Village of Lordstown Planning Commission. April 19, 2017

Transcription

1 The Lordstown Planning Commission met in regular session on at 6:00 p.m. at the Lordstown Administration Building. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tim Rech, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roll call was taken. In Attendance: Tim Rech, Chairperson Tony Schofer, Vice Chairperson Pamela Owens Arno Hill, Mayor Robert Bond, Council Member Paul Dutton, Solicitor Kellie Bordner, Planning and Zoning Administrator Denise Dugan, Planning/Zoning Clerk Also Present: D. Schrader, Highland Avenue Sue Minor, Salt Springs Road Sharyn Dietz, Hallock Young Road Tod Dietz, Hallock Young Road Ron Edwards, Elizabeth Drive Michael Bills, Salt Springs Road Dan Cuckovich, 1250 Mary Drive Rocky Natale, 6100 Tod Avenue Albert Davis, 6495 Tod Avenue Annette Davis, 6495 Tod Avenue Mike Fuchilla, 7400 Highland Avenue Don Reider, Lordstown Council Member Jeff Smith, CT Consultants Bruce Platt, Lordstown Utilities Superintendent Niki Reid, Lordstown School Board Member Terry Armstrong, Lordstown School Superintendent Rodwell King, GPD Group William Catlin, Lordstown School Board Member APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MR. RECH: Is there a motion to approve the Agenda? MR. SCHOFER: I'll make that motion. MAYOR HILL: I'll second. MR. RECH: All right -- Mr. Schofer, Mayor Hill -- all in favor, "aye". MS. OWENS: Aye. MR. SCHOFER: Aye. MAYOR HILL: Aye. MR. RECH: Aye. MR. BOND: Aye. (VOICE VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.) ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MR. RECH: All right, very good -- next thing is the Election of Officers. This is our first meeting of the new year, so we need to take care of this to, I guess, be legal. MAYOR HILL: I move we keep the same slate. Page 1 of 48

2 MR. RECH: Okay, Mr. Schofer -- are you in agreement with that? MR. SCHOFER: I am. MR. RECH: Okay, Mr. Dutton -- is that okay from a point of order? SOLICITOR DUTTON: No, you need to make a motion to nominate people so that their names are on the record and then a second and then a vote. MRS. OWENS: I nominate Tim and Tony. MAYOR HILL: Tim Rech as Chair, and Tony Schofer as Vice-Chair? MRS. OWENS: Yes, as Chair and Vice-Chair, respectfully. MAYOR HILL: I'll second that. (WHEREAS, TIM RECH WAS NOMINATED CHAIRPERSON, AND TONY SCHOFER WAS NOMINATED VICE CHAIRPERSON, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:) MR. RECH: We have a motion -- election of officers, to keep myself, as Chair; and Mr. Schofer, as Vice-Chair. We'll have the roll call for yes or no. MS. DUGAN: Pam Owens? MRS. OWENS: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Tony Schofer? MR. SCHOFER: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Arno Hill? MAYOR HILL: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Tim Rech? MR. RECH: Sure. MS. DUGAN: Robert Bond? MR. BOND: Yes. (ROLL CALL VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 14, 2016: MR. RECH: Now we get into the Approval of the Minutes of November 14th, any questions, comments? Is there a motion to approve those minutes? MAYOR HILL: I'll make that motion to approve the minutes. MR. RECH: All right, Mayor Hill -- is there a second? MRS. OWENS: I'll second. MR. RECH: Mrs. Owens seconds. All in favor of approving the minutes for November 14th? MRS. OWENS: Aye. MR. SCHOFER: Aye. MAYOR HILL: Aye. MR. RECH: Aye. MR. BOND: Aye. MR. RECH: Anybody opposed? Page 2 of 48

3 (WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD, AND VOICE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:) (VOICE VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.) PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR S REPORT: MR. RECH: Okay, now we're going to move on to the Planning and Zoning Administrator's Report. Before I do that, I'm just going to take a moment to officially welcome everybody. We have somewhat of a large group here this evening. This is, essentially, a legal proceeding. We have a court stenographer, and we have a court stenographer in training, so everybody kind of go slowly, be specific. When it comes time for participation, we're going to have you come forward, identify yourself, give your name and address, how you're pertaining to these proceedings; and hopefully, have a nice, smooth flow so everything can go good. Okay. Now, we'll move on to Planning and Zoning Administrator's report -- Kellie? MS. BORDNER: No report, Mr. Chairman. SOLICITOR S REPORT: MR. RECH: All right, thank you -- any Solicitor's Report this evening? SOLICITOR DUTTON: No report. CORRESPONDENCE: MR. RECH: Any correspondence? MS. DUGAN: No, sir. OLD BUSINESS: MR. RECH: Any Old Business? (WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:) NEW BUSINESS: 1. Site Plan Review Not Involving New Construction for Our Place Diner. The Planning Commission followed this form that follows Section of The Planning & Zoning Code: The Village of Lordstown Site Plan Review NAME: OUR PLACE DINER (Albert & Annette Davis) ADDRESS: 6493 Tod Avenue (State Route 45), Lordstown, Ohio Date of Planning Commission 6:00 PM 1. Existing zoning of the property: B-1 2. The floor plan of intended building for specific use: Family style restaurant for eat in or carry out. Attached layout of the restaurant provides an approximate space of 1371 square feet to allow for approximately 8 tables, counters, 2 restrooms, a storage area and a kitchen area. 3. Location and dimension of all off-street parking and loading areas including the number of spaces: To the south of the restaurant there is a parking area of approximately 4,624 square feet in which 12 parking spaces measuring 10' x 20' will be located, along with 1 handicap parking space measuring 12' x 20', which will be properly identified by an ADA compliant sign and ground marking. There is additional parking to the east of the restaurant in the rear parking lot measuring 120' in length, which could hold an additional 11 parking spaces at the required 10' x 20' stall size. Deliveries will be made to the rear of the building through a door leading directly into the kitchen area. Mr. and Mrs. Davis stated that they are leasing the property from Perry Property Management, LLC and that Perry Property Management, LLC will be Page 3 of 48

4 patching, coating, and sealing the parking lot areas and will also be striping the parking stalls within approximately 30 days, by no later than June 1, Location, size, height and orientation of all signs, both existing and proposed: A wall-mounted sign is proposed for both the north and south sides of the building. Both signs will be 3' x 5' in size and will identify the name of the restaurant - Our Place Diner - along with a telephone number. Applicants have been advised that they will need to obtain a permit before affixing the signs to the building. 5. Location of all streets project is fronting on: State Route 45 (Tod Avenue) to the west of the building. 6. Other information required by the Planning Commission: Mr. and Mrs. Davis stated that they moved to Lordstown with the express hope of opening this restaurant and making it a successful business venture. They hope to open as soon as possible, upon compliance with all Village and County permitting requirements and necessary health department inspections and the like. The restaurant will feature an eat in and carry out menu and will have 3 employees to start. Their hours of operation will be as follows: Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Saturday from 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM and closed on Sunday. MR. RECH: We have representatives from Our Place Diner. Would you like to step up to the microphone, sir, and introduce yourself? MR. DAVIS: Good evening. My name is Albert Davis, and my wife here is -- also is with me, Annette. MR. RECH: Welcome, Mr. Davis. Kellie, do you want to go through what's on the pink sheet, I believe? MS. BORDNER: Yes, it is on your pink sheet -- and this is, as you said, a Site Plan Review Not Involving New Construction for Our Place Diner, Albert and Annette Davis. This will be located at 6493 Tod Avenue on State Route 45. The existing zoning of the property is currently B-1. The floor plan of the intended building for a specific use is a family-style restaurant for eat in or carry out. You have, attached to your documentation, a layout of the restaurant, which provides an approximate space of 1,371 square feet to allow for approximately eight tables, counters, two restrooms, a storage area and a kitchen area. The location and dimension of all off-street parking and loading areas including the number of spaces: To the south of the restaurant, there is a parking area of approximately 4,624 square feet, in which 12 parking spaces, measuring 10' x 20', will be located, along with one handicap parking space measuring 12' x 20', which will be properly identified by an ADA compliant sign and ground marking. There is additional parking to the east of the restaurant in the rear of the parking lot, and that's measuring 120' in length, which could hold approximately 11 parking spaces at the required 10' x 20' stall size. Deliveries would be made to the rear of the building through a door that leads directly into the kitchen area. Mr. and Mrs. Davis have stated that they are leasing the property from Perry Property Management, LLC, and that Perry Property Management, LLC, will be patching and coating, sealing those parking lot areas, and they will also be striping the parking stalls, within approximately 30 days, by no later than -- I believe you said June 1st. MR. DAVIS: Yes, they actually already started. MS. BORDNER: Wonderful. The location, size, height and orientation of all signs, both existing and proposed: They have decided that they will still just use the existing sign locations that were there when it was previously a restaurant. So a wall- Page 4 of 48

5 mounted sign is proposed for both the north and the south side of the building. Both of those signs will be 3' x 5' in size and will identify the name of the restaurant -- which will simply say, "Our Place Diner," along with a telephone number; and the applicants have been advised that they will need to obtain a permit. They know that they have to get a permit before affixing the signs to the building with the Planning and Zoning Office, and they are more than happy to be compliant with that and follow all of those rules. This project is fronting on State Route 45, that's Tod Avenue to the west of the building. And the other information that you might want to know is that Mr. and Mrs. Davis stated that they moved back to Lordstown with the expressed hope of opening a restaurant and making it a successful business venture. They hope to open as soon as possible, but they also still have to comply with all Village and County permitting requirements and the necessary health department inspections and things like that. The restaurant will, as I said, feature an eat in and a carry out menu. They will have three employees to start. Their hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Saturday, from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and they will be closed on Sunday. MR. RECH: Thank you -- questions? MRS. OWENS: Just one -- when you said counters eight tables, counters and two restrooms. MR. DAVIS: There is a counter in the front that seats four people. MRS. OWENS: The one that's existing? MR. DAVIS: Yes -- well, it now exists. MRS. OWENS: All right. I didn't know -- okay, just asking. MR. DAVIS: Yes. MR. RECH: Just a question about the restrooms -- you're showing a sink in the hallway. Is there, also, I'm assuming a sink -- MR. DAVIS: It's not actually in the hallway. It's on the other side of the wall. It's a dump sink they call it for the coffee machine. MR. RECH: Okay, and you have formal sinks and whatever in the restrooms? MR. DAVIS: Oh, yeah. MR. RECH: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the restroom sink in the hall which -- MR. DAVIS: Just learned today I have to put some kind of pressure thing on there for -- so the water -- you don't get burnt. MR. RECH: Oh, okay -- some kind of regulator? MR. DAVIS: Yeah. MR. RECH: Okay -- and if I remember, Mr. Mayor, this was a restaurant a while ago? MAYOR HILL: This was a restaurant a while ago, and had a couple of different owners. MR. RECH: Okay. MAYOR HILL: And the property sat vacant for a while -- people lost it and Perry Management bought it, and now the Davis' are proposing to lease it. Page 5 of 48

6 MR. RECH: Cool. MS. BORDNER: There would be one additional thing that I would like to bring up to the Commission. This parcel is a B-1 parcel; and in a B-1 parcel, it has to be 200- foot frontage by 500-foot depth. That's what our code requires. The frontage on this parcel is not two hundred feet. So that would have made, at one point in time, the restaurant a nonconforming use of the building. The restaurant ceased to exist over a year ago. Given that it has done that, and that they're seeking to reopen it as a restaurant, same as they had in the past, this is a situation that they are not expanding the building in any way in terms of size. They're just using the existing space that was there. So pursuant to , a Site Plan is required where you have the resumption of any use that was discontinued for more than a year. So that is why -- you know, in addition to our normal businesses that would come in and seek a site plan review, that is another reason why Mr. Davis is here today; and given that he is going to continue using the building in the same way in which it has been used in the past, it essentially takes it out of that nonconforming use -- in terms of the building being a nonconforming use, the building is fine. It has always been used as a restaurant. It's going to continue being used as a restaurant, and that's pursuant to in our Code. The situation that we have here is that the parcel, itself, does not have the required 200-foot frontage. So Mr. Davis would like to seek a waiver of that requirement for this particular project. MR. RECH: Okay. Is there anybody that would like to recommend that we provide this waiver? MR. SCHOFER: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we -- SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, wait, wait. MRS. OWENS: Is there any reason we shouldn't? SOLICITOR DUTTON: You have to entertain testimony for, in favor -- and testimony against. Then you vote on any waivers or any conditions, and then you vote on the Site Plan. MR. RECH: Thank you, Mr. Dutton. Any concerns up here, first, about granting a waiver? MR. SCHOFER: No. MRS. OWENS: Uh-uh. MR. RECH: Okay, is there any public comment about this? Step up to the mic, sir, and introduce yourself, please. MR. NATALE: My name is Rocky Natale. I own the Lordstown Plaza. There are other things that also make that nonconforming. It doesn't conform to setback law, also; and setback law -- that can't be changed. That doesn't change from nonconforming to conforming. You have one year -- after one year -- and two years in Ohio Revised Code, the building has to be brought to conforming use to be able to use it for anything else, specifically, for the setback and other things involved. Plus, it went through foreclosure. It wasn't a sell. It was actually a foreclosure, which, again, it has to be brought to a conforming use. One hundred sixty feet, I think, is what you told me for setback in Ohio -- in Lordstown -- 60' setback, 100' back for Commercial property; and, you know, what you told me, there's no exception to that. So I don't know. Page 6 of 48

7 It's not a coverage. It's a usage. It's a setback usage, and you can't change that. That's how we clear out the old properties and put in new properties -- is once they're nonconforming, you can't bring them back as far as I know so -- MR. RECH: Mr. Dutton? SOLICITOR DUTTON: She did the work up on it. MR. RECH: Okay. MS. BORDNER: The required frontage from the road right-of-way is 100 feet. This is something that's already existed. So he is not seeking to relocate the building. The building has been there, and he's not seeking to move the building forward. He's not seeking to move the building back. MR. NATALE: The Ohio Revised Code says it can't be grandfathered in. MS. BORDNER: I'm talking about our Code. MR. NATALE: Your code also says it can't be grandfather in. Once it's empty for a year, has to be brought to conforming use. Side yard coverage -- it's a setback issue, and that's what has to be brought back. Sixty feet setback imposed on old properties, in my opinion, were in Lordstown; and then 100 feet back for any Commercial property after that -- one hundred sixty feet it has to be back. MS. BORDNER: It's not one hundred sixty. It's one hundred. MR. NATALE: One hundred. MS. BORDNER: One hundred feet from the road right-of-way. MR. NATALE: You did not impose a sixty feet setback in the City of Lordstown? It says, here, in your building Codes that it's sixty foot. MAYOR HILL: That's Residential. MR. NATALE: Okay. One hundred foot -- it's not even close to one hundred foot. It's two feet, three feet, six feet. It's -- you have a setback issue. It's not a coverage issue. It has to be past that point. MS. BORDNER: Our Code, Section , Projects that Require Site Plan Review States: "No permit for the construction, exterior alteration, relocation, occupancy or change in use of any building shall be given, and no existing use shall be established or expanded in floor area except in conformity with a site plan approved by the Planning Commission. Site plan review shall also be required for the resumption of any use discontinued for more than one year, or for the expansion of any existing use. Required approval includes proposals for commercial, industrial, office, multiple family residential dwelling units (4 or more), municipal, institutional, utility, fraternal or recreational purposes." MR. NATALE: So you're talking about -- MS. BORDNER: I'm sorry, in addition, "Code Section , Nonconformity for Other Than Use" states that, "A building that is conforming in use" -- in this case -- and I'll just stop right there and just say that in this case, a restaurant in a B-1 Zoning District is absolutely permitted -- "but which does not conform to the height, yard, land coverage, parking or loading space requirements of this Zoning Ordinance, shall not be considered to be nonconforming within the meaning of Section No permit shall be issued that will result in the increase of any such nonconformity." MR. NATALE: It's not a yard coverage. It's a setback -- and what you're reading in here is for renovations of a property that's nonconforming, but is being in use. Page 7 of 48

8 This actually says , it says that once it's not used for -- after a year, it must be brought to conforming use. You're reading something that has something to do with a property that's in business that's nonconforming, and it gives you -- and according to Ohio Revised Code, you need to give them provisions on how to fix a property up that's in use. It's after a year. You can't use it. It's a setback rule. It's not a yard-coverage rule. It s a setback rule, and you can't change that. What you're reading is not applicable to this property. I'm just saying. I'm only telling you. I mean you can have the paperwork here. You can -- and I feel really bad, but it's an unfair advantage to other people that have restaurants in town that are selling food in town; and if it's wrong, it's wrong; but if it's right, I apologize for the inconvenience; but as far as I know, it's wrong. It's always been wrong. It's real estate law. It's basic law. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Are you asking me? MR. RECH: Yes, I'm asking -- Kellie went through her Ordinances. SOLICITOR DUTTON: All right. When you did the workup and the investigation of this, did you -- the witness here is claiming that it's not in addition to a front footage issue that's nonconforming -- that there's a setback nonconforming for a Commercial or a Business use. Is that an issue here? MS. BORDNER: The road right-of-way on Tod Avenue varies. I believe that it is a sixty foot road right-of-way, but I would have to confirm that because it does vary. However, assuming that it does -- MR. NATALE: It's 100-foot back from that. You just told me the other day -- MS. BORDNER: Wait, first of all, I've never spoke with you about this property. (WHEREAS, THE WITNESS WAS SPEAKING FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM, AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE AND INAUDIBLE, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:) SOLICITOR DUTTON: Wait -- you left the microphone. MR. NATALE: I apologize. I'm sorry. SOLICITOR DUTTON: If you want to go back up, go back up -- MR. NATALE: All right. I m sorry. I apologize. SOLICITOR DUTTON: I'm trying to gain clarification here. So is there a setback issue that needs to be reconciled? MS. BORDNER: Yes, but I believe that it could also be waived by the Commission. SOLICITOR DUTTON: All right -- and that was the next question. MS. BORDNER: Yes. SOLICITOR DUTTON: So -- but that wasn't part of your workup on this? MS. BORDNER: No, sir. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. You are correct -- that this Commission has the ability to grant a waiver of front footage nonconformity, setback nonconformity and height nonconformity -- and frankly, anything. MS. BORDNER: Correct. Page 8 of 48

9 SOLICITOR DUTTON: And if, in fact, this Commission wishes to grant those waivers, then the nonconforming use can be restored to the use that existed beforehand, which is identical -- so you're not changing the use. So this is an area issue as opposed to a use issue; but to clarify the record, I think you need to confirm. I mean we can't just sit here. A witness gets up and says "black is white" -- and we automatically assume that's the case, and then we vote on a waiver to make black white. So I would suggest that we continue this -- or the Commission continues this. We could schedule a special meeting if need be -- to give you time to go out and confirm that there is a setback waiver. MAYOR HILL: We don't have to confirm. We know that there's a setback issue. MS. BORDNER: Yes, there is a setback issue. I can confirm that for you. It is very close. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Okay. MS. BORDNER: It is close. SOLICITOR DUTTON: All right. So if that is the case, you need to make sure that the record reflects the fact that each member of this Commission, through personal knowledge or observation. I don't know. I mean I know the Village, but I don't know it as intimately as you, individual residents, here. I would take a nose count or a survey of the Members of this Commission, and ask them if they have personal knowledge that there is a setback issue? Now you defined the setback requirement for them, and then you can stipulate that there is a setback issue, and then you could grant a second waiver if that's what you want to do -- but you're not required to grant a waiver. MR. NATALE: Can I ask a question, then? SOLICITOR DUTTON: Yes. MR. NATALE: You said there's a special meeting. Is that still open? I mean -- do we still get to discuss the legalities of that -- if you really are allowed to waive a setback? SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, they have two choices. They could have her go out and inspect the property and investigate and revise her workup; and say, "Yes, there is a setback requirement or issue, and these are the dimensions," but -- and then they would be required to continue the meeting to the next meeting, and then deal with the issue -- but I've been told, by the Mayor, that everyone on this Commission, personally -- because they live here -- many of them have lived there their entire life - - they have observed this property, and they have visualized it, and they realize that there's a setback issue. MR. NATALE: Okay. SOLICITOR DUTTON: And if that's the case, they can suspend their rules, and they can vote on that and stipulate it. You can grant a waiver -- they can grant a waiver on anything. If they don't grant a waiver, then you are right. It's a nonconforming use, and it can't be occupied for that purpose. MR. NATALE: Okay. SOLICITOR DUTTON: And a nonconforming use expires or becomes dormant if the use ceases for a period of more than one year. MR. NATALE: Okay. Page 9 of 48

10 SOLICITOR DUTTON: And there is a Section of our Code that allows the restoration of a nonconforming use. In other words, you had a barber shop. The barber dies. Two years later, it's sold -- nothing else changes, you can restore the nonconforming use as a barber shop. If you want to convert it into a bowling alley -- no, you can't. MR. NATALE: Okay, but I don't agree with that. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, you have every right not to agree, but you're not the Solicitor for the Village of Lordstown. MR. NATALE: I'm not? I didn't know that? I'm stunned. My point is that the restoration reads there is -- for businesses that are still open, the Ohio Revised Code said that you have to allow businesses that are still open to renovate so that you can't use the nonconforming use against them. So that's with the provisions that she's reading. SOLICITOR DUTTON: No, a nonconforming use is a use. It's an activity. An area variance deals with setbacks, the height of the building, things like that -- that aren't easily remedied. You can't take a building that is thirty feet, and we have a height limitation of eighteen, and chop it off. In other words, you either prohibit the use, period -- or you use reason and judgment and restore it back to the prior use. You have to separate a use variance or a use waiver, versus an area structural areawise -- and this is dealing with an area variance. There's wide discretion for them to MR. NATALE: So again, my question is -- will it be a public meeting -- the next time this comes around? SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, I don't know. It depends on what they do. They may want to vote on this tonight. MR. NATALE: But my -- the information I have about right-of-way isn't accurate -- which would put the building one hundred sixty feet back, and not a few feet back, and that being a lot bigger than just a few feet back that -- I don't want you to think it's just a few feet back but -- but the further away it is to being compliant. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, she is going to have to read into the record what the setback requirement is, and someone is going to have to stipulate up here that it doesn't meet that requirement and it doesn't meet that by more than a few inches or six feet or one hundred feet or whatever -- but they have the ability to waive. They can waive anything else. But it's their discretion -- not my discretion -- and not your discretion. MR. NATALE: I have no idea, at this point, what that means. I didn't know if you're allowed to trump Ohio Revised Code's two years. SOLICITOR DUTTON: We have our own Zoning Ordinance here. We're a Village -- not a City, and we have our own Zoning Ordinance. And it's a very good Zoning Ordinance because we have wide discretion here. MR. NATALE: Okay. MR. RECH: Okay. MS. BORDNER: If I may, Mr. Rech? MR. RECH: Yes. MS. BORDNER: If I can direct the Commission's attention to your pink packet? MR. RECH: Yes. MS. BORDNER: Okay, the second page is a very nice aerial. So you would be able to see where the center of the roadway is -- the yellow line. Page 10 of 48

11 MR. RECH: Correct. MS. BORDNER: It is my concerted belief that this is a sixty-foot road right-of-way at this location, okay? You would measure that sixty foot road right-of-way from the center of the roadway, which is a yellow line, to the restaurant -- going towards the restaurant. Once you do that, the requirement under , for B-1 Zoning, is that it be one hundred feet from the right-of-way. Obviously, you can see that it's not going to meet that. The building hasn't shifted or anything. It has been that way since as long as I can remember. Another good view for you would be -- SOLICITOR DUTTON: Well, the setback is measured from the -- not the center of the road, but the edge of the right-of-way. MS. BORDNER: No, when you start the sixty-foot road right-of-way, you start it from the center of the roadway. SOLICITOR DUTTON: The road right-of-way, but the setback requirements -- MS. BORDNER: -- starts from the edge. Yeah, where the road right-of-way ends, it would be another one hundred feet back. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Exactly. MS. BORDNER: So it would be a total of one hundred sixty feet from the center line. SOLICITOR DUTTON: Center line. MS. BORDNER: Yes, sir. SOLICITOR DUTTON: And we're dealing with one hundred feet from the edge -- which is dramatic. Yeah, it's dramatic, but you have the discretion to waive that - if you wish to do so. MS. BORDNER: Absolutely, so I'm just letting them have a visual. You guys have some visual aids, at your fingertips, if you want to use those? MR. BOND: You're saying, then, the total road right-of-way is one hundred twenty feet? MS. BORDNER: Correct. MR. BOND: Okay. MS. BORDNER: Yes, correct -- sixty foot from the center, over, and then it would have to be -- MR. BOND: -- and sixty feet this way, too. MS. BORDNER: And sixty feet on the other side -- yes, sir. MAYOR HILL: While we're talking about setbacks, how about the side yard? MS. BORDNER: The side yard setback for B-1 -- it depends upon whether or not there's residential areas on it, and there is not. So our Code only addresses the fifty foot when it's adjacent to a Residential District. So it's rather silent on that issue. You're in a Business District so they're fine on the side setback because -- SOLICITOR DUTTON: And there's no rear-yard issue here. MS. BORDNER: There certainly would not be any rear-yard issue here. MAYOR HILL: And there's no issue going to the south either. So, basically, what we have to look at is whether we would want to waive the setback of the building and also the front footage. Page 11 of 48

12 MS. BORDNER: Yes, sir. MAYOR HILL: Other than that, everything should conform providing they get everything from the Board of Health and the other entities they have to deal with. MS. BORDNER: Yes, sir. MR. DAVIS: Can I say something? If you're worried about the width of the property, I don't know if it makes a difference or not, but Perry Property owns the property next to it. They own all the way over to the BP. MAYOR HILL: We know that, but that's a different parcel. MR. DAVIS: Okay. I didn't know if that made a difference or not. MR. RECH: All right -- any other comments/testimony this evening? (WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE COMMISSION, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:) MR. RECH: Okay, hearing none -- we'll move on then. Is there a desire by anybody on the Board to move forward with a waiver -- or do we want to continue this or what is the -- MRS. OWENS: What would be the sense of continuing it? This building isn't going to change. MR. RECH: Correct -- I agree. MRS. OWENS: It has been a restaurant before. MR. RECH: Correct. MRS. OWENS: I don't know about the rest of you, but I went there when it was a restaurant. MR. BOND: Yep. MRS. OWENS: And we like to encourage business in the Village, so I don't -- and we're all aware of that not being -- the setback not being there; but at the time it was built, that wasn't an issue. MAYOR HILL: At the time it was built, it was a two-lane road. MRS. OWENS: That's what I'm saying. It wasn't an issue. SOLICITOR DUTTON: And you may not have had Zoning. MAYOR HILL: And we may not have had Zoning either so -- MRS. OWENS: No, I don't think we did at that time. MR. SCHOFER: I'll make a motion. MR. RECH: All right -- Mr. Schofer's going to make a motion. MR. SCHOFER: I'll make a motion to waive the front footage nonconformity and the setback nonconformity. SOLICITOR DUTTON: All right, there should be two votes. MRS. OWENS: Two separate? MR. SCHOFER: I would like to make a motion to waive the front footage nonconformity. MR. RECH: Front footage nonconformity -- Mr. Dutton, is that sufficient? SOLICITOR DUTTON: Yes. Page 12 of 48

13 MR. RECH: Is there a second to that motion? MRS. OWENS: I'll second it. MR. RECH: Mrs. Owens seconds -- and could we have any other discussion? (WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE COMMISSION, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:) MR. RECH: Can we have roll call on that, please. MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir -- Tim Rech? MR. RECH: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Arno Hill? MAYOR HILL: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Bob Bond? MR. BOND: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Pam Owens? MRS. OWENS: Yes. MS. DUGAN: And Tony Schofer? MR. SCHOFER: Yes. (ROLL CALL VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.) MR. RECH: Thank you. That waiver passes. Now the second waiver, then, Mr. Dutton, is dealing with the building setback, itself. MR. SCHOFER: Once again, I want to make a motion that we waive the building setback nonconformity. MR. RECH: All right, Mr. Schofer made that motion. Is there a second? MRS. OWENS: And I'll second it. MR. RECH: All right. Mrs. Owens will also second that. Any other discussion? (WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE COMMISSION, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS) -- MR. RECH: Can we have roll call on that, please, then? MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir -- Tim Rech? MR. RECH: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Arno Hill? MAYOR HILL: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Bob Bond? MR. BOND: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Pam Owens? MRS. OWENS: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Tony Schofer? MR. SCHOFER: Yes. (ROLL CALL VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, ANY; 0, ABSTAINED.) Page 13 of 48

14 MR. RECH: Okay, that waiver passes as well. Is there any other discussion about the Site Plan Review? (WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE COMMISSION, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS:) MR. RECH: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the Site Plan Review with the waivers as approved? MAYOR HILL: I'll make that motion. MR. RECH: Mayor Hill -- is there a second? MR. BOND: I'll second it. MR. RECH: Mr. Bond -- can we have a roll call on this, then, please? MS. DUGAN: Yes, sir. Tim Rech? MR. RECH: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Arno Hill? MAYOR HILL: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Bob Bond? MR. BOND: Yes. MS. DUGAN: Pam Owens? MRS. OWENS: Yes. MS. DUGAN: And Tony Schofer? MR. SCHOFER: Yes. (ROLL CALL VOTE: 5, AYE; 0, NAY; 0, ABSTAINED.) MR. RECH: Okay, that passes. Thank you. Mr. Natale, thank you for your comments. Mr. and Mrs. Davis, good luck to you in this endeavor. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Site Plan Review for the Lordstown Board of Education for Track & Soccer Complex. The Planning Commission followed this form that follows Section of The Planning & Zoning Code: The Village of Lordstown Site Plan Review Lordstown Board of Education Development Address: 6540 Tod Avenue, Parcel No , Lordstown, Ohio Administrative Office: 1824 Salt Springs Road, Lordstown Ohio Date of Planning Commission Meeting: at 6:00 PM Consulting Architect/Engineer for Applicant: GPD Group: Aaron Rodebaugh and Mike Hogston GPD Group, 520 South Main Street, Suite 5231, Akron, Ohio Total area in the development: Applicant currently reports total acres within school complex which will be subsequently dependent upon a forthcoming survey. Based upon the site plan provided, the proposed track & soccer complex is primarily located on Parcel which is acres, B-1 zoning. A future concession/storage/restroom building appears as on or over the property line between and Parcel (50 acres, R-1 zoning, and known as the school building property). A future ticket booth is on Parcel with a gate and walkway system leading to the track & Page 14 of 48

15 soccer field. The northeast portion of track encompasses some of Parcel , B-1 zoning (known as the parcel to be leased to Lordstown Lion's Club). Applicant intends to consolidate lots and subdivide portions for R-1 and B-1 usage and request a waiver of the required lot depth for the Lion's Club parcel. A new survey will be conducted, survey map and deeds provided regarding the various consolidations and subdivisions. Applicants also intend to petition for zone changes and request that the property upon which the soccer/track field will sit be zoned R-1 (Residential) and the newly created parcel at the corner of Salt Springs Road and Tod Avenue remain B-1 (Business). The approximate size of impacted area where complex will be located will be provided at a later date following survey. 2. Existing Zoning of the property: Parcel : B-1 Property to the North: Mixed: R-1 with B-2 fronting on Tod Avenue Property to the South: Mixed: R-1 with B-1 at corner of Tod Avenue and Salt Springs Road Property to the East: B-1 Property to the West: R-1 3. Public and private right-of-way and easement lines located on or adjacent to the property: Applicant reports that there are no known easements located in or around the area of the new track/soccer complex on the subject property. 4. Existing topography: Applicant reports that the site currently drains to the east and to the south. Relatively flat topography with a line of trees along the west side of Parcel and current filling on portions of the parcel due to demolition of the old school building. 5. Proposed finished grade of the development: Applicant reports that the grades will vary from existing only to accommodate the proposed soccer field (natural turf with underdrain) with a grade to a crown centered on the field as well as maintaining property track grades. The demolition plan indicates a removal of existing tree line between Parcels and Topsoil is to be placed to a 6" depth in all areas not to be paved. Smooth finished grades to meet surrounding lawn areas and ensure positive drainage. Pavement to be laid on straight, even uniform grade with a minimum of a 1% slope towards drainage collection. 6. Location of existing buildings: Existing high school is to the west/southwest of the proposed track/soccer complex and the elementary school is to the northwest. Equipment shed on Parcel will be removed. Location of proposed buildings: Upon re-surveying, consolidation and subdivision of the existing parcels and re-zoning, a ticket booth will be located at the west entrance of the track. From ticket booth, a spectator would travel through turnstiles and gating to walkway which leads to track. Spectator bleachers will also be erected on the west side of the track. A concession/storage/restroom building will be built in Phase 2 of the project and will be located on the west side of the track. Uses of existing buildings: Existing storage unit to be removed. Other existing buildings are public school buildings. Uses of proposed buildings: The ticket booth will be used for ticket sales for all track meets and soccer games. The aluminum-framed, aluminum bench seating which comprises the bleachers will be used for up to 300 spectators to sit and watch during both sporting events. Concession/storage/restroom building will be used for those purposes. Total number of buildings: In addition to existing public school buildings, there will be two potential buildings in Phase One - ticket booth and spectator Page 15 of 48

16 bleachers and at least one in Phase Two - combination concession/storage/restroom building. Dimensions (Per Building): Applicant reports that the ticket booth is 102 square feet, being 12 feet by 10 feet with a splay corner of horizontal dimensions at 6 feet by 6 feet. The bleachers are approximately 90 feet long x 12 feet wide and are elevated 48 inches above grade. The concession/storage/restrooms building to be potentially built during Phase Two will be approximately 98 feet 4 inches long x 22 feet 6 inches wide (2,212.5 square feet). Heights: The ticket booth will have a maximum height of 10 feet 4 inches to top of coping. The bleachers will be approximately 8 feet 5 inches high. The concession/storage/restroom building will have a maximum height of 15 feet 5 inches to the ridge of the pitched roof. Gross floor area: Applicant reports that gross floor area of structures is to be determined. Number of stories: Single story for each structure - ticket booth, bleachers and combined concession/storage/restrooms building. 7. Location and dimension of: Curb cuts: Applicant reports that there will be no new curb cuts associated with this project. Driving lanes: Applicant reports that as a result of a discussion with Fire Chief Travis Eastham, an additional exit will be constructed in addition to the driving lanes currently utilized for ingress and egress to the public school buildings. The proposed new exit will be to the west of the track & soccer complex and will connect Salt Springs Road to the southeast corner of the shared school parking lot to allow an additional exit for cars to depart from the facility. Off-street parking: Applicant states that there are to be no new parking stalls and that the existing school parking lot is intended to be utilized for parking for the track & soccer complex. Ingress and egress points will empty onto Salt Springs Road. Handicap parking stalls are indicated in the site plan in the southeast corner of the existing school parking lot and must be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. Regular parking stalls appear to be 9 feet wide. Striping of crosswalks will be 10 feet. (No re-striping noted for existing stalls) Loading areas: Applicant states that there will be no loading areas. Number of spaces: Applicant states there are 468 parking stalls in the existing school parking lot which will be utilized for the track & soccer complex. Angles of stalls: 90 in existing school parking lot Grades: Existing school parking lot, relatively flat. Surfacing materials: Applicant reports that the proposed track is to be an allweather rubberized material, with a grass infield to accommodate the soccer field. The viewing area is proposed to be asphalt. Aged asphalt surface in existing school parking lot. Drainage plans: Applicant states that the recent demolition of the old school may result in less "hard surface" water flow such that overall flows from the site will be reduced and therefore no detention will be needed. Storm water will be handled through a series of catch basins and track trench drains that will outlet into existing 36 feet storm line leaving the site to the south. Storm water management plan was provided to the Street Commissioner. Illumination of facilities: Applicant states that no new lighting is proposed at this time. Conduit will be run under the new track and soccer field to accommodate future field and other lighting if funds become available. The ticket booth and sidewalk will have lighting. 8. Sidewalks and other open areas: Applicant reports that the existing school parking lot is to be utilized for the complex. Sidewalk from curb is to be a 30' long and 6' wide paved area. shot put and discus areas are open spaces with Page 16 of 48

17 concrete pads. The discus pad is surrounded by a netting cage for protection and is a temporary enclosure which is attached only during track season. 9. Location of all walls, fences and buffers: Applicant states that once parcels are combined and rezoned, small, decorative entry walls will be located on either side of the entrance to the track near the ticketing booth. A fence surrounding the track and perimeter of complex will be 6 feet high, approximately 1,500 feet long. There will be a 4 feet fence between the seating area and the track and it will be approximately 485 feet long. There will also be a fence around the discus pad with a maximum height of 14 feet and it will be approximately 50 feet long. Gates: In the 6 feet high fence on the eastern side of the perimeter of the complex there is a single 4 feet wide "man" gate. In the 6 feet high fence on the southern side of the perimeter of the complex there is a single 6 feet high x 4 feet wide "man" gate. In the 6 feet high fence on the western side of the perimeter of the complex there are 2 pairs of double gates 6 feet high and 24 feet wide as well as a single 4 feet wide "man" gate and a pedestrian turnstile. In the 6 feet high fence on the northern side of the perimeter of the complex there is a single 6 feet high x 4 feet wide "man" gate. In the 4 feet high fence on the western side of the complex, there are 2 pairs of double gates 6 feet high and 24 feet wide as well as a single 4 feet wide "man" gate. 10. Location, size, height and orientation of all signs: Applicant reports that no new signs are being proposed as a part of this project. Handicap signs will be placed in the existing school parking lot in handicap area. 11. Location of all existing and proposed streets and highways: No proposed dedicated streets or highways are being created. Salt Springs Road will be the ingress and egress for traffic flow. The project fronts on Salt Springs Road to the south. Tod Avenue is located to the east of the proposed complex. 12. All existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer lines indicating pipe sizes, types and grades: Applicant states that all utilities can be found within the right of way of Tod Avenue and Salt Springs Road. Connection will be to the main sewer line on Salt Springs Road. There is an onsite sanitary system to the north of the track on the school property as well as an onsite storm sewer system to the west and south. Proposed storm sewers will be routed around the track to pick up surface water as well as maintaining a current outlet. 13. The schedule of phasing of the project: Applicant states that the Lordstown Local School District is required to phase the project due to availability of funding. Phase 1 would rely upon immediate funding and subsequent phases will rely upon future funding becoming available, perhaps in at least one-year intervals after Phase 1. Phase 1 will include a soccer field, an 8-lane track, long-jump, shot put & discus pits and a pole vault area, and all associated earthwork/grading/drainage as well as curbing, fencing, new bleacher seating for 300 people, and a ticket booth. Phase 2 would likely include a concession/storage/restrooms building, a sound system, and scoreboard. Phase 3 would likely include lighting of the soccer field and track. 14. All existing and proposed front setbacks: Existing required setbacks for B-1: Front: 100 feet from road right of way. Side: 50 feet. Rear: 50 feet. Existing required setbacks for R-1: Front: 60 feet from road right of way. Side: 10 feet. Rear: 50 feet. Proposed setbacks: Front: not stated. Side: not stated. Rear: not stated. Applicant states that parcel consolidation will be sought, along with rezoning, and any proposed set-backs will comply with R-1 zoning. Page 17 of 48

18 15. Other information required by the Planning Commission: Applicant states that upon parcel consolidation, subdivision & rezoning, the address of the track & soccer complex will be the same as the high school (1824 Salt Springs Road). Applicants are seeking to keep costs to a minimum and therefore would request a waiver of any fees associated with any Zoning Permits required through the Village. Applicants do understand that the permitting process would still need to be followed; just requesting a waiver of fees. Storm water management plan provided to Dale Grimm, Street Commissioner on March 10, Prior approval of water mains and appurtenances by the BPA: Preliminary planning form was completed and provided to the Water Department/Bruce Platt, Utility Superintendent on March 10, A portion of existing water line to be removed per the demolition plan. All proposed modifications should be completed in accordance with the Village of Lordstown water improvement standards. MR. RECH: We're going to move on now to the Site Plan Review for the Lordstown Board of Education for the Track and Soccer Complex. Go ahead and introduce yourself, Mr. Armstrong. MR. ARMSTRONG: Terry Armstrong, Superintendent of Lordstown Schools. First, I want to say -- thanks for the opportunity to be here. I was a government teacher, so I wish my government students were here tonight because that is a great exercise in democracy. I'm ready to present -- or however you want to go in order? MR. RECH: We're going to go with -- Kellie will present the Site Plan Review on the - - what do you call it -- the gray sheet? MS. BORDNER: Yes. Mr. Armstrong, this is rather long. If you want to sit down, it's okay with me. I will try to go as quickly as possible. MR. ARMSTRONG: We'll treat it like a filibuster. MS. BORDNER: All right. This is a Site Plan Review for the Lordstown Board of Education for their Track and Soccer Complex. The development address is 6540 Tod Avenue on Parcel The Administrative Offices are located at 1824 Salt Springs Road. To help you -- give you a visual as I'm speaking, probably the best one, I would say, is the one that's kind of been color coded for you in your packets. So you have the green area, being where the two school buildings are. The yellow area is the primary -- I would call the primary site of development, and the pink area is what I'm going to be referring to as the Lion's Club parcel. The total area in the development -- the applicant currently reports that there are total acres within the school complex, which will subsequently be dependent upon a forthcoming survey. They're working on another survey. Based upon the Site Plan provided, the proposed Track and Soccer Complex, as I stated, is primarily located on Parcel , which is a acre, B-1 Zoning parcel -- and that is your yellow parcel on your sheet. A future concession/storage/restroom building on their plans would be on the property line or over it a little bit and between Parcel Number and Parcel That's your green parcel, and it has 50 acres in it, and is an R-1 zoned parcel, and that's known as the school building property. Page 18 of 48

19 A future ticket booth is also proposed, and that would be on the green school building property. It would have a gate and a walkway system that would lead to the track and soccer field. The northeast portion of the track encompasses some of Parcel , which is a B-1 zoned parcel; and then again, that's your pink parcel, and that's known as the Lion's Club parcel. The applicant intends to consolidate some of these lots. They're going to consolidate them, and subdivide portions for R-1 and B-1 usage, and request a waiver of the required lot depth for the Lion's Club parcel. That parcel is currently the proper size for a B-1 zoned parcel. It's 200-foot frontage by 500' deep, but because the track comes onto that parcel a little bit, they need to move some of that back towards the frontage on Tod Avenue and regain some of that property. So they will reabsorb it into a consolidation; and therefore, the depth on that parcel will need to be less than 500' feet, and they will need a waiver for that. They also intend to petition for zone changes and request that the property, upon which the track and soccer field will sit will be zoned R-1. Mr. Armstrong will be able to speak to that a little bit better for us; and the newly-created parcel at the corner -- there will be a newly-created parcel, at the corner of Salt Springs and Tod, they're going to wish to remain B-1. Now this is all future, but they're trying to give us an overview of what their game plan is. The approximate size of the impacted area where the complex will be located, will be provided in more specificity after they do this survey. So that all being said, the existing zoning of the property where you have the yellow piece, which is the primary site, is going to be B-1. It's still B-1, and we'll see how they're going to encompass that, but I believe they're going to ask that be R-1. The property to the north is mixed. It's R-1 with a B-2 frontage on Tod Avenue. The property to the south is also mixed. It's R-1 with B-1 at the corner of Tod and Salt Springs; and the property to the east, is B-1. The property to the west is R-1. So you have a mix of zoning districts here, and that's what it currently is; and again, these will change as the petition for zone change comes in if it is the Board's pleasure to allow those zone changes. The public and private right-of-way and easement lines that are located on or adjacent to the property: The Applicant reports that there are no known easements located in or around the area of the new track/soccer complex on the subject property. The existing typography: The Applicant reports that the site currently drains to the east and to the south, which is a relatively flat typography with a line of trees along the west side of the yellow parcel, and currently filling on portions of the parcel due to demolition of the old school building. Proposed finished grade of the development: The Applicant reports that the grades will vary from existing only to accommodate the proposed soccer field, which is going to have natural turf with an underdrain, with a grade to a crown centered on the field, as well as maintaining property track grades. The demolition plan indicates the removal of the existing tree line between your yellow and green parcels, and the topsoil is going to be placed to a six-inch depth in all areas not to be paved. So it will be smooth, finished grades to meet the surrounding lawn areas and ensure positive drainage. The pavement will be laid on straight, even uniform grade, with a minimum of a one percent slope towards the drainage collection. Page 19 of 48