Planning Commission - New Albany, Ohio

Planning Commission
Informal Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2012
7:00 p.m.
New Albany Planning Commission met in an informal session in the Council Chamber
of Village Hall, 99 W Main Street and was called to order by Planning Commission
Chair Neil Kirby at 7:05 p.m.
Colleen Briscoe (council liaison)
Neil Kirby
Brad Shockey
David Wallace
Ray Silverstein
Joe King
Present
Present
Present
Present (7:06pm)
Present
Present (7:09pm)
Staff members present: Stephen Mayer, Planner; Kathryn Meyer, Deputy Director;
Adrienne Joly, Project Manager; Mitch Banchefsky, City Attorney and Pam
Hickok, Clerk.
Ms. Meyer asked to move the staff item first since the applicant for the other two items
is in the parks and trails meeting. She introduced proposed changes to Codified
Ordinance Chapter 1173, Private Swimming Pools. She stated that our regulations are
strict compared to other jurisdictions. Our code currently states that all appurtances to
have to meet all the requirements for a swimming pool and appurtances include
everything. Some appurtances such as patios or decks can occur when a pool is not
there but become an appurtance when a pool is present. We are looking at also
changing the setback to the side and rear lot lines, which is generally more restrictive.
We are asking that the board to review the code. We will be taking this code change to
the BZA since they typically hear these cases. It is planned to go to Board of Zoning
Appeals in October and then Planning Commission.
Mr. Silverstein wants clarification of the change to the appurtances.
Ms. Meyer stated that this change would provide some flexibility.
Mr. Kirby stated that the presence of the pool changes the regulation on the other
items.
Mr. Silverstein stated that looking at the code and it looks like the appurtances can’t be
any closer than 15’ to the property line or structure.
Ms. Meyer stated that between the pool and the house it the biggest issue that we are
seeing.
Mr. Silverstein asked if staff is looking at changing the distance or the definition.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 1 of 8

Ms. Meyer stated that I think we will be changing the definition of appurtances.
Mr. Silverstein asked for some examples and visuals when it is brought back to this
commission.
Mr. Shockey stated that we have heard more than five variances in the last few years.
The last variance involved appurtances being too close to the home and what defines
structure for the purpose of items in the side yard.
Mr. Silverstein stated that this is to reduce the need for applicants to come to the board
for variances.
Ms. Meyer responded.
Mr. Kirby stated that if you have a deck it is fine but if you add a pool to the same deck
then you have a problem.
Ms. Meyer introduce the 2 nd item on the agenda to rezoning of 135.5 acres, referred to
as Business Park South, located southeast of the State Route 161 and Beech Road
intersection from Agricultural District (AG) to Limited General Employment District (L-
GE). This rezoning is proposed to closely reflect the current zoning for the property to
the north called Business Campus East. The property is fronted on Beech Road and no
other streets fronting the property.
Mr. Kirby verified that this is east of Beech Road.
Ms. Meyer stated that if this property is developed with the property to the north then
the internal setback would go away. A new lot could be created if a road system is
developed or the user.
Mr. Kirby verified that it is only the setbacks on the northern boundary.
Ms. Meyer stated that the text also has some design standards for the architecture of the
building is consistent with the rest of New Albany. Some of the items included to ensure
a comprehensive design is to provide a master landscape plan and a master sign plan,
similar to the Business Campus East standards.
Mr. Tom Rubey, The New Albany Company, stated that Jack Reynolds with Smith &
Hale is also available for questions. The request is to change the current zoning AG to
L-GE to keep it consistent with the property to the north. Staff has raised a number of
issues that we are in agreement on. We understand the desire to have a comprehensive
plan so businesses do not come to the board on a case by case basis. We came to
conclusion that this overall aesthetic of landscape and signage needs to include the land
to the north. We are working towards a regional management of storm water.
Mr. Kirby asked if it will be in the text prior to it coming to the Planning Commission.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 2 of 8

Mr. Rubey stated that it will not. This is a cleanup issue to better market the ground.
We do not know if this will be one user or ten users that will need a platting process.
There are code requirements that must be met. But we are not there until we know
how the how the area will be developed.
Mr. Kirby asked if the board would see it again once it rezoned.
Mr. Rubey stated that the idea is to have much of this to occur administratively.
Mr. Kirby stated that I was looking for a tripwire point to assure that it occurs.
Mr. Rubey stated that it what staff is for.
Mr. Kirby stated I want to make sure that staff has the tools needed for enforcement.
Mr. Rubey stated that we have a set of engineering requirements from New Albany and
City of Columbus. The zoning text may say to handle it regionally but contradicts the
engineering standards are today.
Mr. Silverstein asked for clarification of the concern
Mr. Kirby stated that he wants to prevent piecemeal storm water management. The
problem with a lot of the good ideas is how we mandate them.
Mr. Tom Rubey stated that if that is the goal of the city, it’s a municipal thing. If the city
wants regional storm water then the city needs to make the first move and create the
standards and implement them. It is a difficult if not impossible to achieve without a
master developer and a progressive community. We share your concern but also want
to be realistic.
Mr. Kirby asked for questions from the public.
Mr. Craig Drown, 1520 Beech Road, asked if you will you have the access to Beech
Road.
Mr. Rubey stated that it will.
Mr. Drown stated that the road can’t handle the traffic it has now let alone any more
traffic. Shouldn’t the road be fixed prior to the development? What about the pocket
residences, about 10-12 homeowners. About 10 years ago, it was going to stay
residential and the commercial was going to stay north of 161 and now it’s changed
again. We haven’t been told a straight story yet. If we have a winter on Beech Road the
tow trucks and officers will be busy. Does the city have any say on the speed limits?
Mr. Kirby stated that the state has many restrictions on the speed limits.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 3 of 8

Mr. Drown stated that the road should not be 50mph due to the increased traffic and
condition of the road. When will the residence know what is going on.
Mr. Kirby asked what the setbacks are for the property to the north.
Mr. Reynolds responded.
Mr. Drown asked if curb cuts could be made now on Beech Road.
Mr. Rubey stated that the idea is that the existing condition of Beech Road.
Improvements would be made prior to any development of this area or the area to the
north.
Mr. Drown asked why not show us that plan first. What is L-GE zoning?
Mr. Rubey stated that it is a limitation text for general employment that staff could
provide you with for the details.
Mr. Drown asked why they couldn’t have something similar to Smith’s Mill Road where
you can’t see the structures.
Mr. Rubey responded.
Mr. Drown asked we need some recognition to the safety concerns and what we are
going through.
Mr. Silverstein stated he has the L-GE code allows for general office, personal service,
retail, product sales service, vehicle service, off premises signs and conditional activities
that include industrial product sales, industrial service, manufacturing, production…
Mr. Kirby stated that the applicant has agreed to exclude some of those uses.
Mr. Drown stated that zoning allows for everything.
Mr. Shockey stated that it is the same as the area north of 161.
Mr. Greg asked for some consideration in the process for the current residents.
Mr. Hamilton, 1451 Beech Road, stated that when they started annexation you needed
to own both sides of the road. This piece that they are rezoning does not own both side
of the road. We are now an island.
Mr. Kirby confirmed that the question is connectivity for annexation.
Mr. Hamilton stated that how were they able to annex when they don’t own both sides
of the road.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 4 of 8

Mr. Banchefsky stated that you do not need to annex both sides of the road. The law
states that you need to be contiguous to property within city limits.
Mr. Drown stated that they told us that they would not create an island.
Mr. Kirby stated that your township.
Mr. Drown stated they attended all the meetings when the master plan and 161
exchange were discussed. They told us that they would not create an island. They did
not answer all of our questions. They said the water and sewer would be installed but
we don’t want water and sewer. Our systems and wells are fine.
Mr. King asked who they were.
Mr. Drown stated that it was New Albany Company.
Ms. Kathy Rose, 1526 Beech Road, stated that it was Ben Hale. I do zoning in Bexley
and thinks that NACO has done some great development. I have the same concerns as
Craig. Smith’s Mill Road has wonderful buffers, it’s a wonderful drive with the rolling
hills. The utilities are not needed. I have a cistern and a well, I don’t need another
source for water.
Mr. Kirby stated that the service area agreement only allows us to extend services to city
residents.
Ms. Meyer clarified that the Health Department could require that you hook in the
public services if needed. We are not allowed by our agreement to provide services to
township residents.
Mr. Kirby stated that if your system is not failing or if the county is not attacking failed
systems.
Mr. Shockey asked where the water & sewer lines will be located.
Mr. Rubey stated that they are preliminary to extend water and sanitary sewer from
Bob Evans south under 161, east on Dublin Granville, south on Beech Road on the city
side of the street.
Mr. Shockey asked if the Beech Road improvements would be similar to the north side.
Mr. Rubey stated that it would be similar to the north but depends on the development.
Mr. Shockey stated that improvements to Beech Road will occur either way. He then
stated that the improvements continued to the northern city boundary of Beech Road.
Mr. Rubey stated that additional improvements to the north to Jug are being discussed.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 5 of 8

Ms. Rose asked for some nice buffering so they do not need to look at the back of the
buildings or reach out to the residents on the west side of Beech Road.
Mr. Rubey stated that we do not have any building orientation. The front door will
always face the roadway.
Mr. Drown stated that no landscape exists right now.
Mr. Rubey stated that a landscape, signage and storm water plan that defines how the
buffers are handled.
Mr. Kirby asked if any plans are implemented.
Mr. Rubey stated that Business Campus East is implemented.
Mr. Shockey stated that landscaping and buffering requirements in the code.
Mr. Rubey stated that the standards in the code will need to be increased significantly
to meet the standard that was created to the north.
Mr. Shockey asked a question.
Mr. Rubey stated that we will also include in the text that if the staff and applicant
cannot agree the Planning Commission will have the final decision.
Mr. Shockey stated that if you drive those areas you will have a reference for the
buffering.
Mr. Drown asked if it was the area to the north in Licking County.
Mr. Kirby asked for a 200’ neighbor notification for all applications that come in for this
project.
Mr. Banchefsky stated that over notification is always problem because what happens if
it doesn’t happen. It is not a legal requirement.
Mr. Kirby stated that it is a good faith effort for notification. We have a better meeting
when everyone is informed. I have asked staff to go beyond the legal requirements for
notification.
Mr. Mayer stated that this board will meet on the 17 th of September.
Mr. Silverstein asked the residents to look at the business campus east to the north and
come with recommendations.
Mr. Bob Carr, 1350 Mink Road SW, stated that we own three farms to the east of this
area. New Albany Company has been a blessing. I was a township trustee when we
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 6 of 8

improved the roadway. We tried to reduce the speed limit years ago and I agree that
speed is a concern. It will not more homes and it will help Licking Heights Schools.
Mr. Shockey stated that he is hearing concerns regarding road improvements and
visibility of the building from Beech Road.
Ms. Joly introduced the last item on the agenda which is a preliminary Development
Plan, Final Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat for Highgrove Farms (a
resubdivision of a portion of New Albany Country Club Section 25, Part 1) generally
located west of the Northgate Road and Woodbourne intersection. She provided an
information sheet to the board. This is a continuation of the subdivision. Part 1 & 2 was
the Highgrove that you saw last year that included 15 lots. Today is some additional
area and a portion of part 1. At your next meeting we will have 5 items regarding this
application. The first is a leisure trail variance regarding the width of the trail. The 2 nd
and 3 rd variances were approved for the last section and would like it continued to these
new area. The 4 th variance is to allow structures in the front yards.
Mr. Shockey stated that we discussed the playgrounds a lot.
Mr. Rubey stated that I committed to a park to the south that meets the code
requirements.
Mr. Kirby stated that in the small view it will not meet code but the larger picture will
meet code.
Mr. Kirby asked for more information regarding the accessory structure in the front
yard.
Mr. Rubey stated that the area will be beautiful. Please stop and look at the area prior
to the next meeting. The structures that will be in the front yards will require building
permits such as piers and walls as part of the overall design.
Mr. Shockey asked who will own the structures.
Mr. Rubey stated that they will all be maintained by the association.
Mr. Rubey stated that I have the plat to show the lots that range in size from .5 acre to
5.5 acres. Use the same reclaimed brick, brick piers, false gates that need some creative
ways to permit properly. School impact statement will be available and they far exceed
the threshold set by the schools.
Mr. Shockey asked what that was.
Mr. Rubey stated that the schools have an amount that the house will provide enough
tax money to cover the education of the children in the home.
Ms. Joly stated that the school impact study will be included in your packet.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 7 of 8

Mr. Kirby asked for a wider range of price point years ago.
Mr. Rubey stated that no lots left in the Farms or Illmington. The demand is there for
these homes.
Mr. Kirby asked about the 6.5 foot trail.
Mr. Rubey stated that the Columbus portion trails are 4ft wide. The idea is that the two
lots with reduced setbacks. An 8 foot path is contradictory to a house that is closer to the
road. It will be 9 feet over the bridge and then to 8 feet to the other side. This was
working on the transition from Columbus to New Albany.
Mr. Shockey asked how MI was doing on the Lansdowne Part 3.
Ms. Joly stated that they had a pre-construction meeting and are on track to meet the
commitment.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
12 0905 PC Minutes Page 8 of 8