Present: Jeanine Colozza, Bill Eichenberg, Brett Iafigliola, and Fran Migliorino. Terry Klimchak was not present.
Others Present: Joel Bubna Pastor of Hope Community Church; Gerald Bough, a representative of Hope Community Church; Ann Marie Donegan, Mayor; and George Smerigan, City Planner.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Iafigliola at 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. 03-2016;Hope Community Church requesting a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 1240.03 to operate a church and preschool day care center on property located at 6941 Columbia Road (PP # 281-07-004) zoned D-1 Suburban Dwelling District.
Pastor Bubna saidthey originated as a group from Grace Church in Middleburg Heights who have approximately 300 families from this area. They began looking for a meeting place and began discussions with the Performing Arts Center to rent their facility. During these discussions the Performing Arts Center could no longer pay their mortgage.With the help of Grace Church, they purchased the facility. They would like to request that the facility be issued a conditional use permit for its original purpose which was for religious services.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that the original facility was built as a church. Churches are conditionally permitted in residential districts. Once OPA became involved, the conditions were changed, at their request. He asked if the Hope Community Church had any intentions of operating an educational school on the property. Pastor Bubna stated that within his application there is a request for a pre-school but there are no plans to open one at this point in time. However, if a pre-school would serve the community they would re-consider.
Ms. Colozza asked if OPA was currently utilizing the facility. Paster Bubna stated that the church did have a two year lease with OPA. However, in November or December they informed the church that they would begin looking for a new facility to operate and have moved to Berea.
Mr. Iafigliola asked who the current property owners were. Pastor Bubna indicated that the property is titled to Grace Church because they secured the loan.
Page -2-
PC Minutes
April 13, 2016
Ms. Migliorino stated that the daycare’s hours of operation are during the church’s service hours, which means this is an auxiliary service for the parents that attend church services and does not need state certification. Mr. Blough stated that, currently, the church operates nursery schools during service hours. Many churches open pre-schools to help their members. This is added to their request so that if, at some point in the future, the church decides to open a pre-school with state certification they have already received approval for same.
Mr. Smerigan indicated that he currently has no comments. This facility operated as a church in the past. He believes that having the performing arts out of the picture and back to a simple church operation with ancillary activities that are common with churches is a straight forward request.
Mr. Iafigliola read a memo dated March 15, 2016, from Mr. Cheatham, our chief building official. (See attached).
Mr. Iafigliola moved to grant a conditional use permit pursuant to Code section 1240.03 to operate a church and a pre-school/day care center on the property located at 6941 Columbia Road; Ms. Colozza seconded. Poll: 4 ayes; 0 nays. Motion carried.
2. 04-2015; Proposed zoning Code Amendment, adding Chapter 1260 plan Traditional Neighborhood District.
Mr. Smerigan indicated that his memo to the Commission was intended to be a summary as to what has transpired. This will be a Mixed Use Planned Development District that uses traditional neighborhood style development as its basis. As previously discussed we have pulled the architectural and sign reviews into the site plan review which allows Planning Commission to complete a comprehensive review. This makes sense if we are going to have a planned development with specific styles. Planning Commission can review and approve an entire picture as a package. The changes were made based on earlier discussions with the Commission. The proposed amendment melds two concepts into one, with changes to the current approval process to allow the Commission to approve. He has spoken with the police and fire chief regarding their comments. At this point it is his belief that they are both satisfied and have no issues. He understands that the fire chief originally had concerns but, after their discussion, his indication to him was that he was fine with the plan.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that the fire chief commented that after reviewing the changes the distance between the structures of ten feet is close, most codes use ten feet or five feet from the property line. He stated that the fire chief also commented that the height of the structure plays a concern. He would like to discuss this issue with Mr. Cheatham due to the fact that the fire code follows the building code with regard to this issue. Mr. Iafigliola stated that Mr. Smerigan indicated a moment ago that the fire chief was “ok” with the proposal and asked what he was referring to. Mr. Smerigan stated
Page -3-
PC Minutes
April 13, 2016
that the fire chief has spoken with Mr. Cheatham and he himself spoke with the fire chief as well. The fire chief’s concern was whether or not an issue would be created that would end up being a fire hazard. Mr. Smerigan believes that the fire chief is satisfied that this potential hazard will not be created. Mr. Iafigliola asked if the ten foot was included in the latest revised proposal. Mr. Smerigan replied that it was. Mr. Iafigliola asked if the fire chief was acceptable to that distance. Mr. Smerigan replied yes.
Mr. Iafigliola read the police chief’s comments dated April 11, 2016 (see attached).
Mr. Iafigliola stated that Mr. Cheatham commented on March 15, 2016. His comments are as follows: “I question the verbiage of one foot of additional setback for every two foot of building wall height greater than 25 feet when adjacent to a D Dwelling District per 1260.07.” He stated that Mr. Cheatham has four bulleted points: “I feel this could be problematic in several ways where does one measure the height from; where does it measure the height to; and what if an additional story is proposed at some point in the future.” Mr. Smerigan stated the formula is included so when taller buildings are proposed we can create additional separation because then we do not have a situation where a much taller building towering over a smaller building. He stated that Mr. Cheatham’s position is opposite of the fire chief who was comfortable with that suggestion because, as indicated in the fire chief’s memo he comments that height matters and felt that as the buildings were built taller there was a need for greater separation, which is why he was comfortable with the proposal of greater separation for taller buildings. He stated that Mr. Cheatham raises a couple of issues but, Mr. Smerigan feels that in essence they are non-issues. For example, the question of where the height is measured. How you measure the height is defined in the zoning code already and that issue is dealt with every time a proposed height issue is presented. The code currently has maximum height regulations for every district and he does not see how that question is an issue as it is set forth in the current code. There was also a comment regarding an additional story being added in the future but you will have that issue regardless. The fact that two buildings are built a set distance apart and what happens if the height is raised in the future, if the building is set it will not be moved due to the future height addition. He is struggling with understanding why that formula is not effective as it is used in many communities as a way to separate taller buildings. It is also common when you are dealing with a mixed use because there is a mixture of building types in one area.This is usually how the issue is handled as opposed to the perimeter setback included in the regular districts. There will be multiple styles of buildings within one area.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that, hypothetically, utilizing 1260.07(f), someone proposes the tallest building allowed, the maximum height that can be proposed without an additional variance is 35 feet. Mr. Smerigan stated that for a single family the maximum height is 35 feet but, for non-residential, it is 45 feet. Mr. Iafigliola stated that he will use the 45 feet, this includes one foot of additional setback for every two feet of building height greater than 25. This means that the building is 20 feet greater and you will need one
Page -4-
PC Minutes
April 13, 2016
foot of additional setback for every two feet of building wall height that comes to ten feet of additional setback. Mr. Smerigan agreed. Mr. Iafigliola stated that, using this example, the separation would be 20 feet, Mr. Smerigan agreed. Mr. Iafigliola stated that he does not feel that this is not a large spread of numbers because the maximum height is 45 feet.If you requested a variance that addition would only be 10 feet, Mr. Smerigan agreed.
Mr. Eichenberg asked if the FAA would have any comments regarding the building heights due to the fact that the property is located under a flight path. Mr. Smerigan stated that at those heights buildings would notbe in the glide path. Mr. Iafigliola stated that trees are taller than 45 feet.
Mr. Smerigan stated that within the zoning code the building height is defined. It defines what you measure from and to.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that a concern of Mr. Cheatham’s is that he believesit is a non-standard condition as he does not come across many buildings that are added onto in the future. If an addition, was added that proposal would need to come to the Commission for approval. Mr. Smerigan replied that was correct.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that another concern of Mr. Cheatham’s is that he feels that the verbiage of a minimum of 40 feet from all other buildings should be clarified in the event that there are ever any accessory structures, such as pool equipment buildings or detached garages, as 40 feet could be excessive in those cases. Mr. Smerigan stated that he believes Mr. Cheatham was referring to single family attached dwellings have to be a minimum of 40 feet from all other buildings. The intent is 40 feet from either multi-family buildings or non-residential buildings, not from accessory buildings for the single family dwelling itself. Mr. Iafigliola suggested adding “inhabited buildings” or “occupied buildings.” Mr. Smerigan stated that he would clarify the intent with the language “all other principal buildings” which would eliminate the accessory buildings. Mr. Iafigliola asked if it was possible that a parcel could hold multiple buildings which is why he made the suggestion of occupied or inhabited. Mr. Smerigan stated that he would use the language “habitable” to clarify the intent of this section.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that there was a discussion regarding the distance between the roadway and the face of the building, the third draft still states five feet and asked if that was Mr. Smerigan’s recommendation. Mr. Smerigan stated that a range is included which states five to 25 feet. This allows the Commission to make a final decision on the distance during the approval process based on the exact nature of the design.
Mr. Eichenberg indicated that in 1260.06(a) it states Plum Creek and West Branch of the Rocky River. He asked that Minnie Creek be added. Mr. Smerigan stated that he did add that to one section but missed the second section.He will make that correction.
Page -5-
PC Minutes
April 13, 2016
Ms. Migliorino stated that her only comment is that she is happy this will be a mixed use.
Mr. Iafigliola stated that he still feels that 1260.04 “limited industrial,” depending on how that is defined, will limit the city where we should not be limited, but is willing to accept the recommendation. Ms. Migliorino stated that this language was removed because this district will be for professional/commercial.
Mr. Iafigliola moved to respectfully submit to the City Council of Olmsted Falls the revised code sections 1232 and 1260 with Planning Commission’s recommendation that Council carefully consider and enact them as updated code sections to our city’s code; Ms. Migliorino seconded. Poll: 4 ayes; 0 nays. Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes: There was a discussion regarding the status of minutes and which meetings need approval.
Mr. Eichenberg moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 2015; Mr. Iafigliola seconded. Poll: 3 ayes; 0 nays; 1 abstain (Migliorino). Motion carried.
Mr. Eichenberg moved to approve the minutes of September 9, 2015; Mr. Iafigliola seconded. Poll: 1 aye; 0 nays; 3 abstain (Colozza, Migliorino, Iafigliola). Motion carried.
Mr. Iafigliola moved to approve the minutes of October 8, 2015 as amended; Ms. Colozza seconded. Poll: 3 ayes; 0 nays; 1 abstain (Migliorino). Motion carried.
Mr. Iafigliola moved to approve the minutes of January 27, 2016 as amended; Ms. Migliorino seconded. Poll: 4 ayes; 0 nays. Motion carried.
Mr. Iafigliola moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 2016 as amended; Ms. Migliorino seconded. Poll: 4 ayes; 0 nays. Motion carried.
Mr. Iafigliola moved to approve the minutes of February 24, 2016; Ms. Migliorino seconded. Poll: 3 ayes; 0 nays; 1 abstain (Migliorino). Motion carried.
Miscellaneous:
Mr. Iafigliola indicated that a special meeting will be held on Monday, April 18th, and is a joint meeting between City Council and Planning Commission. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission will present the revised draft of the City’s master plan. The Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation that the plan be adopted by City Council. The Commission is under no obligation to make that recommendation that evening. The Commission has been given a copy of the master plan for review.
Page -6-
PC Minutes
April 13, 2016
Manager of Business & Community Services Report – Not Present
Council Liaison Report – Not Present
Mr. Iafigliola moved to adjourn; Ms. Colozza seconded. Poll: 4 ayes; 0 nays. Motion carried.
Planning Commission ClerkDate
Brett Iafigliola, ChairmanDate