[0:00] I'd like to call this meeting the planning zoning commission 26, 2026 order. Please stand with me and for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:29] Now I'm going to administer the oath of office to two members that are re-entering and going to serve again for another term. Would you stand with me and raise your right hand? I solemnly swear. I solemnly swear that I will support Constitution of the night.

[0:47] United States, the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and the charter board ordinances for

[0:57] the City of Lovelin, and will obey the laws around,

[1:05] and will safely just charge the

[1:07] duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission for which I am about to re-enter, for which

[1:33] We're going to do roll call first, yeah, okay, yeah, um, Mr. Bateman, here, Mr.

[1:40] Wisegover, Mr. Parker, here, like to entertain a motion to elect a pro-tum to serve as chair

[1:48] this evening.

[1:48] I'll make the motion to entertainer make a motion to have the pro pro-tem chair for this evening

[1:57] second

[1:58] Mr. Wise River. Yes, Mr. Parker. Yes, Mr. Bateman. Yes

[2:04] Three-zero motion carries and that pro-tem would be Mr. Wise here. Yeah, I thought I heard you say that

[2:19] On the agenda, we have the election of officers.

[2:21] We are going to wait tonight.

[2:23] This is why I'm pro-temp for chair, because two members couldn't be here.

[2:29] Our normal chair, Mr. Redmond and Mrs. Zook, who's a new appointee.

[2:33] With that, I would ask for a motion to excuse both Mr. Redmond and Mrs. Zook for tonight's meeting.

[2:39] I move to excuse Mr. Redmond and Mrs. Zook.

[2:42] I'll second.

[2:43] Mr. Parker.

[2:44] Yes.

[2:45] Yes. Mr. Rise-Griber. Yes. Mr. Bateman. Yes.

[2:48] Or is your motion carries?

[2:51] So next on the agenda, you have the review and approval of the minutes from December 2nd.

[2:57] Any comments or corrections?

[3:02] I move to approve the minutes of the December 2nd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

[3:08] I'll second any other discussion.

[3:11] not please cover roll. Mr. Bateman. Yes. Mr. Weissgurber. Yes. Mr. Parker. Yes.

[3:18] Three zero motion carries. So next on the agenda is open forum. No one has signed up for this

[3:26] evening's meeting. So we'll move on to the new business case number 25-09 SPD number five

[3:35] revisions.

[3:39] So back in 1989, SPD number five was formed. Some history on that, basically

[3:49] SPD number five is made up primarily currently of Carrington and the lodge. As far as this is

[4:00] where this is going to be a little bit of a different type of approval process potentially.

[4:07] What we have on file here at the city is simply the Carrington site plan. That is all we currently

[4:14] have on record for SPD number five. We do not have development guidelines. So what if you

[4:22] recall, probably upwards of a year ago, the same applicant approached or came in with

[4:31] a plan for townhomes. Essentially it was like 12 townhomes at that time. It was more

[4:39] of a concept, more of an idea. There weren't any final plans developed or anything like

[4:44] that. So during that conversation, we were trying to decipher between minor and major

[4:51] kind of revisions. And based on the conversation, we decided to go back and take a good hard look

[5:00] at what the density, because that was pretty much the biggest issue or the biggest question

[5:04] was density. What is the current density of that SPD? So with the knowledge and with the amount

[5:13] of information we have here with staff, we took a look and we did basically a unit count

[5:21] And we took that, obviously, and we took that and divided it by the acreage of that current development.

[5:27] And that's approximately 11.7 acres.

[5:32] So with that said, the applicant who is here today and their engineer,

[5:39] and their advertising associates, they went back to the drawing board, they did some

[5:45] tweaks, they obtained some land, a little bit of land, and they have basically brought

[5:52] back another product which is eight townhomes composed into two buildings, which if you

[6:01] take that acreage now that they have on that development, that they're carving out which

[6:07] which is 0.772 acres, they get to about 11.1 units per acre.

[6:14] So just going back and looking at what that SPD currently is,

[6:20] obviously density looks fairly similar based on the product.

[6:24] If you look at what Carrington is and what the lodge is,

[6:27] they are similar products, they are apartment type products.

[6:33] So when this was brought to us at a staff level,

[6:36] We felt it was necessary or appropriate to bring it to planning and zoning as a potential

[6:42] revision to the SPD, with keeping in mind that the final development plans would need

[6:52] to be basically we would need to see some final development plans to be approved at the

[6:57] staff level should it be approved as a revision to the original SPD.

[7:04] other than that, that's kind of where it lies. There is some other information in there

[7:09] about what it's surrounding it. It's surrounded by light industrial, surrounded by business

[7:15] retail.

[7:18] In staff's opinion, this does fit fairly well with the surrounding landscape as far

[7:27] what's there. They have worked with the fire department on access, you know, as far as loop access

[7:33] and how the fire trucks are going to get in and out of there. I would say the plans that are

[7:39] in front of you are final development plans. We've gone over them. They've been reviewed by our

[7:46] city engineer. They are putting in underground detention to take care of the storm, storm drainage,

[7:55] So all that has been looked at and reviewed, so with that I can open up to questions myself and as I said, the applicant is here today.

[8:11] I just have a couple of questions.

[8:18] The residual, I mean, this is for the owner.

[8:22] The residual, I says, to be conven-

[8:23] Mr. Parker, can you get to the podium, just state your name and address for the record?

[8:29] Yes.

[8:30] Farub, Atmakha?

[8:34] The residual parcel, you're conveying that to somebody, oh, I mean, are you addressing the

[8:41] the building that's out front there, it would appear that you're putting

[8:44] curbs on their property. You're going to have easements and everything is

[8:51] squared away for that. Once we grant this, we're kind of

[8:54] granting yes, you can do this, and we wouldn't want the other owners not to

[9:00] come and say, hey, you can't do that. So I guess the question would be as if

[9:06] there's an access easement or access agreement, we would probably want that

[9:11] is part of a condition. I mean, I think that would be a reasonable ask that that just be part of the condition. It's not that we're going to review it from a technical standpoint, but we just want to make sure that it's there so that we kind of cut off property disputes in the future.

[9:28] So the motion could be submit that to building zoning prior to permit issuance.

[9:33] Yeah, from yeah, I know that they've been in discussions and they have permission, but yeah

[10:00] If if I can just jump in there as far as

[10:04] this will this will be a replat they will have to submit this as a replat so

[10:09] those will the easements and everything you're referencing so for example you

[10:14] also have the water main right running through there so this is going to be a

[10:18] public water main we did not we give you some history on some projects prior

[10:24] my time but blossom hill for example was done as a master meter that has that

[10:29] is unfortunately when we're in MSD's district it's not a good thing to do. MSD charges based on

[10:36] meter size. So we even though it puts more onus on the city for maintenance so anyways there will be

[10:44] a public water easement for the main obviously those easements go all the way to the to the meter itself.

[10:50] So each of these each of these town homes will be individually metered. So back to that the final

[10:56] plan will have all those easements on it so we would not sign off on a

[11:01] plan or the city manager would not sign off on a plan on my set set. And that

[11:06] would also go with the I know you I read you've also worked with the fire

[11:10] department on the term and I see that the access and how that's going to be

[11:13] maintained with the gate. Would that be in that agreement? Would that be an

[11:17] access agreement with the fire department as well? How are you going to make

[11:21] sure that that always is. The fire department reviews every development plan and then they review it

[11:30] and consult the staff and they send an approval letter. Okay. I would just suggest that if they

[11:37] send an approval letter that they make sure that that is identity. We already have. Yeah, we already

[11:44] on the same thing.

[11:49] The discussion about the drive and the private drive. The drive is a private

[11:54] drive. The connecting drive, which would be the firefighter's second entrance, again, private. Yes.

[12:03] and maintain by property owners.

[12:06] Correct.

[12:09] For if you want to talk about what the idea is for maintenance, are you going to be

[12:16] setting up an HOA on this?

[12:17] There will be an HOA set up and then all the maintenance on that private road will be

[12:24] actually taken care of the HOA on that one.

[12:27] and control the fire department that's correct.

[12:31] And there will be actually a lock gate

[12:34] where the fire department will actually have access

[12:38] in emergency cases.

[12:39] So what we're planning is there won't be like

[12:41] a everyday traffic on that one.

[12:44] There's just four emergency cases

[12:45] and then we will have a lock box, all the codes

[12:48] and everything as fire department actually suggests.

[12:51] So it won't be really heavily utilized

[12:54] to that TW, we were seeing on the plan.

[12:57] And then the follow-on of

[13:04] the property

[13:05] behind the whole firehouse there,

[13:09] the system building.

[13:10] You're going to convey that to the property

[13:12] to the rules.

[13:13] It's just a lot of success, correct?

[13:15] Yeah.

[13:15] So what?

[13:18] Either there's restrictions,

[13:19] the restrictions, what's being put on that?

[13:22] Because that becomes fundamental

[13:23] to this density calculation.

[13:26] So if that gets transferred,

[13:27] it cannot be developed in the future to have another building. Otherwise, it changes the fundamental process.

[13:36] You all can correct me if I'm wrong, but the parcel that is being that will be given to the lodge was not part of the calculation for density.

[13:45] So if you take the acreage and I confirm this, that's all I know that's true, but it's .772 is strictly the development acreage.

[13:56] It does not include that piece because I knew, you know, I know exactly what you're saying, yep, yep, but that still is a valid question.

[14:05] OK, so is there any restrictions put on that? No, no, there won't be any restrictions. So the lodge care center is just building a small wing, additional wing, a wing.

[14:22] So

[14:27] they have not so we have not seen plans on any okay, I'm gonna keep those issues

[14:32] correct correct that will have to come because the in my opinion and staff's

[14:39] opinion because we do not have sufficient records for this SPD anything that is

[14:45] done on that is undeveloped in this SPD should come before planning so correct so

[14:51] So if the lodge has plans, they need to, it needs to come in front of the place.

[14:56] of the appropriate surface and attention counts.

[15:16] On Craig Evercrombie with Evercrombie Associates, we're the civil engineer on both projects.

[15:22] So the lodge, you should be seeing, I mean, they, the architect is spoken with you in the past, we're already there, the addition. Our plans are finished.

[15:33] So you should be seeing those soon and that'll have its own detention for the wing

[15:40] addition on that plan. It's really tight I'm sure as you know. So they'll both

[15:47] have their own detention for the city standards and volumes.

[15:53] Sure. Yeah so I just

[15:56] kind of let you share what we know about that part too. They just picked up a

[16:01] zoning verification letter that I created for them, for their attorney, so it may be a while.

[16:10] We're financing, I think.

[16:15] Yeah, and really they're all going to have their own utilities, their own storm service system.

[16:23] Pretty clean from that standpoint.

[16:31] That's correct, that's correct, it's property, so it includes, this is typical height check, it includes, it includes roadway and includes all that, so it's property edge of property edge.

[16:42] So in one of the things we do, I think a little differently in the city, because we do not typically go to centerline, which

[16:51] it's typically for, like, neighborhood developments and those kind of things.

[16:57] This being a private drive, that's a different story. Right. Right. I'm fine. Right. We want a typically our codes have been passed, they don't go to centerline.

[17:11] And they're going to be writing for lots of size.

[17:16] For lots of size, correct.

[17:19] Actually, I think it goes to the curve.

[17:22] Well, it would have to be right away.

[17:23] It's either right away or center line, but yeah, right.

[17:26] Yeah, yeah.

[17:27] Which changes density, capital.

[17:30] Correct.

[17:30] Right.

[17:31] But because this is private, back to why I asked.

[17:44] No, from my standpoint, I think this is a good work

[17:49] to help give us the information we need for making this decision.

[17:53] I think it's also really fascinating to see the SPD decisions of past kind of come back to.

[18:01] I don't want to say haunt us, but in some ways it might be from staff's perspective and also for the project

[18:07] because I think it's interesting that we don't necessarily have a hard and fast rule on what to do here.

[18:14] So, I think as we look at the code rewrite as part of our, you know, another tangential topic, but one that I think this is fitting to the in front of us now is sort of an example of how the perpetuity of these SPDs can lead to, you know, ambiguity in the future.

[18:35] So, but yeah, I think that this is, you know, from a right fit standpoint. And for from the city's perspective, I think this is a good addition to that area.

[18:49] And definitely provides quality product for future residents. So I think this is, I'm glad to see that we found a path for it through trial and error.

[19:04] I guess so yeah correct really credit to I mean honestly for Rook is worked very hard on this

[19:09] Work with his engineer and I don't know if you recall what was there as far as the bill the the structure right

[19:15] It was quite an eye sore

[19:17] So this this truly I think it will be a positive project

[19:21] Well,

[19:46] that's a positive for the SPD

[19:48] So that's a win in the SPD process as a result because I think it in other circumstances

[19:54] as we might not be granted that flexible give and take.

[19:58] So again, it's a double-edged sword in some respects,

[20:02] but I appreciate that the comments.

[20:05] So this is a staff question.

[20:08] I know on some of these SPDs we get into defining the colors

[20:12] and I don't, we're not doing that here.

[20:17] And I didn't see it in, I just want to make sure that we're not.

[20:19] Now, I do think we would want to say the materials are of similar, that's just it.

[20:26] I just don't want to get into making that a decision that has to come back to what we're

[20:30] defining.

[20:30] It has to be this color or this color or this color.

[20:33] That's correct.

[20:34] So two things there.

[20:36] So number one, there aren't, back to the, there are no development guidelines that we have.

[20:41] So we don't know if there were any architectural characteristics that were called out.

[20:46] However, I do believe based on the renderings that we've seen and that we believe are going to be it is it's not

[20:53] I actually think it's a better looking product, but so I don't really want it to be the same

[20:59] I think it's actually better. So yeah, we're comfortable with that as staff level

[21:04] So from a

[21:19] I believe in our opinion and staff's opinion opinion this should be a substantial variation

[21:25] because we otherwise we technically don't we aren't required to have a final development

[21:30] plan which this is what what this is so we haven't given them final approval yet but we believe

[21:36] that they should based on the size of this development being it's not substantial but it's a

[21:42] development it should have a final development plan so we are asking the board to approve a to make

[21:49] a motion to approve a substantial variation to SBD number five. That's where I was so that's where I

[21:54] I'm going to make sure that we're all on the same page.

[22:01] Does that, does that, is that the final step,

[22:05] or does this have to be submitted?

[22:07] Okay, so that would be the analogy of it, okay.

[22:10] Correct.

[22:11] So it doesn't go back through public hearings.

[22:13] It doesn't go back to council, just plan to follow through.

[22:19] If there are other constraints that this board wants

[22:24] have staff following through on,

[22:25] and then that should be part of the motion.

[22:27] So date, if you had something that you wanted.

[22:31] I'm just going to just put on there for the plaque

[22:35] and all the easements to be included and provided on the plaque,

[22:42] which sounds like it probably is in that code to begin with.

[22:45] It is.

[22:46] So this is handled similar to any subdivision.

[22:49] So if, you know, when it comes through as a final plaque,

[22:53] It's our job at staff level to make sure all the easements are in place all the you know

[22:59] If if there's a point of ingress and egress that goes on to another property

[23:03] We better be paying attention to is there an access easement there so when we sign off on that

[23:08] We're saying all that is in place. So yes, that is our response for responsibility of staff level

[23:35] Yeah, I'm glad this is in the category that is an option, the substantial variation.

[23:43] So I did have one other question for you, which really doesn't lend a little change in

[23:50] the process here.

[23:53] For a lot of rental units, developers will develop and then transfer them out from the

[23:59] developers' ownership.

[24:00] Are you planning to retain ownership? Of course, it could be pointed to another business demand.

[24:09] It's actually not 100% decided yet, so it's actually 50-50. So there will be 8 time homes.

[24:15] The initial plan will be actually selling it, four of them. The other four will be actually

[24:21] under our management, and we already have a property management company. We are managing 82

[24:25] to tenants already and then we believe we have the skills staff and then the knowledge

[24:32] to actually just give the right thing out there and then we'll use it as a long-term

[24:40] rentals or not. That's where we are but depending on how the financials land, there might

[24:46] be some variations on it.

[24:51] I'll make a motion for approval of the application as presented for a substantial

[25:00] revision of SPD 5 with the condition that all easements and access agreements be provided

[25:08] to staff prior to plan approval.

[25:10] I'll second.

[25:17] Mr. Bateman. Yes. Mr. Weissgibbert. Mr. Parker. Yes.

[25:20] Three-zero motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

[25:27] Did you take notes?

[25:34] I think just just for clarification for everyone why we postpone the zoning code.

[25:43] We just felt that this being such such a substantial thing it would having a full house is better and I wanted with and I we know that our consultant had had a prepared presentation for infill and I wanted everyone to really have it.

[26:00] So that is the reason for it, so just want to let you know.

[26:05] where I'm at with regards to our next meetings and hopefully Mr. Redmond will be here.

[26:11] I would like to have just my personal opinion to have all the new point deals and

[26:17] every full board here to actually have appointments for chair. So

[26:31] I agree with that.

[26:32] Right. Yep. I just think it'd be good to have it. Okay.

[26:39] We have motion for adjournment.

[26:41] Thank you. Motion to adjourn. Nice meeting.

[26:42] All in favor, all right, all right. Thank you. Thank you

Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting

Transcript