Note: These minutes were compiled by extracting certain facts the essence of testimony from an audiotape made of this meeting. Complete detail and verbatim statements can be heard and transcribed from the tape. The tape is available in the Mayor’s office for a nominal fee.

Master Plan Review Commission

Minutes for 2/13/13

Regular Meeting

7:00pm

Call to Order

Jerome Pavlick called the meeting to order at 7:00pm

Pledge of Allegiance/Invocation

Roll Call: John Albaneze Mayor Glenn Broska, Ken Claypoole Chuck Kocisko, Jane Rowe, Joe Wolfe, Jerome Pavlick

Also Present: Law Director David M. Maistros, Assistant Law Director Matthew J. Vazzana, Todd Peetz, PCRP, Claudia James, PCRP, Planning Director John Cieszkowski

Amended minutes were approved-Roll Call was added to the agenda and an “e” was added to Ken Claypoole’s last name

Todd Peetz: Opened the floor to discuss Hot Button issues.

1)  Housing Density:

a)  amount of multi-family in the city, effect on schools, number of students in multi-family apartments and how these relate to our existing Master Plan

2)  Maps

·  3.1-Potential taking

·  3.2-Data not accurate Mr. Peetz believes the question pertained to the forestry data portion of the map

·  3.3-Where was the map derived

·  3.4 should not exist at all

·  What maps should be left to zoning

Mr. Peetz stated that all these questions are Data Analysis questions and should be discussed in the Data Analysis section

The maps that will be discussed support and reference the Zoning Commission.

3)  Retain low-density zoning in rural areas (Mentioned in Land Use 7 of existing Master Plan)

4)  Redevelopment of the Central business area (Mentioned in Economic Development 2,5, Land Use 2 and Housing number 2 in existing Master Plan)

5)  Accuracy of the maps

6)  T N D-if it stays, it needs to be in an appropriate area(Mentioned in Land Use 6 of existing Master Plan)

7)  More single-family housing than multi-family housing(Mentioned in Housing 1, Housing 3, Housing 2 and Housing 7 in the existing Master Plan)

Mr. Cieszkowski was introduced by Mayor Broska as our new Planning Director and will officially begin employment February 25, 2013.

Todd Peetz asked the commission if they had any additional Hot Button issues they would like to add to the discussion.

1.  Sewage on Ferguson Road (Joe Wolfe)

Resident Jeff Allen added a few Hot Button items:

·  Does not want residents walking on his property regarding new park area walking trails.

·  Future of SR 14 as possibly a Business District

Todd Peetz began discussion on the GIS based Maps that created by Claudia James.

Ken Claypoole asked if the Zoning Code and Master Plan have to match.

Jerome Pavlick stated no because the Master Plan is a guide, it is where we see the City 5, 10 or 15 years down the road.

Law Director David Maistros stated you want consistency between the Master Plan and Zoning code as it applies while the Master Plan is in existence. (The Master Plan is an ever evolving document an overview of what you want your City developed.) If your Zoning Code is inconsistent with what is recommended by the Master Plan you open the door to lawsuits. Mr. Maistros suggested back in the fall waiting for the Master Plan Review Commission to complete its review prior to the comprehensive Zoning Code update going on the ballot- so it is consistent.

Todd Peetz stated the one difference you do not want to have between the Zoning Code and the Master Plan is a difference in density and intensities that supersede your Master Plan. An example of this difference would be showing low density in a specific area on Master Plan but actually zoned high density in that area.

Joe Wolfe asked if we are currently working under three (3) Master Plans?

Mr. Maistros stated we are working on only one Master Plan. Ordinance sent to Council in 2009-163, is the most recent document we have to work from. There are two (2) additional copies of a Master Plan from “recommending” bodies however council “acts “which is what was approved in 2009 and is what we have to work from. Council is the ultimately the one that will allow changes to this document, this commission is a recommending body.

Claudia James from Portage County Regional Planning began discussion on maps provided by PCRP.

The ones currently in the Master Plan are from 2009 and the ones given are updated.

Map 3.1

·  Source water protection areas provided by the EPA (2005) depict areas with a threat of pollution to drinking water.

·  Portage County Watershed Plan- was a grant from the USDA and the Forestry Service to protect water. This service mapped out the wetlands in Portage County, roughly 70%.

John Albaneze asked Ms. James to elaborate on the resources in the appendix section on the map pages

·  Protected areas can be protected due to ownership as well as ;

·  Conservation easement which is a permanent easement attached to the property forever

Ms. James explained that the gray perimeter around the map demonstrates land does not just drop off at the edge of the square

Mr. Albaneze made mention that there were several roads missing on the maps and asked Mrs. James to add what she could to make them more accurate

Map 3.2

Trees and Topography. Woodlands- Classifications remained the same as the 2000 ranking

·  Dotted areas-Priority wooded areas

·  LITAR- a form of radar provides a topographical view

·  SSURGO-Digital Soils Maps

Mr. Pavlick asked for a definition of acronyms in the appendix section

Map 3.3

Development Restrictions

·  Moderate-woodlands and/or un-wooded slopes that are greater or equal to 20% source water protection area

·  Severe-wetlands and woodlands on slopes greater than20% plus priority woodlands

·  Untouchable- Rivers, streams, ponds, flood plain protected areas and priority wetlands

In terms of ranking- wetlands rank from 0-9, woodland 0-7 which was based on a series of criteria PCRP used to help protect water in Portage County. The maps demonstrate rankings of five (5) and up.

John Cieszkowski- suggested development limitations and or constraints as better verbiage when referring to land use, rather than the word “restrictions” He also recommended that text on the Map and in the Master Plan both match, either wooded or woodland.

Commission members discussed their feeling that “untouchable” was too harsh of a term to use in Map 3.4’s legend. Severe, Moderate, and Light was discussed as possible alternative ranking scheme.

Map 3.4

·  Priority One Conservation Areas(Master Plan pg. 47)

·  “Flood plains” to “flood hazard” area per FEMA

Map 3.4a

·  Guide for future protection of Priority Two areas. Steep (>15%), Wetland (<5%), and Wooded (<5%)

·  Request for source specific (Joe Wolfe)

o  Priority base one (1) and Conservation area

Map 7.1

·  Existing Land Use Map

·  “Extraction” is mining (ex. sand and gravel)

·  Map is actual use from Portage County Records

·  Portage County qualifies apartment complexes as commercial-Ms. Ja,es will change color to make a distinct difference

·  The Civic Property by Lake Rockwell is the Portage County Water well

·  Removing Vacant land will clean up Map

·  (1: 57)

Motion to Extend Discussion 30 Minutes by Mr. Albaneze

Seconded by Jane Rowe

Motion Carries

Proposed Zoning Map

·  Ms. James asked to leave off Traditional Neighborhood Development

·  Changed R3 to RR

·  Wrong map in the package-Zoning Map only future Land Use Map

·  Not in current Master Plan

Future Land Use Map

·  This map is a visual reference of what the Master Plan text will spell out

Map 4.2 – Existing Community Facilities

·  Commission questioned whether or not this map was based on a Parks and Rec Plan.

·  Mr. Pavlick asked for a copy of Parks and Rec Plan, if such map is indeed from said plan.

·  Mr. Pavlick also asked if we could put publicly owned parks on Map.

·  Request for hard copy of Parks and Rec. Master Plan for 2/27/2013 meeting

Citizen Comments

·  Setback lines inconsistent (200 to 500 feet)? (Resident Michael Malec)

·  Downtown District on 43?

·  Albaneze introduced letter from Mr. McClafferty and made said letter available upon request.

Announcements

·  Mr. Peetz informed Commission that it would be prudent to revise Master Plan section by section, not page by page.

·  Mr. Peetz said that Agenda for next meeting will be sent out next week. He will also send out a list of Hot Button Issues and discussion topics.

·  Survey Monkey survey should be started by end of March so there is ample time to complete survey.

Commission moved to ratify and confirm actions taken by Commissioners at January 30, 2013 before Commissioners were sworn in.

·  Motion was made by John Albaneze

·  Seconded by Chuck Kocisko

·  Motion Carried

Motion was made to adjourn meeting by John Albaneze

Seconded by Ken Claypoole

Motion Carried

Adjournment: 9:30pm

Attest:

5