A G E N D A. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HAMILTON, OHIO Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio 45011

Transcription

1 A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HAMILTON, OHIO Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio ROLL CALL: Monday, September 21, :30 p.m. BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES WRITTEN SUMMARY AND AUDIO RECORDING FOR THE FOLLOWING DATES: 1. June 15, 2015 BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH 2. July 20, 2015 BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH 3. August 3, 2015 BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH 4. August 17, 2015 BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH SWEARING IN OF THOSE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION: PUBLIC FORUM: Heather Sanderson Lewis, Law Director OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: AGENDA ITEM #1: Request to Rezone 1380 NW Washington Blvd. (City Lot No ), Located in the City of Hamilton, from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office District (Nora Backmann, Applicant) Staff: John Creech BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH

2 AGENDA ITEM #2: Request to Rezone 444, 450, and 460 Knightsbridge Drive (City Lot Nos. 2483, 2484, and 2485 E25),located in the City of Hamilton, Second Ward, from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to B-2 Community Business District (Frank Pfirman, Applicant) Staff: John Creech BELEW BOWLING HORSLEY McALLISTER MOELLER SAMOVISKI SMITH REPORTS: 1. Verbal Report on Architectural Design Review Board Meeting Results of September 1 and September 15, 2015 Staff: Ed Wilson 2. Verbal Report on Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Results of September 3, 2015 Staff: John Creech MISCELLANEOUS: Conditional Use Amendment Update ADJOURNED:

3 To: From: Subject: Date: Planning Commission John Creech AGENDA ITEM #1 Request to Rezone 1380 NW Washington Blvd. (City Lot No ), Located in the City of Hamilton, from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office District (Nora Backmann, Applicant). September 21, 2015 BASIC INFORMATION Applicant/Property Owner Nora Backmann, Applicant; Bisbee Capital LLC, Owner Architect/Engineer/Consultant N/A Size of Property 0.8 Acres (33,880 sq.ft.) Current Zoning R-3 One to Four Family Residence Proposed Zoning R-O Multi Family Residence/Office Comp. Plan Land Use Designation Commercial Special Purpose/CRA N/A ADJACENT LAND USE/ZONING INFORMATION Direction Land Use Zoning North High School R-1 Single Family Residence East Commercial R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office West Vacant/Commercial R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office South Commercial B-2 Community Business ZONING/DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION Minimum Required Existing Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. feet 33,880 sq. feet Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 308 feet and 110 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 28.5 feet and 77.5 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback Sum of 14 feet 130 Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 12 Maximum Bldg. Height 1 to 1½ stories 1 story Other Requirements N/A N/A Page 1

4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction: Nora Beckman, on behalf of Bisbee Capital, has submitted an application for the rezoning of 1380 NW Washington Boulevard. The property is currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence District. The applicant is proposing a zoning change from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office District. The property is currently being used as a medical office. According to the application, the reason for the rezoning request is for owner to establish a medical office the addresses overnight sleep disorder studies. Overnight accommodations for medical patients are not permitted in the R-3 zoning district but are permitted in R-O zoning district. A total of forty five (45) public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written a number of calls were received from individuals seeking clarification on the request. PLAN/PROPOSAL REVIEW 1. Zoning There is one (1) parcel that makes up the property associated with this request. The property is currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence. The applicant has indicated that they may establish a medical office that addresses overnight sleep disorder studies, a use that is not permitted in R-3, but is permitted in R-O. The Planning Commission must hold a public hearing and review the rezoning application and forward a recommendation to City Council for final consideration. 2. Setbacks There is an existing buildings located at 1380 NW Washington Blvd and no changes are proposed as part of this rezoning request. 3. Parking There are no proposed changes to the parking. 4. Land Division- The current rezoning request is regarding one (1) parcel. Landscaping There are no proposed changes to the landscaping. 5. Lighting There is no proposed changes to exterior lighting. 6. Interdepartmental Review There are no current plans to review as part of this process. Should building plans be submitted for this site in the future they would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental review and would have to adhere to all applicable regulations. 7. Other A total of forty five (45) public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written a number of calls were received from individuals seeking clarification on the request. Page 2

5 PLAN/PROPOSAL ANALYSIS Zoning The property located at 1380 NW Washington Boulevard is currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence District. The area surrounding 1380 NW Washington Boulevard is currently a mix zoning of R-1 Single-Family Residence to the north (Hamilton High School), R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office to the east and west; and B-2 Community Business to the south (gas station/drive-thru restaurant). The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office, which would match the existing zoning to the east and west of the subject property. The existing property has approximately 308 feet of frontage along NW Washington Boulevard and 110 feet of frontage along Eaton Avenue and measures approximately 33,880 square feet in area. Building There is an existing building on the property and there are no proposed changes to the building as part of this rezoning application. Any changes to the building would go through the Interdepartmental Review process once plans are submitted. Any future plans must adhere to all applicable building and zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION The requested zone change would be a continuation of the adjacent R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office District zoning from the west to the corner of Eaton Avenue and NW Washington Boulevard. The rezoning from R-3 to R-O would be a continuation of the zoning ordinance and the predominate abutting land zoning in the immediate area. This change would allow the property owner to expand the medical office use to include overnight patient accommodation and overnight sleep disorder studies. The Department of Community Development recommends the following motion to rezone the subject property: 1) That City Council approve the rezoning of 1380 NW Washington Blvd. from R-3 One to Four Family Residence to R-O Multi-Family Residence/Office. Attachments to this report include: 1. Public Hearing Notification Map 2. Zoning Map 3. from Nora Beckmann Page 3

6

7

8 3 Creech, John From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nora Beckmann Tuesday, September 08, :13 PM Creech.John Murphy, Meredith; Nora Beckmann Doctor's Office - Zoning Change (R3 to RO) Dear Mr. Creech, Thank you for meeting with me today. You asked me to document our conversation since I am unable to attend future Planning Commission meetings on Mondays due to my job. Today's commission meeting was supposed to cover the proposed zoning change for my property on 1380 NW Washington Blvd. The meeting was cancelled since there were not enough members for a quorum. My building is a medical office. A doctor has inquired about performing "sleep studies" but that is not permitted under the current zoning. In a previous conversation I had with Meredith Murphy, she suggested that a zoning change to R-0 would allow overnight medical procedures and is the same zone designation as many of the neighboring properties. Please consider my application for a zone change from R-3 to R-0. Contact me if you have any additional questions or comments. I appreciate your assistance on this issue. Regards, Nora Beckmann

9 To: Planning Commission From: John Creech Subject: AGENDA ITEM #2 Request to Rezone 444, 450, and 460 Knightsbridge Drive (City Lot Nos. 2483, 2484, and 2485 E25), located in the City of Hamilton, Second Ward, from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to B-2 Community Business District (Frank Pfirman, Applicant). Date: September 21, 2015 BASIC INFORMATION Applicant/Property Owner Frank Pfirman, Applicant; Matandy Realty LTD, Owner Architect/Engineer/Consultant N/A Size of Property Acres (21,000 sq.ft.) Current Zoning R-3 One to Four Family Residence Proposed Zoning B-2 Community Business Comp. Plan Land Use Designation Commercial Special Purpose/CRA NIA Neighborhood Initiative Area ADJACENT LAND USE/ZONING INFORMATION Direction Land Use Zoning North Residential/Auto B-2 Community Business Repair East Vacant/Residential B-2 Community Business West Residential R-3 One to Four Family Residence South Residential R-3 One to Four Family Residence ZONING/DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION Minimum Required Existing Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. feet 21,000 sq. feet Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 125 feet total Minimum Front 25 feet 5 feet Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard None except when adjoining a residential district, a 30 feet total Setback minimum side yard of eight (8) feet is required for buildings fifty (50) feet or less in length. The side yard shall be increased one (1) foot for each additional ten (10) feet of building length along the side yard to a maximum of twenty (20) feet. Minimum Rear 25 feet 115 feet Yard Setback Maximum Bldg. 2½ stories or 35 feet 2 story Height Other Requirements N/A N/A Page 1

10 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction: Frank Pfirman, on behalf of Matandy Realty LTD, has submitted an application for the rezoning of 444, 450, and 460 Knightsbridge Drive. The properties are currently zoned R- 3 One to Four Family Residence District. The applicant is proposing a zoning change from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to B-2 Community Business District. The properties are currently vacant. According to the application, the reason for the rezoning request is for owner to establish a future business, retail, and/or restaurant on the property. The proposed uses are not permitted in the R-3 zoning district but are permitted in B-2 zoning district. A total of seventy five (75) 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 seeking clarification on the request. PLAN/PROPOSAL REVIEW 1. Zoning There are three (3) parcels that make up the property associated with this request. The property is currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence. The applicant has indicated that they would like to redevelop the property for a retail/restaurant type business, a use that is not permitted in R-3, but is permitted in B-2. The Planning Commission must hold a public hearing and review the rezoning application and forward a recommendation to City Council for final consideration. 2. Setbacks There are no building or construction plans at this time. 3. Parking There are no proposed changes to the parking at this time. 4. Land Division- The current rezoning request is regarding three (3) parcels. 5. Landscaping There are no proposed changes to the landscaping at this time. 6. Lighting There are no proposed changes to exterior lighting. 7. Interdepartmental Review There are no current plans to review as part of the rezoning process. Should building plans be submitted for this site in the future they would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental review and would have to adhere to all applicable building and zoning regulations. 8. Other A total of seventy five (75) 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 seeking clarification on the request. One phone call was received before the application for rezoning was submitted. Page 2

11 PLAN/PROPOSAL ANALYSIS Zoning The properties located at 444, 450, and 460 Knightsbridge Drive are currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence District. The area surrounding 444, 450, and 460 Knightsbridge Drive is currently a mix zoning of R-3 One to Four Family Residence to the west and south, and B-2 Community Business to the north and east. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to B-2 Community Business, which would match the existing zoning to the north and east of the subject property. The existing property has approximately 125 feet of frontage along Knightsbridge Drive and measures approximately 21,000 square feet in area. The subject properties, in conjunction with the properties that abut Central Avenue, also owned by Matandy Realty are located at the corner of two major thoroughfare streets that provide access to downtown Hamilton, Miami University Hamilton and Vora Technology Park. The rezoning of the subject properties combined with the abutting properties along Central Avenue also owned by Matandy Realty will comprise a development site of approximately one (1) acre. Building There is no proposed building or construction at this time. Any future development plans would go through the Interdepartmental Review process once plans are submitted. Any future building or development plans must adhere to all applicable building and zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION The requested zone change would be a continuation of the adjacent B-2 Community Business District zoning from the north and east to the corner of Central Avenue and Knightsbridge Drive. The rezoning from R-3 to B-2 would be a continuation of the zoning ordinance and the predominate abutting land use and zoning in the immediate area. This change would facilitate the redevelopment of the subject properties and the abutting properties along Central Avenue as a whole which comprise approximately one (1) acre. The Department of Community Development recommends the following motion to rezone the subject property: 1) That City Council approve the rezoning of 444, 450, and 460 Knightsbridge Drive from R-3 One to Four Family Residence to B-2 Community Business District. Attachments to this report include: 1. Public Hearing Notification Map 2. Zoning Map Page 3

12 R-3 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION MAP 444, 450 & 460 KNIGHTSBRIDGE. B-2 R-3 I-2 B-2 NIA R-3 B-2 I-2 R-3 R-4 R-3 B-2 R-2 OPD UCP-2 B-2 444, 450, & 460 Knightsbridge Feet

13

14 WRITTEN SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HAMILTON, OHIO Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Monday,June15,2015 1:30p.m. BOARDPRESENT BOARDABSENT: MOTION ROLLCALL MOTION

15 ROLLCALL PUBLICFORUM: AGENDAITEM#1 PUBLICHEARING Staff:Mr.JohnCreech RequesttoAmendDevelopmentPlanforKetteringMedicalCenterOfficeBuildinglocatedat 520EatonAvenue(KetteringMedicalCenter,Applicant). BASICINFORMATION ProjectName Applicant/PropertyOwner Architect/Engineer/Consultant SizeofProperty CurrentZoning ProposedZoning Comp.PlanLandUseDesignation SpecialPurpose/CRA ADJACENTLANDUSE/ZONINGINFORMATION Direction LandUse Zoning North South East West ZONING/DIMENSIONALINFORMATION MinimumRequired Existing MinimumLotArea MinimumLotWidth MinimumFrontYardSetback MinimumSideYardSetback MinimumRearYardSetback MaximumBldg.Height OtherRequirements

16 BACKGROUNDINFORMATION PLAN/PROPOSALANALYSIS Building Landscaping/Screening PLAN/PROPOSALREVIEW

17 RECOMMENDATION MOTION

18 ROLLCALL AGENDAITEM#2 PUBLICHEARING Staff:Mr.JohnCreech Request to Amend (Moderate Change) the Final Development Plan for Deerfield Village SectionIIsubdivisionlocatedonDeerfieldCircle(SteveWittman,Applicant) BASICINFORMATION ProjectName Applicant/PropertyOwner Architect/Engineer/Consultant SizeofProperty CurrentZoning ProposedZoning Comp.PlanLandUseDesignation SpecialPurpose/CRA ADJACENTLANDUSE/ZONINGINFORMATION Direction LandUse Zoning North South East West ZONING/DIMENSIONALINFORMATION MinimumRequired Existing

19 MinimumLotArea MinimumLotWidth MinimumFrontYardSetback MinimumSideYardSetback MinimumRearYardSetback MaximumBldg.Height OtherRequirements BACKGROUNDINFORMATION PLAN/PROPOSALANALYSIS RECOMMENDATION

20 MOTION MOTION

21 ADJOURNED

22 WRITTEN SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HAMILTON, OHIO Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Monday, July 20, :30 p.m. The Planning Commission met as a Committee of the Whole with Mr. Dale McAllister, Chairman presiding and the following members present: BOARD PRESENT: Mr. Belew, Mr. Bowling, Mr. McAllister, Mr. Samoviski & Mr. Smith BOARD ABSENT: Mayor Moeller and Ms. Horsley OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing: AGENDA # 1 STAFF: Mr. JOHN CREECH Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio regarding Conditional Uses (City of Hamilton, Applicant) Mr. Creech presented the staff report as listed below. At the request of City Council, the Department of Community Development held four (4) public input meetings in late 2013 on Zoning with regard to Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Business Zoning Districts (Business type uses and Industrial districts). One of the things that came out of those meetings was regarding Board and Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Planning Commission decision making and/or process for making recommendations to City Council (specifically conditional uses). Currently, the BZA reviews conditional uses and appeals of BZA decisions are heard by City Council. The proposed zoning changes will amend the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance to require all Conditional Uses to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation to approve or deny would be forwarded to City Council for consideration. The BZA will continue to review zoning variances and appeals. Public input comments involved Board and Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Planning Commission decision making and/or process for making recommendations to City Council. 1

23 Currently, the BZA reviews conditional uses and also appeals. They have a process in place that involves a public hearing, takes input, reviews the proposed conditional use against ordinance standard, and makes a decision. Anyone that feels aggrieved by that decision has the right to appeal that decision to City Council. That s the current procedure in place. Under the proposed change, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, review the Conditional Use request against the nine (9) standards listed above, and make a recommendation to either (a) approve the request, (b) deny the request, or (c) approve the request the various conditions attached to it (as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission to uphold the ordinance and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare). Reference Ordinance in Section (Application and Review), the proposed procedure would be as follows: The proposed zoning changes will amend the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance to require all Conditional Uses to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (utilizing the nine general standards listed below), and a recommendation to approve or deny would be forwarded to City Council for consideration. The BZA will continue to review zoning variances and appeals. A) The applicant shall submit an application to the Department of Community Development for a Conditional Use along with applicable fee of $ The applicant shall submit at least the following supporting information to be considered for a Conditional Use. 1. A written description of the proposed Conditional Use would be given, including the nature of the business and the hours of operation. 2. Plans of the proposed site for the Conditional Use indicating the location of all existing and proposed buildings, parking, loading, and driveway areas, traffic access and circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signage, yards and setbacks, and such other information as the BZA PC may require to determine of the effect of the proposed Conditional Use on the surrounding neighborhood. In reviewing an application for a Conditional Use, the Planning Commission would consider whether there is adequate evidence that the proposed Conditional Use is consistent with the following General Standards: (1) The proposed Conditional Use is to be located in a district wherein such use may be permitted, subject to the requirements of this Section and the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The proposed Conditional Use will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of neighboring property and will serve the public convenience and welfare. (3) The proposed Conditional Use will be harmonious with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. (4) The proposed Conditional Use shall be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as, but not limited to, roads, public safety forces, storm water facilities, water, sanitary sewer, refuse, and schools. If not, the applicant shall be responsible for the extension or establishment of any public facilities and services to effectively service the proposed Conditional Use. 2

24 (5) The proposed Conditional Use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding streets. (6) The proposed Conditional Use will comply with all applicable development standards, except as specifically altered by the Planning Commission in the approved Conditional Use. (7) The proposed Conditional Use will not be hazardous to or have a negative impact on existing or future neighboring uses. (8) The proposed Conditional Use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operations, including, but not limited to, hours of operation, that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odor or other characteristic not comparable to the uses permitted in the base zoning district. (9) The proposed Conditional Use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Chapter 1155 Proposed Changes (Conditional Uses) 3

25 4

26 5

27 6

28 If approved by the Planning Commission, the Department of Community Development recommends the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio regarding Conditional Uses encompassing the Sections listed above (beginning with Section ). Some of these uses, in addition to being Condition Uses in these Zoning Districts, actually have City regulations associated with them. One that jumps out is Automobile Sales, Rental, Repair & Washing. Mr. Creech then gave some of the standards that are associated with that Conditional Use. The standards will not change. Mr. Creech then went through the Proposed Conditional Use Process: 1. Application for Conditional Use is filed with City (no change) 2. Public Hearing is held by Planning Commission with an advance 10 day Public Notice. (Currently, these are reviewed by the BZA, which only meets once a month. The Planning Commission meets twice a month, so there may be an opportunity to 7

29 review more. There would be less lead time in dealing with the Planning Commission vs. the BZA). 3. Planning Commission Recommendation is forwarded to City Council. 4. City Council Reviews Conditional Use which is submitted in the form a Caucus. (If they don t like it, they could get back to the Planning Commission with any changes they would like). There would be a 1st Reading and a 2nd Reading. Pursuant to Section 3.09, Legislative Procedure, the Council may approve, deny or return the Conditional Use to Planning Commission for further consideration (conditions). That is basically the change in the process. BZA has used these same nine standards and have, in fact, denied a number of proposed Conditional Uses in the past year. The only difference is that instead of BZA reviewing it, the Planning Commission would review it, hold the public hearing, and forward their recommendation to City Council, who would then review it according to their legislative procedure. If approved by the Planning Commission, the Department of Community Development recommends the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio regarding Conditional Uses encompassing Sections 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, R-0 Multi- Family Residence - Office District, B-1 Neighborhood Business District, B-2 Community Business District, B-3 Central Business District, I-1 Limited Industrial District, I-2 Industrial District, Neighborhood Initiative Area Conservation Overlay Zoning District, Form-Based Zoning Districts, Wireless and Cellular Telecommunications Structures and Facilities, Conditional Uses, and Board of Zoning Appeals; Power and Duties. Mr. Creech then states that this was advertised as a Public Hearing, and asks if there are any questions. 1. Mr. Smith questioned whether Section has to run with the land or if it changes with ownership. He asked if we are forced to let it run with the land in the State of Ohio or if that is something that could be legislatively handled at our level. Mr. Creech replied that when it was written before, the Law Department stated that all land uses (Conditional Use or Zoning change) runs with the land provided that it continues operation exactly as it was approved. If it is expanded in way or changed, it has to restart the process. 2. Mr. Smith rephrases his question, asking if we have the opportunity to suggest alternate legislation where it would not run with the land. The Law Department believes that what Mr. Creech said is correct, but he will research it and get back with Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith said he would appreciate a legal opinion on it. Mr. Smith and Mr. Scharf then had a discussion regarding the time line referenced in Section , and how we are guaranteeing that the Conditional Uses are maintained once they are 8

30 approved with conditions. Mr. Scharf stated that they are initially inspected, and then annually inspected after that. He said that many of the Conditional Use requests that went before BZA last were the result of inspectors going out to properties. There was then a discussion initiated by Mr. Bowling regarding how this procedure with impact the BZA s purpose, new business owners, requests for variances, and if it will make things more difficult. Mr. Bowling suggested that perhaps we should do away with BZA unless we have to keep it by law. He feels that it will make it more problematic for new businesses to get what they want, and that it is usually new businesses that are the ones making the requests. There was more discussion by Mr. McAllister, Mr. Bowling, and Mr. Smith regarding Conditional use being with the applicant vs. the land, and the presentation of each owner as to how that business is being run. Mr. Bowling inquired as to whether or not it s really necessary to keep BZA if the Planning Commission is going to take away the duties/responsibilities of it. He stated that in his opinion, these proposed changes will make it more problematic for businesses to get approval to operate. He went through the questions that the BZA asks when they are approached by someone for a Conditional Use. He stated that they have no lawyer on the Committee, or any recommendation from the administration. They look at exceptional circumstances, doesn t affect the neighborhood. Then they look at the 9 things as their guideline. He said that sometimes people abuse Conditional uses and lie about what they are going to use the business for. He said that he believes that if it is legal, they should do away with the BZA. Mr. Smith stated that he felt that the Conditional Use permitting process is one of the most significant things that a Planning Commission can work on because it s pure planning. His concern with the BZA is that he s not used to BZA handling Conditional Use permits. He s always dealt with those always going through Planning Commissions. They then had a discussion about variances and Conditional Uses and who should have final say over those (BZA or Planning Commission). Mr. Bowling s stance was that Zoning Appeals should not be dealing with variances, and that it should be a function of BZA. There was more discussion between Mr. Bowling, Mr. McAllister, and Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith said that he felt that the BZA should focus on Variances, and that Planning should deal with Conditional Uses. Mr. McAllister and Mr. Bowling had a discussion about the BZA meetings (information, attendance, public input, etc). Mr. McAllister asked for additional comments from the audience. There were none. He suggested that the Public Hearing be closed. A motion to close the Public Hearing was made by Mr. Samoviski, 2 nd by Mr. Bowling. With everyone saying AYE, the motion carries. There will be information collected as far as number of variances and legal opinion from Law Department. Motion made by Larry Bowling with a Second by Mr. Belew to table this item until the next meeting. Roll Call was taken: Mr. Belew: Yes Mr. Bowling: Yes Mr. McAllister: Yes 9

31 Mr. Samovski: Yes Mr. Smith: Yes Item #1, Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio regarding Conditional Uses is tabled until the next meeting. REPORTS Mr. Creech gave a Verbal Report on Architectural Design Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals as follows: ADRB July 7, Campbell Avenue as old business, for Window Replacement which was Tabled; 719 Campbell Avenue, for Painting or Vinyl Siding the item of Siding was Denied; 380 South D Street, for Garage Door replacement which was Tabled; 125 South C Street, for Signage which was Approved; 1019 Campbell Avenue, for Front Door, Door and Window Replacement, with Filling In one (1) Window which was Tabled. BZA July 2, 2015 Approved a request by Tari McMahan Lawson for a Front Yard Setback Variance to allow the construction of a front porch on a property zoned R-1 Single Family Residence located at 70 Mollie Drive. Tabled a request by Catherine Richardson for a Conditional Use and three zoning variances to allow Automobile Sales to operate on the property zoned B-2 Community Business located at 735 S. Erie Blvd. (Catherine Richardson, Applicant/Owner). Denied a request by Christopher Chapman for a Conditional Use and three zoning variances to allow Automobile Sales to operate on the property zoned B-2 Community Business located at 528 East Avenue. (Christopher Chapman/ Araceli Garcia, Applicant/ Owner). MISCELLANEOUS: Upcoming Zoning Amendments - Construction/Zoning Requirements for Dumpster Enclosures and Parking Lot Surface Construction Staff is looking into Construction/Zoning Requirements for Dumpster Enclosures and Parking Lot Surface Construction, with regard to new developments and new business vs. existing business per Ms. Murphy. There will be a more complete report at the next meeting. 10

32 ADJOURNED: With nothing further to discuss, the motion to adjourn the meeting was motioned by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Belew. With everyone saying AYE, the motion carries. The meeting is adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ms. Kim Kirsch Administrative Assistant Director Community Development/Designee Chairperson 11

33 WRITTEN SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HAMILTON, OHIO Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Monday, August 3, :30 p.m. The Planning Commission met as a Committee of the Whole with Mr. Dale McAllister, Chairman presiding and the following members present: BOARD PRESENT: Mr. Belew, Mr. Bowling, Mayor Moeller, Mr. McAllister, Mr. Samoviski & Mr. Smith BOARD ABSENT: Ms. Horsley PUBLIC FORUM: OLD BUSINESS: AGENDA # 1 Tabled at 7/21/15 Meeting STAFF: Mr. John Creech Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hamilton, Ohio regarding Conditional Uses (City of Hamilton, Applicant) BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed amendment at the July 20, 2015 meeting. At that meeting, a question was asked regarding number of Conditional Uses reviewed by the BZA. Also, the proposed amendment was tabled by the Planning Commission to determine if Conditional Use zoning approvals would run with the land or with the owner. Mr. Creech presented the staff report as listed below. NEW BUSINESS 1. Number of Conditional Uses & Variances in 2015 There were twelve (12) conditional use requests only six (6) were approved. One is tabled until September meeting. There were four (4) variances all were approved. 1

34 2. Legal Opinion Based on a review of State of Ohio case law and Appeals, the Law Department has opined that zoning approvals do run with the land and not the owner. At the Planning Commission meeting on July 20, 2015, the Planning Commission requested a legal opinion as to whether a conditional use runs with the land. A conditional use relates to land use, not to ownership. Meck & Pearlman, Ohio Planning and Zoning Law (2006), 472, Section 9:11. Accordingly, Ohio Courts have found that a conditional use runs with the land and is not affected by changes in ownership. Baughman v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals for Harrison Twp., 2002-Ohio-3391, Logan App. No ; Jennings v. Xenia Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2007-Ohio- 2355, Greene App. No. 07-CA-16 (finding that because a conditional use passed with land, it transferred to subsequent owners). MOTION Mayor Moeller made a Motion to close the Public Hearing, 2nd by Mr. Smith. DISCUSSION Mr. Moeller asked if a new owner would just know about a Conditional Use for a property. The Law Department replied that a prudent buyer should check. A new owner is held to find out. There was more discussion between Mr. Creech, Mr. Belew and Mr. Bowling about the BZA, Planning Commission, and the process that will be in force if the amendment is passed. MOTION A Motion was made by Mr. Bowling for Council to approve, and 2nd by Mr. Belew. Mr. Belew? Response: Yes Mr. Bowling? Response: Yes Mr. Moeller? Response: Yes Mr. McAllister? Response: Yes Mr. Samoviski Response: Yes Mr. Smith? Response: Yes With all Ayes, the Motion carries. REPORTS - ADRB July 21, 2015 Staff: Mr. Ed Wilson 730 Campbell Avenue Window Replacements Approved with Conditions 380 South D Street Garage Door Replacement Approved 1019 Campbell Avenue Side Door Replacement, Door Replacement, Window Fill-In and Window Replacements Approved with Conditions 308 North Second Street New Addition Approved with Conditions, with the Applicant returning with a new sample for board inspection and approval 374 South B Street Fence and Landscaping Approved The next meeting is 8/4/15 MISCELLANEOUS Staff: Ms. Meredith Murphy 2

35 Discussion on Proposed Zoning Amendments o o Construction/Zoning Requirements for Dumpster Enclosures Refuse Storage Area- The area including the refuse container, storage enclosure, and surrounding landscaping for the collection and storage of refuse and/or recyclable materials. Refuse Storage Areas The purpose of these regulations is to ensure the provision of adequate, convenient and accessible locations for the collection and storage of refuse and/or recyclable materials within containers and enclosures that are compatible with surrounding land uses and structures. Refuse and/or recycling containers shall be required for all residential dwelling units of three or more dwellings and all nonresidential developments in accordance with this Section. o Location: Refuse storage containers shall be located in interior side yards or rear yards, and must comply with setback requirements for accessory structures. o Accessory Structure Limitation: Any refuse storage area enclosure 200 square feet or less in size on a residential property is exempt from the limit of one (1) accessory structure for zoning purposes. o Enclosure: All refuse storage containers for three or more dwelling units and all nonresidential developments must be enclosed or screened so as not be visible from the public right-of-way or publically accessible area. The refuse storage area enclosure must be enclosed on all sides, one of which includes a gate or door than can be secured. o o o o o Access: Driveways and aisles providing access between the refuse storage areas and the public right of way shall be hard surfaced of concrete, asphalt, or concrete/brick pavers. Enclosure Materials: The enclosure surrounding the refuse storage area should match the principle building and may consist of solid wood, vinyl fencing or masonry walls. Enclosure Height: The minimum height of the refuse storage area enclosure shall be one-foot taller than the container and no taller than eight (8 ) feet. Landscaping: The exterior perimeter of the refuse storage area enclosure must be landscaping with the exception of the access point. Maintenance: Enclosures must be maintained in a manner that protects adjacent properties as well as tenants located on the property from adverse environmental, health and safety impacts such as noise, odors and attraction of rodents or other pests. The refuse storage area and surrounding area will be maintained as initially approved. Mr. Smith asked if the dumpsters at Sunoco are supposed to match the building, and the answer was yes. Mr. Belew asked if a dumpster enclosure has to be maintained, and the answer was yes. Mr. Creech stated that we can go back and check on addresses that have gotten new permits, but we 3

36 cannot go back to pre-existing property and make the person get one that meets standards. We can ask them to, but we cannot force them to. Parking Lot Surface Construction Requirements o Surfacing: Any off-street parking area whether for residential, business or commercial use and access drives thereto shall be surfaced with an asphaltic, concrete, cement binder, or approved pervious paving products so as to provide a dustless surface, and shall be graded and drained per the Director of Public Works approval. ADJOURNED: With nothing further to discuss, the motion to adjourn the meeting was motioned by Mr. Belew and seconded by Mr. Moeller. With everyone saying AYE, the motion carries. The meeting is adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ms. Kim Kirsch Administrative Assistant Director Community Development/Designee Chairperson 4

37 WRITTEN SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HAMILTON, OHIO Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Monday, August 17, :30 p.m. The Planning Commission met as a Committee of the Whole with Mr. Bowling, Acting Chairman, presiding and the following members present: BOARD PRESENT: Mr. Belew, Mr. Bowling, Ms. Horsley, Mayor Moeller, Tim Werdmann (for Joshua Smith) BOARD ABSENT: Mr. McAllister and Mr. Samoviski APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None to approve SWEARING IN OF THOSE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION: Members of the audience were sworn in before the Planning Commission by Law Department s Representative, Mr. Reister. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: AGENDA # 1 STAFF: Ms. Meredith Murphy Request to Rezone 1302 Long Street (City Lot No. 6724), Located in the City of Hamilton, from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to B-2 Community Business District (Charles C. Smith, Applicant). Background Information Introduction: Charles C. Smith has submitted an application for the rezoning of part of his property located at 1302 Long Street. The property is currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence District. The applicant is proposing a zoning change from R-3 One to Four Family Residence District to B-2 Community Business District. The property is currently vacant. The reason for this rezoning is to make all of Mr. Smith s contiguous properties the same zoning designation. Mr. Smith also owns the two contiguous properties to the east, which front Long Street and South Erie Boulevard. 1

38 PLAN/PROPOSAL REVIEW 1. Zoning There are two (2) parcels that make up the property associated with this request. The property is currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence. The applicant has indicated that in the future they wish to sell the contiguous properties and that all the contiguous parcels on the north side of Long Street from South Erie Boulevard to South 13 th Street should have the same B-2 Community Business zoning designation. The Planning Commission must hold a public hearing and review the rezoning application and forward a recommendation to City Council for final consideration. 2. Setbacks There are no existing buildings located at 1302 Long Street. If this request is granted any new building would need to comply with the setbacks listed in Section , B-2 Community Business, of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. 3. Parking There is no proposed parking at this time. 4. Land Division- The current rezoning request is regarding two (2) parcels that comprise the subject property. In addition, the two (2) properties to the east are also owned by the applicant. 5. Landscaping There is no proposed landscaping at this time. 6. Lighting There is no proposed exterior lighting at this time. 7. Interdepartmental Review There are no current plans to review as part of this process. Should building plans be submitted for this site in the future they would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Hamilton Interdepartmental review and would have to adhere to all applicable regulations. 8. Other A total of one hundred and nine (109) public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written a few calls were received from individuals seeking clarification on the request. PLAN/PROPOSAL ANALYSIS Zoning The property located at 1302 Long Street currently zoned R-3 One to Four Family Residence District. The area surrounding 1302 Long Street is currently a mix of predominantly R-3 One to Four Family Residence to the north, west, and south; and B-2 Community Business to the east. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to B-2 Community Business, which would match the existing zoning to the east towards South Erie Blvd. The existing property has approximately 30 of frontage along Long Street and 120 feet of frontage along South 13 th Street and measures approximately 3,600 square feet in area. Building There are no existing buildings on the property and there are no proposed changes as part of this rezoning application. Any future request to build on this property would go through our Interdepartmental Review process once plans are submitted. Any future plans must adhere to all applicable regulations. Notification 2

39 A total of one hundred and nine (109) public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written a number of calls were received from individuals seeking clarification on the request. Recommendation The requested zone change is a continuation of the adjacent B-2 Community Business District zoning to the east. The subject property sits on the corner of South 13 th Street and Long Street and abuts the larger existing B-2 zoned properties. The rezoning from R-3 to B-2 would be a continuation of the zoning ordinance and the predominate abutting land uses in the immediate area. This change would allow the property owner to have all four of contiguous properties zoned B-2 Community Business District. The Department of Community Development recommends the following motion to rezone the subject property: 1) That City Council approve the rezoning of 1302 Long Street from R-3 One to Four Family Residence to B-2 Community Business. Discussion Mr. Werdmann: Ms. Murphy: Mr. Scharf: Mr. Reister: Mr. Smith: Mr. Scharf: Mr. Bowling: Meredith, I have a question. It states in your report that there s no buildings currently on the property, but that aerial looks a little bit different than the aerial that s included in the packet. Is that being used for selling of vehicles? Do you know what the current use of the property is? The front parcel received approval, in 1964, for selling vehicles. There was a building on the site, but it was demolished. We only have record of the front parcel having approval. We have sent one of our compliance people out to look at the site. I don t know where that s at in the process. I don t know if Rich (Engle) wants to speak about the cars outside of the parcel. I think John (Creech) spoke with someone about them being in the right-of-way and they had mentioned that they might have previous approval, but that would be something to ask the applicant about. Mr. Chairperson, the applicant is now in the audience. You may want to ask him to come forward and ask the law department swear him in. Will you raise your right hand please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. You might want to come to the podium. Are there questions for the applicant? 3

40 Mr. Smith: Mr. Bowling: Mr. Smith: Mr. Bowling: Mr. Moeller: Mr. Smith: Just a little brief history. I was the former owner of Hamilton Fairfield Dodge Jeep up until 2009, during the Chrysler bankruptcy and so forth. Hamilton, my dealership, and Rose Chevrolet were put out of business. I bought this property some 15 years ago, I think it was probably 99 or 2000, and it had long been kind of an eyesore. There was a bunker kind of a building on the front part of it and it sat in this area. In the back here was a house that had been abandoned and there were all kinds of drug users and so forth here even during the day. I was able to buy it at a sheriff s sale. It was kind of a laborious process, and then I had Baker Demolition tear both buildings down. To make a long sad story of it, it turns out that there was a little asbestos in it, so it cost me a lot more money to get the buildings down and rehabilitated. It s been basically vacant. Years ago, the plan was, just my little effort to do a little urban renewal, I ve had the property rented to a gentleman for the past 3 or 4 years, the front section, he parks cars on it. I said to him, Alex, at some point in time I d like to dispose of the property, but if I do, obviously, if you work with the City of Hamilton, I ve always found that they ll work with you. I said obviously, they want to make Route 4 look better than it currently looks, and if you re interested in buying this, I d be interested in selling it to you. He questioned about the back parcel being zoned residential, and I told him, well, I d certainly make an application to City Council, I said, at such time as you are going do anything with the property, I ve always found again, you work with the City of Hamilton, they ll work with you. That s the reason for my proposal and I d be more than happy to answer any questions. There are no buildings on the property? No, there are not. My original intention, and I couldn t get the approval of Chrysler, they really wanted the dealership located way out on I-75. By the time Chrysler had stubbed their toe in 2008, and I could get the clearances that I needed from Jake Sweeney and so forth, we had reached an agreement and the business really went south. I was still pretty good in Hamilton, but Chrysler suffered. I was reluctant to invest the 4 ½ or 5 million dollars that it was going to be. My original plan was to level the old Motzer building and buy up some more of the property over there and turn it into something that everybody could be proud of, but a manufacturer was not interested, at the time, in being located on Route 4. Any other questions? The second row of cars, is that also Alex s row of vehicles? Yes, it is sir. The original building kind of went back to this spot. We kind of done a little, you know, haphazard paving. I m working with Cincinnati Bell right now and we re going to take down a tree that we ve got a cable growing into. I think long term wise, although my business is no longer located in Hamilton; I have a fond spot in my heart for the City. I think the gentleman that I would anticipate selling it to will do the right thing. I told him, I said Alex, you can buy the property and I m more than willing to sell you the property right now at this point in my life. Work with the City of 4

41 Hamilton and they ll work with you. I think it will end up being more attractive and in a better spot when the Planning Department here says what their requirements are. I think he intends to build a small building and he d like that area, of course, for additional parking. It would all be paved and so forth, and landscaped. I told him to give the City a decent proposal and they ll work with you. Mr. Bowling: Mr. Werdmann: Mr. Scharf: Mr. Bowling: Mr. Scharf: Mr. Bowling: Ms. Murphy: Mr. Scharf: Mr. Bowling: Thank you. Any other questions? I have one other question; it s not directed at Mr. Smith, but just in general. I haven t been on the Planning Commission that long, but the times that I have been here when we ve had a request for zoning, there s generally a plan. Have we done anything like this when we rezone it without really knowing what s going to happen in the future? I m sure there s probably been some things in the past that we ve done this way, if you will, preemptive to a plan being submitted for actual development of a site. We probably have precedence. My memory is, as long as it was contiguous zoning, we ve done it before for empty properties with the thought that they have to come back anyway. I believe everyone knows, I don t know, but this will allow enough square footage on the lot to allow an automobile operation. If you ll recall, we recently changed the requirements for any auto along Rt. 4 that the lot had to be at least 20,000 sq. ft. for any auto business. Would that be a Conditional Use in B-2? Yes. Yes it is. Any other questions? Entertain a Motion. Motion Motion by Mr. Werdmann that City Council approves the rezoning of 1302 Long Street from R-3 One to Four Family Residence to B-2 Community Business. 2 nd by Dave Belew. Mr. Bowling: Motion and 2 nd. Any questions or comments? Call Roll please. Mr. Scharf: Mr. Belew? Response: Yes Mr. Bowling? Response: Yes Ms. Horsley? Response: Yes Mr. Moeller? Response: Yes Mr. Werdmann? Response: Yes The motion carries. 5