Union City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
 
Fourth Quarter 1999
 
Oct. 19, 1999, Meeting Minutes
Nov. 9, 1999, Meeting Minutes
 

Oct. 19, 1999

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Members Present:
Dale Shields
Mayor Packard
Lynn Thomas-Roth
Glynn Marsh
City Staff Members Present:
John Applegate
Denise Winemiller

Mr. Shields called the planning commission meeting to order and attendance was taken.
1. Mr. Shields asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes from the July 13, 1999 planning commission meeting. There were none so Mayor Packard moved that the minutes be approved. Mr. Marsh seconded the motion. Mrs. Thomas-Roth abstained, the other commission members voted for the motion and the minutes of the July 13, 1999 planning commission meeting was approved.
2. 99-14 - Discussion and action on application for the final plat approval for Concord Meadows.
This is for the approval of Section 1 of Concord Meadows, a 66 acre tract. In April, 1999, the preliminary plat was approved (99-09).
Mr. Applegate has reviewed this and a few corrections have been made, like the size of the water line is now 12 inches all the way through the development. Woolpert is still in the process of reviewing the plans and they are pleased with the development plan so far.
The layout and record plan was available for the planning commission to look at. Mr. Applegate asked if anyone wanted to make comments about the development.
 
Sam Knobler, the developer, said they were excited about continuing their work in Union and wanted to start another investment into the community. Union Ridge is almost completed with only thirty lots remaining to be sold.
Mr. Knobler said they would be spending about $45,000 on entrance features with walls, lighting, landscaping and irrigation. He had obtained easements from existing property owners and wanted to create an attraction for the traffic that goes by.
Mr. Knobler said that Balsbaugh Excavating was the contractor and would be doing some work out there this winter.
They hope to start with the new homes next spring. He asked if the planning commission had any questions. Mr. Knobler introduced Vic Roberts, an engineer.
Mr. Marsh asked about storm sewer protection from storm water run off during the construction.
Mr. Roberts said that on new plat construction, erosion control is established to keep everything within the development and not disturb existing homeowners residing on the perimeter.
Mr. Knobler said they would do whatever was necessary until they were able to tie into the city's storm sewer system. He also commented that the Ohio E.P.A. would probably be out there checking the situation too.
Mayor Packard asked if they thought they would have trouble with the rock in that area. Mr. Knobler said there would be some problems but that area would not be as bad as what they had dealt with at Union Ridge. Most of the rock problems would occur in the first stage of the building. The rock is more shallow in the other parts of the development. Mr. Knobler said there would be extra expense involved.
Mayor Packard asked if they would need to widen or make improvements on the entrance at State Route 48. Mr. Applegate said he had turned that over to Richard Oaks, the city's traffic engineer and he was studying that. The east side is elevated but they will be able to utilize the west side which is flatter and would be easier to work with. They are planning to put in a turn lane.
Mayor Packard asked if there would be a construction entrance. Mr. Knobler said the only way into the development would be to come off Marrett Farm or Concord Farm Roads. He felt there was no place to create a temporary entrance.
Mr. Applegate said they needed to use Concord Farm Road only - not Marrett Farm Road. Concord Farm Road is a shorter, more direct road and there would be less homes involved and fewer complaints. Mr. Applegate said they would probably put up signs on Marrett prohibiting construction traffic and he asked Mr. Knobler to instruct his contractors to use Concord Farm Road and not Marrett Farm Road.
Mr. O'Callahan suggested they be very careful since there are no sidewalks in that area and kids have developed bad habits and are playing in the street in that area.
Mr. O'Callaghan asked if they had a time frame for the completion of the development. Mr. Knobler said four to five years. Twenty-five to thirty homes a year is a very successful project.
Mr. Applegate said the Concord Farms North area did very well for Ryan Homes and was considered a good location. The site is a big plus. Mr. Applegate said he thought the area would do quite well.
Mr. Marsh said that he thought the airport expansion would help with the development.
Mr. Marsh asked if the lots for the doubles will meet the size requirements of the homes. Mr. Knobler said they have taken that into consideration and looked at the product and it should fit. He said they are also looking at doing some different concepts. They have looked closely at the corner lots and will review it again to make sure that the homes will fit on the lots.
JZ Homes will be building most of the doubles. Mr. Applegate said customers wanted the bigger square footage homes and it was worth it since it maintains property values and customers were willing to pay extra money to get more square feet.
Mr. Shields said the lots seemed more standard, rectangular instead of pie shaped lots like in Union Ridge.
Mr. Knobler said they are still working to get some major builders to come into Union. The larger builders have web sites, can maintain models, and can do advertising.
Mr. Marsh said the buildings are an asset not just to the builder but also to the city.
Mr. Applegate asked if other builders would be allowed to build their doubles in Concord Meadows so they get a different mix.
Mr. Knobler said that JZ would have different styles and colors. Mr. Knobler said allowing in other builders was a sensitive subject because the smaller builders do not spend the money advertising like the large builders - they just ride on the coat tails of the other builders that do the heavy advertising and bring in the traffic. The smaller ones do not offer to pitch in and pay their portion but they want the benefit of the advertising.
Mr. Applegate said if a development doesn't get other builders, the homes look the same. He said that the planning commission would hold them to varying the design and elevations of the homes. Mr. Applegate insisted they need a variety. Mr. Knobler said they were working on different product lines and he said Mr. Applegate can turn down any plans he does not like.
Mr. Applegate commented that the planning commission would like to see the designs and asked Mr. Knobler to have JZ Homes come to a planning commission meeting.
Mr. Marsh said he was glad they were giving serious consideration to a variety of homes.
Mr. Applegate reminded the planning commission that Crossman Homes had wanted to build in Union and had asked for flexibility in smaller square footage, single car garages, etc. Mr. Applegate said he told them he would not recommend the development but they could appear before the planning commission and present their case. Crossman Homes never attended the meeting to discuss their proposed development. Mr. Applegate said here, they were dealing with a builder that had a proven track record. Mr. Applegate said when Union Ridge was being proposed, people were concerned about the development having homes that were too small. Mr. Applegate said the planning commission had increased the square footage standards and the city was getting good homes.
Mr. Marsh said that the price range in the initial concept for Union Ridge had gradually increased and the quality had improved. Mr. Applegate said the original home size requirement was 1,100 square feet and now the minimum is 1,400. Mr. Applegate said the city has spent money extending the utilities (water and sewer) to encourage new and better housing developments after a survey was done several years ago and people stated they wanted a range of housing over and above what is currently built.
Mr. Applegate recommended approval of Concord Meadows contingent upon the final review from Woolpert.
Mrs. Thomas-Roth moved that the final plat application be approved. Mayor Packard seconded the motion. All concurred and the final application for Concord Meadows was approved.
Mr. Marsh, referring to the minutes of the last meeting, said the city was supposed to have received additional information from the engineers on Irongate Estates within thirty days. He asked if they had met the deadline. Mr. Applegate said that the deadline had been met and that they had complied with all the comments and had done what needed to be done.
Mr. Marsh asked what the standards were for final paving on the streets in housing developments, referring to Lindeman Commons. Mr. Applegate said it was scheduled to be paved in the week. Damaged curbs have been replaced and the manholes have been raised. They will be paving that area along with Applegate and Ewing Court and Section I and II in Irongate. Mr. Applegate said he had informed them to have the work done by November 1, 1999.

3. Mayor Packard moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Shields seconded the motion. All concurred and the planning commission meeting was adjourned.
 
Back to top of page. 
 
 
 
Nov. 9, 1999
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Members Present:
Lawrence Beyer
Mayor Packard
Lynn Thomas-Roth
Glynn Marsh
City Staff Members Present:
John Applegate
Denise Winemiller

Mrs. Lynn Thomas-Roth called the planning commission meeting to order and attendance was taken.
1. Mrs. Lynn Thomas-Roth asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes from the October 19, 1999 planning commission meeting. There were none so Mayor Packard moved that the minutes be accepted as prepared. Mrs. Thomas-Roth seconded the motion. Mr. Beyer abstained, the other commission members voted for the motion and the minutes were accepted as prepared.
2. General discussion regarding changing zoning code for tractor/trailers.
The zoning code section this concerns is 1153.02 (c) Vehicles and Other Vehicles (3) B. The overnight parking or storage of any truck or commercial vehicle of over 5,000 pounds gross vehicle weight shall be prohibited in any front yard, side yard or roadway within the city.
Mr. Applegate said within the last two years, there have been people bringing tractors and tractors-trailers into town. They have been cited and one was taken to court and an attorney was present to represent the individual. Mr. Applegate said the commission should look at (3) B. In court, there was a discussion of "overnight" and "storage". Mr. Applegate said he got some calls on a tractor-trailer parked in a residential area over Memorial Day weekend. He drove by and saw the vehicle there. He drove by a few days later and the vehicle was still there. Their argument was that the tractor was not there overnight. The Union code also does not have a definition for storage. Mr. Moore said that the court Planning Commission case would become a discussion of defining overnight and storage so the city decided to drop the case. Mr. Applegate said they should look at the regulations and change it - so the regulations are clear cut and there is no room for any discussion. This is the first step of the process.
There are also copies of regulations from Brookville, Englewood, and Vandalia. Brookville allows twenty-four hours, Englewood prohibits them, and Vandalia prohibits them in any residential district.
They will need to have a public hearing and residents will probably attend and they may need to arrange for a bigger meeting room.
Mr. Applegate suggested that they take out parking and storage of any truck, take out overnight, and also add rear yard. Even a 3/4 ton pickup are not allowed, one ton trucks, etc.
Mr. Beyer said he agreed to add the "rear yard" prohibiting parking there, because that provides a loop hole. He also wanted to keep the over 5,000 pound requirement.
Mr. Applegate talked about maintenance trucks bringing in over 5,000 pound vehicles. That is a two and one/half ton truck.
Mr. Marsh asked about trailers for storage purposes in new housing developments. Mr. Applegate said those would be exempt, just like moving trucks and delivery trucks - are allowed in town for construction purposes. UPS trucks (interstate commerce) are also over 5,000 pounds. He stated but if you bring something like that in a neighborhood, it is different. Mr. Moore said a city can pass ordinances limiting or prohibiting trucks parking in the city.
Mr. Marsh said the existing ordinance mentioned "R" or Residential districts. He asked if it should be spelled out. Mr. Applegate said all "R" areas indicate residential and that is not prohibited. Commercial is different. Mr. Applegate said vehicles were being parked on the old Owl Drug store and the city contacted the owner and the owner had not given permission for anyone to park there. He provided the city with a letter that no one was allowed to park there and if they did, the city was allowed to have the vehicle towed.
Mr. Marsh asked if they had a way to handle a situation where a space was rented out. Mr. Applegate said they should consider that. Mr. Applegate asked Mr. Beyer if he wanted to list Residential-1, Residential-2, etc. instead of simply saying residential. Mr. Applegate said it is accepted practice to say "residential" to include all residential areas.
Mr. Applegate said he did think they should address "commercial". Mrs. Thomas-Roth asked what would happen if the owner of a commercial property gave permission for storage. Mr. Applegate said that would be permitted.
The planning commission discussed time allowed to park.
They also discussed accessory use to the permitted use. For an example, a farmer may have a truck to haul grain. That truck would be an accessory use to the permitted use of farming.
Mr. Applegate asked what the commission thought of allowing a two hour period for a commercial district.
Like Mr. Beyer said, using a furniture store for an example, the truck is not just parked there, it is there for loading or unloading - which would be allowed.
Mr. Applegate said in C-1 zoning, they could also allow trucks as an accessory use to the permitted use. If a truck was there for a delivery to satisfy the existing permitted use, that would be allowed but if the truck was there only to be parked or stored, that would not per permitted.
Mr. Applegate said they could spell out all of the zoning districts for residential, using R-1, R-2, etc.
They will also need to create a definition for storage.
They plan on totally eliminating vehicles over 5,000 pounds in any residential areas, and C-1, and C-2 and parking will be prohibited, not specified to overnight.
Mr. Marsh moved that this discussion be forwarded to the council to prepare a public hearing. Mr. Moore will prepare the document and Mr. Applegate said he will see that the planning commission receives a copy of it. Mr. Beyer seconded the motion. All concurred and the motion was passed.

3. Mayor Packard moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Beyer seconded the motion. All concurred and the motion was passed and the meeting was adjourned.
 
Back to top of page. 
 
 
 
Nov. 9, 1999
 
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
Members Present:
Lawrence Packard
Mayor Packard
Lynn Thomas-Roth
Glynn Marsh
City Staff Members Present:
John Applegate
Denise Winemiller
 
Mrs. Thomas-Roth called the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order and attendance was taken.
1. Mrs. Thomas-Roth asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes from the August 10, 1999 meeting. There were none so Mr. Marsh moved that the minutes be approved. Mayor Packard seconded the motion. Mr. Beyer abstained, the other commission members voted for the motion and the minutes were accepted as prepared.
2. Hearing for Union residents wishing to address the board on Ordinance 1038, paving of gravel driveways and waiving of requirements.

There were five cases scheduled to discuss Ordinance 1038, the paving of gravel driveways.
Mr. Applegate said these residents were originally contacted in 1997 but due to the lawsuit, this process was put on hold.
Mr. Applegate said that Mr. Tim Grundish, for 110 South Montgomery and 117 North Main Street, was not present. These two properties were in the old part of town and had always been gravel driveways. Mr. Applegate said the board might consider waiting on discussing this and see if Mr. Grundish would arrive later during in the meeting.
The first case to be discussed was for Todd J. Duff, for 3348 Phillipsburg-Union Road.
Mr. Duff was present. Mr. Applegate showed a video tape of Mr. Duff's property. The house was outside of the community and was annexed a few years back. Mr. Applegate said as far as he can remember, it has always been a gravel driveway. Mr. Duff said he has owned the house about five years and as far as he knows, it was always gravel. There is no curb along Phillipsburg-Union Road, there is gravel along the road and gravel driveways on the opposite side of the road. His driveway is fairly long. He said he was asking for a waiver. He lives at the edge of the city, in a rural part of town, no homes nearby.
It is a one acre lot, Agricultural/Residential zoning.
Mr. Applegate recommended that an exemption be granted, since it came in through an annexation and the driveway was there prior to the city's zoning.
Mr. Marsh moved that they waive the requirement for 3348 Phillipsburg-Union Road. Mr. Beyer seconded the motion. All concurred and the motion was passed.
The next case was for Dorothy Sawyers, 404 Parsons Court.
Mrs. Sawyers was present. A video tape was shown of her property.
The unpaved part is to a garage that was built in 1981. Mayor Packard asked if there was a problem with her completing the driveway. She said she was having a problem getting a loan.
Mr. Marsh asked when the original notification went out. Mr. Applegate said it was in 1997. There has been seventy-two percent compliance of the original ninety violations sent out.
Of the people that went through the first process in 1997, there was only one person who has not complied and that person is in the process of being taken to court.
Mr. Marsh suggested a shorter period. He asked Ms. Sawyers could do it within two years. Mayor Packard said he felt more comfortable asking for a four year extension - to allow her more time. Mr. Marsh said he was not trying to create an undue burden - only a question on policy.
Mr. Beyer moved to grant Ms. Sawyers an extension for the requirement of Ordinance 1038, until November 9, 2003. (a four year extension). Mayor Packard seconded the motion. All concurred and the motion was passed.
 
The last case before the planning commission was for Frank Fitzpatrick, 129 Phillipsburg-Union Road.
Mr. Fitzpatrick was present.
The driveway is concrete but an extension was gravel. The widest part is six feet, up by the porch.
 
Mr. Fitzpatrick, in answer to Mayor Packard's question, said he had never gotten an estimate on getting it put in concrete. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he had declared bankruptcy and has had cancer. He said he does not use the extra parking now. He would like to widen the driveway if he had money.
This house was built approximately 1968. He has now gone back to work for the last six months. Mayor Packard asked if he could take the gravel out and reseed or sod the driveway extension. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he could do that. He doesn't use it anymore because when he does, someone reports that he is in violation for parking on an unpaved surface.
Mr. Beyer asked if he would rather pave it or return it to grass. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he could put dirt on it next spring. Mr. Beyer moved that Mr. Fitzpatrick be granted an extension from Ordinance 1038 until November 9, 2000, a one year extension. Mayor Packard seconded the motion. All concurred and the motion was passed.
Mr. Beyer said since Mr. Grundish did not respond or show up at the meeting, he felt like he would prefer to table his request.
A motion was made by Mr. Beyer to table the two properties for Tom Grundish, 110 South Montgomery and 117 North Main Street. Mr. Marsh seconded the motion. All concurred and the motion was passed.
4. Mr. Beyer moved to adjourn the meeting. His motion was seconded by Mr. Marsh. All concurred and the planning commission meeting was adjourned.
 
Back to top of page.