January 9, 2012 Meeting Minutes - Meeting cancelled.
February 6, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
Members Present: Allen Kuck, Angela Kuhn, Tom Lytle, James Page and
Jack Witte. Members absent: None. Others Present: Ray
Wood, Michelle Tippie, Joe Urenovitch, Jim Grove, Steve Gillenwater, Neil and
Annette Rupp, Mike Knisely, Bill May, Tom Jennings, Jim Stiles, Steve Lennex,
Cam Smith, John Rozic, Rob Casaletta, Jordan Daugherty-Village Administrator,
and Barbara Knisely-Community Development Coordinator.
At 7:00 pm, Tom Lytle called the meeting to order and introduced the Commission
members. Being the first meeting of the calendar year, he asked for
nominations for the election of officers. Jim Page moved to keep the
current officers; Tom Lytle as Chair, Jim Page as Vice Chair, and Allen Kuck as
Secretary. Allen Kuck seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Jack Witte moved to accept the November 7, 2011 meeting minutes. Jim Page
seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Lytle briefly went over the only agenda item, to discuss the removal of
property from the TND zoning classification as requested by Attorney Joe
Urenovitch on behalf of his clients Mr. and Mrs. Neil Rupp. Mr. Urenovitch
stated that in his original letter he was also asking for the removal of
property on behalf of JCT Enterprises and Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Chamberlain.
He now understands that JCT is represented by counsel (John Rozic) but Mr. and
Mrs. Chamberlain were not present at the meeting and do have not legal
representation. He clarified that he is only representing Mr. and Mrs.
Rupp in this matter.
Mr. Urenovitch stated that when the properties were rezoned into the TND
classification, his clients, the Rupps, were not notified and that Mr. Ray Wood
did not have the authority to act on their behalf to rezone the property.
The Rupps also feel that the TND zoning regulations are too strict and have made
it difficult for them to market and sell their property to potential buyers.
He also confirmed that the Rupp property does not have any frontage along
Whitehouse Square Boulevard and they would like it to revert back to the
original zoning classification of S-1 so that it can be marketed accordingly.
Mr. Steve Lennex, a Commercial Real Estate Broker who has had the Rupp property
listed for approximately two years stated that the TND classification was
improperly placed. He then referred to a Purchase Option Agreement (the
Village was unaware and did not have a copy) that the Rupps allegedly had with
Mr. Ray Wood/JCT Enterprises. He stated in Section 9, the Purchase Option
stated that no rezoning was to take place until a sale was completed. He
also confirmed that Mr. Ray Wood was not authorized to act on behalf of the
Rupps. He added that in his opinion Mr. and Mrs. Rupp have been damaged by
this action. He stated that several months ago they had a contract to sell
property to Dollar General and at that time weren’t aware of the TND zoning.
Mr. Lennex stated that he is familiar with TND zoning and normally that type of
zoning designation requires higher traffic counts and more roof tops to work
successfully. Neither of those items are present at this location and he
does not feel that a TND will ever work here. He feels it should revert
back to C-3 or whatever it was before the TND zoning came about.
Steve Gillenwater stated that there are some things about a TND zoning
classification that are good. In referring to Staff Report 01-2012, he
thinks Item #6 is important and agrees that the property owners should come to
an agreement with Village officials to help officiate the sale of these
properties to potential developers. He agrees that the requirements of the
TND zoning are too restrictive and make it difficult to sell property.
Chair Lytle asked Mr. Gillenwater why JCT was not requesting to remove all of
their property from the TND. Mr. Gillenwater replied that he didn’t really
care if some of the property remained but he was interested in removing the
property along the front because of the 2-story building requirement. He
agreed that the traffic counts and number of roof tops did not warrant the TND
concept. He also feels that if Chamberlain and Rupp want out of the TND
that JCT would have to be removed also because the commercial/central business
area will not work without the surrounding residential neighborhoods. He
feels that the 2-story requirement is the main problem and needs to be
revisited. He added that Whitehouse cannot be compared to the Mayberry
development in Sylvania because of the difference in population and square
miles.
Mr. Ray Wood stated that he brought this TND into existence, but unfortunately
the economy has changed. If he would have been 2 to 3 years earlier, it
would have had a better chance of being developed successfully. He still
truly believes in the concept but agrees that at this point we’re holding the
property owners hostage. He stated he didn’t understand that the 2-story
requirement was there and is not sure where the zoning code language came from,
but assumes it was taken from another community. He stated that 2-story
buildings should not be located in the front, but that 1-story buildings should
be along Route 64 with the taller buildings in the middle of the central
business district. Many national chains would be limited because of the
2-story requirement.
Chair Lytle asked Mr. Wood if he has any current contractual working arrangement
with any of the property owners at this time. Mr. Wood confirmed that he
is not currently working for the property owners in the TND.
Angela Kuhn corrected the statements made by Mr. Gillenwater concerning the
population in the Village of Whitehouse and added that the Mayberry development
is not in the City of Sylvania, but is located in Sylvania Township. She
also added that the buildings in Mayberry are all 2-story buildings
Mr. Lennex stated that he is very familiar with the Mayberry Development and
that it hasn’t exactly been a success story. Many businesses have come and
gone and he feels the problem there is the lack of an expressway. Even
Levis Commons struggles in spite of its close proximity to the expressway and
the large volume of traffic on SR 25.
Jim Page confirmed that the three property owners understand that the
requirements of the Waterville Street Overlay District will still govern the
properties that abut Waterville Street. He added that many of the same
requirements will need to be met concerning building and façade design, parking,
landscaping, etc. Mr. Urenovitch confirmed that his clients were aware of
this.
Jack Witte asked if the Rupps want to remove the property east of the creek or
only the property west of the creek. It was confirmed that the property
east of the creek is not located in the TND and is currently zoned R-3.
They are willing to leave that as is.
Mr. Page asked if it wouldn’t be easier to just take away the 2-story
requirement rather than removing the property from the TND. By doing that
it would still give them the flexibility that they need to sell the property.
Mr. Lennex stated that he would need to sit down with the Rupps to discuss that
option. He added that they are not happy about the $1.00 per square foot
parkland acquisition fee that is required in the TND.
Mr. Wood stated that every parcel in the TND has an overlying zoning
classification. He added that the $1.00 fee was to help develop the parks
in the area, since a good park system is an asset to each parcel as it is sold
and developed.
Ms. Kuhn asked Mr. Urenovitch what zoning classification he was asking for.
Mr. Urenovitch stated he would like to take it all the way back to its original
zoning classification, which he believes was S-1.
Allen Kuck asked why everyone was interested in removing the properties from the
TND instead of just removing the 2-story requirement. He asked if anyone
other than Dollar General has shown an interest in the property. Mr. Rupp
answered “no”.
Mr. Lennex stated that they are open to any suggestions but that he and his
clients, the Rupps, were not aware that the property was in a TND. They
are not opposed to removing the 2-story requirement.
Ms. Kuhn stated that she is still very concerned with the lack of a plan.
It appears that they (the owners) don’t know what they want to do with the
property. On the other hand, the Village does care what they do with it.
This is the gateway to our community. Even if the TND classification is
eliminated, we have a church and a senior village residential area that went in
believing it was a TND. These are prime pieces of property in the Village
and what goes in first affects everything else that goes in. She feels
that the property owners should blame the economy and not the zoning code.
She has very strong concerns for what happens in our community and feels that we
should have a plan in place and not be asked to change the plan every time a
developer comes along.
Mr. Kuck asked Mr. Lennex and the Rupps what is the plan for the property, what
kind of buildings or businesses are they looking for, why hasn’t it sold, is it
because of the price, traffic count, or what? Mr. Lennex answered that
they are looking for traditional retail users and they had finally found one –
Dollar General. He added that the Rupps have rights as property owners and
shouldn’t be trampled by zoning.
Steve Gillenwater stated that he has pictures from Dollar General stores in
different parts of the country and asked to show them to the Planning Commission
members. He added that JCT would like to see the 2-story requirement
removed from the zoning requirements in the TND.
Chair Lytle stated that the PC has heard from JCT Enterprises and Mr. and Mrs.
Rupp, but not the Chamberlains. In thinking back on the history of this
property, he believes Mr. Laskey originally came to the Village with a plan and
then Ray Wood came in with a totally different TND concept. Now the
Village is being asked to consider another plan. He’s unclear what the
plan is for the church and senior village, who have purchased property and
bought into the TND concept.
Mr. Witte stated that he is willing to look at the three property owners
separately and would not have a problem with removing the Rupp property from the
TND.
Joe Urenovitch stated that he, his clients, and Mr. Lennex would like to look at
the option of removing the 2-story requirement and after consideration, will get
back to the Village on a course of action.
Mr Kuck stated that he has not made a final decision yet, but feels that he
would be OK with allowing the property to go back to S-1 and each developer
would come in and request proper zoning for parcels as they are sold.
Mr. Wood stated that with everything he’s heard tonight, he agrees that if the
2-story requirement is removed it would make it much easier to sell the
properties. Mr. Lytle reminded everyone that the Waterville Street overlay
would still affect the parcels along the front.
Mr. Gillenwater asked if there were building façade requirements in the
Waterville Street Overlay District. Mr. Page confirmed that Chapters 1251
and 1252 should be read carefully by each of the property owners to familiarize
themselves with the requirements of the TND and the Waterville Street Overlay
districts.
Discussion took place as to whether national chains would be willing to change
the look of their buildings to comply with Whitehouse zoning code. Mr.
Witte added that it doesn’t have to be expensive changes, but they do have to
look nice.
Mr. Cam Smith of JCT Enterprises stated that he does not oppose the TND zoning,
but would like the 2-story requirement removed.
Mr. Witte stated that before the Planning Commission can make any decisions, Mr.
and Mrs. Rupp have to decide whether or not they want their property to remain
in the TND.
Mr. Page stated in his opinion the Village needs to make certain we know what
the underlying zoning is, what would it take to remove the 2-story requirement,
and what each of the three owners want to do with their property. He asked
staff to check with the Village Solicitor as to what steps were taken when these
properties went into the TND.
Mrs. Annette Rupp stated that they were aware of the TND category, but didn’t
know about the restrictions.
Mr. Wood stated that he does not know if the Rupps received proper notification
or not. He stated that he did meet with Mr. Rupp on several occasions and
explained the TND concept and that Ray Wood and his associates paid Mr. Rupp
$45,000 over a three year period on the Option to Purchase. He reiterated
that he explained this concept over and over again to Mr. Rupp.
Mr. Lytle asked if Mr. and Mrs. Rupp wanted time to review their options with
their attorney and real estate broker. Mr. Urenovitch confirmed that they
will return at the next Planning Commission meeting with a final decision.
Mr. Gillenwater stated that he would like to sit down with Village staff to
discuss a text amendment to allow 1-story buildings in the TND. Mr. Page
asked if they are interested in allowing both 1 and 2-story buildings, and Mr.
Gillenwater confirmed yes, either could be used and not limit it to one or the
other.
Chairman Lytle confirmed that the Planning Commission is not insisting on a TND
and they are flexible as to what the zoning should be. However, they will
insist that it be harmonious, well thought, and that the buildings all
complement each other. They are not flexible, however, in doing away with
the Waterville Street Overlay District requirements.
When asked what it takes to accomplish the removal of the 2-story requirement,
Barbara Knisely confirmed that it is a zoning text amendment and would require a
30 day publication in a local newspaper before 2 public hearings can be held,
one with the Planning Commission and one with Council. Mr. Daugherty
confirmed that it would take at least 45 days to accomplish the zoning text
amendment.
Mr. Gillenwater then questioned about the procedure for a variance to allow a
1-story building. Ms. Knisely stated a potential development and building
plan would be required for them to come in and ask for a variance. Mr.
Gillenwater confirmed that they did have a building plan and would be coming
before the next Planning Commission meeting. It was confirmed that in
order to be placed on the March 5, 2012, Agenda, all documents and the filing
fee would be required by February 24, 2012.
Jim Page made a motion to table further discussion on the TND district until
additional information is available. Jack Witte seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
With no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Jim Page moved
to adjourn the meeting and Angie Kuhn seconded the motion. Motion passed
5-0 and the meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm.
March 5, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
Members Present: Allen Kuck, Angela Kuhn, Tom Lytle, and
Jack Witte. Members absent: James Page. Others Present:
Michelle Tippie, Neil and Annette Rupp, Joe Urenovitch, Jeff Paulson, Travis
Munn, Steve Gillenwater, Steve Lennex, Bill May, Josh Hartbarger, Mike McCarthy,
Jack Hanchrow, Jordan Daugherty-Village Administrator, and Barbara
Knisely-Community Development Coordinator.
At 7:04 pm, Chair Tom Lytle called the meeting to order and introduced the
Commission members. Mr. Lytle asked if all members had reviewed the
Minutes from the February 6, 2012 meeting. He noted one correction:
Page 4, third paragraph from the bottom, change the sentence “… and explained
the TND concept and that JCT paid Mr. Rupp $45,000…” to “…and explained the TND
concept and that Ray Wood and his associates paid Mr. Rupp $45,000…”
Jack Witte moved to accept the Minutes with the correction and Allen Kuck
seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0 to accept the February 6, 2012
Minutes as corrected.
Mr. Lytle stated the first item on the Agenda was to review Chapter 1252.07
Building Requirements. During two recent prior Planning Commission
Meetings this Chapter was discussed as being too restrictive for national chains
to locate here and build in the Whitehouse Square TND. After a careful
review of the Chapter, it was suggested that 1252.07 (A) Minimum stories be
changed from “2” to “1” to allow 1-story buildings in the TND. 1252.07 (B)
should be amended to remove the following sentences: “New construction
shall provide a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the first story wall surface
in windows on walls that face a street.” and “Drive-through windows are not
permitted.”
Angela Kuhn asked Mr. Gillenwater (JCT) what the reason was for wanting the
changes to the TND chapter of the zoning code. She is concerned that the
Village is changing the entire code section to allow one tenant to build and
locate here. Mr. Gillenwater answered that the changes are not for one
tenant, but that the changes would make the entire area more marketable.
He stated that most national chains and professional offices would not build a
2-story building.
Mr. Lytle stated that he sees three options: do nothing, change the
minimum 2-story requirement to 1-story, or allow 1-story buildings in the lots
that front Waterville Street. Mr. Witte asked if they should consider
1-story buildings throughout the entire TND, or just across the lots that front
Waterville Street, with 2-story buildings in the town square (middle) section of
the TND.
Ms. Kuhn stated that if they change Chapter 1252, it changes the regulations for
any TND that would be developed in the Village, not just Whitehouse Square.
Mr. Lytle stated that they are only looking at changing 1252.07, all other
sections of the TND zoning would remain the same such as façade requirements,
lot sizes, landscaping, etc.
Allen Kuck stated that he agrees with Mr. Witte, change the 1-story requirement
along the front lots, but keep the 2-story requirement in the town square.
That way the concept is not changed. Mr. Lytle stated that he feels if the
town square requirement remains 2-story, that developers would constantly be
asking for variances to build 1-story buildings.
Jack Witte stated that he is in favor of reducing the minimum story requirement
to 1, removing the 50% window requirement on first floors, and allowing
drive-through windows. He added that any bank, fast food restaurant, or
even a pharmacy would want a drive-through window. Mr. Lytle stated that
he agrees with Mr. Witte’s comments.
Mr. Kuck stated that he is in favor of approving 1-story buildings along the
front but wants to keep the 2-story requirement in the town square (middle)
section since we don’t know which developers will want to locate there.
Mr. Lytle stated that JCT Enterprises, the owner and developer of this property,
could regulate that and feels that it should be their option to allow 1-story
buildings in the town square section if that’s what they want.
Briefly discussed the percentage of windows required and it was felt that it
should be up to the discretion of the architect and developer to approve
building designs including window locations. It was agreed that most banks
would not want 50% windows in the front of the building.
Jack Witte moved to recommend changing Chapter 1252.07 (A) to allow a minimum of
1-story buildings and 1252.07 (B) to remove the sentences “New construction
shall provide a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the first story wall surface
in windows on walls that face a street.” and “Drive-through windows are not
permitted.” Allen Kuck seconded the Motion. Motion passed 4-0.
The zoning text amendment will be set for public hearings at the May 7 PC
meeting and May 15 Council meeting. Ms. Knisely will place the required
30-day public notice in the local newspaper.
The next Agenda item was to review a preliminary site plan for new construction
of a commercial building (Dollar General). Jack Witte excused himself from
this discussion because of a possible conflict of interest. Jack Hanchrow,
representing the developer, stated that they were here to ask for variances for
the 2-story requirement and the number of parking spaces required. They
have submitted a preliminary plan for discussion purposes only. He stated
they have attempted to comply with the Waterville Street Overlay District and
the TND requirements. They are willing to build an all brick building,
with no metal panes and appropriate landscape screening for the HVAC units.
Mr. Lytle asked if they wanted to withdraw the request for the variance for the
1-story building since that will now be addressed as a zoning text amendment at
the public hearings to be scheduled in May. Mr. Hanchrow stated that they
would like to continue with the variance request as he feels it will be a
quicker way to handle this matter – without having to wait until he public
hearings are held. Mr. Lytle stated that the PC members will need to see a
final site plan before any approvals can be given. Mr. Hanchrow acknowledged
that, but right now they were just trying to get the variance for the 1-story
building before proceeding with architectural and engineering plans.
Mr. Hanchrow stated they would like to get the request for a parking variance
approved tonight also. His client, Dollar General, knows from experience
how many parking spaces they need. The required number is small, because
of the purpose of the store – shoppers are not there to stay, but shop there
because of the convenience of being able to get in, purchase what they need, and
get out in a short amount of time. Therefore, the number of parking spaces
needed is minimal at any given time.
Jeff Paulson, an engineer with Hurley & Stewart reiterated that they are only
asking for the 2 variances tonight, not site approval. The drawings
submitted are conceptual. Dollar General, from past experience with other
stores know that 30 parking spaces are enough for this size of a store, but they
have gone ahead and drawn 33 to comply as much as possible and to ask for the
smallest variance possible.
Further discussion took place on whether the parking lot and building locations
could be swapped so that the parking lot was not located in front of the
building. Mr. Hanchrow stated that flipping the building would cause
maneuverability problems for the large trucks making deliveries to the store.
He again stated that they were only looking for approval of the 2 variances at
this point, then they will proceed with final plans and specific building
requirements. They are willing to meet with Village staff to address some
of the concerns.
He stated that Dollar General has its own sign department and they will work
with us directly concerning the size and location of any signage.
Mr. Kuck asked for clarification as to the relationship of the developer and
Dollar General. Mr. Hanchrow stated that his company has built over 400
stores across the United States, but he is currently working in this area to
develop additional stores. He only develops the property and does
not manage or run the stores. The current location in Whitehouse is less
than an ideal location, are they are interested in building a new store and will
then lease it to Dollar General.
Mr. Lytle confirmed that all parties had heard the earlier discussion tonight
concerning the TND requirements and that they are willing to recommend a zoning
text amendment concerning the 2-story requirements and drive-through windows.
They are not, however, willing to change other requirements set forth in the
code and stressed that the building design requirements must be adhered to as
outlined in Staff Report 03-2012. Mr. Paulson stated they are willing to
go through the Staff Report, item by item, but feels confident that they can
address all issues with the variances. He asked if the building and
parking lot location needed a variance.
Ms. Kuhn reminded the developer that Chapter 1252.03(C) states that the majority
of parking should be in the rear and again asked why the building and lot
couldn’t be flipped. Mr. Paulson said it would create safety and access
issues. Mr. Paulson said trucks would enter the premises from the
southerly service drive, park next to the building and unload, then exit out the
northern drive. Ms. Knisely asked how they would manipulate the boulevard
area to get back out onto SR 64. Mr. Gillenwater stated that they would go
south to the round-about then head north out of Whitehouse Square Boulevard.
Mr. Lyle stated that he feels Dollar General knows how many parking spaces they
need and they would not be intentionally shorting themselves. Mr. Hanchrow
stated that the stores are aimed at being convenient and the length of the
shopping stay determines the number of spaces needed. Customers are
in-and-out quickly. Ms. Kuhn stated that the PC has already agreed to the
1-story requirement, so now the only sticking point seems to be the layout of
the building on the lot.
Allen Kuck asked about #7 in the Staff Report as far as breaking up the parking
area with landscaped islands. Mr. Paulson stated they would be willing to
go down to 30 spaces and use 3 for landscaped areas, but that would increase the
number of parking spaces are they are requesting a variance for.
Further discussion on why the building can’t be flipped took place. Mr.
Hanchrow added that the dumpsters would be screened with brick walls to match
the building. Mr. Lyle asked if the detention area had been calculated and
needs to be that large or could they gain some area to allow easier truck
maneuverability. Mr. Paulson confirmed that it had not been calculated and
they were not sure of how large it needed to be.
Bill May asked about bread, milk, and other similar deliveries during the day.
He inquired if the HVAC units could be relocated on the west side of the
building to allow the delivery doors to be located on the south (rear) of the
building, thus avoiding the turn radius issue if flipping the building and
parking lot.
Further discussion took place on the parking lot location, number of spaces, and
variances needed. Also a brief discussion on the location of the front
door. It was noted that one of the drawings that had been submitted showed
a corner entry with doors on the front and east side. Mr. Hanchrow said he
would ask if Dollar General would consider that at this location.
Mr. Lytle reminded everyone that this is the first building to locate on
Whitehouse Square at the front of the TND and this one will set the tone for
everyone else that follows. He is not in favor of granting the variance to
allow the parking in the front of the building, as this is the first thing that
people see as they turn into the TND.
Ms. Kuhn stated that she agrees with Mr. Lytle. The PC hasn’t even gotten
to the building plans as far as signs, lighting, design, etc. If we begin
by granting multiple variances from the start, why do we even have a zoning
code?
Mr. Kuck agreed, we’re already looking at 3 or 4 variances right away without
even seeing the building design, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
Mr. Lytle instructed Mr. Hanchrow and others to carefully review the Staff
Report to see what other items need addressed. He acknowledged that PC has
agreed to the 1-story minimum. Mr. Hanchrow thanked the Planning
Commission members and stated that they would be back soon to continue
discussions.
Mr. Lytle stated the next item for discussion was from Attorney Joe Urenovitch
on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Neil Rupp. Jack Witte re-joined the Planning
Commission members at this time.
Mr. Urenovitch thanked the PC members for changing the 2-story requirement to
1-story. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Rupp are desirous of removing their
property from the TND and rezoning it as C-3 or C-4. The Rupps feel that
they will be able to market the property easier with the commercial zoning
designation. They are willing to leave the property to the east of Blue
Creek as the R-3 zone, but would like to remove the property west of Blue Creek
from the TND. Mr. Urenovitch acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Rupp
understand that the property will still need to adhere to the Waterville Street
Overlay District even if it is removed from the TND and they are OK with that.
Ms. Kuhn asked what the original zoning was before being rezoned to TND.
Mr. Daugherty stated that it was annexed in as “A” and had not been given a
permanent zoning classification prior to being zoned TND. Brief discussion
took place as to who signed for the R-3 zoning change on behalf of the Rupps.
Ms. Knisely explained the time frame for the zoning text amendment – a 30-day
public notice would be placed in the local newspaper and public hearings would
be held on May 7 and May 15.
Tom Lyle moved to recommend to change the zoning of the 2 parcels owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Rupp west of Blue Creek from TND to C-3, contingent on formal
application within the required time frame as outlined above. Angie Kuhn
seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0, Witte abstained.
With no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Jack Witte
moved to adjourn the meeting and Tom Lytle seconded the motion. Motion
passed 4-0 and the meeting adjourned at 8:55 pm.
April 2, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
June 4, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
July 2, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
August 6, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
September 10, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
October 1, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
November 5, 2012 Meeting Minutes -
December 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes -