[0:00] skate up
[0:05] too much to alligators 9250 with
literature roof I have several questions
[0:10] regarding the
procedure that's followed
[0:15] uh it's a
affirmation I guess but I'm a little bit
[0:19] more well first of all I wonder if the
application is available
[0:25] location by the applicant
Mr research is the application available
[0:31] the answer to that I don't know either I
mean
[0:35] well I believe that this request came in
directly to a building department Mr
[0:40] Finch's office and Mr Finch made the
request to Planning Commission I'll be
[0:45] happy to have that on behalf of the
property owners
[0:49] taking the form of the Africa the
African yeah the required Africa as the
[0:56] owner of the following property the name
press and Zoning class and proposaling
[1:02] class
the vicinity of the map is there a map
[1:07] available for the area
you know it's it says it requires I
[1:13] guess that the map and the
um all the information is available at
[1:19] the application is available at the
clerk's office yes the the math if I'm
[1:24] sorry the map and the uh the property
question has been available
[1:30] um
okay then
[1:34] let me just go through a couple of
things that I need wrapped some
[1:37] affirmation on
so the application is available but I
[1:43] think if we read the application we'll
find that
[1:47] section of zoning code 1201
applies here
[1:58] it's 1201.
[2:04] I guess there's been some controversial
Mr maestros about what 1201 really
[2:08] requires and I just want to and
note was I noticed the application here
[2:12] refers to the codified origins 1201 is
requirement
[2:18] and
hopefully that's why we're having a
[2:21] public hearing
[2:25] which 1201 requires
it's part of the ordinance it's in the
[2:30] legislation you look at that it will go
on the ballot the council approves
[2:40] it seems to be the authority
this is also Charter I mean the charter
[2:44] also parents staff which provides a
Planning Commission reviewed it November
[2:48] it's been sent to council and council's
right three times I think the reason
[2:52] that I'm bringing this up is there has
been controversy if you remember over
[2:55] the years 1201 requires this no it
doesn't require that but according to
[3:00] this it does require public hearing and
okay
[3:06] just to recap of what I understand
things to do now they say the current
[3:11] map is available
[3:16] is that the current map
[3:20] I don't believe that that one actually
is but the exhibits are attached if you
[3:24] go on your iPad all the the application
the requests the maps they're all
[3:28] attached to your legislation yeah yeah
very good now I understand
[3:34] and the reason I'm bringing the map into
play
[3:37] and I'll just get
okay so you know
[3:40] a lot of delay here
according to our current map as I see it
[3:49] and the latest map I can get a hold of
is dated
[3:54] as well
but in the area
[3:58] of C5 district is what we're talking
about
[4:02] there have been 60
66
[4:05] amendments to the code
and I don't think we voted on 60 houses
[4:13] I don't believe in that
um
[4:18] there have been originally there was 44
c5s on the old map and what I want to go
[4:24] back to is the reason I think this is
important is because it appears if we're
[4:29] using a map of 66 amendments that was
never simply objected
[4:33] to people
by this procedure that you're using
[4:36] tonight
which is a public hearing invoke
[4:40] and um
[4:44] I recognize that the city five districts
in my history I'm going to share it with
[4:49] you the C5 District was recommended by
the Planning Commission in 2007.
[4:55] and they outlined the area
[5:01] it's outlined and it was prepared by
Planning Commission January 25th 2007.
[5:07] it was approved
on April the 23rd two thousand
[5:13] seven
the map of May 18 2007 has all of this
[5:19] land rezoned C5 this is all full C5 this
is all new 60 Parsons
[5:28] I can't find an ordinance I can't find a
ballot and I can find anything on Walter
[5:33] drain report that identifies these
Parcels being rezoned by ordinance
[5:40] Terry
[5:44] all I'm asking is somebody have some
information that I can't get a hold of
[5:50] them and this is the procedure as I see
it that's followed in 2000 2012 and 13
[5:56] when we rezone land these are the
procedures that are followed the
[6:02] ordinance the Supreme Court of Elections
the ordinance the parcel number and
[6:06] address is all listed
without going to do is that a ballot
[6:11] that you have well this is from the
Board of Elections yeah these are the
[6:15] ballot issues okay you can't find a
valid issue for these 66 parcels
[6:21] um
[6:25] as I said the Walter green report
[6:29] is missing those 60
certified certified ordinances certified
[6:35] by wall of Missouri
[6:38] see I've been here a long time I see you
educate me on Walter green is it
[6:43] I'm not familiar with that term
s
[6:48] my fault I apologies I thought you were
talking specifically about some sort of
[6:53] standard that's the company that's the
publication of all the codified
[6:57] arguments my mistakes
the boundary changes according to
[7:04] ordinance
and um
[7:12] um
[7:15] that's what I'm here to find out you
know if you have any information
[7:24] relating to those topics so I'm going to
refer to my law director
[7:30] and we don't have an advantages
[7:35] I can share with you what I have
okay okay
[7:43] so I just want to uh
point that out
[7:48] before we can do any rezonings
[7:56] okay
[8:00] is there anybody else you'd like to
speak in regardless to more than 1226
[8:04] 2000
winter
[8:16] 704 Harbor Glen Drive Apartment 105 here
in clintonburg Ohio
[8:26] I've done some research also on this
because the comprehensive plan has been
[8:31] a key issue of topic here in town for
the last year or so during its update
[8:36] and as I understand this property is on
C5 probably was done back in 1989 it's
[8:42] one of the original C5 commercials
the basement
[8:48] voted on by the people in other areas
this is gaydosh
[8:53] I was looking into I also don't find
that on your Maps
[8:58] um
this property has been Zone C5 and the
[9:01] comprehensive plan is listed as a
transitional piece of property
[9:07] inspector
[9:11] I do understand the concept of
transitional zoning and the intrusion of
[9:16] a C3 zoning classification into the C5
mixed juice Pittsburgh
[9:21] uh
my opinion is is
[9:27] the property owner must be aware I'm
sure of the term caveat answers
[9:32] Let the Fire beware
they purchase this property
[9:37] therefore City Council in my opinion
should reject this zoning application if
[9:43] there is to be any validity to the
recently updated comprehensive plan
[9:47] which clearly shows that is a C5 mixed
juice District
[9:52] everybody in this room that I know of
the last year and a half that's all I've
[9:56] heard about is how we're going to have
our comprehensive plan and Downtown
[10:00] Development
now we're going to intrude the C3
[10:04] District into the N35 district and bring
that commercial Corridor right now
[10:10] not only that but also moving behind our
residential area
[10:14] the residentially zoned property
directly east of that uh this gentleman
[10:18] spoke in favor of it but he has his
issues with it when the traffic noise
[10:23] and headlights additional intrusions
into their property and the quietness of
[10:28] their area that they've grown to love in
their Community is going to be an issue
[10:33] then you'll probably hear a different
story
[10:38] it could possibly lead to evaluation
issues
[10:42] if the plan is simply abandoned
for any property owner is simply take a
[10:46] quick Dollar on the sale of their
property I'm at a loss in reading all of
[10:51] the minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting to hear our economic development
[10:56] director talked about this is primarily
for the sale of the Visa property with
[11:00] the property owner never even showed up
at the Planning Commission meeting
[11:03] because it was represented by our
director of Economic Development
[11:08] planning for our community
[11:12] Property Owners never made any comments
about that
[11:16] the property owners not wish to present
his case for resorting city council to
[11:20] reject this request
my opinion it bursts out unethical for
[11:24] our director of Economic Development to
represent a property own clearly is
[11:29] doing us to make money on the sales
property he's got somebody who wants to
[11:33] buy it and wants to have it rezoned and
they can give them an offer to continue
[11:38] to the rezoning process being taken
place
[11:41] I really do believe people in this
position should number one get their own
[11:45] independent Council
[11:48] personally pays substantial salary and
benefits for this director of a planning
[11:53] and development and it should represent
the city in my opinion understand they
[11:57] can talk about planning zoning
comprehensive plans but
[12:00] in no way represent them specific
Property Owners that's their obligation
[12:04] as a property owner
the application for rezoning was not
[12:08] accompanied by any deposit of funds to
betray the city's cost in this fair was
[12:14] absorbed by the city that's on the
application which I do have a copy of
[12:18] this evening so I did a records request
on it
[12:21] since the city does not own or have any
interest in this property to my
[12:26] knowledge you authorized the waving of
these fees Council I'll find that out
[12:31] diverges on the abuse of power
who in this community has right away
[12:36] fees can we get pardon me pick this way
the same way or you know who waves these
[12:41] things
um
[12:43] and if you're going to wave it just
because somebody uh took a piece of
[12:47] property that bought it using it for
business wants to rezone it at the very
[12:52] least if you're going to do that go back
five or ten years and find out who else
[12:55] may have paid for these rezoning
application fees and refunded to them at
[13:00] least they may not feel like they were
discriminated against
[13:04] um since this resorting application was
not unanimously recommended by the
[13:08] Planning Commission
in the Planning Commission units clearly
[13:11] shows this resorting appears to be I do
politically motivated more purely for
[13:16] the profitability and sales of property
since the city council must reject this
[13:20] request or admit to the city city of
that the city of twinsburg's integrity
[13:25] and planning is for sale
controlled by politics and not our
[13:30] comprehensive plan
if you're going to do that then you have
[13:34] for instance plan I understand there's a
plan subject to change
[13:38] it's a major issue if you're going to
have any integrity and what I've heard
[13:44] the family wants to do in Downtown
Development allowing people just to push
[13:48] C3 districts in from all directions
and if you're going to allow this
[13:54] property rezone C3 and no longer be the
transitional property to C5 you're just
[14:01] pushing that off onto the next property
owner and that next property owner is
[14:05] going to be entitled to come in and say
I want my results C3 too I would do the
[14:10] same thing
I would like to also verify that the
[14:14] public hearing this evening was
advertised and that adjacent property
[14:19] owners were notified for public hearing
take somebody ought to verify that
[14:24] Iowa City Council
deny the next request for these only to
[14:29] C3 on this corridor
has to ask yourself that question
[14:33] because proper planning and
discrimination did not go well together
[14:38] thank you
[14:52] oh
[14:56] I don't want to disagree with anything
that's been said there it's his opinion
[15:01] look we moved here 12 years ago we built
a house next to McDonald's
[15:07] we're building a we have a house that's
next to a daycare center this property
[15:12] has been commercially used next to our
property
[15:20] we don't have any problems with
McDonald's we aren't going to have any
[15:23] problems with the daycare center we
aren't going to have any problems with
[15:26] what can be developed on this project
the fact of the matter is is that your
[15:31] ordinances as they stand right now
provide protection between commercial
[15:37] and residential zones and these aren't
named pamby
[15:41] protections for example Lighting on any
commercial property has to be limited to
[15:49] the lighting on that property it can't
go over to order it doesn't matter
[15:54] second
no commercial dumpster no commercial
[16:00] disposal can be within 50 feet of any
residential property next to a
[16:06] commercial Zone
third
[16:09] there are mounding and screening and
fencing and wall requirements in the
[16:16] ordinances as they exist right now
between residential and Commercial zones
[16:23] fences eight feet high in some cases
mounting four feet high I'm up to 12.
[16:30] we know what we're doing where we're
living
[16:33] and what we were doing when we bought
the property and we're confident of what
[16:37] we've seen in the past 12 years that
whether it's the city or the adjoining
[16:42] landowners they're going to do the right
thing being nice to a residential
[16:47] property so I think that some of the
concerns that were expressed might look
[16:51] good in generalities I'm dealing with
specifics that live within every day and
[16:56] I know what I've seen I know what I
experience and it's been a damn good
[17:00] experience
[17:06] speak on this topic
[17:09] Mr maestros just if I could maybe try to
clarify some of the issues that were
[17:14] raised first of all the comment was made
that this property has been sown C5
[17:18] since 1989
[17:23] and I think
um we'll have to look at this but Mrs
[17:28] gayash made mention of 60 some of my
properties that were rezoned in a period
[17:32] of time I my guess is and I'll confirm
this is that when the city adopted the
[17:38] C5 zoning designation
I want to say it's been within the last
[17:42] five to seven years that that
C5 was established and that was
[17:47] established and established in certain
downtown districts which covered my
[17:51] guess is these same 67 properties is
probably the number of properties that
[17:55] were
covered by that but prior to that we
[17:58] didn't have the mixed use designations
it was a new mixed-use designation as
[18:04] adopted by the erect Murder By The
Planning Commission went through that
[18:07] process
when that destination came
[18:11] and like I said I'll try to find out the
date but my guess is within the last
[18:17] one and this property was
designated C5 at that time so and and
[18:23] I'll check Mrs gay I should be able to
check to see if that's when that
[18:26] happened but my
my thoughts
[18:35] I would also like to mention that
although the applicant was not at the
[18:39] Planning Commission meeting that with or
attention to the law director and myself
[18:43] and discussed the sampling and the
requested company
[18:49] okay Lauren safe stock again
[18:53] respectfully disagree with your law
director I think he goes back to 1989
[18:58] you will find that C5 is always and a
limited amount of regulations existed
[19:04] the personal property is on your map
1989 is C5
[19:10] your C5 mixed use districts didn't come
along until a considerable number of
[19:15] years later and therefore I just want
the record to be clear that needs to be
[19:19] verified in the fraud record can prove
that any substantiate that the council
[19:24] so you can have all the information and
active form on this issue thank you
[19:37] The Establishment for the regulations
for the ce5 district the ordinance was
[19:43] clearly before establishing regulations
the ordinance was just to establish
[19:48] regulations not to amend the man
your resolution to the Board of
[19:52] Elections
however was altered to include the net
[19:57] so the ordinance did not provide for
amending the map the resolution said and
[20:02] the map
and the map of
[20:06] to some history where Jordan 69 was
passed I know there were five six
[20:12] Apostles of land that were rezoned based
upon that order
[20:17] Ed by the courts 69. more than 69.
000
[20:25] feet
um
[20:28] anyway it was
and another point I want to make is I
[20:34] mean you can find all this out virgin 69
was establishing the regulations for the
[20:39] C5 District we call that Gary I was in
public hearing and I said what does
[20:44] organization
[20:53] at the time they questioned it in
October for the election and that was
[20:59] told and it was a matter of fact the
bulletin leader colony and they said are
[21:04] people there
and Mr maestros and Mr Finch both
[21:08] confirmed
[21:21] and the six Parcels of freezoning you
are establishing the map
[21:27] you're certifying commands
that was the opinion that if you approve
[21:33] the Morgan 69 and the six Parcels that
were ordered by the court you are
[21:39] approving the map as proposed by the
Planning Commission it's only a proposal
[21:44] as a matter of fact I go a step further
I was even in caution by one of the
[21:49] planning
oh
[21:52] we have a voted on this we proposed it
and three weeks after we proposed a
[21:58] council published around with the zones
already there
[22:01] so I mean that was a long time ago I
didn't make an issue of it because I
[22:05] thought well we'll work it out it'll
work itself out but it's not working at
[22:10] something and
I have to be here because procedures and
[22:15] rezonings and
you know my complaints
[22:21] you get it disgruntled
development
[22:25] or get one someday we'll get one we have
currently a property that's in front of
[22:31] us with legislation we're here for a
public hearing so
[22:34] that property is currently zoned C5 do
you agree with that
[22:40] yes and Facebook has been applied for
and improved the recommended by Planning
[22:45] Commission
that it'd be put on a ballot for a
[22:49] change in zone
are we okay with that no but I guess I'm
[22:53] okay with the whole thing I don't know
one way I just feel like that's why
[22:57] we're here tonight
this Parsley was land and having public
[23:02] hearing
on this particular issue
[23:06] you're using the face map
[23:12] of a certified map
[23:17] if it's a certified map
fed certified do what you have to do but
[23:23] I'm questioning whether or not
they can be certified if it hasn't been
[23:27] adopted by
[23:30] vote
that's my only concern
[23:38] s
[23:42] if this time I'm closing the public here
of
[23:46] negative if anybody would like to speak
in the