Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting to order. Okay.

Chairman Steve Dyer.

Here.

Mark Solonzuski.

Here.

Brian Hebel. Here. Kyle Cook.

Here.

Tom McConnell. Here.

Thank you. Getting started straight away with public comments on items not on the agenda. Looking at the board, looking at the room, no speaker slips. I think we're okay to move on. Let's talk about action on the minutes. Do you guys want to separate them? Any comments for May and June? Can we approve them as a block? Yes.

Unless someone's uncomfortable with approving because you weren't here. I know we had a couple absences.

He can still vote, right?

Yeah, they can still just, you know, whatever you want to do.

What were you saying? I was going to say I'll make a motion to approve. Oh, wow. I'll go ahead and second that. Yes, as a block.

That's really convenient.

All right. Mark Zolenski. Yes. Steve Dyer. Yes. Kyle Cook. Yes. Tom McConnell. Yes. Brian Hebel.

Upstanding.

Thank you. Item number four already. Look at that, guys. Recommendation to council. Again, it's a recommendation to council, and it is a public hearing on application 62226, zoning text amendment chapter 1147. We have 30 days to make our recommendation. To start this off, What are we thinking? I'm thinking we want to hear from the city. Trevor, yeah.

I didn't do a staff report for this one.

You didn't do one. No, you didn't. Anything from the city.

You guys hear me?

Okay, I know the applicant's agent and attorney is here as well as the applicant. This is for the property at 267 North Main Street, Lincoln. proposal to use it in a manner that is slightly inconsistent with the current zoning but generally consistent with surrounding areas and what the property is used for but it's not a permitted use so there was some discussion on how best to Get it such that the owners can get this use approved without rezoning the entire district to automatically approve the use. And our code doesn't allow us to do use variances. So what we came up with is this is a request, and Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong, this is a request to amend the zoning code to allow this use as a conditional use such that if and when that is approved, this applicant presumably will come back to you and request approval of that conditional use with whatever conditions, if any, this board deems necessary. So hopefully I summarized that correctly, and I'm sure Rebecca, Ms. Mott, could fill in some of the detail.

So this is like a two-stage step here. Yes. Again, it's still a conditional use.

It is a request to change the zoning for it to be a conditional use, which will ultimately, your recommendation one way or another will go to council. If council does change the zoning to include it as a conditional use in order to use that property as such, it will come back to this body. For approval to use it again. Correct.

Would this just be made easier if they requested to change zoning to AR1 because it's already a conditional use under AR1?

It would, except that would allow a lot of other things to be in that area.

The other reason I say that is it's very common with the other AR1 that we already have. National Church Residence as being one of the main examples is AR1. The other nursing facility is Village Commercial or Vilcom, whatever the actual explanation is there.

I think the... Will not create excessive additional requirements for public facilities and services and will not be... Site in the greatest conformance with the code that we could.

I felt like getting rid of that fourth curb cut was a good opportunity just to bring the site into better... And is that which construction?

What does that...

It's to allow for the existing use to be expanded into a larger facility, correct?

Nothing to do with the...

curb cuts nothing to do with any of the other yes is just can they expand correct the only um and to aaron's point if you all if you all feel that removing that that fourth curb cut is not necessary you can you can choose to approve this request without that condition if if that answers your question okay

I just wanted, yeah.

Well, you're also asking if the condition has to be on this vote.

So that's part of that. Yes, thank you. That's exactly what I was just about to clarify is I just wanted to make sure what we were voting on for each different piece, because I know there's four variances. Yeah. But this is not the variance. This is the conditional use. Correct.

This is for the use to be allowed to expand. Regardless of the site conditions, this is just approving that use to be allowed to expand, yes. The variances are for specific site-related items.

OK. The variance doesn't necessarily have to do with the curb cuts. There is a section that's maximum coverage that could technically be alleviated by removing some curb cuts. So there's some kind of an overlap in an odd sense. But I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the conditional use itself, because the use of the current facility, you can only have, there's gotta be 75 feet between curb cuts. And so that's part of it where it's already existing. so we're kind of bypassing that one in a sense to approve the conditional use okay because if they're trying to they're trying to get everything up to code right so if we got it up to current code we'd have to remove the curb cut and so to get it up to current code we would go with his recommendations do you fully all the way up of that particular that's the one particular piece that yeah

So we seem to be thinking about this curb cut. Before we move forward, is there any public comments?

Yep, please come up to the mic, sir. He signed in.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Jeff Barr, resident of Johnstown. I would encourage the board to take into consideration and approve the request for the conditional use. As it was stated by Mr. Underhill, this dealership, I'm approaching 60, so I know it's at least 60 years old, but I would say that I would like to see the dealership stay there under its current operation. We've seen the previous Ford dealership leave and what it is today when you look across the street they are very different and by allowing the conditional use you know, some of the finer points in there of expanding the service bay garage by how many? 20 bays, which 20 bays probably equates to at least 15 mechanics, service manager, et cetera. I think the income tax is not the big issue, but it does have... adding jobs to and a service to the community where we have very little on that end in the sense of servicing our automobiles. The variances will be addressed in a different way, but I do encourage you to take into consideration that As a car dealership, it is not a eyesore. It is not impeding traffic and those things. So I just wanted to offer my support on this application for the conditional use. Thank you for your time, sir. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Thank you, Mr. Barr. Any other comments?

All right, so I think one of the pieces, I guess, to kind of add to this, maybe give a different point of view on the curb cut pieces is that it's not a warehouse, right? So we don't have 17 trucks going in and out every single day. Realistically, two of the four are not used

And they mostly got them blocked off further front line anyways. Right. I think the issue with it though is like I don't know if I've ever seen that one open. So it's like do we need it? And I get that and I feel like we just can't get an answer right now.

I guess it's two of them. I don't think two of them. I've never seen two of them open, right? Right.

It's hard to move past that. That other building was the original showroom they were probably used back then.

Yeah, right, right, right.

We're switched up at that point. So it'd be great if they were green space, but I'm going to speak on personal opinion. I think for the conditional use, it's fine, and we continue to have that conversation with the owner.

I think Jeff brought up a good point. I do remember the Ford dealership there, and I would appreciate last Chevrolet staying in our town. Yeah, that's called out in here, too, that there's potential for them to go to Monroe Township. It should be. Right. And would a curb cut be the end of it? Do we really want to lose out on a visit?

The only reason I brought it up is I just wanted to confirm where we were talking about. Since it was brought up, I just wanted to make sure.

You wanted to make sure we can bring it up in the variances of future conversations.

The curb cut suggestion would be a condition of the recommendation is to make it a condition of the approval. In other words, or approving your conditional use subject to you getting rid of the Eastern Coast Park. So if you want that to be a condition of the approval, you would vote on the conditional use subject to whatever those conditions are, which is... Conditional uses you're permitted to do those types of things.

So you have to so the Easter most I have no issue with there's generally cars We've already talked about that. There's always something parked in front of that. I think that it's Probably a good thing for the lot To be able to get vehicles in and out of that area to be there but not necessarily I just don't see it's a detrimental piece of it. I just wanted, that was the only reason I asked the question is just to confirm. I don't even think I knew the fourth one.

That's what we're doing. We're having a discussion. To me, it's kind of like there's a nursing home stuck in UR1. It was there already. To me, I'm okay with it. That's where I stand. I'm just saying it out loud. Any other discussions from anybody else?

So are we approving that we go forward with the recommendation for the curb cuts?

Nobody's made a recommendation yet. We're just having a discussion and I just openly shared my thoughts.

I think the general, and I guess you guys can weigh in, the general consensus is that we're not going to make it a condition for curb cuts. I'm not hung up on the curb cut.

Not at all. I think I am. Okay. If the city is in a planning where we want to look better and they don't need a fourth, get rid of the fourth.

That's a valid point.

If you want to invest in this city and be in this city, you need to invest with us. Let's make it better. If this is not needed and we have a zoning commission, it's like a restaurant that has a no-handicap stall because it's gotten zoned in for 55 years or 60 years. We've updated the codes to make this city better.

I think one could argue, though, that adding the bays is investing into the city.

It is.

yeah and i appreciate you bringing that up it's hard to be the naysayer but it's your thought so we appreciate it yeah my thought i i kind of agree with that too i'd love the opportunity to clean up you know older older districts right but also like it hasn't been an issue already so i don't i don't foresee the extra traffic the extra business being an issue along 62. i mean

The curb cut, if 62 gets expanded right there. Or the fact that a curb cut's there isn't going to...

So that was actually what I was going to bring up, because one of the meetings I've been to a year and a half ago was that they were going to be bringing 62 all the way up. Not that 62 all the way up, that was... Anyways. Putting a roundabout in front of Kroger, so I don't know what the expansion would be beyond that. But yes, if the road is expanded... I know this is a variance that we'll talk about in a little bit, but if the road gets expanded, then how does that deal with that?

Mr. Barr, would you like to make another comment? If I'm allowed?

Yes.

Thank you.

Can I finish real quick?

Oh, please, sir. So my question then also is, I'm asking for help on understanding this piece, is there an opportunity for this to say, I love the idea of the expansion piece, but I'd love to see the sidewalks that are in front of there for walking for the residents that are in the area to be expanded to connect to the... That is in the plan?

Yeah, the plan does include a sidewalk.

It'll connect to the car wash all the way up to... Now they're offset because of the setbacks of parking lots a little bit, but they're there to connect.

I completely missed that part. I apologize.

Sorry? Like, kind of part of what you had mentioned of expansion of 62, because I live right over there, is that the measurements that they've proposed for that district go basically through the front yard of that home or the front living room of the home and the showroom. So realistically, if we want to expand 62 right there, you've got to... remove those the home and the business off of that whole section so it's going to be very difficult to expand in that area anyway unless you do like a turn lane or something small that is not going to be the full four across with bike paths and walkways and everything okay thank you for helping me with the understanding i think mr bar you're up mr bar um just as a

reminder that the 62 expansion is from Smith Mill to the traffic light there at Kroger. I forget the name of the street. It doesn't go beyond that. So, if you will, the bottleneck is going to occur there, not from a fourth curb cut. The existing use, as you all have deliberated on and acknowledged, is probably a convenience to the dealership, not a service driveway, and to the New Service Bay garage to the showroom. They already have those, if you will, established where vehicles are entering and exiting that meet the current code with the distance between these other curb cuts are down towards the now vacant auto parts store. And we have not seen, as you've all recognized, they do not come in and out of there with additional traffic. whether it's to purchase or whether it's for service, as you consider your deliberations on the curb cuts. Thank you.

We take them seriously here. But another, removing a curb cut will reduce the amount of cars coming in and out, so I'm okay with it. I'm at a point where, like, moving forward, I think I'd like to recommend it, but I would like to keep the first and the third recommendation in as well. Do you guys remember those? What page is that on?

I'm sorry, it's the conditional use, if approved, shall require review and reevaluation by the Planning Commission if the accompanying variance requests are denied to determine overall site compliance. And final requirements for site landscaping, screening, buffering, and stormwater management shall be reviewed for consistency with the codified ordinances during the zoning certification, excuse me, zoning certificate, Review process. Requests to deviate from these standards will be reviewed and processed according to the applicable variance process established in the codified ordinance. Those two points. Yes. That was a motion.

Is that a question or is that a statement? I was asking if that was a motion. I did not make a formal motion, no. But that's where I'm at. I'm trying to have a discussion. I think we're at a stopping point. I think there's no more questions to be had and we need to make a decision. And that's where I'm at. And without hearing any more comments or any other discussion, I would like to make that motion. Hold on here to approve application 62526. with condition one and three that Trevor pointed out. I will second.

Chairman Dyer?

Yes.

Kyle Cook?

Yes.

Bob McConnell?

Yes.

Ryan Evil?

No.

Mark Zolenski? Yes. Motion passes.

All right, moving on. Applications 6, 26, 6, 25, 26V, variance application 755, same address.

Okay. So, yeah, the staff report for this one starts on page 51 of 62 in your packet. As was mentioned before, there's four variances in here. They've been labeled throughout with A, B, C, and D to allow you all to vote on them independently, but they are under one staff report just for ease of totally understanding one body's part. So I'll go through the variance request, just what is being requested, and then I can go through the recommended actions based on that. So the first variance is for minimum front setbacks for buildings. The code requirement is a minimum of 30 feet. The existing building is 26 feet from, has a setback of 26 feet, and there will be a slight expansion of the existing building at that setback line, and that's part of the reason why the variance is requested as well. The second variance is for minimum front setbacks for pavement. The GCC2 district requires a minimum of 15 foot setback for pavement. The existing parking area along Coshocton Street there, 62, is about nine feet from, has about a nine foot setback from the existing pavement. Item C is lot coverage. The code establishes a maximum of 65% maximum lot coverage. The applicant is requesting 75% total coverage for building and driveways. And the last item, item D, is for paving. The code requires either six-inch asphalt or four-inch reinforced concrete surface for all parking areas, like parking lot, those sorts of things. And the variance that's being requested is to retain the existing gravel parking areas that won't otherwise be covered by the proposed building expansion and other driveways that are part of the site or the facility expansion that's being proposed. So let's see. Before I move further on, does anybody have any questions on that?

No. And just to be clear, just to restate it for everybody watching at home, those are the four we're going to vote on independently.

So do you feel it's better to kind of go through these one at a time, have them vote on them, or go through the entirety of them?

Let's do it one at a time.

One at a time, and I just got this, and I apologize. So on the first page of the planning report, C and D, I believe. So we will go in the order that... Trevor said.

Hit the way he said. So C is lot coverage and D is asphalt. All right. Yes. That's what we're going to go with.

Okay. So it's based on this page.

The reference page 62.

Okay.

I know the recommendations.

Yep. 52? 62.

Yeah, on page 62, there's a recommendation for all the items. So what I will do is for item A, I will go back to page 5 of 14 of the staff report to go through the... Got it. Yeah. The recommendation there in page 5 of the staff report is on page 55 of your packet. So this is the building front yard setback. Again, the required front setback is 30 feet. The setback that's being requested is 26 feet. To quickly kind of summarize, as Aaron pointed out earlier, this building has been there for many years. It has not caused issues with sight lines, anything else like that over that time. And even a slight expansion of that building at that existing setback, I don't feel like will create any issues in terms of access or safety or anything like that from a visibility standpoint. so in that case i i recommend approval of this variance to allow a front yard setback of 26 feet for an existing and proposed structure um there again it's a long-standing been a long-standing condition likely was put in or likely was existing before zoning was even applied to the city as a whole so uh it's one of those it has not been problematic in the past it's been long-standing i see no reason to validate that to allow it to continue in the future. With that, I'll try to answer any questions on the front.

Brian, do you have anything?

What's it today? Is it 25 today? Is that what it is?

It's about 26 feet today.

Okay, so it's just they're not changing, they're not moving.

There's nothing happening to the front of the building. Yeah, what is happening is this just validates what that setback is. Well, there is some on the side.

There's going to be a new one.

Any questions or comments for Trevor or anybody from the city? No. All right. Aaron, would you like to come up?

Of course, if you don't mind, I'm just going to give some further background once. I think we all know where the real discussion is going to be probably on the latter two variances. Thanks again, Aaron Underhill, once again here on behalf of Last Chevrolet. You know, this dealership has been here for some six decades, as I mentioned in the previous case. You know, the code change in 2023 sort of changed the status of the use from permitted to conditional. And here again, I think it's very fair to say I don't know when zoning was first adopted or if anybody knows. None of us were around in Johnstown, but I'm... certain that this is predated zoning in Johnstown this whole this whole project, but the impetus for this is that service demand at this site has been growing and especially with all the growth we've seen over in the New Albany area We're now starting to get some people coming from over there I mean I bought a car last couple years ago for my son right and I live out that way so But Eric has told me that over the past several years, it's gotten to the point where he's having to schedule out service appointments some three or four weeks. And given that they're basically the only ball game in town, that's not convenient for residents and he feels like he's underserving them. I did make mention to an alternative site. That wasn't to threaten anything because the automobile dealership, frankly, will remain even if this expansion doesn't occur. It's just that this expansion will occur elsewhere because he has to do it in order to serve his customers. So he has located one or two possible other sites in the township that probably need rezoned, etc., But the strong preference for just to continue to be a good corporate citizen for the economic growth that Jeff mentioned, for the convenience of it all, is to do this on this site. All of the variances basically, and the first two especially, are the result of existing conditions. And the expansion itself is not the cause of the variances, but we're trying to legitimize uh what is on the site i would argue and i've argued in a footnote being the lawyer that i am that um there's a there's a good strong legal argument to be made that these are legally non-conforming conditions anyway and can continue in working with talking to the city staff talking with yaz and trevor it's always better to legitimize these things anyway and so this was the opportunity to do that but I think the first two variances are pretty simple in that they are existing conditions that we all pretty much agree predated zoning. So they're pretty minor in nature anyway. I think, you know, the design review board and the permitting process are going to include additional details, as Trevor did mention, I think, in his earlier report. Items such as stormwater management and even landscaping will be dealt with there. We did throw some trees and some additional landscaping in order to try to beautify the frontage here. Admittedly, our architect, who's an architect, not a landscape architect, didn't do a very good job of identifying tree species or sizes and things like that, but I think we can deal with that in the design review process. It was made very clear to us that there was a strong preference by the city to get that sidewalk put in. And so, you know, that will go in. I think that's going to be a great, great thing for the community. And so that is a commitment we've made in here, even though it's sort of more of a site planning issue than something related to these requests. But we did want to put that into the record that we're making that commitment. More to come. I think I'll be back up here in a few minutes.

Thank you, Aaron. Any questions for him? Any comments from the public on Section A? Seeing none, I think we agree with you. I think it's an existing building. Just like everywhere else. Any discussion from the board? Hearing none, is there any motions? Make a motion to approve variance request A. I'll second.

I'll second, sorry. Sorry.

I was just looking.

You have to raise your hand. I was very quiet. I was like, I'll second.

I didn't know your voice yet, Brian. I did clear my voice and I didn't do it.

All right. Mark Zalewski. Yes. Steve Dyer.

Yes.

Kyle Cook. Yes. Todd McConnell. Yes. Brian Hebel.

Yes.

Okay, moving forward then to the second request, item B, this is for the front pavement setback. Again, the code requirement for GCC2 is a minimum of 15 feet for a pavement setback. The existing asphalt is approximately nine feet from or is measured at approximately 9 feet for that setback. Here again, this is something in a long-standing condition. It also does not preclude that sidewalk from being installed, which, as Aaron pointed out, was a desire of the city. So in this case, there again, I don't see any issues with approving that variance for that existing condition. With that, I'll try to answer any questions.

Okay. Questions. No, I don't either. I don't have any questions. I just have a comment. I think, I mean, it is a dealership and everyone likes to look at new cars. I just think that's legitimate. But no comments. Do you have anything to add, Aaron? Any comments from the public on Section B? Seeing none, no discussion from the board. I'll make a motion to approve Section B. And I will second it. Steve Dyer. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

C, lot coverage. All right, moving on to the third item. Yeah, item C, lot coverage. So this is a request to allow, or I guess give me a brief backstory first. In all the zoning districts in the city, there's a maximum coverage for buildings, pavement, all of that sort of thing. And that's for a variety of reasons. It's to allow for vegetation to remain, just general some open space within the community and that sort of thing. In residential districts, they're generally much more restrictive. It's around like 30% to 35%. I think in the industrial district, it's all the way up to, I think, almost 90% or 95%. So there's a wide variety throughout the city and the existing zoning regulations for lot coverages. For the GCC2 district, that maximum allowable lot coverage is 65%. And so really the one thing I wanted to point to here is The second criteria in Chapter 1133 is whether the variance is substantial. And this is on page 58 of 62, if you want to read along. I don't consider the variance that is requested substantial. It is just for lot coverage. The bigger concern here is that seemingly all the surrounding properties have been able to develop within that 65% lot coverage maximum. The concern here is if you allow one to start going through, what happens in the future when more and more people want to exceed that lot coverage? That's not to say that that will happen, but I do think it sets at least a precedent in this area for that lock coverage to be varied. That said, I don't foresee any major issues being brought up with that. My primary concern was if you allow more lock coverage, you generally have more stormwater and runoff and things like that. I have not been made aware of any existing issues from neighboring properties feeling like they have excess stormwater coming through them or anything like that. But there again, that was my concern with this is what are the potential future impacts with that? And so Along with that is variances are generally reviewed for if there is a unique condition on the property itself that creates the need for a variance. Sometimes a setback variance is needed because you have a bunch of topography on your site, so you have to be closer to the street than you normally would be. Or there may be wetlands on your site, so you have an awkward setback situation or coverage situation. But in this case, this lot is Generally, there's a little topography to it, but it's not like there aren't any environmentally sensitive lands, there aren't any significant topography or anything like that that I felt like warranted the need to grant relief from the 65% maximum. Again, most of the sites in this area, at least to my knowledge, were developed within that 65% lot coverage maximum. And I think that if it's worked for the other properties along the corridor, I don't see the need to grant the variance for this one is where I arrived at based on the criteria and the code. I'll happily elaborate on any of that if you would so choose, but that's a recommendation based on the code review.

Yeah. And just because we're going to have maybe a fuller discussion here, the criteria in Chapter 1133 is laid out. That is the codified criteria for variances. It's also what the Supreme Court has said is kind of what this body should consider when considering variances. So... good to tie your comments and thoughts back to one of those, um, one of those criteria to be able to kind of determine where this, this board, this body ends up on this decision-making process.

Yes. Are you able to comment on the fact that there's a way factor? Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you, Aaron. It's, it's not dispositive in any way, shape or form. In fact, I think these criteria a little bit wonky because for example, number five, whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, The courts have basically said, you should know. Whether you actually knew it or not, you should have. So it's basically a wash. But to Aaron's point, it's a weighing of factors. There's not one that weighs more heavily than the other. You don't have to meet four out of the seven to get the variance. It is a weighing of the criteria. So I'm happy to answer any other questions as we consider this.

May I ask a question? Is it your contention that the expansion that's been proposed cannot take place unless this variance is granted?

Thank you, Jeff. The answer to that is yes. And what we've tried to do, and I think this relates to the next variance, but we have tried to design this in a manner that we're placing the new structure, all portions of it, on... areas that are already impervious on the site. So these conditions exist already on the site and we're placing the building over it. So our feeling is we're not necessarily changing, we're changing the vertical elements but not the horizontal coverage so to speak. And so there will be, there will be difficulty in building this as we would like it without the variance.

No possibility of redesigning it and coming it closer at least to the maximum currently.

I think that there would be a substantial reduction in the amount of, I think we're talking about 10% of the site is roughly three-quarters of an acre. If we were to have to completely start comparing that to what it would mean for the building, it's probably going to lose a substantial number of bays, which doesn't quite get us to where we need to meet the customer.

Okay, thank you.

Do we know the calculation of what would get them back to 65%? That's for math. I know you just mentioned it's like three quarters of an acre.

7.57 acres is what the auditor shows and the legal description show. So if you think of 10% coverage would be... Three quarters of an acre.

Yeah, it's a little over 30,000 square feet. Okay. Yeah.

What is the, if I may, I don't know, NC column, the fourth column down says plus minus 75% total coverage. What is that plus minus referring to?

It's a roundabout. It could be 74.4. Approximately. It could be 75.2.

But that doesn't mean it can go up to 100% or anything, right? No, no, no. It's just very close to 75%. Is that spelled out somewhere, though?

No. And frankly, I think our coverage is that it may even be on the large plan that we gave you. The legal definition. It's something less than 75% by some, but it's not a big percentage. Yeah. Okay.

And you could always, in your action, you could always specify if you want it to be exactly 75%, you could certainly put that in there.

Specific.

I don't want to interrupt the Q&A. I just wanted to address a couple items.

Yeah, any other questions? I just want to reiterate the questions you asked. So you asked if this doesn't get approved, the expansion will not happen, correct? And then you also asked any other ways to redesign it. So you're telling us there's absolutely no way to redesign it without losing...

I doubt that there's a way to redesign it to get to 65%. If there's a way to redesign it to lessen that percentage, that's entirely something I'd have to talk to the architect about. I just don't think we can get all the way to 65%.

Even a compromise down to 70% would be better.

I mean, I think you're already at 65% with the existing buildings that are there. I mean, you can remove the 700 square foot building. That's not much of a storage facility, I'd imagine, at this point. Well, and keep in mind, this is for total lock coverage, not just building. This is for pavement and for buildings as well. Yeah, I mean, if you take that building down and make it green space, then... Oh, no, no, I agree with the 700 square feet. It's 700 square feet, not 30,000.

My point was more, don't think about it only in terms of where the building footprint is. It's for all the impervious surface on there, yeah.

Does that include the rock thing that's coming up next? That's the 75%?

I did include that. From all of my experience in dealing and interacting with engineers, the coefficient of runoff for gravel is almost exactly the same as for asphalt. It's maybe a couple percentage.

But there's 75% coverage. That's including that space?

That would include all impervious, yeah. Gravel, asphalt, building, anything where water doesn't percolate through, yeah.

And then the next request then is to, I don't know if it bleeds into it, but is to not pave anymore.

Correct. The next one is to allow the existing gravel to remain, not to expand that anymore, but to allow it to remain.

Remain and not pave it. So I think your question is, does the rock, does the gravel area still encompass if the expansion occurs?

the 75 percent yeah yes they're putting the building on existing pavement so it's really yeah one in the same yeah yeah you're just putting building on pavement you're not expanding the graph the pavement at this time per se i think based on the plants i did not i don't have the exact measurements there will be a little bit of an additional pavement over what's gravel currently basically to access the the surface base and that so you're not driving gonna ask that too i was like i think it does say there's a new driver on the back side okay

I just wanted to clarify that before we moved on.

I think this relates to the second variance too. I'm just going to say it. Historically, we're coming a little bit with hat in hand on this gravel issue. Historically, stormwater management regulations are a pretty newfangled thing in the last couple of decades. Would that be accurate? Historically, the dealership had added gravel with impunity and without any need to comply with anything going back into the 80s, 90s sort of thing, right? And so it was sort of a normal thing to just do that and not ask for any permission. So I think there's a little bit of ignorance on that issue as the years went on. One of the issues with turning any of that into pavement is we are going to trigger stormwater management regulations that are significantly different. Well, they're completely different from what existed when the dealership was built because it didn't exist. And so it's been described to me as a million and a half to $2 million problem in terms of cost, but also one that will remove display space for vehicles parking on the site because you have to accommodate the stormwater management ponds and so both the lot coverage variants and the gravel condition are really more they are tied to the fact that this has been a long-standing situation on the site the stormwater management has not been a problem but you know in terms of unique conditions I think the unique condition here is that this is such a long operating business with what the improvements having been there for so long I think that distinguishes it from an advanced auto parts or whichever auto parts store is gone now or Kroger right in that if you were coming in with a new site today I think you'd have every right and ability to hold the feet to the fire to a design that would meet that standard

So wouldn't the township do the same then? Wouldn't they also hold them to the fire? I mean, you're talking about cost here, but if we don't approve it and he's saying, I'm moving and not willing to work with the city in any way, you know, and go do it elsewhere, does that not also accumulate a great cost?

It would accumulate there now. In that case, in terms of how these... I think it's much less of an expense to do this on a green field than it is to do it retroactively on a site that's already up and operating. I think there's a significant distinction in the cost associated with that.

Realistically, you can go put a pole barn and have the same thing.

Can I ask one question? And you may not know this, but was that cost estimate based on bringing the entirety of the site up to current... stormwater? Oh, okay. That's correct. I don't know that. I think there's flexibility in that code. Generally, with any sort of redevelopment, my interpretation of most planning codes is always you try to bring the site into greatest conformance, which means in this case, I would review that as you need to manage whatever new impervious you're adding, which in this case really is pretty little based on the plans that have been submitted. So I wouldn't interpret that as you have to bring the entirety of that site into into stormwater conformance, but you should manage the new impervious that's added to the site. So I don't know ultimately what that does to the cost overall, but I do think that would be a pretty significant reduction in cost and the amount of area that you need to do that.

If that's the case, that's extremely helpful. Unfortunately, those are engineer-type questions.

They are, yeah. I think it would be a little... aggressive to try and get that site to be to meet current stormwater standards just because to your point it was built decades ago and and kind of utilize the most amount of space that you realistically could but my interpretation of that would be you really just need to meet stormwater retention standards for new impervious that you're adding to that site right would be my take on that the ideal for that back like gravel area i know this is kind of bleeding into

D for this but because I've worked at Kia of Easton for some time too and they put in porous gravel in a whole section so it's not your routine asphalt it's porous and has 16 plus inches worth of washed gravel underneath it so it can still absorb all the rain that way So instead of having that gravel like that would be, and it's like 10 to 20% more than regular asphalt. It's not a giant expense further. And I think that would help make it look... So your compromise is to add more gravel where it exists to provide more... An owner of a quarter million dollar Corvette, I don't want to drive that through a dirt lot to get it back to the service department. Yeah.

I think that's a reasonable... West and compromise you know my understanding is that most of what is happening on the gravel portions of this are some some vehicle storage for well parking for service and then probably parking for the vehicles that need to be either repaired to sell or to be I was going to say refurbished. Yeah, it's reconditioning. The fact that it was built with no standards and no kind of vision for the future and has been kind of piecemealed over the years. And I think the precedent is less of a concern here because we're not starting with a blank slate where you're giving relief to somebody in that respect. I think you would have much more of a precedent-setting condition if this were a green field where someone would come in anew and ask you for more. The other thing I wanted to mention was, you know, THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF JOHNSTOWN'S CODE, BUT IT'S AN OBSERVATION. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE THINGS CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF IN OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, RIGHT? AND I'VE MENTIONED THIS, I THINK, IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD EVEN RECENTLY FOR SOME CASES, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT'S BEEN CREATED HAS THIS 350-ACRE MINIMUM. Actually, I think that was very smart on the city's part because you have not been inundated with 1Z, 2Z applications that you're having to have a full agenda and deal with people wanting to capitalize on what's happening to your West. But oftentimes, these things can be negotiated through a zoning and through a PUD process that essentially writes those variances in and If I were in another community where that were available, we'd come in and we'd list every single condition on this site and say, we're just going to kind of reset here and we're going to say you can't go beyond this in the future. So this makes us a little more awkward and it feels like you're setting precedent, but I really think we're in some respects dealing with that PUD in a different way to deal with very unique conditions that this site has.

For the record, I do not disagree with Aaron's opinion.

I was going to say on this too, like we're on C right now, right? Yes. This is a franchised car dealership. I know that there's a couple of non-franchised car dealerships. So to say like all the others in the area have stayed under 65%, they're not a car dealership either. That has to have 100 plus vehicles in stock for inventory. And realistically, the more inventory they have, that means that they're doing good business. That means that they're bringing more investment and money to the city. It means that they're being successful. Obviously, they're successful right now with a giant expansion. So... I think that's a good point that covers the board as well if we made a decision to allow that one.

You're right. There are a lot of corporate requirements. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised, and Eric will say this, that in the next five to seven years that he'll be forced to maybe come back in and Yeah, they'll have to have a new showroom.

Oh, you mean by corporate? Yes, they'll have them do a new image.

Because they did the facade about, what, 10 years ago or something? Right, right. They all look the same.

I think he's designed this expansion in a manner that he feels some comfort that they'll be able to keep the service bays, but I can see the dealership and the sales portion being a different story. Yeah.

Any more questions for Aaron? Thank you. Any comments from the public? The only thing I want to point out is the school issue. The school, there's a gravel parking lot at the school that destroys the homes behind it. The kids park could go on that every day and the people who live there want that. I'm not aware of any situation like this currently over there with that gravel lot. Is it creating dust? If we do the idea of that extra, the other gravel. Porous gravel. Porous asphalt, essentially is the name of it. Does that create less dust?

I mean, permeable pavement doesn't have any dust. It's a concrete product. Water can filter through, but it's solid surface. I think what Mark was referring to is there is a significant amount of gravel underneath it, and that's what allows water to flow through.

That's my only thing. It's not going to create a... There's not going to be people complaining.

To me, it's not a high-volume traffic problem. area. Like the school is high volume traffic, right?

Yeah. Constantly. It would just be like this. That's the regular parking lot. It's the same thing. It just doesn't stay wet.

Any other comments, questions? Seeing none, hearing none, it's time to make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve variance request C. And I will second it.

All right. Mark Solonziski. Yes. Steve Dyer.

Yes.

Kyle Cook.

Yes.

Todd McConnell. Yes. Brian Hebel.

Yes.

Moving on to D.

Okay, let's see. Item D. So this is a request to allow for the existing gravel parking areas to remain instead of the code requirement for either 6-inch asphalt or 4-inch reinforced concrete for those existing gravel areas. I guess this is what I was talking about. I guess I moved. Yeah, sorry.

You just skipped ahead.

Yeah, I'm an idiot. There you go.

They're pretty closely tied. It's the same, pretty much, yeah.

From a larger city standpoint was, while it sounds like this area is generally low volume in terms of vehicles, the purpose behind having some sort of hard surface like concrete or asphalt is to just minimize, A, the dust that's in the air, and also just debris and other things like that entering and exiting site, meaning it's raining, good stuff gets picked up, and it's out in the street just spreading further throughout the city. Additionally, again, gravel parking really isn't used. I mean, I think the school was mentioned, but other than that, I've been here, I've been assisting the city for three years, Generally, it's always just asphalt or concrete, that sort of thing. So this isn't an overly common request. And I think, too, based on the requirements of the code, this makes sense for a commercialized area with potentially high volumes of traffic just because it's not used for that today. It doesn't mean it won't be in the future once this expansion goes through. So based on that, again, I don't see the – the unique site conditions that would typically warrant granting a variance on this. Also, you know, generally auto sales and service, they more or less generally use hard surfaces, especially if a new facility is built, those sorts of things. So let's see. Sorry, I was trying to go through my summary here on page 61. Okay. Again, I think the key here is whether or not you think this sets precedent or not. If this will be a repeat in the future, again, I think some people will try to Well, I'm not going to speculate on what other people will do. But, again, I think this could set a precedent, and, again, it goes against generally what is done for any new development or even any facility expansions that are done here within Johnstown. So for that reason, that's why the denial recommendation was put forward is that I don't see any unique conditions on the property or the use that would warrant deviating from the standard code requirements.

All right. Thank you.

I think that's reasonable.

Any other comments for Trevor? Questions? No. Aaron, anything to add?

Just for repeat, you know, the precedent, I think, is very, using this, if I were thinking through if I had another client, which, you know, I may someday, but I doubt that this would be used as a precedent unless there was something very similar to this in terms of a longstanding use. You know, I could agree to a condition that says, you know, if the continued existence of the gravel creates some sort of a nuisance condition where, you know, the city is receiving complaints from neighboring property owners that we would be required to come back and demonstrate to you either how we're going to mitigate that or you know, at that time, we would revisit the question. I mean, I could agree to that so that we make sure that there's some mechanism in there to make sure we're not, you know, taking advantage of the situation, so to speak. So I don't know how to quite fashion that, but, you know, I guess if we have complaints of dust or that, you know, rather than it being used for sort of storage, we're having customers coming in and out and it's dragging dirt onto the roadway and it's causing problems, I'd be more than happy to have my client come back and discuss with you a more, a different solution.

Thank you.

They've already, from the photos that have shown time lapses, they've taken advantage of expanding it on their own over the years, which

I think one thing I try to make clear is any further actions in that regard would be prohibited. I would go on record as saying that should be considered a zoning violation so they could replace the gravel they have if it's necessary for aesthetics or to keep the dust down. If we find an aerial photo in 2028 that shows that it's expanded, that would be his own violation.

I think that's just being asked to police it, though. That's the only thing. I mean, the code's in place for a reason, and I do agree with variances in certain circumstances. You know, I mean, when it comes down to it, this is a car dealership that needs space for cars. Yeah, I got it. You know, we don't need necessarily the 75% or whatever's required of the... that we just talked about, you know? curb cuts, that stuff. But when it comes down to it, to come in and say, this is what it is if not removing, technically. The code is there for a reason. So it does set a precedent to the community. Whether it can be held against us, it does set a precedent.

Todd, do you have anything?

Yeah, so going along with that, so in the response that has been put together on page 10 of 12 for the code being in place from 2016 to 2020 is when the asphalt's been put in there. last update was in 2013 so there's a seven year period where if there was additional gravel put into there it was outside of the code at that point so if it was being done during that time knowing the code knowing or not knowing which is what a comment was made earlier is like if somebody's going to buy something they should know the code's in place and it's not being it's not being adhered to then you're outside of the code and then there's issues with that My big feeling is that it does show precedent or provides precedent for future current businesses or future businesses to be able to come in and say, well, we were going to do this, but you've already allowed it for this, so we're going to make it outside of the code. We're going to ask for this variance, and you've already done it this way, so you kind of have to go along with it. I'm not really keen on that just because of any future pieces, and I think that The short time that I've been on the board as part of this, I've learned that there's a lot of things that are going to be coming up that I don't know about or haven't known about, and just looking out for future opportunities for the same person to come up to us, different people to come up to us to be able to have those conversations. My thinking is it doesn't bother me that the gravel has been back there. I'm pretty sure I've driven on it before, picking up a car, dropping off a car. But because of that, it doesn't make it correct because of the code. And so I kind of want to go along with what Trevor's recommendation is to deny just because I think it's going to set precedent for other places for expansions. The Kroger Center is going to be doing expansions. Who knows whatever other items might come up.

So you're saying this precedent is, well, this is different than the building being built next to the road, like the A and B, right? This is different because it occurred slowly over time. Yes. And it's very reasonably could happen to another property.

Yes. I mean, other properties could be built right near the road and they're asking for a variance because they're close to the road as well. But it's been there for however long. I get that. That's perfectly understandable. But the gravel has not been there forever as long as the building has been there. The zoning was there for the lot coverage for the asphalt and the concrete, but still gravel remains, so it's outside of that. But if another building comes in, another person comes to the planning and zoning and wants to know, can I do this? You allowed it here. So if you're going to tell me no, how is it that this person was allowed to do it, this entity was allowed to do it?

Is gravel currently, like the measurement of it?

Can we get it? Two-thirds of an acre, like .66.

I appreciate what you're saying. I look at it differently. I look at it for this application. For this lot, for this being a car sales lot, is that gravel okay there? I mean, I would take each application separately. And I understand setting a precedent. I don't know. I mean, I get it. I get it. It's a thing. But for me, I'm looking at it differently. Like, is it reasonable to have this gravel here for this car lot? That's the way I look at it. So I'm just saying that. Well, but keep in mind, variances run with the property, not with the use. So once they move on... You know, that variance would stay with it. Yeah, that's true. That's a good point.

I would argue, or I would agree to a condition that the... You have a point there, that this variance only applies to an automobile dealership use. I wouldn't want it to apply to a future one either, right? I mean, it would need to be sort of, I would say, just this particular condition as it exists today.

So allow it for just your client. That's right. Okay. Well, then you get to... No, I mean, I'm just summarizing. I mean, I get it. It's a valid ask. I'm not... Yeah, no, that's right.

That's right.

And I'm giving up some property. That's why I'm not saying that, because he couldn't sell it. Yeah. Anyway.

Is there any, I guess, to be fair, is there anything that your client is willing to, I guess, work with us on?

Like an over... What I'm thinking, and you may kill me, figuratively, not literally, but admittedly, some of these things did happen after 2013. I think we have photographic evidence that some of the gravel was in place before then, so to lessen the pain for me and for my client, perhaps a middle ground would be to agree to allow anything that's been graveled since the code changed in 2013, that would be what would need to be paved, and the balance would remain. It would predate that.

If we pave... hypothetically speaking, they pave all of the gravel. Is that subject to runoff and all of those other additional parameters stored?

I'll preface this by saying I'm not an engineer, so I can't give you specifics, but I know that the coefficient of runoff, meaning the amount of water that runs off of a gravel lot versus a traditionally paved lot are fairly similar. I think within a couple percentage.

So really we don't have issues now and it's not something that we should have to worry about.

So in that case, Would they have to manage a little bit more stormwater? Yes, but it's not like you're increasing it by 50% or anything like that. It's very close. It's been our concern all along with this is whether we're triggering something that is going to

Well, I think technically that parking lot dumps into a pond back here anyways right back by the apartments there looks to be

I think, again, based on topography, I think most of that drainage runs to the southwest down towards Clark Drive, just the way everything kind of flows based on street view and other information.

The pictures, there is like, there's basically, I'll call it wetlands, easy enough. It varies in size over the years, but it's where everything already drains off to, so I don't really think that there's...

Since you mentioned compromise... I'm looking, that's why I pulled this out. I wanted to see for the expansion how close that gravel area is to the expansion and I can't read plans very well. But I'm wondering if In order to keep some of the gravel, maybe, is to have some of it paved so that...

This is basically the gravel line right here. This squiggly line is essentially the gravel line currently.

So this says existing gravel parking to remain, but it's only seen here. So I know that there's a large, I mean, with the pictures that I've looked at, I'm just wondering drivability. I just made up that word, I think. drivability-wise to be able to cover enough area that would be reasonable for one vehicle, for two lane traffic almost, if you will.

Yes. And if this corner right here that is paved, that's this right here. So it basically is going right here, so they will add this to go around the back of the expansion.

So that's why it's saying new paved service, so is this going to be enough area that would be able to have multiple vehicles to drive into that area. I understand that, yes. So I understand that there could be some of it left for parking or storage or whatever, the vehicles sitting there until they're getting ready to service. But just enough area to be able to mitigate, not have to remove the entire thing, but at least...

section of it and I'm not gonna say a number but just so it's I think I could agree to does that make sense of what I'm saying I go as you're saying to the extent that the behind the news the new building expansion the paved service drive that is shown does not accommodate two-way traffic if it doesn't we would expand the pavement so that it will accommodate two-way traffic that's essentially what you're looking for I could read that

this is I have an idea well first I mean that's yeah all right yeah that's gonna go the expansion is gonna come out to here basically yes because it's using this but then it's coming out and over so part of that's going to get paved already yeah because even because the expansion of this existing building it's going about halfway down the building which is where your gravel starts anyway

figure out what that width is there today. That's what it doesn't show on here.

This shows 80 and a half feet here, and it's not half. So if we say instead of 40 feet, if we say that is half. For the sake of the record,

Whatever is being discussed, there would still definitely need to be a variance. Even if it's not fully left gravel, there would need to be some sort of variance to leave whatever portion is gravel. So just for consideration.

Yeah, it would be a variance upon condition.

Right, right. I can agree to that. I just need to define what it is you want to get to.

Yeah. Yeah, that's why I said I don't want to put a number to it because I don't know.

Is there a possibility of tabling that last variance piece until we have discussion with the owner?

You can absolutely move the table.

I'll be okay with that.

Well, we were going to bring up, but that's cool. Well, you're welcome.

We were just whispering about that.

Good minds think alike. I'll make a motion to table. Before we do that, should we hear from the public? Yeah, you can hear from the public. So since there's a motion on the table, what do we do? I'll remove the motion. All right. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak on section D?

Did I hear you correctly? Just the paving section.

Thank you for asking.

I have no public comment.

Okay. I've forgotten before, so I don't want to do that again. All right. Now... I will make a motion to table variance D. And I will second.

Raise your hand. Do you feel like you're back in grade school? Yeah. I even like that. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. All right.

Moving on. Other business. You guys don't want to keep talking about gravel? No. How about curb cuts? All right. Curb cut. I removed the curb cut from Jeff Barr's house. All right. All right, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Thank you, Aaron.