KENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING JULY 16, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Peter Paino John Gargan Melissa Long Greg Balbierz Anthony Catalano Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Asst. Law Director Sheila Uzl Transcriptionist I. Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call: Mr. Gargan, Ms. Long, Mr. Balbierz, Mr. Paino and Mr. Catalano were present. III. Reading of the Preamble The Planning Commission operates in accordance with the provisions of the Kent City Charter, the Kent Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations, all of which establish the powers and duties of the Commission. Members of the Planning Commission are appointed by Kent City Council and serve without compensation. Certain cases such as Conditional Zoning Certificates, Special Zoning Permits, Overlay District Projects and Zoning Amendment require Public Hearings before the Planning Commission. During the Public Hearing, any person wishing to address their concerns to the Commission will be provided the opportunity. Once the Public Hearing is closed, it shall be the discretion of the Chair whether to allow any additional public comment. Cases such as Site Plan Reviews and Subdivision Projects do not require a Public Hearing. However, the Chair will allow public comment on each case as it is taken on the agenda. In each instance where the Commission receives public comments or conducts a Public Hearing, those persons wishing to address their concerns to the Commission will be required to do so under oath or positive affirmation. The oath or affirmation shall be administered to all who wish to speak at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Once a decision has been made by the Planning Commission on a case, the Case is closed for the Commission, as there is no provision to reopen a case. With the exception of cases falling under the Subdivision Code, any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City s Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the Chapter 1109 of the Zoning Code. Anyone interested in appealing a decision of the Planning Commission is advised to seek private legal counsel.
Page (2) IV. Administration of Oath None Given V. Correspondence None VI. VII. Old Business None New Business A. PC13-012 CITY OF KENT Zoning Code Text Amendment Chapter 1167 - Site Access, Parking & Loading The applicant is seeking a review of the proposed zoning code text amendment to Chapter 1167 to amend the number of required parking spaces and to clarify other elements of this chapter. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone stated that the commissioners did not receive the parking information in their packet because there was a breakdown in communication so it was not prepared. She requested that this discussion be tabled until the next meeting which will be August 6, 2013. She said the Tattoo Place on Water Street will return at this meeting also because the applicant has not complied with the motion and conditions approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gargan moved to table Case PC13-012, City of Kent, Zoning Code Text Amendment, Chapter 1167 Site Access, Parking & Loading, until the August 6, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paino. The motion carried 5 0. B. PC13-013 CITY OF KENT Zoning Code Text Amendment Chapter 1168 Landscape, Buffering & Screening The applicant is seeking review of the proposed language to add Chapter 1168 entitled Landscaping, Buffering and Screening to the City of Kent Zoning code.
Page (3) PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone stated that the commission has discussed the lack of a landscape code so a section has been drafted for review. This is the beginning stages of discussion so no decision has to be made tonight if the commissioners had other comments or wanted to add something or take other items out. She said staff drafted a Unified Development Code several years ago so this is the Landscape and Buffering section from that document. All the information on trees will be found in Chapter 169 where it refers to the Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) which can be changed and updated as needed. Chapter 169 covers everything about trees and they are not asking for any changes in that chapter because that is not actually in the zoning code. She said the staff is asking the Planning Commission if they want any changes or for comments on the Landscape and Buffering section. Mr. Fink gave credit to the Community Development staff for putting this document together. He said they would appreciate comments and input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Gargan stated it was good but there was too much detail so he would defer to others with more expertise. Ms. Long asked if anything was changed in Chapter 1168. Ms. Barone responded no. It is a brand new chapter so they started from scratch. Ms. Long stated that a lot of thought had been given in preparing this document. She found no problem with it. Mr. Balbierz stated he was impressed with the document and that it was good. He said the City of Kent needs this and it is good for the City of Kent. He said he was glad to see the Landscaping Plan separate. He quoted Section 1168.03(A): A separate detailed Landscaping Plan shall be submitted for any property to which this Chapter applies as part of the Site Plan or Development Plan review process. He asked how often the Urban Forestry Management Plan might be changed or updated. Ms. Barone replied staff does not anticipate changes in this plan. They look at this document as more or less what type of landscaping is required under certain circumstances, where it goes and how it is planted. Mr. Paino asked how this translates into the site plan reviews that the Planning Commission is going to be doing. He asked how this would impact some of the projects that the Planning Commission has seen in the last three or four years.
Page (4) He would like to work on this over the next couple of weeks if he could. He would like to do an exercise to determine what an applicant would be required to do and how this document might have changed the look of what went on for one of the cases the Planning Commission had seen. Doing this exercise might be a way for the Planning Commission to visualize how this document might change what went on at the site. This might be a way for the Planning Commission to visualize what it would do for the commission. It might do a lot or it might not do anything. He said that would be the only way he could get a good grip on the plan. He said he was having a hard time with the plan without applying it to a project that the Planning Commission has seen. He referred to Chapter 1168.03(A)(a) that states the applicant shall furnish a detailed Landscaping Plan prepared by a landscape architect in the State of Ohio and said this might be redundant but again it might not be. He was not sure how the license worked but thought a landscape architect from Michigan that was registered in Ohio could submit a detailed Landscaping Plan. He referred to Chapter 1168.03(B)(12), he asked if the location and description of any and all storm water management or low impact development used in site design would come under Engineering. Ms. Barone stated that rain gardens would be planned. Mr. Paino replied he could see that but storm water could be a part of the landscaping plan. Ms. Barone stated that trees should not be planted over storm water pipes even if it is a private development so that roots do not get into the pipes. Mr. Paino confirmed that it means that everything is located so they can be found. Ms. Barone agreed. Mr. Paino referred to Chapter 1168.06(A)(5), Landscaping Materials and Installation Standards, and asked if there was going to be a minimum size requirement for trees. Ms. Barone replied that was in the tree section of the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr. Gargan stated that the minimum and maximum height of a shrub is referred to in the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr. Paino asked if staff would refer to the landscape code to determine the requirements for trees and buffering in residential and industrial areas. Mr. Fink stated he would check to see if there is a minimum tree size for private developers.
Page (5) Mr. Paino stated he calculated the number of trees required for a parking lot based on its size and number of parking spaces. Ms. Barone suggested going into more detail and spelling out the number of trees required. Mr. Paino asked how street trees required and landscaping trees required were differentiated. He asked if there was a difference. Ms. Barone replied a street tree cannot be cut down without asking the city. Ms. Long asked who owned the parking lot behind Huntington National Bank and Pufferbelly Restaurant. She said it is gravel now and full of holes. Ms. Barone replied the City of Kent owns it but has not had it for that long. Ms. Long asked if any improvement would have to go under the Landscaping Plan. Ms. Barone stated that lot is fairly small. It may fall under a minor site plan review. Ms. Long stated that this is in the downtown area so the Planning Commission should be able to use the landscaping plan to make the area look a little greener with trees. Ms. Barone stated that just because a site might fall under the minor site plan review which is done by staff, it would not exempt anyone from following the Landscape Plan. Mr. Fink agreed. Mr. Gargan stated that an applicant would still have to submit a Landscape Plan for a minor site plan review. Mr. Balbierz agreed with Ms. Long that this area downtown would be one of the first areas that should be improved with quality landscaping. Mr. Fink stated that the City of Kent as well as the County would have to abide by the Landscape Plan. Mr. Paino referred to Chapter 1168.02(B)(3), Applicability, and asked what any new land use means. Does that mean a change of use? Mr. Fink replied yes. It would be a change in use, if it is being used as residential and then being changed to retail. It would not be a change of use if it went from retail to
Page (6) retail or commercial use to commercial. He said the Landscaping Plan might be triggered if the applicant was going to do something to the building. Mr. Paino referred to Chapter 1168.02(B)(4), he asked if a business like Klaben was not liable under the Landscape Plan because they did not expand anything. He asked if there was a change in use there. Mr. Fink replied no. It went from commercial to commercial. He said the Planning Commission might want to make that more precise so it states type of commercial to type of commercial. The space requirement might have to be considered if a site went from two parcels to one parcel. Mr. Catalano stated he would like to see how the Landscape Plan would apply. Ms. Long agreed with Mr. Catalano; especially how it would work in the downtown area. She asked if the parking lot behind Huntington National Bank was ever reconfigured, restriped or resurfaced could the owners be asked for a plan regarding plantings or green space. It would not be a change but just a reconfiguration of something. Mr. Fink replied that would not trigger this code the way it is written right now. Ms. Long asked how it could be triggered. Mr. Paino stated more parking spaces could be added. Mr. Balbierz stated there is parking committee who has started to touch on such items as well as green space in the downtown area. He said April, May, October and November are the recommended planting times. Mr. Paino stated it was good start. Ms. Barone recommended that the Planning Commission table this item. Mr. Gargan moved to table Case PC13-013, City of Kent, Zoning Code Text Change Chapter 1168 Landscape, Buffering & Screening, until the August 20, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. Mr. Balbierz recommended that the staff look at the quality of the schematics and drawings that are added to the Urban Forestry Management Plan. He said there was some confusion that could be taking care of by renaming some of the exhibits.
Page (7) Mr. Fink stated that is actually outside of the Planning Commission s jurisdiction. The Planning Commission has no say about Chapter 169; that would go through Kent City Council. Ms. Barone stated she could notify the City Arborist about of the confusion. Mr. Fink stated that the Urban Forestry Management Plan is already on the books. He understood the confusion but it is the Kent City Council s responsibility. VOTE: The motion carried 5 0. C. PC13-014 City of Kent Zoning Code Text Amendment Chapter 1103 - Temporary Structure The applicant is seeking review of the proposed amendments to Section 1103.03 to clarify allowable timeframe for Temporary Structures in the Kent City Zoning Code PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Barone stated there is a situation where a property owner is calling something a temporary structure and technically it might be, but there needs to be clarification on the definition of Temporary Structure and the allowable timeframe. She said it could be simple or could go into more detail. Mr. Fink stated that a seven day time limit was added to the code but it is hard to enforce the way the definition is written now. He said Ms. Barone did the original research and came up with a thorough chapter from Hudson that the City of Kent could borrow from. He said they need to modify the City of Kent s current definition. It could either be a simple definition or change it to a more in depth one. He said the City needs a definition that could be more readily enforced if the City goes to court with this situation. Mr. Gargan gave the example of Portage Community Bank who sets up a temporary tent for the month of July and serves hot dogs on Friday. Mr. Fink stated that the tents put up every semester for book buy backs are temporary structures. Some trailers for businesses or sales are used as temporary structures. There is a safety concern about a temporary structure designated as a smoking area that has been put up outside a restaurant because the patrons have to have easy access from the restaurant in case of emergency. He said currently a temporary structure does not require anything from the City. He said all the tents put up for Heritage Festival Day or the wine
Page (8) festival are temporary structures. He said temporary structures are put up to sell Christmas trees. Ms. Long asked if the staff felt that increasing the time limit to 14 days would take care of what is already put up in the City of Kent. Mr. Gargan stated that Portage Bank is in violation of the code. Mr. Fink stated that a person could apply for a variance from that code provision or the time could be increased for the time a temporary structure could be put up. Ms. Long asked how people would know that they have to apply for a variance. Ms. Barone replied that people have to go through the Building Department, if they have electric. Mr. Balbierz asked if the City Of Kent could take some aspects of Hudson s definition for the City of Kent. Ms. Barone stated she was not sure how this works for Hudson because although she is on the Hudson Planning Commission, this does not come before them. She does not know how well works. Mr. Balbierz stated it might be a good idea to add this language for some of the uses that occur frequently such as Christmas tree sales or church uses. Ms. Barone responded there has not been a problem with any of them. The one situation that arose was because of a safety issue because the parking lot was blocked. Mr. Fink stated that no one has ever complained to him about a temporary structure. The only reason this issue has arisen is because of an isolated situation so they are trying to figure the best approach. Mr. Paino stated some people put up a temporary structure to put their boats or cars underneath them. Mr. Balbierz stated he has seen a temporary structure connected to a mobile home used as a carport. Ms. Long asked about the temporary trailer on the CVS site. Ms. Barone replied that was part of the site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission.
Page (9) Mr. Balbierz suggested tabling this case or having the staff tweak it. Ms. Barone asked how the Planning Commission wanted to go. Did they want to tweak the definition or did they want to come up with a section that delineates different types of structures or different type of temporary uses. Mr. Paino asked if sheds are considered temporary structures. Ms. Barone stated that a person must obtain a zoning permit for a shed. Mr. Gargan stated that most people use a shed to store outdoor equipment and do not look at as a temporary structure. Mr. Balbierz stated the Planning Commission might want to take more time to review holiday sales, seasonal sales and special events. H said it might be a good idea to take a look at two or three of Hudson s subsections. Mr. Gargan stated he did not want to put a lot of work into a problem that really does not exist. Mr. Paino agreed with that statement. Mr. Fink stated that the City of Kent City s zoning code does have a definition of temporary structures and one for structure also, which perhaps should be changed to permanent structure. Structures include, but not limited to, buildings, mobile homes, swimming pools, sheds, garages, basketball courts, basketball poles, hoops, tennis courts, benches, flag poles, walls, billboards and signs. Mr. Balbierz asked if they needed the term of a temporary permit to not exceed three weeks. He asked if the City of Kent was approaching this situation with the school book sales. Mr. Fink replied the book sales people are in and out in less than ten days. If the staff received a complaint, it would be hard to enforcing it with what is in the code now. A simple definition is needed but something that is more enforceable. He asked that this case be tabled until the August 6, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Balbierz moved to table Case PC13-014, City of Kent, Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 1103.03 Temporary Structures, until the August 6, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gargan. The motion carried 5 0.
Page (10) VIII. MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2013 Regular Meeting May 28, 2013 Special Joint Meeting June 4, 2013 Regular Meeting June 18, 2013 Regular Meeting Mr. Gargan moved to approve the May 21, 2013 regular meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Balbierz. The motion carried 3 0. [Mr. Paino & Ms. Long abstained] Mr. Paino moved to approve the May 28, 2013 Special Joint meeting minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gargan. The motion carried 4 0. [Ms. Long abstained] Mr. Balbierz moved to approve the June 4, 2013 regular meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. The motion carried 5 0. Mr. Gargan moved to approve the June 18, 2013 regular meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Long. The motion carried 3 0. [Mr. Paino & Mr. Catalano abstained] IX. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Barone stated that staff will wait to work on the next set of zoning code updates until after the first of the year because there has been so much information reviewed with everything that has come before the Planning Commission. A section on the Architectural Review Board will be coming before the Planning Commission for a public hearing after Ms. Susel, Community Development Director, and Jim Silver, City of Kent Law Director, have discussed it with Kent City Council. She said the Maplebrook project will be coming back before the Planning Commission to discuss park fees. The plat for Lake of Franklin Mills that was approved has to be signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Commission so she asked them to come into the office to sign it. Mr. Fink stated that the court has not issued any ruling on the Wells-Sherman house. X. Adjournment Mr. Gargan moved to adjourn. Ms. Long seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.