Page 1 of 12 WESTLAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 2016 Present: Chairman Dan Meehan, Mark Getsay, Phil DiCarlo, Duane Van Dyke Absent: Brad Lamb Also Present: Planning Director Jim Bedell, Law Director John Wheeler, Clerk of Commissions Nicolette Sackman Discussion of agenda items and fact finding was conducted at 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Dan Meehan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. DiCarlo moved, seconded by Mr. Getsay to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 1, 2016. COUNCIL REPORT None SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE 2/9/16 Letter from the Chapparal Board re: Chapparal Cluster 2/16/16 Letter from T. Valore requesting to table Chapparal Cluster 2/26/16 Letter from R. Hegyes requesting to table Crocker Park KSE II temporary barricade 3/4/16 Letter from the Cleveland Metro Parks re: Crocker Woods Cluster 3/6/16 email from J. Monaco requesting that Travel Centers of America be tabled OLD BUSINESS Chapparal Cluster minor revision to approved Development Plan to construct 1 single family cluster home on Columbia Rd. (on Block 9 between 2445 & 2471 Columbia), PP#215-26-011, rep. T. Valore, Ward 2 Applicant requests to be tabled Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to table the Chapparal Cluster until April 18, 2016.
Crocker Park KSE II temporary barricade, Block K, Union St., PP#211-25-005, rep. R. Hegyes, Ward 5, 11/9/15 condition approval that if a tenant is not secured by January 8, 2016 an application for a permanent barricade shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their March 2016 meeting Applicant requests to be tabled Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to table the Crocker Park KSE II temporary barricade until April 18, 2016. Page 2 of 12 Ordinance 2012-115 Rezone land near Center Ridge and on Crocker, PP#217 27 001 & 217 25 002 from R-1F-80 (Single Family) to Planned Unit Development, Ward 6, ref. by council 9/20/12, tabled 9/15/15 & requested extension of time to expire 3/7/2016 Crocker Woods Cluster Preliminary Development Plan for cluster single family, PP#217 27 001 & 217 25 002, for two single family lots and 60 single family cluster homes in PUD zoning, south of Center Ridge Road and west & east of Crocker Road (the area previously known as Bretton Woods Park Subdivision Phase 4), Ward 6, tabled 12/3/12, 1/7/13, 2/13/13, 6/3/13, 9/9/13, 10/7/13, 12/2/13, 4/7/14, 10/6/14, 11/10/14, 1/12/15, 3/2/15, 4/6/15 Mr. Terry Bennett and Mr. Greg Holderness were present and reviewed the proposal. Mr. Bennett reviewed the history of Bennett Builders and that the current proposal is to rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and seek approval for the preliminary development plan for 60 cluster homes and 2 single family homes. Mr. Holderness reviewed the site, showed the layout of the proposed homes, and explained they plan to construct the homes over multiple phases. The proposed plans comply with the open space requirements for a PUD and density for cluster homes. They have been working with the city s engineer regarding storm water and drainage issues on the site. There will be a retention pond on the north end of the property. The cluster homes will be designed in the Craftman style and are detached single family clusters with up to three car garages. They anticipate the price range of the homes will be $300,000 to $400,000 with a few units in the $500,000 range. Since this is just the preliminary development plan they have not designed all of the engineering for drainage and still need to go through the approval process with the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA regarding any possible wetlands. The layout of the homes may change in the final development plan pending Army Corps of Engineers and EPA approvals but they think they have laid out the development in a manner that will address any potential issues knowing there are currently wet areas of the property. Mr. Bedell reviewed his staff memo. He explained PUD cluster zoning, instead of the conventional subdivision that is approved for this property. It allows density to be calculated
based on the square footage of the property that is on both sides of Crocker Road without the need to design a conventional single family subdivision to determine the number of units. A benefit for the community is its potential to preserve wooded property on the east side of Crocker Road, instead of that area being used for single family lots with driveways onto Crocker Road. It also provides for open space in the development that is not a requirement in conventional subdivisions. The city completed the R.E. Warner study to address citywide drainage conditions and the engineering department has proposed improvements to the drainage system based on the study s recommendations. The following residents were present and made comments to the commission: John Carbone, 29854 Sequoia Trail; Tom Frank, 29916 Sycamore Oval; and Michael Lamb, 29914 Tamarack Trail. Concerns that were expressed were: continual flooding and drainage problems; if funds have been allocated toward the city s plan to improve drainage issues; drainage needs to be fixed; a moratorium should be put in place to prohibit development until the drainage problems have been corrected; the property on the east side of Crocker Road should not be counted toward open space or density; and will there be any buffering. Discussion ensued that the city s drainage study is currently before a council committee to determine the funds that are necessary for the proposal. Both the applicant and the residents desire for the drainage problems to be resolved and the applicant has been working with the city s engineering department to address potential resolutions. Commission members reviewed the proposal questioning how many trees will be preserved. Mr. Bennett advised they wish to retain as many as possible but since this is a preliminary development plan the tree preservation plan has not been completed yet and will be part of the final development plan. Mr. Van Dyke expressed that he felt the proposal was too dense and questioned if fewer units can be built. Mr. Bennett explained they exceed the open space requirements and the number of units comply as well. Discussion ensued regarding drainage and creeks currently on the property. The proposal will include a retention basin and final engineering plans will be part of the final development plan. Mr. Holderness explained before they can design the infrastructure they need to know if they can develop the property as proposed in the preliminary development plan. It was noted that there is an approved single family subdivision that was approved as part of litigation which could be constructed. It was questioned the approval of the preliminary development plan would nullify the post litigation subdivision. Mr. Wheeler advised the court order does not effect this proposed development, as it is only related to the subdivision; therefore the subdivision plan is not negated by this preliminary development plan. It is possible that, after the permitting process regarding the wetlands and creeks is completed, the applicant may decide that fewer units may be built or that the previously court ordered subdivision should be constructed instead. Mr. Wheeler suggested a condition of approval for the preliminary development plan regarding there being no future housing allowed on the portion of the property east of Crocker Road as it is being applied to the calculations for density. The applicant expressed they are open to working with the city to resolve drainage issues on their property and the location of two single family lots may be shifted pending the results of the drainage issue and retention basin. Mr. Holderness advised that both parties (the applicant and Page 3 of 12
the adjacent residents) will want buffering and to retain as many trees as possible. He anticipates if council approves the proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan that it may take around six months to complete the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers review process. They could then submit a final development plan and possibly start construction in fall 2016 or spring 2017. Findings of Fact Ordinance 2012-115 1. The purpose of the rezoning is to establish a single-family detached residential cluster development based on density from property that is located on both sides of Crocker Road. 2. This rezoning is in accordance with the Crocker Woods Cluster preliminary development plan. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to recommend approval of Ordinance 2012-115. Findings-of-fact Crocker Woods Cluster 1. The proposal meets regulations for a residential planned unit development preliminary development plan without the need for modifications. 2. This preliminary development plan is a necessary component of Ordinance 2012-115, which is the planned unit development ordinance for this property s rezoning. 3. Refinements to this preliminary development plan are likely to be made in the development of the final development plan as a result of the Ohio EPA and Army Corp of Engineers permitting process and the applicant s development of detailed drainage, grading, tree preservation, landscaping and lighting plans. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to recommend approval of Crocker Woods Cluster with the following conditions: 1. The final development plan will address comments in Part III of the staff report. 2. Approval is subject to adoption of Ordinance 2012-115. 3. The property on the east side of Crocker Road that is used for the calculation of the allowable density shall not be developed for housing by the applicant or its successors, and that this language shall be included on the final development plat. NEW BUSINESS Ordinance 2015-155 approving the Preliminary Plan for Kings Tree Major Subdivision, ref. 2/18/16 Page 4 of 12 Canterbury Manor Subdivision No. 2 (aka Kings Tree Subdivision) Preliminary Plan, 11 lots, Center Ridge &
Newbury extension, PP# 213-23-023 & 024, rep. K. Hoffman, Ward 2 Mr. Bedell reviewed his staff memos and explained the previous Kings Tree Subdivision Preliminary Plan is being revised and renamed Canterbury Manor 2. The new plan will be for 11 lots. Three will be located on Center Ridge and eight lots will be on the extension of Newbury. Newbury will not connect to Center Ridge and will have a cul-du-sac. The plan is being redesigned as the previous Kings Tree Subdivision had a majority of lots that required modifications. This plan has a better layout where all but two of the lots conform to code requirements. It is laid out where if future land were purchased there could be a connection to Williams, which is shown in the 1985 Guide Plan as connecting to Newbury. Mr. Orley noted that he will retain ownership of the parcels on Center Ridge Road and plans to construct duplexes that he will rent. The property along Center Ridge Road is zoned multi-family so duplexes are permitted. The following residents were present and made comments: Kevin Wyman, 2652 Newbury; Neal Huber, 1990 Newbury; Lynn Eiswerth, 1825 Newbury; Leon Eiswerth 1825 Newbury; Anne Huber 1990 Newbury; Mary Ellen Kraus 25925 Williams; Don Dawson 2040 Newbury; and Jackie Dawson 2040 Newbury. Concerns that were expressed: issues with flooding and drainage in their subdivision; power outages in their subdivision; safety concerns on Newbury with additional traffic, including construction traffic; if construction traffic could be routed via a temporary access from Center Ridge rather than Newbury; why more people were not notified in addition to the 500 legal requirement; construction on Newbury was stopped many years ago; why were residents not notified during the Guide Plan update in 1985 that there could be a connection to Williams Dr.; the development should connect to Center Ridge and not to Newbury; the city needs to inspect the area as there is a lot of flooding; the previous Kings Tree Subdivision plan was preferred; storm drains have been fixed but not correctly as there are still drainage and flooding problems; what assurance do the residents have that drainage will be corrected; why was the plan revised; why have so many different plans been submitted and will there be more revisions; who will be responsible for the retention pond; that no construction vehicles or material deliveries should be allowed to use Newbury; why have rental duplexes; and complaints about property across the street on Center Ridge that is poorly maintained (not owned by the applicant) and is low income rentals. Discussion ensued that the proposed homes on Newbury will be priced between $500,000 and $600,000 with an area of 2,500 to 3,000 sq. ft. and the duplexes will be privately owned by Mr. Orley as investment property. It was explained this is a preliminary plan for the subdivision and final engineering plans are part of the final plat and not designed until that time. Preliminary engineering design indicates a dry retention basin to collect water and slowly release it over a period of 24-48 hours during weather events. Infrastructure improvements to the property will improve the drainage on this parcel and they will follow code requirements. It is possible that some construction traffic may be able to access the area via Center Ridge Road but the city s engineering department addresses construction traffic. There will be construction traffic on Newbury, which is a Page 5 of 12
public street. Typically construction equipment is brought in once and then leaves when the equipment is no longer needed. It was noted that the previously approved Kings Tree Subdivision Plan was also a preliminary plan with eight out of 12 lots that did not conform to the code in that plan s configuration. Council referred the ordinance to planning commission for further review and the applicant decided to revise the plans, which can happen with preliminary plans, to a new layout that was more in compliance with city regulations for lots. A final plat will follow once council has approved the preliminary plan and engineering details are part of that that plan, which will address fine details regarding drainage. Mr. Orley advised that there will be a homeowner s association for this new development, which will be responsible for the maintenance of the retention basin. It was noted that the developer is only responsible for the property he owns regarding drainage and that storm water will be detained on site in accordance with code requirements, but they cannot address other properties that he does not own with existing drainage problems. The developer also has the right to develop this property in a manner that is permitted per the codes of the city and what they are proposing is a permitted use. Findings-of-fact Ordinance 2015-155 1. This ordinance is in accordance with the approved Canterbury Manor No. 2 Subdivision Preliminary Development Plan. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to recommend approval of Ordinance 2015-155 (the Canterbury Manor 2 plat will replace the Kings Tree Subdivision Preliminary Plan). Findings-of-fact Canterbury Manor 2 1. Residential subdivisions are a permitted use in both the R-1F-80 and R-MF-24 districts 2. The development of this area as a residential subdivision has been identified in the City s Guide Plan since 1985. 3. The applicant is not able to connect Newbury Drive to Williams Drive, because the property necessary for doing so is not for sale and has instead provided a cul-de-sac at the south end of extended Newbury. 4. In the previous subdivision, nearly 70 percent of the lots require modifications for depth to width ratio and minimum lot depth and in this layout, there are only two lots requiring very minimal modifications that are typical for lots located at cul-de-sacs as the size, shape and topography restrict development of lots that meet the minimum standards. 5. Although a 10 modification is required for minimum depth, lot #5 has an average depth of 198. 6. The Fire Department requires a gated emergency access road extending to Center Ridge Road within an easement on private property and according to 1129.08, this is 25 wide pavement. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to recommend approval of the Canterbury Manor Subdivision No. 2 (aka Kings Tree Subdivision) Preliminary Plan with the following conditions: Page 6 of 12
1. Modification for depth to width ratio for Lot 5 of.3 and for lot 6 of.1 and for minimum lot depth for lot 5 of 10. 2. The approval is subject to comments in Part III of the staff report and approval of the final plans by the Building and Engineering Departments in compliance with the code and the ordinances of the City of Westlake; and, in the development process, should there be any changes necessitated by engineering requirements that visually alter the appearance of the development approved by the Planning Commission, the plan shall be re-submitted to the Planning Commission. Columbia Commons Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan (5 commercial lots), 25735 First St., PP#213-06-030, rep. J. Plautz, Ward 1 Mr. Plautz, engineer for the applicant, explained the proposal is to subdivide the parcel into five commercial lots. The existing green space on the parcel will be maintained as will the drive and landscaping. The drive will remain part of Parcel 3 which is the parcel where Dave and Buster s is located. Mr. Bedell reviewed his staff memo noting it has always been the property owner s intent to subdivide this property. The parcel is large enough to subdivide and retain the existing access road. He noted that Parcel 4 is an irregularly shaped lot with a long narrow strip of land adjacent to Parcel 5 that connects to a block of land that fronts First Street creating a flag lot. This is being done in order for this lot to receive benefit from existing landscaped storm water detention along the First Street frontage. Due to the flag lot shape, a modification is required. Mr. Plautz explained Parcel 4 was designed to fulfill green space requirements. If the lot line between Parcel 5 and 4 is moved north Parcel 5 becomes difficult to construct on due to the existing 30 landscape easement. Creating an odd shape for Parcel 4 eliminates that issue as more room is created on Parcel 5. Overall the buildable area for Parcels 4 and 5 are about the same size (a building cannot be built in the landscape easement). Members of the commission discussed the layout of the lots and were not comfortable with the odd flag shape for Parcel 4. There were concerns this could cause future problems. Discussion ensued on the layout, especially that of Parcels 4 and 5. They discussed if the lot can be reconfigured with Mr. Barrow (applicant) explaining what they proposed is the best use of the property and makes the lots marketable. When they developed Dave and Busters, it was their intent to not subdivide the property. Instead they had planned on leasing building sites. For that reason, the open space was Page 7 of 12
placed adjacent to the street and applied to the entire site in terms of the open space requirements and drainage. They have since decided that it makes more sense from a business perspective to subdivide the property and sell the parcels. It was determined that the applicant, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Bedell will meet to review the deed restrictions and the proposal as it relates to the future maintenance of the open space and will advise the Planning Commission regarding subdivision at the April meeting. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to table the Columbia Commons Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the April 18, 2016. 3 Palms Pizzeria & Bakery Storefront & Sign Plan, 281 Main St., PP#211-26-304, rep. R. Levitz, Ward 5 Mr. Levitz explained the proposal is for the storefront and sign plan. The storefront will have a classical but eclectic aesthetic. The doors will be fold open doors onto the patio, which will have planters, benches, patio fencing, pergola, and wood accents. The storefront is a dark brown fiber cement with white aluminum window frames. Mr. Levitz reviewed the signage, which complies with the criteria. Mr. Bedell reviewed the staff memo. Findings-of-fact Storefront 1. Secondary cladding elements include naturally weathered rough cedar wood pergola and weathered cedar plank window boxes that require a waiver from the Crocker Park Mixed-Use Area Design Guidelines. 2. The other design details are in accordance with the aforementioned design guidelines Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to recommend approval of the 3 Palms storefront with the following waivers and conditions: 1. Waiver from the Crocker Park Mixed-Use Area Design Guidelines to allow rough cut wood as a finish on the pergola and planters as presented. 2. Condition that a fire extinguisher be located near the outdoor fireplace. 3. Approval is subject to comments in Part III of the staff report and approval and of the final plans by the Building and Engineering Departments in compliance with the code and the ordinances of the City of Westlake; and, in the development process, should there be any changes necessitated by engineering requirements that visually alter the appearance of the development approved by the Planning Commission, the plan shall be re-submitted to the Planning Commission Findings-of-fact Sign plan 1. The sign plan conforms to the Crocker Sign Criteria except for a waiver on the number of secondary sign types and a waiver to allow signage on the planters. Page 8 of 12
Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to approve the 3 Palms sign plan as submitted with the following waivers: 1. Waiver to allow 1 extra secondary sign type; 2. Waiver to permit the signage on the planters as a secondary sign type. Bonefish Grill, Storefront revision, 1900 Crocker Rd., PP# 211-25-005, rep. R. Levitz, Ward 5 Mr. Levitz reviewed the proposal which is a revision to the approved plans to add LED cove lighting below the parapet of the building. This will be similar to other lighting in the area K Garage and Hyatt Place both have exterior accents lights. The lighting will be recessed behind the parapet so it will not be visible but will provide a downcast wash effect on the building walls. Mr. Bedell reviewed the staff memo noting the proposed lighting should not cause glare from the Crocker Road. Members of the commission discussed the proposal and expressed concern that this will outline the building and is primarily visible from outside of Crocker Park due to the location of this building being adjacent to Crocker Road. They realize that Crocker Park allows for features to create a special place but these features have always been internal to the development and not visible outside of Crocker Park. The lighting on the hotel is not a soft wash as was proposed and they were not necessarily in favor of this proposal as there were concerns that it would act as an LED outline of the building. The regular Westlake Sign code does not permit outline lighting of buildings or roofs for advertising purposes so they were concerned with the proposal since this building is along Crocker Road and would be visible from outside of Crocker Park. Ms. Willford, representative from Bonefish, explained this is a feature that they use at their restaurants across the country and the LED lighting can be dimmed so that it provides a soft wash. The commission required addition time to conduct individual site visits before rendering a decision. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to table Bonefish Grill to the April 18, 2016. Westlake High School, Sign Plan, 27830 Hilliard Blvd., PP#212-24-006, rep. R. Levitz, Ward 3 Mr. Levitz explained the proposal is for a monument sign in front of the high school along Hilliard Blvd. The sign is 39.18 sq. ft. with changeable copy and externally illuminated. The area is larger than what is permitted in this district but the school has over 800 of frontage so the sign was designed to be similar in size to a commercial sign. It will be setback 11 from the planned right-of-way with a landscaped planting bed around the sign. The style of the pillars and sign match architectural building features of the high school. Page 9 of 12
Mr. Bedell reviewed the staff memo noting this is a unique situation where this sign is for an institutional use in a residential district. Code limits the sign to 24 sq. ft. but the school has over 800 of frontage and a building that is 286,500 sq. ft. in area on 33 acres. Taking into account regulations for business uses that this is more similar to, 40 sq. ft. sign faces for commercial buildings with over 30,000 sq. ft. in area on more than 3 acres or with more than 800 of frontage and multiple driveway entrances is permitted. Therefore, this request seems reasonable. The sign will be externally illuminated, not internally illuminated so a condition of approval is that the illumination not exceed 10 lumens when measured 3 from center of the sign face so it is not too bright for surrounding residents. Discussion ensued that the sign is going in the same location as the previous sign that was removed during construction. All the electrical and lighting are currently in place, although the light fixtures will be replaced with ones in this proposal. The proposed Stella Dora Lilies should be replaced with the use of two Broadmoor Junipers and Rozanne Geraniums. Findings-of-fact 1. The proposal is to construct a 39.18 sq. ft., single sided, externally illuminated, nondigital changeable copy sign. 2. Institutions are typically only permitted a 24 sq. ft. sign face with not more than 8 sq. ft. of changeable copy. 3. The high school is 286,500 sq. ft. in area with over 800 of frontage on Hilliard Blvd and is on 33 acres. 4. The code does allow 40 sq. ft. sign faces for commercial buildings with over 30,000 sq. ft. in area on more than 3 acres or with more than 800 of frontage and multiple driveway entrances. 5. The high school has multiple driveway entrances. 6. The code limits the illumination to not exceed 10 lumens when measured 3 from center of the sign face. 7. Changes from an externally illuminated sign to an internally illuminated sign would require a modification from the code and approval by the Planning Commission as per Section 1223.07 of the Westlake Codified Ordinances. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to approve the proposed high school sign as presented with the following modification and conditions: 1. A modification of 15.18 sq. ft. of sign area to allow the 39.18 sq. ft. externally illuminated sign as presented. 2. Condition that the illumination to not exceed 10 lumens when measured 3 from center of the sign face. 3. That a planting bed is installed and planted around the base of the sign as presented with the use of two Broadmoor Junipers and Rozanne Geraniums in place of Stella Dora Day Lilies. 4. Any changes to the illumination of the sign face will be re-submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and action. Page 10 of 12
Travel Centers of America minor revision to Development Plan (2 light poles), 24601 Center Ridge Rd., PP#215-27- 006, rep. J. Monaco, Ward 2 Applicant requests to be tabled Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to table Travel Centers of America until April 18, 2016. TRG Development Plan (Vehicle Storage Building), 31390 Viking Parkway, PP#211-01-005, rep. P. Thornton, Ward 3 Mr. Thornton explained the proposal is to construct a vehicle storage building for four vehicles. It will be placed in the location of existing four parking spaces and will be 2,100 sq. ft. in area. The building will be a one story building setback 25 from the side property line. The material will be metal siding and pre-cast concrete panels. Mr. Bedell reviewed his staff memo noting that Beacon Westlake LLC needs to approve the plans per the Beacon Westlake Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for this property. Mr. Thornton will have an approval letter sent to the planning department. Findings-of-fact 1. Setbacks are approved in accordance with the illustration on page one of the staff report. 2. All other code requirements are met. Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to recommend approval of the TRG Development Plan for a vehicle storage building with the following conditions: 1. Beacon Westlake, LLC must approve plans in accordance with the Beacon Westlake Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for this property. 2. Approval is subject to comments in Part III of the staff report and approval of the final plans by the Building and Engineering Departments in compliance with the code and the ordinances of the City of Westlake; and, in the development process, should there be any changes necessitated by engineering requirements that visually alter the appearance of the development approved by the Planning Commission, the plan shall be re-submitted to the Planning Commission. Westlake Welcome Center Development Plan, within Crocker Park (Block J), PP#211-24-003 & 004, rep. S. Schill, Ward 5 Motion: Mr. DiCarlo moved and Mr. Getsay second to table Westlake Welcome Center until April 18, 2016. Page 11 of 12
MISCELLANEOUS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 18, 2016, in the Westlake City Hall Council Chambers. Chairman Dan Meehan Nicolette Sackman, MMC Nicolette Sackman, MMC Clerk of Commissions Approved: April 18, 2016 Page 12 of 12