Bza Meeting - Regular Meeting

for the August 18th, 2025 Macedonia Planning Commission. Be a roll call. Mr. Westbrooks here. Thank you. We have two of them tonight. Start. Thank you. Mr. Roberts here. Mr. Cox here. Mr. Wallenhurst here. Miss Musky here. You hear it twice. That was better. All right. Uh, first is approval of the July 21st, 2025 public hearing minutes. Uh, I think everybody's here except for Roberts. Any comments? I didn't have any. You have a comment? No.

Well, I move to approve them as submitted them. I'll second that. All in favor? I I'll abstain. And then approval of the July 21st regular meeting minutes. I move to approve that as a minute. Second. I'll second. All right. All in favor? I [Applause] first regular agenda item is uh Mr. Benedict's brilliant electric signs for Fifth Third Bank. Come on up. Hello everyone. Thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. Welcome back.

We have some challenges with the size of the sign address that. But what we're doing is just replacing existing signs with new signs that reflect the u branding initiative for fifth. This is a area wide change that we're implementing. Um the signs are actually technically the same style as the old. There's just some changes graphically. The removal of the wings mainly and then the removal of for the omission bank for the front go's thoughts and things.

Sure. My report's dated August 9th. Um, as the applicant said that the last time we we talked about this really was because the issue really came into because the the overall height exceeded due to the size of the building. There's a limitation in the um criteria uh for the shopping plaza for Alexandria Square. And so the idea was that the the logo and the overall size had to be reduced down which from a readability standpoint was probably the challenge to get that to work. But

yeah, I think I think it did. Um square footage wise, all three signs um total a little over 37 square feet. So there's no issue there relative to the amount um because they're allowed a fair amount more like 136 ft. So really there were just um two issues I just wanted clarification on. And then the third is for the commission uh the lettering white letters blue green white logo. Um how the criteria uh states is that you have to approve that. Um I think last time you I think the commission was found the colors acceptable really was the size issue.

So that you do need to formally vote on but um also then just need clarification two of the criteria. One states that all all signs shall be placed in the center of the facade sign band and have a common bottom line with the sign band. I just I couldn't tell if that was Yeah, unfortunately because it's well it's just not unfortunately it's a standalone building so it's not like the shopping center where each sign there is a sign band.

Um the peaks of the the roof and the building design kind of dictates where the signs need to be. We're actually the same area as the existing sign. So, nothing's really changed in terms of the location, the signage on the buildings other than the logo in the fifth and front being on one continuous line. I do think they're situated symmetrical with the building. So, I don't I don't have a concern with it. Just need to be a discussion item. And then uh side returns metal with a trim cap.

Yes. I mean technically these signs are um they are um would be called trimless drop um and that's what's on there currently. So technically like a trim cap goes around and then it's it's you know that's how it's connected. These are actually dropped into the sign and they're they're actually fastened without that trim can. It's actually a superior application. Um, and it's really fifth. It's what they've always had and put on really all for all their signs. It's actually what's on there currently. Um, so

yeah. So, I mean, the the standard is you have to have metal side returns and have to have a trim cap. Yeah. And the returns are aluminum. Um, I can't tell you there's a trim pan because there trimless drop. That's what the what's on there now. That's all I can kind of comment on. Yeah. And I don't know how that was put in place previously. That standard's been in place since Alexandria came to fruition. The retail plans.

I know it is what's on there currently. Um, so I Yeah. Other than that, I think the sign's acceptable other than just talking through that item. A question. Yes, please. Uh now this the sign you have on there now is a standard for fifth third and all their banks very similar to they do it on all the banks and uh so any deviation would be different from what you have on all the other uh your all their other little banks. Correct. That is their standard. This is their standard and the colors and all that same thing.

Correct. Yeah. And they have to well the colors have to be for their their branding and what they copy copyright. So we have to hit that you know has to be spot on. Well Kevin can we approve the the way it is without the change that Alexandria way might I don't I don't think they have a problem with the landlord there. Uh do you you've always had the same sign. This is slightly different though for their new logo. Is that it? Right. If if you look at the existing, they have these wings over their branding. Those have been removed. I get you.

Um and that's pretty much the biggest change. And then and I don't know exactly what goes into they're removing bank and the word bank. Yeah. So those are the only changes really to that signage on this particular That's my questions. Um I had a question about um the the is there painting being done behind there because there's going to be wear from the wings and all the word bank all that. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. And that's that's always that's also why we definitely want to put the logo especially on the sidewall where it was. So we're already going to have to deal with the scarring from the wings. Yeah, that's generally the that's very important certainly to thirdatch. This is the different style that you're talking about um that you guys were discussing.

Yeah, that that does sort of illustrate it. Um I don't have a sample with me um to show the difference. Um but usually with the trim cap you see it kind of sticking out almost like a I don't know how to describe it. Um and a lot of times they use jewelite um trim which is not metallic. Um but you can use obviously aluminum trim. It's the same thing. It's just with this design it's actually recessed into the letter and attached with screws along the side. Um, so it gives it it's it's much more of a type um and wears better. You know, the elements don't impact it is, you know, sometimes you can have, you know, the more exposure to surfaces like that. You can have more wearing and scarring.

I just don't know if we can approve that. That's how it's working for that. Is it like a newer technology that's not in the code because it is newer? Something that's been around might be

I did notice one cabinet business over there that didn't have the trim that the letters did. Sound like you were going to say something.

Well, yeah. I mean, I I I don't The standard has always been you have to have the the returns in your trim cap. Um I don't know if the the intent was maybe it adds more depth or dimension to it by having that. I don't know what the thinking was, but it's been in place as long as I've been here. I mean, I I can't speak to why the existing signs on the building don't have it. They are the same type of signs we're proposing. I'd have a good guess that is, but that's okay. I wasn't.

Yes. I mean, I you know, it's that's standard is what I what I wrote. And typically how that works is if um you want to vary from the standard then you need a request from the whoever the complex at this point Alexandria Square I don't know who the developer complex owner is at this point. I think, you know, there was talk of going to them with, you know, the issue with the size and I don't it's really worth the effort.

I mean, the commission's always been receptive when property owners, complex owners come in, they they work with them. So, they have amended not just this criteria, but several others too. And it's specifically the colors. It was always only red and white primarily and then they've amended them over the years to include yellow to include blue and then when the commission did an update in I don't know 2020 or 2021 they said you know we'll just allow all primary colors primary and secondary colors and just approve them here at the meeting. But that my point is the thinking has changed over time and they've amended those sets of criteria. So I don't know how hard it would be if they came back. I mean the commission's here all kind of saying one problem with it but criteria criteria. So you you'd say if if the the property owner I mean you know wasn't agreeable to it was would request the change and we felt it was agreeable that's something that can be amended to the standards. Would you have any real problem with it besides the fact that it's not the current standard?

Yeah I don't know again I don't know what the reason or rationale of the standard in the first place is. Again I guess my assumption is maybe it would add more depth to the dimension here probably that's about the only thing and I'm wondering if like they don't even considering it sounds like there's another business they they might not even understand what the reason is or why it's like that yeah my assumption is if I didn't bring it up probably yeah I mean you I mean so the commission right no we appreciate your honesty we really do because again I think because again it could cause a problem for another business so I think bring this to to the ownership potenti mention

that this is kind of how it's written but helping them understand kind of there's a difference but there's not a huge difference and they chances are they'll probably be okay with it but I think it's just kind of and and then at that point if they're okay with it probably just having to modify it and provide it to the commission to like Kevin Kevin could we possibly approve this subject to administrative approval by Alexandria Square landlord which no doubt would go along with whatever they want to do their main tenant over. That's kind of what I was thinking. Yeah, if something like that, we could get you so you don't have to come back or try to get a variance or something to provide a letter.

You know, I'd go along with it, but uh if we can't, we could do it administrative approval subject to the landlord going along with it, which in my experience or our experience, no doubt would do it. Yes. A main tenant, you know, if they approve it like the next. Yeah. And I think we probably could do that. Yeah, let me think. So if he requested the landlord provide that and assuming that he would and we approve the amendment, the next thing could could be administratively approved.

So I I'm I'm going to go on and say the ownership probably doesn't have a problem with it because they want tenants. If the commission doesn't have a problem with it, which generally it sounds like you don't, Then what I would say you should do the safest bet and you don't want the applicant to have to come back again because they probably sign up. What's your fabrication? It varies. I mean if you got some tonight when when's that thing ready to go out?

The way we're doing these are rolling them out one location by location. So these are actually moving along quicker than some other projects potentially oneoffs. So I would say that if this is up to the commission, but you should um amend your agenda to add this as a an item on your agenda to suggest provision to Alexander Square to allow trimless lettering and logos.

Correct. And subject to written requests by the ownership on their letter head. And if that doesn't come in, your approval is void and the building permit would be dare I say remote. Now, a lot of that's fraught with whatifs, but you know, you're trying to be friendly to moving this along, which I understand. That's how probably the best way. I wouldn't do it the other way, asking for a letter and subject to getting the letter. You are effectively, but you're putting as an agenda item,

right? What I will say, if the association is not amendable to that change, we would probably be able to go with the trim cap. It's just we have to redo the sign. So, when you say when you say redo the sign, well, the design, all the drawings and everything. Yeah, but the size isn't going to change. We understand we're more of a technical exercise. Correct. It's not ideal, but we have to do what we have to do. We understand that. Yeah.

It's just they would prefer the trimless drop. If go through this process and they deny it, we would want to be turn key to go with, you know, the the trim can obviously would have to be metal. That's even more a reason why you want to have it as a separate agenda item because you're going to put it before this. You would you would continue this actually you'd table it which comes up at the end of the meeting. Okay.

You put the other one on the agenda. You'd act on it subject to then you come back to this one. you pick it back up off the table, you approve it. It's subject to that. Now, getting if you're trying to help. So, do you have to guess push the table one to the end of the meeting? Is that what you said? That's typically how tableling works. Um, I don't think Mr. Copeland is going to go two bananas if you did this and he still went in front of him.

We delayed you like an extra minute. I'm I'm just concerned that it it may be a if it doesn't get approved, we we're back to let's just go with that's why it has to be a separate agenda item because they would approve this one subject to the other agenda item. And if that doesn't get approved, this then the default is this is approved with the trim cap. Okay. capacity if we have to go back there colors.

Do you guys like this approach? Maybe table this come back to it in two minutes. Add the other agenda.

We're going to table it and then go right back to it again. I can back to it. Okay. Um and then uh deal with an agenda item to request the change to this to the standard and then come back to this and approve you know vote on this subject to that actually happening and if it doesn't then approach CS That's thankful we get it. Frankie, chair. Okay. So, the first thing would be um make a motion to table this uh item for the moment.

I'll second it. It's okay. The purposes of addressing the criteria of Alexander Square. Correct. All in favor? I. All right. Then and the record reflects no absentions. Okay. And then the next thing would be to make a motion to add an agenda item to address the uh signed standards for the commons of Alexander. Sorry. Um so I'll make that motion to add that agenda item. I'll second it. All right. All in favor?

I the abstension. All right. So with this then I guess We want to make a request that the request to the property owner to amend the current standards. Uh to allow what would you call it? Trimless letters and logo to hold on one second. Allow what? Trimless trimless. Okay. They're trimless. Drop in drop faces. drop in faces. Okay.

So, that's do we have to spec specify who's requesting that of the owner? Technically, I think the third owns the building, but they're the association. The association. Well, we obviously motion. All right. All right. So, that's that's the motion as of the moment. Is there a second?

I'll second. So what I heard the motion is that you are requesting the ownership of Alexandria Square Development to consider an amendment to the adoptive criteria for the purpose of permitting trimless drop letters and logos as an alternative to trim capos. I'm gonna look at the video. You're look at the video. Okay. So, I I do believe that that is exactly what I said. Sorry. And he seconded. Um any more discussion on that item?

No. All right. All in favor? I. Okay. So, that has passed. Um if we can bring the uh the signs for fifth, third back off table. By motion. by motion. I'd like to bring fifth third signage back to the floor. I'll second it. All in favor? I

I. And then this would be approval of the signage as submitted contingent upon the um successful uh the the ownership uh association providing the amendment to the uh signage plan. And if not, uh, approval of the same signage with, uh, metal trim caps.

I'll second that. All right, Brian. Let's do Yeah, I'm going to try to clarify that. So, um, the motion is to accept the sign as submitted, accepting the colors of the logos and the the letters with blue, white, and green contingent on permitting the what's the term Drop in the drop in

trimless and logos previously recommended in the prior case. And if the ownership of Alexandria Square does not request that, then this approval of this sign must contain trim caps according to the adopted criteria. and subject to administrative approval. Yeah, pretty. Well, I was Well, I was willing to take it. That's fine.

All right. So, that what Brian just rattled off the motion. That's the second. Any more discussion? No. All right. All in favor? I pretty good at that. I've just got to get better at not moving my lips. Really appreciate everyone. Oh, wait. I'm technically done. No problem. Thank you.

Now, if I Mr. Chair, can I Yeah. I I wouldn't go fabricating that sign until you have it on their letter head requesting it. And then once the building commissioner certifies that it's coming from them, he knows the commission retroactively approved it. He can move forward and issue the permit, but he can't issue a permit. You can't fabricate a sign until that happens. So tag, you're it. Got it. So So is he going to he needs he needs to talk? He needs to do it. Yeah. Okay. So you need to talk to the Yeah. the power because they they may be like go with the trim cap. Yeah.

Yeah. I I don't know. I can't make that decision. But I appreciate you guys giving us the options here. It's really helpful. And you just need to communicate to Mr. Monaco. Oh, we know each other. No problem. I always like to follow. Thank you.

Next item, business equivalence with the Valley Reserve subdivision. For this, I got to excuse myself. Turn it over. Thanks Scott. Okay. Mr. Copins, welcome back.

Thank you. So, you are here for final site plan or plat approval. Uh, this is final approval. Okay. Okay. Do you want to give us any updates on anything? If not, we'll let Mr. France and Mr. Zani jump into their memos. probably let them like I know Dan my engineer did um address a couple of your concerns and I kind of get what they were getting at but did that make sense his response I mean it sounds like it's some requirement that the man I did not see any email from Dan recently but go ahead

oh okay well I'll just go through quickly on my address. Yeah, let's just stick to the usual. So, Sar August 9th and basically um this is phase one lots 1 through 36. Phase two is the applicant stage will come back later and this the ability then to create lots and make them sailable to I'm assuming to um py or whoever you're selling to

and uh so I just um had stated that the final approval for the hold of all was in May of this year and I had uh noted eight sort of outstanding things um documentation the site plan dates when the conditional use for the PUB was approved. Wetland determination phasing added to the plan. Um planning commission approval of the trees proposed for the fronts of the homes. Submission of the construction agreement performance bond maintenance bond. City near approval of the storm water management plan. Um identification of sidewalks on the plan as being five feet and then submission of a revised signage plan for administrative approval. I quickly talked to um the city engineer and he stated items one, two, and three are complete. Five, six, and seven are complete. He didn't know about 4,8 I can most assurely that has not happened because that would come back here to the commission and that that hasn't been done yet. So just at some point need to get the trees in front of the houses approved by the planning commission.

So the street trees because the planning commission meeting we did discuss that and you gave us your recommendation on what kind yeah I gave I think I thought we did yeah was that not just for the house like the landscaping for the house packages um I thought it was for the entryways as well if it included the the street trees in front of the house then it's then it's acceptable I for some reason I thought it was just the package like for each of the house you as a standard package. Anything else? I know I resubmitted that entry sign and entry sign landscaping. Okay.

So, four and eight may be complete. Um and the signage was a administrative approval. So, I'm assuming building commissioner has seen that and signed off on it.

Yeah. So, so the eight items it sounds like are done. And then the only thing new then um for lots one through 36 I had noted two items. Sheet five of seven reflects the sanitary sewer ement that partially conflicts with the water main easement at the end of the culdeac. I just said this may be acceptable that should be confirmed by the city engineer. And then um my second comment is unclear to me as to why the sanitary sewer ement can't be located wholly within the roadway eliminating the need to impact subw. And then the same is true about the storm water to touch the southern ends of lots 11 and 12. Um, and I know your engineer respond. I didn't realize, didn't

Yeah, agency respond. Oh, apparently not. It was like last week.

Yeah. For some reason, I thought you were on it. I do not recall. From Dan Barc. Yeah, you were. Yeah, you were on it. I was. Yeah. Um, and six days ago, six days ago, it says 12. Yeah, 12. Yeah. Summit County DSS requires 15 foot uh of e between the sanitary main and the houses and 10 foot on the road for a total of 25 ft. They do not allow us to truncate.

Yeah. In other words, I think what Dan is saying is the the water sanitary have sufficient separation from each other, but the easements overlap because those utilities require seems like the requirements keep getting bigger and bigger for how their ease has to be. And that and that makes sense between sublotss 21 and 20 where they where they overlap. I is there a reason why the sanitary easement can't stay in the the line's going in the pavement I'm assuming? Um, it's going under. Uh, I'm sure the line goes under the main probably goes under the pavement, but the manholes in the grass.

I bet that's whatot like 14, 15, 16, 11, 12. I just didn't know, you know, was there a way to keep the If there isn't, there isn't. That would be I think a social question. Yeah. So Brian, I I have a feeling what's happening is uh the design engineer lays out the main and he puts the manholes in the grass which was maybe that's where they're at.

Yeah. And then the county in this case requires whatever it is 10 feet on one side of the main and 15 feet on the other side. By the time you go 15 ft, the easement is beyond the right of way. We had some other separation was an issue because he has to keep separation.

We tried to keep we tried to add it at four and they made us move it out a little bit. I think last four or five. So, um you know, it's been approved by Cleveland water and been approved by PSS. We got our last today. So, So that would that would assume then there's no manholes on the north side of the road and there's no manual issues on 17 181 19. If if that theory is true, if it it's in the law and they need an easement here, if there's a manhole here, then there must be no need for an easement because there's no manifes that

it's more just as I look at it, it just seemed to just raise that issue, but if the city's behind it. Yeah. No, I'm I'm comfortable with it. I I now that I see this email, I see exactly what the design engineer is telling us and it makes perfect sense. And that was the only um only uh comments I have, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Brown. Mr. Dot.

Yeah. Thanks. Um you know, I don't think I really have a problem with the plaque. You're showing well 58 lots total, 36 like planning commission has already approved. So that's good. Um, there was that email from the gas company last week. That's a weird one. I've never seen gas request a special easement just for themselves of that size. So, I don't I'll let you and Gas Well, we had a a a team's meeting the other day and basically because it's not the flat is not filed. Yeah.

They have to get a special easement. Well, they can't install it anyway until we have our utilities in. So, um, and we're paved and by that time the butt's going to be recorded and then they'll be okay and not need that easement. So, that was like a temporary ement. That's weird. I've never seen Yeah, Dan hadn't either. And all right, I'm not alone. Okay. We didn't quite understand what they're nowhere near ready for gas. So, we said, "Let us file

and then you guys um can get whatever you need. temporary not through the city that yeah at that point

that's all I had assistant chairman okay vice chair any questions questions or comments from the commission.

All right, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve the uh plat for lots sublotss 1 through 36 as submitted with the understanding that all items from Mr. Fran's email ver uh letter and Mr. Gelatis have been addressed and no further action is required. I'll second it. Any additional comments? All those in favor? I I I thank you. Thank you.

So I need signatures from the planning commission chair. So I can leave these and pick them up. That's fine. Yeah. four copies for for the city, one's for the sign. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

We're getting there [Applause] last two hours ago. Good email. It's all coming together. It is a little less stressful there for a little bit. It's always stressful. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

The only uh Thanks again.

Only other uh miscellaneous um like I said, there's maybe two Um, miscellaneous proposed amended language of RB51 2025 the planning commission for its recommendation. Um, we got copies of that with us. So, we're looking at shaded underlined areas is what's being changed.

Do you have any background on this?

Yeah, basically what the city has uh they have an ordinance for commercial properties to have a hard surface driveway. It has to be either asphalt or concrete. They don't have anything for residential. So we see even some new houses just have in a gravel driveway and you know just by driving around the city me and Chris and you know we agree that the gravel drive is not maintained. We have no control over because we don't know how wide it is. They keep on heading gravel on one side or the other. So they get wider and wider. Uh they don't take care of a lot of times they ming and they track them out in the street. So in looking at other cities you know there's an ordinance they usually have an ordinance that even residential area you know you must have a hard surface driveway or you know again concrete of edge now you know I know that you know we can't go backwards and we can't tell all these people that have it you know to to change it because they grandf I think that it should be high surface. The problem in question that comes up that it's going to be a little challenging is the fact that if you install a barn or something in the back to store your vehicles. Now you have to have the vehicle, you know, from your existing dryer where you go in the bag and we seen, you know, they cause rots or sometimes you just put gravel down and it's really uncapped. Now, can we make them, you know, put a house for a driveway all the way in the back? So, uh, and how's it going to look? So, that's that's a little problem. But I think, you know, as far as driveway to

the main house of some I I I think that those should be hard surface. The rest of it, I think I'm open for ideas and discussion. Then if the driveway it's long because the barn is all the way in the back of the house, you know, they they they can go for a variance and maybe ask it to be, you know, uh gravel, you know, we could still have that. But I guess our main thought was for the main driveway to be all changed to our circles. And if you look at this, I think there's a kind of misprint because if you look at section H, it says that ST standard concrete right with it. That concrete should be on surface and the same at the other side. It's not we're not necessarily just limited to concrete. We just want to give them the the choice to do it either way. Okay. So, I'm just, you know, kind of

Yeah. I always thought that was I guess I never looked at I always kind of assumed that that that you had to have crazy, huh? Yeah. And there's people that are currently doing that like new. Well, yeah. There's a new house that just went out. It's the last house on Valley View right before you get the Hudson there. They put a house in the back that it's all Gosh, why would you want to do that? I think it's reasonable. I do too. Most communities do surface on new build.

I think in terms of like I guess I know you said you could be open to something different. My thought would be if you know somebody puts up a barn or a shed or something like that and it's off the if it's if it's in the maybe thoughts like if it's within so many feet of their existing home, a driveway must be installed. If it's further back, a gravel drive could be installed. However, it has to be defined whether that's by landscaping timbers and it has to be maintained. So, they can't just because I get your concern that like the definition of where that driveway is is gone after a while.

Totally agree with you. I mean, you look at even in I mean, you see this uh uh building, fish building on the right, you know, there's a gravel driveway there. I mean, you don't know where the driveway is. They park on the side and it's just not kept and stuff. So, I I I

I think yeah, we really need to address I think, you know, if it landscaping timbers and it has to be if it's stone, then it has to be new stone has to be brought in. I don't know, maybe it's just every year and it's at their cost. I mean, at some point, I would think that having stone brought in every year or doing some form of a hard surface is going to start to outweigh itself. I mean, the initial cost obviously of putting a hard surface in is way more. But if we're going to request landscaping timbers and as an example, landscaping timbers and having it stoned every year, two years or whatever, you know, seems necessary, that cost is going to get pretty pretty hefty over time.

Yeah. So, if the building is behind the primary structure, we're saying that we would have to have some type of concrete and or gravel that's maintained like like you said, correct? Yeah. Because where I look at it is I can see the need if you can see it from the street if it's even or right off the back corner, but if somebody's got like an acre of property and they want to put that thing all the way in back and just drive on the grass, at what point are we kind of it's a little bit overreach because it can't the whole intention was so it looks good from the street but we can't see it at that point. cost for him.

Well, I think what the other problem is too is like I guess if it's not the way this language reads, if it's being for storage of a vehicle now again that can say they're not going to put their vehicles in there and and still do that. But I think where the the concern, if I'm understanding correctly, is that over time, if you are taking vehicles in and out of there consistently, if you don't have any kind of defined area, whether it be stone or pave and it's just grass, it creates ruts. And then you've got mud and then, you know, over time if you're taking whatever you had back there out and off onto the road, it's then dragging mud and lord really knows what else out onto the road then at that point. So, something that's a little overach if I live there's different parts of the neighborhood or the city so the city has hua sidewalks all stuff I could see that being a requirement

right but if I've got four acres I mean I've grown up with property where we had a shed in the back that was about an acre off we didn't have a driveway for it would never created a problem for anything but I understand some people could have used that but I'd rather handle the oneoffs in a different manner than to put this far overreaching thing for those types of buildings I I don't know can the city is that council writes this stuff. So, can they rewrite it or can we try to convince them to rewrite it if it's past a certain distance? You make a recommendation. Yeah. Then they'll review it and they can accept it. They can change it or they can discard it all together.

Well, the other thing, what's the maximum square footage for like a shed or something? 600 square feet. So, like a shed. So, would that be enough to fit a car in? Or we Because I'm saying if we approved a shed, it'd be difficult for most cars to go in there. But if we're approving a garage, then I could see that that's where I agree with you in terms of like when you said shed, I don't think that's what this language reads as. I agree with you. Shed, like you're not going to put a hard service back to a like for define what's what. So that that's clear. I think the square footage does in this. detached private garage. It says size storage of a vehicle. Yeah. But is that kind of too general?

Well, I think if you have a let's call it a rear garage that's big enough for a vehicle and has an overhead garage door, so you pull a car in, then you're subject to this rule. I think that's what they're trying to get at. The one thing I would say is like, you get a little you get the little uh thing that you buy at from the parking lot at Lowe's. It's just big enough to drive your lawn mower in there. No, I don't think that's what's being discussed. Correct. I think the other thing I would say too is storage of a vehicle. I wonder if I should even include the the comment of like trailers or like an RV or a motor home or something like well I guess vehicle would be a motor home

because where my concern there would be is it comes back to your comment is somebody dragging something in and out of a a barn or whatever in the back if they're towing it out of there. Chances are it's going to, you know, well, any kind of vehicle or any kind of trailer or something like that, it's going to get it's not paved. You're going to have

like this gentleman who came in last meeting who wants to bring his oversized garage in the back of his property. And the purpose of this garage is to store six cars in there. He's going to be driving six six cars, you know, in this structure right there. And, you know, He's probably grabbing the grass to get to it, you know. And I mean, in the summer when it's hard, it's okay. But in the winter time when you go through, he doesn't have to do anything really. I mean, at least maybe like you said, if if it's not going to be a hard surface, at least we would allow to have gravel, but it has to be enclosed by, you know, some some kind of either ties or something will, you know, restrict that and give us an idea how wide it is and how it's going to be. Kevin, can I ask a question?

Sure. I'm wondering why is this planning commission even opining on this? Is this any of our business? Do we have to approve some amendment to the code? Is that is that our job?

Said it has to go through the planning commission. It has to go through the plan. We have to approve. That's what That's what the market is. Well, well, how how did where did this come up? Parking in residential districts. I don't even understand that. But, you know, you can't bring a van. How about if somebody wants to move? There's a moving ban here. And on the on the last page, it might uh be patently offensive. What kind of language is that for an ordinance? And whose opinion is patently offensive? I I I can't understand that uh kind of lingo in a Did this go through their law our law department and all this? It came through their ordinances.

Tony, I think the only thing they're contemplating is the surface of a driveway for a new build and the surface how to get to a rear yard barn. I don't So 11712, we don't have to we don't have to pay attention to that. Well, no. That's that's not what they're looking to potentially revise. It's the highlighted sections. Yeah, there is a highlighted section under Oh, that's the only the only thing we have to appine on is the highlight. Yeah, please. Let me let me talk you through a process.

Yeah, thank you. So you have an ordinance uh introduced um ordinance 51 by council that went through on a recommendation by the building commissioner to council. You amend the code in three ways. You have the planning commission initiates an amendment to the code. You have an ordinance introduced by city council which comes on referral to the planning commission or you have um property owners filed an application that would initiate the code. The code consists of two things the text and the map. In this instance what's being proposed through ordinance 51 is a change to the text. What's being proposed to change the text is 116302 H2 H3

and then 117112 E is being proposed for addition. Those are the only things being proposed to amend. All the other language is existing underlined and highlighted is new. Right. In so far as your obligation, chapter 1141 of your planning zoning code sets forth how these amendments are done. Just told you three ways. And then on a ordinance from council, you have um interestingly only 30 days to act on it from the adoption of that ordinance. In this instance, it was adopted

July 24th. legislation to the city of recommendation on July 24th of 2025. So you have till July 20 or August 23rd to make a report recommendation back to council. Thankfully your ordinance does not require you which most ordinances do require you to conduct information. Yours doesn't. You don't have this on your agenda today. Is that my It was under miscellaneous. But it's not an agenda item. It's not a case. You need to add this as a case and you need to take action today.

Otherwise, you're you'll lapse on your 30 days pursuant to chapter 1141.

So, you'll need to by motion you should have a vote, not a yay or nay. Roll call vote added to the agenda. Ordinance 51 referral. Ordinance 51 from council July 24, 2025. And then you should talk about things you're talking about and then make a report recommendation which can include but not limited to propose overall changes, additions, deletions or nothing to what they're proposing and then that goes back to council and then they're obligated to hold the public hearing. That's what you need to do tonight to address this in a timely manner.

All right. So, first thing then I'll make a motion to add discussion uh for recommendation of ordinance 51 on the referral from uh city council to our agenda. I'll second that. We can and for the record that addition of this ordinance 51 relates to amendments to the planning zoning code section 116302 H2 and 3 and 1171.12 E. Just so the record's clear of what you're adding to the agenda.

Thank you. We vote by roll call. Sure, Mr. Mr. Westbrooks, yes. Mr. Roberts, yes. Mr. Cox, yes. Mr. Wenhorse, yes. Miss Musky, yes. Okay, so now you've added it to your agenda. All of the stuff that's in the minutes prior to this, just take Susan and copy them into this section because now it's on the agenda. Yeah.

And so you can go forward and continue to talk how you want to talk about the item and what you want to do. And you're making a report recommendation. Ultimately, council can say, "Well, we don't agree with my commission." Or they can adopt your recommendation in full and have a public hearing on that.

Okay. Uh I guess a question for Brian, Joe. Do you guys have you guys seen this, especially the the driveway uh extension back to a, you know, a separate building? Have you guys seen anything like this? I think it's it's um it's hit or miss. Some communities require it to be hard surface, some allow it to be gravel. Um none that I know of that that are paying attention to it allow it to be grass. So it's something gravel as you're aware maybe you're not is going to be treated the same in so far as hard surface for runoff and for storm water tax from any state.

So how that's irrelevant either way somebody could be taxed regardless. Um but I think it's common to see something okay or otherwise. I think Nino's point is well made when you get and say you're talking about Jason you have something far back you know you're going to now have a hard surface concrete or asphalt driveway you know if if the house is if this is the house and the existing driveway runs right on the property line under the right of the house and the outuildings over here you're going to have this to get back to it unless unless they put a second driveway in. So, I think that is a an issue you just have to work through. You know, maybe ultimately you want to start to define where like many communities do where you're allowing buildings to be placed. You're not allowing them that in that back corner anymore. They have to be within a certain distance from the primary structure. Um that's a bigger picture issue you can talk through for later, but maybe that's something you might do because then when it's limited, you know, say it has to be within 50 or 75, whatever the number is, feet from the main structure. Well, that's a lot more palatable to have a hard surface than it is

500, two, three, 400t back, crossing over the yard. And then what happens if they have to get to that area through repairing that? You don't allow concrete. only allowed one crossing. You don't have crossing and you don't allow concrete in that.

So, so like I I just want to make I made some comments before I hopefully city council is going to listen to the comments on the recording, but if you choose to live in an HOA, you choose to give up certain freedoms that you have of your property in exchange for things. Okay? And if if they wanted to do something like this for a smaller plot of land, but not putting any type of minimum or maximum acreage or anything, I I would never want to take uh someone who lives in the city that has 5 acres of land and prohibit them from putting an out structure 4 and a half acres from the front because I believe the reason we I want to believe the reason we have these rules is so that from the street it looks good. But if they want to put a huge ugly building in the back of their property that no one but them is going to see, then I don't think we really have should be putting requirements on it. I don't think we should be requiring really any type of driveway or anything like that. So that's why I would like I agree with um what Scott said gravel with you know some boundaries and stuff but I would still like to say within so much distance of the primary structure and and you know a person who buys 5 acres of land chose not to live in HOA possibly because they don't want to live under those restrictions and those are all

I'm not really just saying that to you. I'm saying that for record. Yeah, those are all um personal opinions you have on the matter as a member of the commission and that's great. Um I would the only thing I would say back to you is in that example of four acres in the back that may have but up to the back of a small lot where they're seeing that big ugly building and so having standards for that big ugly building. So and that's what the zoning code is set up to do, right? provide for orderly development, aesthetics, health, safety, welfare. That's that's what the zoning code is set up to do. It's to protect property values, to protect neighbors strongly because the buildings, you know, it's something that um as you all know, I I work in another community during the day. We are having a problem with long buildings being presented on side property lines. This came up recently, this notion of what's the sideyard, what's the rear yard, and the way your code's written, it needs to be changed in my opinion because we've always interpreted to be the sideyard goes the full length of the property all the way through the rear yard, but on the side of the main structure. That's how it should be because where we were at probably where I can see it occurring here and maybe it just hasn't blown up yet. You have these long buildings that are by sideyard definition 5 10 ft off the property line. And so even somebody who has two, three acres, they have their house up near this side of their property line. And now this person who has five acres, but most of their land goes that way, they put their big ugly building right up five 10 feet off the side property line. Now they get to look at that and they get to look at that long massing and so

permittable by the code. It's permittable by the code. So how you address that is you make bigger setbacks on the sideyards which goes the full length of the property into the rear yard off the side of the main structure. You put bigger setbacks commensurate with the size of the length of the building wall facing the sideyard. So I'm I'm a bit off I'm a bit off the topic but a bit on the topic still because you said big up the building it raises my yeah my antennas because that's what you're trying to avoid. So I get it. you have five acres, you want to put something in the back and just kind of out of sight, out of mind, but it may not be out of sight, out of mind to everybody because you may have a smaller loting up to that.

So, I understand that, but we're talking about driveways, right? So, I I appreciate your example. We're talking about driveways. So, in your hypothetical example, you could protect the other property owners with a much more economical solution, which would be landscape, streeting, and planning. require that, but not required to put in a $40,000 concrete road to go back four acres. It just becomes cost prohibitive. I don't I don't think that's right to require that large piece of land. Kevin, let me ask let me ask a question. Uh wouldn't the ordinance like this affecting certain people in the community like you mentioned them, shouldn't they have public hearings on this to see maybe some uh homeowner would object to having to do this if they passed? Was there was there a public

They have to have one still. There's going to be a public hearing on all on all this. Yeah. Even if we go ahead and approve doing You're not approving. You're recommending. We recommend. And then when that goes back to city council, they are required to have a public hearing. All right. That doesn't happen. So people can object to uh uh being affected by uh the Okay. If they pay attention to the newspaper, they can Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because I just want to be clear, Mr. Cox, there's no notification, direct notification to property owners. No, you wouldn't know who you have to look at the newspaper or look at the website, which most people don't.

So if whatever we're going to vote on, that's just if we agree with the language or we don't agree with the language. It's black or white, right? Recommendations to change recommendations to change it. Yeah. because I would not vote for it. To your point, you could make a recommendation. A I think we should add another sentence 100 ft or you know whatever. Do we have the option to to review this more and take a lot more? Do we have to make another meeting between? Yeah.

Yeah. That doesn't say and shall within 30 days after the referral approved disprove and make suggestions. I guess you could certainly come to the council's public hearing on it and speak to it as a res. Yeah, they have to get 30 days notice in the paper. So, when's the next council meeting? Uh, the next council meeting would be less than 30 days. Thursday, it would be September 11th council. There's no council next Thursday.

Yeah. September 11th, they'll get back your recommendation. Then they have to they have to notice it in the newspaper for 30 days. My guess is September 11th. You're not going to see this until the beginning probably November council meeting would be when they would have their house of carry. Just the way things go into the newspaper. It just takes time. So, kind of to summarize where I think we're kind of at some of these the hard surface driveway in a residential area. Does anybody have a problem with that is the p the primary driveway should not be gravel. I think that's the uh Yeah, I don't disagree. That's that's E 11712 E. Yeah. Yeah, I would agree with that. Yeah.

So, I don't think we have any any probably recommendations to that. It should be concrete or asphalt. Uh your primary driving it's the other and I guess things that we've tossed out here is, you know, does it have to be concrete or asphalt? Could it be gravel with defined with uh something like land uh railroad ties, landscape ties? accessory building for the accessory building. Um, so it doesn't have to be a, you know, $40,000, you know, road back to their to their garage. Um, could it be that but defined? That's one thought. And Jason, you had thought about it's, you know, a certain distance not requiring it. Um,

was there any other things that we were talking about? If it's within so many I think it kind of correlates to yours. If it's within so many feet of the existing structure, it should be a hard surface material. Yeah. If it's after I don't know what those that put it I mean but what you talked about is I I would be okay with even if it's within a certain distance it could be gravel or as long as the gravel is maintained and all that's you know I don't know if we can get into forcing to regravel it every year or something but that it's got defined edges and all that.

I think if it's within a certain amount of feet I think just from an aesthetic standpoint it should be a hard surface material. If you're talking going way far back, that's where I'm kind of thinking like after a certain distance after that. I I don't disagree. Yeah. But where I think we might disagree is that if it's so far back and I don't have a I I have no idea. I could arbitrarily throw out a number of feet or yards or acres or whatever. I don't know. I would I would I would challenge city council to come up with something that's reasonable, but you know, if it's 250 ft back, I think it might be crazy just to put gravel in. You know, I don't know. That's my opinion, but you know, everybody could disagree with me on that. So

my thought is you've got this in two under two different sections in two different paragraphs, paragraph two and three. And I think that's actually a complication. And I think perhaps that that gets broken out and maybe comes in under act five, paragraph five. And then the language becomes if the building designed to support storage of cars, the driveway must be paved. If it's an accessory building, you know, then if it's not intended to support cars, then you can have those smaller accessory buildings way in the back and not be forced to do I think it's like I think just kind of dictating or dictating that uh pavement just goes to buildings that you put cars in will encourage that those buildings don't those bigger buildings you know because you have a distinction 600 feet for a garage whereas it's 288 for an accessory building and I realize that that is big enough to put a car but I think it kind of um alleviates that um that concern. But if if you're going to put cars on it, you're going to be more encouraged by that code item to keep it closer to the house whereas if you put it in the back.

Yeah. And that's I know we can get into all these what us, but I I kind of I don't completely agree with that only because if I have the ability to put a big, you know, like hold six vehicles and I have the ability to put it back, it's you know, I can landscape it appropriately. So if there's other around there. That would be better than forcing them to bring it close to the road where you're going to see it because we're forcing them to put it in a concrete driveway to it and it's too cost prohibitive to put in the back which is where they originally put it. If I have a land, I'd rather they put it all the way in the back so you just don't see it.

I, you know, I think of farms. I don't think there are any farms maybe left in Macedonia, but if there were a farm to to have a driveway going back to your barn, a paved driveway, uh maybe we're not thinking that way, but every farm that I remember, uh you sure didn't have a a paved driveway going back there. And uh it seems to be an overreach. This this particular these clauses strikes me that way. So, would we make a recommendation or just our thoughts or or what? Uh I'd vote against it because you know it isn't defined uh for for exceptions for for some farmer with 40 acres. Not that they have mayor but there and that's how I think of what used to be farms and and making him pave the the darn driveway going back to his barn or his back 40. Uh so it strikes me as an overreach.

I think it needs to just not be limited to vehicles either. Like when we say vehicles or cars, I think it needs to be in cool trailers or anything like that. I mean, people that have motor homes or like a a big travel trailer or something like that. Again, they're going to have to pull that thing out at some point if they have it sitting back in a barn. And then at that point, to Mr. Monaco's point, like they're going to be tracking mud, dirt, whatever else off their property and then out on the road. Is that really that big?

It says signs to allow storage of vehicles. So, if you have a trailer that you're going to park in a garage, well, that garage is size to house the vehicle, you know what I mean? You have a a trailer that's going to like carry, you know, car. Yeah. I'm thinking like a camping trailer, too. Like a motor, like an RV or something. Oh, that's kind of it would be. Yeah. But that's like Does that fall under the definition of a ve? And I'm not trying to get into all the semantics, but I don't want to like leave it open-ended and somebody's got a big travel trailer they parked in the back of their garage barn. Yeah. And then they pull it up a couple times a year. They're dragging. Yeah.

But is that is that is that one of the legitimate concerns? We have a problem where there's dirt and all this stuff get dragged on the city. Mr. Mon because then didn't city council just pass something or maybe it was just discussed about allowing recreation vehicles and stuff that they can sit by the house all summer long essentially. So, it is uh is an an agenda right now. It's being discussed right now. Does that potentially minimize the dirt and grass and stuff getting dragged down the streets? Um I'm sure you know if you have it on hard surface in the driveway rather than having an aggressive back that's going to help that for sure. But, you know, there's some some issues that they have to work out that also.

I just feel like the legis the two different things conflict with each other. They don't, but they kind of they I know what you're saying. I know what you're getting at because of my concern of like the trailers, you know, you have a trailer, you sit it back in your yard, you're pulling it forward. Well, if it's allowed to set up forward more, yeah, you are obviously are not going to be Yeah, we have a neighbor on the street parks are the against the rules all summer long. And I hate look at it, but whatever. Is not the guy that's going to say anything about it, but if they had the ability to put it in the back there, the only thing preventing them is $50,000 in concrete, I'd rather them take it in the back and maybe only bring it up a couple times a year. deal with the dirt until the rain wants to sl away.

I don't know. I I just want to make sure. I'm not trying to be combative. I want this on the record. So, it makes No, I I don't disagree with you at all. I think there definitely needs to be some more parameters and definitions put in here to the public.

I guess could our go ahead if I if I can. There's clearly differences of opinion and a lot of discussion on this topic and you don't have enough time. I mean

to to think that you're going to make a recommendation tonight is probably just not fair. Um the Billy Christian and I were just talking. What you could do is take no action on this item and send a request back to council to um effectively uh continue or table indefinitely their own legislation and allow the planning commission pursuant to 1141 to initiate an amendment to the code to address this issue and work with the building commissioner and staff to come up with the best way to address it. You initiate it, then it goes to council to react as opposed to you reacting and having little time to do so. So, if that's something you would entertain, then you can take time, you can take this home, think about it, study it, think about what you may want to to do to address it, you could even have a work session to talk about it here amongst the commission. But it buys you the time if you take no action and request that they table indefinitely their own legislation with the building commissioner support which he seems to be okay with it for you then to initiate the amendment to work through it how you see best because frankly you are the ones that amend the code council's the ones that just react to it

I didn't think that was a good idea because it's a little unfair to these enough this I mean, we have to make the right decision. Is this not something that you can just make up in a few hours? We do. I I think to your point, I mean, just the concerns that you brought up tonight, I think, and and I don't disagree with what you're coming up with either. My thought is is like I'd like to even just understand like where do we have those outline conditions of where somebody does have like a fiveacre lot and we have to take that into consideration. So like then realistically like how far back are we thinking before we're like, "Okay, it's fine. It's it's out of sight, out of mind. Yeah, you're fine. I agree that

I don't know where like again like we can say 200 feet. Well, how much is 200 feet? How many of these lots are truly out there that this could be affected by? Now, granted, if somebody bought they could subdivide in all this other stuff, but I think just kind of That's an outlier. What's that? That's an outlier. Yeah, exactly. I think we just need to understand better that like this because again, I think Jason brings up great points, too. And I guess we just need to understand where those outliers are and find out what that happened. We do. That's why I asked act on it tonight cuz I'm like I don't feel comfortable. I think there's just too many questions or concerns we have. You've entertained enough large

accessory buildups over the years. I know that you could take a sampling of those. I mean, heck, I can compile that data for you. That's not that hard. We go back the last five or whatever number of years. What's that? It cost the city more at the rate I charge. They they buy a gumball. Um but but or or I'm trying to take off. I don't want more work. But you could compile last 5 years, 10 years, whatever you want. Look at

large accessory buildings you've approved addresses and the circumstances behind them. You can look at aerial photography and see how did those work? If you implemented this, how would it have affected those? and that'll give you some basis to understand the question in front of you. But you can't do that tonight. You really should, it sounds like in my opinion, ask just send back a no recommendation on this. Ask council to consider tableabling our own legislation indefinitely with Mr. Mono's support of reinitiating here pursuing to 1141 as an amendment considered by plan commission to council versus the reverse.

So this is this initiated by your office here? Yeah. Okay. So, it's not like it's something that council's like, man, this is a hot issue that they they want, you know, we get this done. I started talking about this uh actually last September and then we put it on hold because of the weather because, you know, there's been some issues been busy. So, I brought it back up and just there's no Okay, Doug is not going to screw up something by, you know, doing that. This is this is something that I think we need to take our time and I think we need to get it right. Yeah.

Yeah. It's going to take time. It's just and it's good to have a discussion like that because I I see everybody's point here and I think everybody's got a good point. Uh so we need to find a happy medium here. So yeah, if we do that, do we put it on as a discussion item again? like I don't know if by next month if you you could compile that list for us. We could do some a little bit of thinking but at that point decide we want to have just a separate work session just to to work on this a little bit lay out some of these these plans that we've that we've talked about. Um that's probably what you do.

Yeah. Um but set that up at at the next meeting depending on what Brian finds if he has time to to pull all that stuff. you could um you could put onto your next agenda right now work session to talk about this if there's too many um applicant items then at your next meeting find a date sooner than later to have your own separate session but you might be able to do it at your next meeting tonight would have been you know like a night where this you have a couple agenda items you can do it it's up to you guys give me suggestions

yeah I almost would want to see what all you find and compile before we before we set a work session. Um I Kevin I have one other well you know the other thing is you don't have standards in your R2 district. In your R2 district you don't have accessory building standards. They're in R1 but not R2. You could have larger lots in R2 where this applies but you have no standards in place. Tony, you're a feeler.

Yeah, I have a point. Uh my experience with city ordinances is you copy everybody else's. You have this in other cities and I'd like to see that in instead of compiling a list of what we done with big buildings. Uh what other cities and towns around here do they have similar ordinances? That's what I spot. This is very similar to many other ordinances that you have somewhere. And I'd like to see what other cities around here have done for this particular issue. If it is an issue or a problem, I'd like to see what they do. And we copy it. You don't copy it. Be careful doing that.

When you start copying other people's ordinances, I promise you it's going to affect yours. This, right? I mean, everyone, but this is a result of copying your ordinances. Well, uh, I I see that, but but I I noticed that it's commonly done. Looking at other communities to understand how they treat the issue is important. Like what's Gates Mills do about this? What's other cities do about this? What's Hudson do about?

I was in Pepper Park. I could tell you most communities do not even don't even allow two garages on the property. You know, they have one garage and if you want to put addition to the garage, you do that. But you're not allowed to put a second garage unless you turn the existing garage into a living space. So I mean this city some of them require the onem driveway concrete like he was talking about. Let's see if they have that somewhere up in some other a lot a lot of communities also regulate the size of the accessory structure to the size of the main house. You don't do that here. To me, it's crazy that we approved 2,2500 square foot out buildings 1500

that that all you've what you've done is if you really get into it from a use standpoint, you've made the out building the primary building in use on the property and the house the secondary just by sheer volume. So I I know my my rule of thumb is I tie the accessory building as a percentage of the ground floor of the main building to try to keep them similar in size so you're not dwarfing one another. Now that that that that smacks a little bit to it's my land. Do what you want with your land, but it just it's a good way to control a study.

There at some point there needs to be a compromise. I appreciate that. So yeah, I mean that's and it's all about that eventually to get the aesthetics you want in the whole property values. Yeah. Well, why don't you state what you think we should the motion we should be making or the recommendation we should be making tonight. We'll move it as noted.

Yes. So I think what I'm hearing is um the building commissioner feels that this needs to be studied. The plan commission feels it needs to be studied. So based on that, you would recommend no action back to councel and at the same time suggest that they consider indefinitely tableabling this ordinance to allow you time to initiate an amendment similar to this that will come to them for approval. So does that need to be a motion? You just made that. I didn't get all of it. suggest indefinitely the table to allow time to the planning commission to initiate their own amendment and work with the building department.

Okay. And I guess planning to to create that language. Kevin, I'll second the motion. So, so move and then Scott seconded that. All in favor? I do. We need to do a roll call. I think it's fine. And then you probably also now want to because you don't want to lose sight of it, you want to um either put it as your next meeting or work session, at least put it onto the schedule. Okay?

So a mo a motion to add this topic to your next planning commission meeting and then you and I can figure out the details more. It won't take that long to query out what properties you approve these things on, get that list to you. You independently can start looking at that. Yeah. Yeah. Do you have the cut off for your next meeting? Friday. Do you have any idea? It's a pretty busy one thing so far and I always get a couple the last day. Okay. So, we sign at least put it on the agenda. We can discuss it briefly if nothing else. So, make a motion to add this item to the to our agenda for next meeting.

Is there a second? I'll second. Sorry. All in favor? I. And what you what you added for the record is consideration of ordinance 51 as a planning commission initiative. I'm sorry, what?

Ordinance 51. The language in ordinance 51 is going to be a planning commission initiative. So basically what you see here may be very similar than what it already is, but it's going to come from the commission. to study bas can only be discussed on the record just like any other Yeah, you can't you can't send it around a serial meeting over email. Okay,

you can't do that. But if you have questions, you want, you know, you want to talk to the chair about some things or you want to email me and and Dino, hey, I've seen some thought, you absolutely can do that. It's just if you email the group and the group responds, that's a serial meeting. If you email the chair and the chair says to everybody, what do you think of this? That's a serial meeting. You don't want to have an open meeting violation. So motion to adjourn. Do you want to talk about that? Yeah.

Oh, we have one one last at the last meeting we have this gentleman who proposed this uh large garage in East Delhi on Del Road. Um at that time he was told that he had to remove two existing structure which he agreed to. Fortunately, on the property, there are three structures. Uh, two of them are rather small, but this one is over the 600 square f feet, I believe. Now, he his understanding was that he was just going to remove the two smaller ones. Uh, I believe to comply with the ordinance, he needs to remove one of the smaller one and the larger one. And he is not happy about that because he claims that his understanding was that he only he does have to remove the two smaller ones with the caveat to keep the bigger one he has to get variance and I communicated that to him that night and he said he's going to apply for variance. Now, if it's something, so this gets into amending the code. If the commission doesn't want to send applicants for variance on that second structure that's over 288 square ft, you could apply your larger provisions for larger lots and sites. You could apply that to the secondary structure. Make it clear that the commission has authority to rule out bigger structures,

the main and secondary real. You can do that. I think the way the code reads now, the secondary structure is capped at 288 and you can't make a change to that. You can make a change to the larger accessory building, which is the 600 square ft. If you want to allow the second one, you just have to change code to say the commission can vary both. if you want more than two on a property. Again, this gets into what's good what's good planning. So, I don't have a lot of five and 10 acre. Well, action I do. I have a lot of larger parcels where I work during the day. And what we did was we kept it used to be capped at two completely two two structures, detached structures, detached buildings on the property. And it didn't matter about lot size. So what we said was zero to one acre you could have one. One to two acres you can have two and over two acres you can have three. And then we linked the square footage of the detached structures to the main building. So again this just it could be all part and parcel with talking about the driveway standards as well. If you want to amend the code you can do that. If you're happy with you can only vary the the larger 600 square foot and you're okay if there's an existing building that's over 288 square feet, they either take it down or they go to the border zoning fields to try to keep it up. In this instance, this structure that this tour over the two the bigger one that this gentleman wants told me it was built in 1940. So, it's been there a long time. Probably there were no permits at the I mean zone didn't come into existence in the big apple the big cities until the

mid20s actually was challenged here in Ohio had a supreme court case with on the village of Uclid which city of but regardless we weren't in the village yet in 19 yeah and I I wasn't even thought about soi it um not until like 1990 was I thought about so it was uh zoning's a new thing is the And so if you, you know, you want to address some of these situations where you have older buildings that are larger, you can do that through the amendment process.

No, that's okay. I get it. Yeah. You know, this guy said, you know, I got five acres. Why can't I put this, you know, large building on there? So, as of right now, you've kind of advised him you should seek a

I just talked to him. right before the meeting. Nino had talked to him. I just talked to him before the meeting and he said, "Well, I was just seeing if you said something different." So, so I told him the same thing Nino told him, which is the larger one. The only way to keep it is you have to go for a bearing otherwise it has to come has to come down. And I now I kind of remember that and I thought now now looking back I can see maybe he was confused because he he gave it up the building to take down pretty easily. I was like that's a pretty major thing. The two small ones but he was thinking two small ones. I think we were thinking a big one and a small one or two.

I was kind of surprised that he was like yeah it's got to come down. It's got to come down like okay cool. But he wasn't thinking we know why. Yeah. That's why he took it so quickly. He wanted to tear it down a little shack. At the end of the day, it wouldn't have mattered

unless you you guys Well, technically, you don't interpret the code. The code's interpreted by the zoning administrator. It's been historically that the city planner has interpreted the code as well. But I always say really I'm not the zoning administrator. That's the one individual charged by charter to interpret the code or the v board of zoning appeals to interpret the code. You could send this to the board of zoning appeals and ask them to interpret um 116302h to determine if you have the authority to bury both structures on the property. See, Chris, zoning inspector, he thinks that you guys should have the power to allow both of them there. He's very adamant about that and I kind of agree with him the way it's written there. But

I'd say if he if he was willing to do the variance, go fat. Yeah, it's not going to address his situation for the time being. It's just long term. I think saying is the administration's position is the commission should be able to allow both under the provisions for larger lots of unique sites. If that's the case, you can do one of two things. Amend the code to be clear to state that or allow the boarding appeals to interpret the code and give you direction if you have that authority. They have that. We amended that whole chapter so the BCA can interpret the code.

If we wanted them to do that, what's our process for doing that? Make a motion. Dino, we would like by motion they're directing the administration to request board zone appeals to interpret that section of the code or just amend that. Whatever you want to do. But amended just to give us that power to define because if the BCA interprets negatively and you do want that authority, you would have to sue your board on the appeals to return interpretation.

The better thing is to Wednesday I don't know. have to be on their agenda really noticed. Yeah. I would suggest you just add it to the discussion that we're having about ordinance 51. Okay. And holistically look at buildings and how you treat them. We should in all reality just having these discussions. We should probably just set a separate meeting just to have these because there's no way I mean if we either one we're going to keep kicking the can down the road because we have so many people on the agenda would be a problem

or we're going to be we're going to have it and it's going to be at the tail end of whatever meeting it is. We're not going to hold we're not going to want to deal we're not going to want to like get into that discussion. I think there really just needs to be a separate meeting. Well, let's holistically looking at these two items amongst anything else that maybe needs to be discussed. We should probably just do it as one meeting. Why don't the next meeting since we've got it on the agenda, we'll have a brief discussion, see what you can find, and let's all bring our calendars and look at the next few Mondays or something like that or whatever nightly work and we'll set a a work session after the next meeting things. down a little bit.

Yeah, you only need whatever 24 hours, then it would probably Yeah, you did a week or two and it just gives staff time to prepare the agenda and post it. How would they do that? All right. And then I would make a recommendation here must be here for the conversation. Get that in your formal attire to the fire inspect. I'm going to say misery joins misery enjoys company. That's all I'll say.

You have my proxy. You are me. Were you going to I was I think I'm going to motion to adjourn the meeting. Yeah. Right. All in favor, have a good night. Whatever you guys