan 6) Exhibit F Conceptual Residential Plans and Elevations Page 9

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105