Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

for you're excused. Well, and uh Okay, I'll call the August 27th, 2025 uh planning commission meeting to order. The first item, would you take the roll call? M m M Mr. Chairman, since we're kind of rushing through since we're kind of talking about attendance, we could have the free form discussion for a few minutes, giving others to a chance to arrive. Just an idea. We we could but please take the role. Miss Ramble. Jade Castile. Jim Jackson here. Pete Mcgory here. David Miller here. Steve Pajali here.

Connor Whan. Mike Zulof here. Okay. Thank you. Uh before we get into the minutes, just to uh go back to what Mr. Zulof had mentioned about talking about attendance. I I think what I'll do for this meeting is we'll just uh wait until the next meeting when the when the full commission is here so we can inform them of the change comes Mr. Whan right now. You don't like the change there's still a second reading in front of the city commission. It's not before it becomes effective.

Yeah, I realize that but so so Mr. Whan, we were talking about the committees and commissions have all gone to throw three unexcused absences and you're out. So, if you're not going to be here, all you got to do is call the uh clerk, Miss Ramble, let her know, and we'll uh make a motion to excuse you. Okay. Through you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't paying enough attention. Is that three in a row or three in the course of a year or three in a row is the way it currently reads. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I would Yes, Mr. Zulaf.

I would just like to remind the board that there's been discussion about the uh lack of necessity of through the chairman or through you, Mr. Chairman, or that stuff. You don't have to do the through stuff. I don't know how it got started, but it's that's kind of over with, right? Um, yes, the Well, it's in Robert's rules uh that you always speak through the chair, but the city commission ch when we are allowed to change Robert's rules as they apply to the city of Sanduski. They change them as they apply it to themselves and we normally apply the same rules that the city commission has,

right? But we're no longer That's right. No longer required to say through the chair. Yes. But the chair does retain the right if you appear to be out of order. See, the reason you do it through the chair is so that the chair can make a ruling as to whether you're in order or not. The chair can still interrupt and say that's out of order. You don't get to say anything you want just because you covered tried to cover yourself with through the chair. Right. You don't get to address people personally because you said through the chair.

However, Mr. Hastings, it's my understanding that we don't say through you, Mr. Chairman, anymore, but we still ask for permission to speak. Oh yes. Yeah, you still have to be recognized by the chair. The other Robert's rules still apply. Um and you only get to speak um you only get to speak a second time till everyone else has had a chance to speak once. Thank you for that clarification. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from June 20, 2025. If anybody had a chance to Mr. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second.

Seconded by Mr. Mori. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Anyone oppose? Okay. Motion passes. We will move into new business. We have a site plan review for 343 to 349 Anderson annex. Is that you, Mr. Mass?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, an application for site plan approval was submitted by Fireland's Jet Ski Rental for property it owns at 343 to 349 Anderson Annex for a change of use to a to be a commercial marina. So, as we see on this slide, um these are four properties again 343 349 on Anderson Annex. Uh all four properties are zoned CR Commercial Recreation District. Principally speaking, um this land use a marina is allowed within this zoning district. So here are some street view photos on both sides of the screen. You you can see what are floating jet docks that are um combinable cubes. Uh there's a shade structure there, some seating, uh several jet skis, and one jet boat. Some more photos on the left hand. can see the whole site looking toward the south or the beginning of Anderson Annex and in both pictures you can see a portable restroom as part of the proposed development which we will get into later. So right now the proposed site plan is on the screen and while it is I'm going to read off the project description so we cover all our bases. The applicant has applied for site plan approval to operate a marina land use. The applicant was not aware of the requirement for site plan approval for changes of use per section 1149.02A. So the proposed site plan does match what is currently in place. Fireland's Jet ski rental proposes renting out three jet skis and one jetboat during their operating season which runs on a reservationonly model from May 31st to August 31st, Monday through Sunday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. depending on the weather. The marina also proposes a

portable restroom on adjacent private property with that owner's consent. Uh, as you can see, the portable restroom is what is outlined in blue. Uh, moving on to talking about parking. While there is land available for the three parking spaces the code would require for this land use, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the parking requirements instead using existing public parking on four streets which are Cove Street, Sycamore Line, Anderson Street, and Lockwood Avenue. Formalizing a parking area on Anderson Annex would result in constrained access for the other properties there. The applicant stated that the busiest they could be is if all four watercrafts were rented out all day, which again is a maximum 12-h hour period for a total of 16 rentals. Staff estimates this would create a maximum of 16 vehicles using those existing on street parking spaces during the 12-hour period, which would likely result in four or fewer vehicles needing parking at any given time in the 12-h hour window. Assumptions to arrive at that last statement include that rental patrons are likely to arrive in the same vehicle. A as well as that there will be gaps between parking needs uh specifically created um from the watercraft needing to be maintained or cleaned in between uses. that kind of helps limits the nature of the land use and the operation itself limits the sheer volume of people in general that can be going to the site. Um the applicant also stated that every time a booking comes in, they direct the customer to a different street and around Robin style to ease pressure on those spaces. Furthermore, they stated that if they have large groups that come in all at once, the groups are asked to park in the Battery Park public parking

lot and walk to the business location. And additionally, if they are able, uh they can and have uh picked up the groups themselves from Battery Park, uh that parking lot, uh to limit disturbance to the neighborhood. So, staff analysis. Some of this summarizes what we've gone over and some of it is a little bit of new um input. One, a marina is a permitted land use on this property as we've stated. Uh two, per the chief building official, there are no buildings as that is defined by the Ohio building code present on this property. It is actually uh specifically exempted in that section he showed me. um jet boat docks I believe is the exact wording. So what exactly is present here is exempted. uh we might look at it layman's terms as a structure what have you and it you know but from the building code perspectives there are no buildings present on this property because of that as what bullet point three says a certificate of occupancy is not required which means there are no requirements for specific types of restrooms um you know and what what flows through there so in situations where a a certificate of occupancy or CFO is not required. Portable restrooms for otherwise permitted open air businesses can be allowed. We did a lot of research to make sure that this statement is accurate. I fully believe it is. Uh we looked at not only our local city ordinances, but we looked at the Ohio Revised Code and the federal code of regulations. There's first of all little mention of portable restroom regulations to begin with, but two what is mentioned does not

pertain to otherwise legal open air businesses. So we do as the city maintain the right um through the division of code compliance to ensure that it is kept in a sanitary condition. If you uh look in your packet or I can go back to it when we get to questions. Um the when I went by it, which was at least twice um since the application was submitted, the there was a lock on the portable restroom which is secured. Um so that's what I wanted to say about that. Um I guess the only other thing would be I I did also talk to the Erie County Health Department. They don't have any rules prohibiting it outright. Um sanitary conditions is stuff that they look for too. But the sanitation company is required to submit uh sewage disposal reports through the county health department which gets monitored uh by the state health department. All right. For now, I'm going to move on to point four on the slide, uh, which is that a waiver of parking requirements is requested in favor of existing public on street and parking lot options because five, while the business has enough land, technically speaking, to meet the minimum number of spaces, the layout of Anderson Annex makes this very impractical. I don't know the last time anyone's driven down there. Um, regardless of what is uh per the 1927 plat a 6 foot wide joint rightway, functionally speaking, it's I've gone down there a few times. I've gone from a 9-point turn down to a five. So, I'm getting a little better, but it's narrow. Um, let's see. Lastly, six staff does not believe the increase in traffic will create a nuisance. However, if it is determined to be so, the property/business owner should return to the planning commission to determine an

alternative arrangement. Therefore, staff does recommend approval of this site plan before us today with the following conditions. One, all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. And two, if the increased traffic load is determined to be problematic, the property/ business owner shall return to the planning commission to formalize some other arrangement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll throw in few comments if that's okay. Thank you, sir.

Um, you can leave it on the recommendation, Adam. It's fine. But the I just wanted to mention that um the pictures you see are existing conditions because they made this investment and started operating the rental business. Um, it's zoned commercial and the owner had the assumption they'd be okay with that. It had been privately used before for people's private boats. It is allowed in the zoning, but because of the change of use, that's why we brought it forward today that the way to legitimize the business really is to have a site plan from planning commission to make sure you're okay with the operations uh and how that this traffic flow etc is working. Thank you, Miss Blair. Mr. James,

I have a question just for my understanding. when you said there were no buildings involved. So, if someone came down to rent a jet ski, where would they go? Does he have an office that they go to rent the jet skis? No. Um, unless you want the applicant to come up. I I can answer the question. Um, but unless you prefer that, um, they have a website that they advertise on. On the website, it says no walkups. So, it's not like a come in, check in, see what you can reserve. It's all by phone or email. Uh other means besides walking up and then it is pre-arranged basically. They're they're advised which

so they go online if they want to rent the jet ski and then they have a time that you're supposed to show up and Exactly. This is this is simply the dock from which they launch. It's not intended to be m Mr. Chairman before we move forward perhaps I didn't realize you were the applicant. you can come up and Well, I did have a couple questions about the application. Well, let's let's let the fill in some of these gaps and maybe you want questions. So, if you could state your name and address for the record. Yeah. My name is Tom Thomas. Um my address physically is 4060 Drake Road, Norwalk, Ohio. Thank you.

Yep. So, a booking company, Fair Harbor, which handles that type of stuff, all of the reservations are done on there to avoid any useless traffic coming through. So when the applicant or you know when the person gets on and decides they want to rent a jet ski or a boat, it does it basically does the credit check, background check, you know, age check, do they have an Ohio boater's license or do they need one? Um that way people aren't just walking up and getting turned away. The only people that are showing up are viable, already paid, already went through the whole process and have everything they need. At that point, they're just getting a life jacket, signing their waiver, or they can sign their waiver ahead of time. They're getting instructions on how to use the equipment, and then they're taken out to the bay.

Do you check their license to make sure they say they who they are, and Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. The the Fair Harbor program does it as well. Fair Harbor's a booking platform that they have to scan that stuff in ahead of time. So, and then, you know, we have to match that up and if they get a one-day ODNR, you know, recreational boers permit for the day, we have to check that and give them a class so that they have paperwork for the Coast Guard or ODNR or Erie County Sheriff's or police if they were to be pulled over on the water that shows that they have, you know, taken the requirements to be allowed out there. So, yes, all of that is checked. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair,

Mr. res uh back back to the application. Um have you heard from any adjoining property owners at all or or was was there any notice given? So we are not required to give notice for site plans before this commission. Oh, I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering if we No, we did not.

Thank you. Uh we did receive uh one how this actually came about was uh a neighbor with a back porch presumably back porch uh overlooking the property um called me to complain called the city to complain about the portable restroom on the toilet which is what originally prompted if there was a violation at all and that's how in partly why so much intense research was done of all the regulations not that it wouldn't have been done. But um that is how it originated and there was found to be no violation in terms of the portable restroom. But that's when we saw oh well you know what we actually do need to come before the planning commission.

Is the portable restroom a requirement? No because there's no certificate of occupancy. There's no nothing to it requirement. All right. Just practical requirement. Just a common I did call on residents that lives down Cove Street. He said once in a while there there is some a little congestion, but it really wasn't a problem.

He said that most of the people he's talked to uh complain about the restroom, portable restroom that they sit out on their their boatous on the decks and they have to and I didn't know if there was uh any consideration of maybe some sort of screening or something in front of I I never really thought about it, you know. I mean, yeah. I mean, if I needed to put something up, I'm sure I could, but if I mean, if you drive your boat out of the Cove District that all of us do, there's four portable restrooms the whole way out of there. You know that. And I understand if there there you know, their residence is looking down on it. I I definitely understand. You know, I put it there so that, you know, you wouldn't have obviously you don't want people being in the street or doing whatever. I put it there more for my personal use of being on my boat and coming off. It's It's not really there. It's there if you know customers need to change or do whatever, but I mean,

you know, I had it there last year before I had a business as well. I mean, I didn't it wasn't really part of my business plan. Yeah. It was it was part of, you know, just public decency, you know what I mean? Of getting off my boat, changing out of my wet clothes before I get in my, you know, vehicle or on my seats or anything like that. you know, my children use it. You know, you know, I have kids that when they get off the boat, they're, you know, using it. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGor, um, so you're talking about your boat. Do you have a boat adjacent to these four jet ski d? I I use the equipment that's there as well. I' I've had it there for multiple years. Okay.

I've owned that property for 3 years, the other ones, and then I, you know, I was using it.

So, it's not not a separate dock with a separate. Now, they were No, all of the other ones were there. When I decided to open the business, when I I went down to the auditor's office and changed, you know, the name on the deeds, I put in the business name. I asked them if there was anything I needed to do. They told me no. And, you know, I asked my attorney when I had him, well, my attorney did all the paperwork. I said that runs my other businesses. I said, "Do I need to do anything else?" He said, "No, I think you're good." So, I I wasn't even aware that I needed to, you know, do a site planer. I would have done it. I wouldn't just, you know, spend 100 grand and then seriously you were talking about a boat. I didn't know if you had an adjoining.

I I use the equipment there personally as well. Yes. My family uses the jet skis and the boats recreationally as well. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Z. Yeah. I'd really like to finish my questions about the application. I thought I thought you were done. Well, I asked I asked a question and we rolled into stuff and then you recognized someone. Ask your questions. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I wonder if we could see the aerial of the area again back. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, there was there was a wider uh, zooming out this way.

Yeah, it's getting better. Okay. So, as we can see, um, you're also going to have jet ski traffic. I mean, not a lot, but they're going to move in, they're going to move out. So, is there been any consideration of the impact? You've considered you you you talked about the impact on the residents there, but what about the other voters there? Was there any discussion because I didn't see any in there of the impact of the of of of the boat traffic? So, was there any just yes or no? No.

Okay. Um, so it's my understanding you're you're saying that there's no regulation in our code about portagons, which everyone knows are intended to be temporary normally. Uh, you know, permanent portagons, if if if we allow permanent portagons anywhere, we got to fix that. there's a hole in the code that they're they're meant to be overflow, not permanent. And I think in most people's opinion, I I hope someone agrees with that. So, um I are you saying that it's okay to do permanent portagons on this site?

So, a note about permanent versus temporary. I can't 100% answer that, but an important note is that the city uses portable restrooms itself in its public parks on a seasonal basis at least. Um, which also falls within the same logical parameters as this situation of no certificate occupancy required because no building equals no toilet, no trigger for a toilet necessity. based on occupancy equals that is allowed for like you said normally we see it overflow the general field

doing it but they're doing it seasonally I'm sure these would be seasonally too pointing out that what is really designed to be a temporary solution uh you know is is is seems to be used as a permanent solution and the fact that the city does it doesn't make it you know any better. Um, so the other uh question is is are do we plan on delineating at least some parking? I mean, is there staff is going to have to be here? Somebody's going to have to be there to instruct them in the use of the equipment and so forth or are we going to delineate any? Because what I'm seeing is it's 13 ft wide. There's like a six is it 6ft shared easement of of

rightway shared rightway. very it's very narrow. Um, so really there's room for like basically a car parked parallel and a and a car to pass. It's it's it's it's rather limited. Um, okay. That a staff parking lot. So, so we're int we're not intending to a waiver is being formally requested like like it was noted in the report. Although, yes, like you mentioned, there's technically the area functionally would be very impractical.

Okay. Uh right, which arguably is a reason not to do this, but uh in any event, uh that's all the questions I had about the application. I will of course have other comments or questions about the the the matter at hand. Can I answer that? Thank you, Mr. Zulof. Any other questions? Mr. Wh I kind of wanted to follow up uh with Mr. Zulof about the parking requirement. I don't if the way I'm reading this is they need 2.7 spots and they got 2.9. So, there's really not a need to wave the parking requirement for them to still be able to operate. Is that correct or incorrect?

The planning commission may wave the requirement. Uh we believe there's enough logical reasoning to support that which is why we recommended approval. Um that was my question. Can you restate your question? Is it require they can still operate without waving the parking requirement? Correct. Because they meet the minimum. That would be the assumption that they're going to formalize this in the parking spaces, but practically we know they won't. So technically they do have the land area to park the cars there. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. What was the number? They basically three spaces. So technically they have the land that they could park three cars there.

Thank you. which is all they need, right? You don't actually have to have marked out parking spots. You just have to have a place for them to bark. I mean, I suppose that is a pretty rough site plan without it, but you could make le you can make an argument probably either way, Mr. Whan, about what is legally implied versus explicitly stated in our um off- streetet parking section.

The practical use that Mr. Panis is mentioning is if once you get somebody out there with the way they have the port on there the restroom you wouldn't be able to pass. So if we allow them to do the portable restroom we are creating a too narrow of a passing lane and there's no turnaround at the end of this. So when you get to the end you're getting to a boat house and so it so if they have a vehicle down there that's where you could end up in like a private property. So that actually allowing customers to drive down Anderson annex is not really a great outcome. Gotcha. Yeah. Uh I guess I'm one more on on the same lines. I kind of

am a little hesitant to wave a parking requirement when there is the land there to do it. I'm also kind of in agreeance with Mr. uh Zulaf about the portagon. One more quick followup on that though. It looks like it's on a different lot. Is that not the case? Is it your portage, John, on somebody else's lot? Is that It is. Yes. I've leased all that property on that side of the road. Gotcha. From the owner. That makes sense.

So, that's that's also where I'd park my vehicle. The other people on the other side of the annex will not let people park there. They all have no parking signs all the way down that road. They feel like they own that section. They don't want people parking there. So, if anybody did park there, you couldn't go by through anyway. You know what I'm saying? you wouldn't even be able to pass.

So, I leased everything from the top all the way down from my neighbor on the other side of the road. The porta potty, I situated it to where it's in between the telephone pole and the guide wire to where it, you know, you can't drive in that location anyway. Gotcha. It's on the opposite side of where Ohio Edison needs to access it. If they or whoever the power company is, I call them and asked them where I could put it and they said, "Put it between the guide wire and the pole." So it's it's that's that's a blocked off non-drivable piece of land anyway is what that is. And my personal vehicle that I work out of or you know the vehicle that I bring to work I park directly in front of that portage on to I guess would that be the north the north

north to the north of that. So, the the two lots where you see the 7.5 and the one above that, I've leased that property with intentions of buying it from my neighbor, we're um Adam has got us the um lot split paperwork and we're working on, you know, splitting that up to where I can just purchase it and own that side of it as well.

Mr. Miller and then Mr. McGori. Um, when I came to this meeting, I had significant concerns about the parking. I know three different people, coincidentally enough, that have homes on Lockwood. And so, it has come to my attention that there are parking issues in that neighborhood. But uh to my understanding that is in part because not all those homes have off- streetet parking available to them. There are houses there that have no garages, no driveways, no other place to park but the street. Uh second, um the restroom. Yeah, not that appealing in general as an aesthetic, but I'm sort of um take the view that if it's okay for the city to do it, it seems like holding the public to a higher standard than we hold the government doesn't seem to be like justice and fairness in my book. And that that kind of aligns with the parking issue. If if the house doesn't have a requirement of off- streetet parking and uh there is no regulation about the restroom, I think I understand that as a technical matter, he could probably pursue this business and if you want to get all um legalistic about it, win that argument in court if necessary. But I don't think we want to be there

because this business, as I've come to understand it, is run through the use of your phone, like calling a taxi or getting a Door Dash meal. It's a new world. And part of that seems like the way to address the parking issue. You got a big party coming in. Well, there's not parking here. We'll arrange to pick you up or plan. And and he said that. So I think this particular application offers us a unique opportunity that we don't have to just guess and speculate the whatifs of the future because it already has a past practice of operating as a business. And that record, I think, goes a long way with me. If there haven't been complaints about parking generated from the business having operated for a year or so, I think the staff's recommendation of if there are problems, then we will deal with them makes sense to me. that condition uh sort of eases my mind that we are not giving cartwash to something that will be a nuisance because we've reserved the right to go back and fix it if it becomes a problem. But I don't think that it has to be a problem. he could operate his business legally without us being sensible about um agreeing that a nine-point turn or getting jammed up down there. I mean that that that's what will cause an accident or somebody to have a vehicular mishap because we didn't have the foresight to say, "Yeah, we understand you're going to have to park not on Anderson Annex and someplace else." And I think that's been working

from what I understand.

Absolutely. If anybody that even drives down there just to see if we're there, we just tell them you can't drive down here. You need to leave. you know, this is um, you know, over the three years I've been there, I've, you know, become pretty friendly with most of the the only issue is really all the rest of those docks down in the other end are pretty much abandoned. You know, the Maro family has theirs right there. The only people that use any of that are myself and the actual boat houses at the end. And that's where it's a problem because I believe there's 11 units there and they only have four parking spaces. So by anybody being in there, they're cutting off, you know, that end house down there. So anybody that even pulls down there, I just tell them, you know, you have to leave. If you want to reserve, you can. If you need to call me, you can. You know, you can't you can't, like Adam said, 9 point. Any of the city people that come down there to read meters or do anything, they pull in one way and they back out the other. There's not really turning around. And anybody that drives down there, I, you know, just politely ask them, you know, you need to back out of here and if you need to communicate with us, you can call us. But, but, but the point I think that we're sharing is the way your business operates. You have to have that contact and interchange with them remotely before they physically show up on site with their flipflops and their swim bag.

Oh, absolutely. They know they know exactly where they're parking. This is not any surprise that you get into a jam that you weren't expecting. You know well in advance the situation you're dealing with and the parking is something you have to do elsewhere. Right. If the neighborhood complains that it's out of hand, we'll deal with it. Right. Mr. McGory.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow up on what I understood of Mr. Whan's question or thoughts. um as I think this through and particularly what he said or what I think he said is there's an enough parking here to comply so that we don't have to wave it. Now what I don't understand is if we didn't wave it, would it require an actual parking plan with marked out spaces or could it just be those three spots in front? Now, if that's all you if you don't have to do anything, that doesn't require you to use those three spaces and it doesn't prevent you from advising all customers to park on the street. So, I I'm personally a little bit in favor of making this as simple as possible if what I just said would work. um because then it doesn't require anybody doing anything other than the way it's been going on so far. My next thought is or obser I'll make as an observation I own a house on Anderson Street. I think Miss Rambo does too. Um so and I'm pretty familiar with that that whole area. And when I was uh in college, um my uncle and my dad rented that boat house that's right at the end of of Anderson Annex. So I I and I've driven down Anderson Annex, so I know how narrow it is. And and I I've backed out the whole way too without trying to turn around. But the point I'm getting at is in the summertime the for whatever we want to think about it there is a parking problem on those streets down there and it's it's season more seasonal. So uh Anderson and Lockwood are not wide

enough and they have parking on both sides of the streets. If if you have a car on each side of the street e equal or across from each other, two cars can't pass. You have to pull in behind a parked car hoping that there is an open space to pull in and know to let the car coming the other way go or they have to pull over. And in the summertime, the the boat houses that are at the end of Lockwood and Anderson and Anderson Annex, often times they will have if somebody's going out on a boat, they'll have people coming down. So there might be five or six cars to go out on somebody's boat and they end up parking up in the street. Now, I'm not saying that that that it's not doable, but if a waiver is not required, then everybody just keeps doing what they've been doing and does the best they can with finding a parking place. So, that's kind of my thought. And if if it went that way, it wouldn't preclude or prevent the applicant from doing exactly what he's doing, which is recommending that they park other than on Anderson annex. So those those are my thoughts.

Chair, Mr. Zen,

I'm trying to get my head around, you know, what what are we really accomplishing with the site plan approval? all we're doing is discontinuing, you know, in in in our action, you know, the validity of of this thing. And I starting to think we're better off, you know, not doing a site plan approval and just, you know, make making sure that the uh applicant plays nice with the neighbors. I I I don't know that we're accomplishing anything. I I I think we should we're better off uh they've been operating this far. I don't it you know, is there going to going to be a complaint? I don't know. I don't know that uh if there are any complaints that the site plan approval in and of itself makes the whole operation okay. Uh I'm not I'm I'm wondering uh I'm I'm I'm a little concerned about sending the signal that hey, you know, we we think wedging this operation in in a place where there's no other commercial uses when there are arguably better places to do it. uh uh is tantamount to appro not just approving but endorsing uh the thing and I just don't I'd have trouble facing the the other residents saying this thing that doesn't fit very well uh we're endorsing.

Thank you, Mr. Zulu. So, I've got a question for our experts planners at the table. Uh so if he would have just uh come to you tomorrow and wanted to operate, would there be a requirement for site plan?

My understanding of the zoning planning and zoning code and the statement that says when there's a change of use that commercial site plans come to planning commission. So what we have what we're looking at is five parcels that had been operating for personal use. So, those could be five different owners with five boats and a jet ski each or more. Um, all operating personally, that's how it was before. That's my understanding. And this is a change to a commercial use. And the code asks for change of uses to be seen through site planning. So, staff does residential site plan review ourselves. We bring you commercial site plans. Um, which is why I think the code technically asks for this. It's also a way to formalize something was happening. We had questions from the neighbors. We're like, "Well, we could bring it to site plan. Technically, it's a change of use, so we can have planning commission look at it. See if they have any concerns." Okay.

Sure. Could I ask a question of I I've got a followup question. Okay.

As far as the uh the question about waving the parking is is that I mean, how how do you view that? How how would you interpret that? I mean, I think we could have brought you this application and said there's plent there's enough there's enough room for the three spots that they need and called it a day um and asked you to approve it. Um that technically could got approved. I think what is practically happening and what would happen to even both of your points is that they're not going to use that area for parking. They're they're going to use on street parking uh because it's tough. And I think even if it was five parcels owned by five different owners with five boats, they would also all use on street parking because it's just not really practical to park out here. So I think it could function as it was with private ownership and everybody would figure it out and I think everybody will figure it out if there's commercial operation here. Um because it's modest in size. It's not like he's got 20 boats lined up there. Um, but because it's technically a change of use, I think planning commission approvals or review, excuse me, is appropriate.

Review and the waiver for the parking.

Uh, I mean, I think that the way that Mr. Panis worded it is nice because he kind of said, "We think that it's better that the customers are parking on street and not taking the public out on Anderson Annex, and if that does become an issue, then we can bring it back." I did speak with the police chief and he doesn't get calls of u concern about parking on Anderson Street. Um, and I know that it is popular street. Um, but I think it's a cool land use. I don't want to get in the way of things that make our city great for parking and you know that because I was an advocate to change the parking on staff, right? So, um, you'll you'll find that that's generally my approach unless I think it's an issue in which case I will make it known.

Thank you, Miss Mr. Zulof. One more question, Mr. Miller, and then I'm gonna call for the vote. Okay. Uh, so you need a motion? A motion? Yeah, a motion for a vote. Motion, but but he hasn't called for the vote yet. I haven't called for a motion.

So, um, M. Blair. I'm trying to figure out how to make it one question. I'm I'm I'm worried about, you know, what happens if we don't do this because it seems to be already happening anyway. Um, and you know what what what happens if we do it? What happens if somebody complains about it because you know of some operational problem or trespassing or something? you know, if if we maybe I maybe I need to be asking the law director, are we providing tacid approval and are we making it harder for somebody to complain about trespassing uh park people parking inappropriately? Um, so anyway, uh, and and and if I could kind of tie that into what if they had an off-site office and they just shuttled their co customers down there, showed them a video in an office someplace, shuttle them down there and put them on the boat. I I I just don't think we have the best operational plan, and I think it's going to lead to trouble. And I think if if this residents knew about this, then you'd probably have a few people in seats tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Zulu, Mr. Miller and then Mr. Pannis and then we'll go.

Um I I have a couple of uh comments. One in uh response to Mr. McGory's observation about if there are cars on say Anderson parked across from each other, there's really effective only one lane in between. I live on 48th Street. As a practical matter, if you have a car on both sides of the street, the same thing happens on 48th Street. Um, and secondly, in response to Mr. Zulof's uh query about whether this is really necessary or should we just ignore it. I think by having this body authorize this plan instead of just not doing anything about it. It gives us the opportunity to address a future problem because of the condition of if there's a problem we can address it. So it gives us something uh that doing nothing doesn't give us the ability to review and call this back to the table and come up with a solution that better serves the public if this turns out in fact not to be the best thing. I I'm more inclined uh to view from what I infer is Miss Blair's u point of view that I I want the city to be fun and to draw people and and be vibrant and engaging. Um all this stuff about jet ski rental and permits and what if you get stopped by ODNR. Last time I rented a jet ski, I had a lot of fun and I don't remember any of that paperwork. Um, it seems like we run the

risk of being the government that stands in the way of fun and I don't think that the public is so stupid that they can't work this out. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Did you have a comment, Mr. I did, but I defer to Mr. McGory wanting to speak. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared. I'm prepared to make a motion. Okay. Well, oh, I I I had a few comments on that. Okay. Go ahead.

Well, would can I go before you then? Would you like that? Okay. Uh, two observations following up to some points that have been made since I last spoke. Uh, the wording for the condition number two, I'll put it up again. I drove that I got that almost verbatim from, uh, the site plan approval that was before this board for Pipe Creek Warf on River Avenue or River Road. Um, and what I'm going to say next is not a negative judgment about anything, but that had much what appeared to be much less information before this board and that same approach with a waterfront property appeared to have been pondered and considered and approved with that same condition. Um, second, this property is zoned commercial, commercial recreation. Every district has an intent and I'd kindly implore you all to think about what that may mean. Uh, which kind of ties into Mr. Miller's point. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. I I've got a few comments. Can Can I I I have trouble hearing him. Can I get a repeat on which which side of River? I'll speak up. Um, it's not I I No, it's okay. It's the echo in here. Turn off the mic. You might hear you. Oh, what if I was back here? Is that better? Yeah, that's okay. Cool. Uh, I got this the condition number two, the language from uh, Pipe Creek. I think it's Pipe Creek Warf on River Road. River, which River A. Thank you. which had what appeared to be much less information and coordination before us. That's not a negative statement

there. Correct. No, but they had a parking lot but the same con the parking lot there were perceived issues uh as what I read and the approach was very similar. All of these lots on Anderson Annex are in surrounding our zoned commercial recreation. That was my other comment. So I've got a few comments. How long have you been operating down there? June 1st. So, you've been operating most of this year, every day before for the summer. Okay. And and I don't know, have have we had any complaints about that operation? Just one neighbor who didn't like the the portable restroom.

Okay. We're just Mr. Chairman, did did he say June 1st of this year? That is correct. 2025. June 1st. Okay. June 1st of this year. Correct. So, so I I I uh do tend to agree with Mr. Miller. I I think if uh there were problems or a lot of problems, we would have heard about it sooner. Of course, number one. Um and when I had talked to the gentleman that I talked to down there, he said the parking congestion is due more to the Airbnbs down there than anything else. That they bring in all these cars,

so you have a lot of congestion. So, I I I don't know if it's necessarily your operation that creates any congestion. of the first street. Uh I my my definition or my interpretation of that Porter John, Mr. Zulof, is that it is temporary.

So I mean a temporary portage John is a temporary port of John. It's not going to be there all the time if that was your objection. And uh I don't see where parking has been an issue yet. And there's a provision to revisit the parking if there is an issue. So that's already incorporated into this. And you said you were willing to perhaps put some screening on the restroom or something to kind of screen it if it does become an issue with the

Yeah. I mean, if they need it covered, I'll cover it. But I, you know, I I didn't think anything of it because I I looked at the other ones that were around me at the Cove carry out or at the, you know, at the skate park, anywhere else that I drive my boat through there. I, you know, I seen them. I got out and looked at the one at the skate park. I looked at the one at the Cove and I was like, "Okay, this is what they're doing." And that's kind of what I did. I didn't, you know, think about it. I saw about the uh the parking and parking at Battery Park. That's that's kind of a long walk. Although a bar you could stop at and get a drink. Well, so we have groups that are coming and taking out everything that we have. I have them park there and then pick them up so that you know or if they're coming in multiple cars.

Well, you've addressed that also. So, yeah, I just go over there and pick them up. Or if they say, "Hey, we're in a motor home. We're staying over at, you know, the the campground." I just tell them, "Part there. I'll pick you up." You know what I mean?

So, those are my comments, Mr. Did you prepared to make motion? Uh, as I understand it, the applicant has uh for has filed an application for site plan approval. I think with the request that the parking requirement be waved. My motion is to approve the site plan approval without waving it. And it doesn't require him to use those those parking places. he can operate the the way he wants to. If it's easier to have the customers park elsewhere for one reason or another, wherever they park, that's him. That's up. So, I I don't think it precludes him from doing anything

and that would be my motion. Okay. With the with the further condition that if there are further problems that with the conditions that are listed here, right? Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been seconded. Any discussion? I I really like that you left the parking off, but one of the big things that I see there is what if he doubles the size of his operation? We've already waved the parking. I'm sorry. What if he doubles the size of his operation? We've already waved the parking. I at least in this case, we aren't formally waving it. Yeah. Yeah. He I agree. He's not going to park there. That's fine. M Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Yeah. So, I think makes makes a fair point. Uh I'd love to figure out I don't think we can this site plan approval. I don't think we can condition it on anything, right? Um you certainly can. That's what's listed. Excuse me.

Oh, okay. So, so you are all right. So, if we can condition on it, I might, you know, be inclined to move that we uh include a condition that the uh uh portable restroom be screened on four sides. That that way we we look like uh advocates for the neighbors, whether we really are or not. By the way, don't get me wrong, I don't think that I love jet skis. I think they're a lot of fun. I love the idea of having that rental option. I love the business model. I'm just a little worried about conflicts with with the neighbors here and and it seems to me that screening the portagon would go a long way to respecting the the the neighbors rights. One one more real quick I'll be done the in regard to the portage John I'm a little concerned about that not super because I'm with you that it's probably it's temporary putting a condition in there about screening it

to me I think further legitimizes it Mr. rather than right now we're a little out of order right now. We have a motion. It needs a second to go forward. Then there can be a discussion on the motion. Okay. I think it's been we're discussing. No, there there needs to be a second proposed talking about Mr. Zulof. Mr. Zulof made a motion and there needs to be a second of his motion. I was I was fishing I was fishing for whether I should bother making a motion to amend the motion. Are you making a motion to amend? I

I don't think it'll go anywhere. So unless somebody's if I think somebody said I'll I'll I'll make the motion to um amend the motion to require screening on four sides for the portage and I'll wait for no second. Is there a second? No second. Okay. Thank you. If not, we'll go back to the original motion. And uh if there's no other discussion, Miss Rambo, would you call the role, please? Or state the motion. She state the motion. I think I heard a conflict between the motion and um Connor's interpretation of it.

I I don't think so. I think I don't I don't think so either, but if she reads it, we'll be sure. Go ahead. I have a motion to approve not wavering the parking uh not in wavering parking they you want the parking to be required basically and to include staff conditions no condition please uh call the role Miss Ram uh Pete McGory yes Mike Zulof no Jim Jackson Yes. David Miller. Yes. Steve Pajali. Yes.

Connor Whan. Yes. Andrew letter tomorrow. You go home. Okay. Thanks, guys. Have a fun rest of your meeting. Thanks, guys. So, just to summarize, it's my understanding that what just happened doesn't require any changes in operation. So, that's my understanding. as well. My interpretation as well. Okay. Yeah, he can tell people to park where he wants. Thank you, Tom. You guys have a great afternoon. You too. Okay. Moving on to the proposed tax amendments. Yes, sir. Amen.

That is me. All right. Get some right page here. Time 555. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, today we have before the planning commission uh some proposed text amendments updating planning and zoning code section 1145.17 landscape features and yard structures to allow fences and sideyards of residentially zoned properties to be constructed to a height of not higher than 6 ft above grade. The reason this is even here is because um oh let me state that the current code requires a maximum of four feet if in the sideyard on the side of the house. Proposed amendment is for up to six. Okay, moving on. The during the past 6 months, the reason this is here is because we've staff has noted a surge in zoning variance applications uh for this exact request. Uh building fences in the sideyard up to six feet. People want the extra two feet pretty consistently. Um, community development department records for that variance request over the last 10 and a half years show this has been a consistently popular request and has been approved in 93% of cases which results actually in all but two where no justification was even given to begin with. Um research revealed that this request made up an average of 13% of the total BZA case load throughout the period. Uh reaching as high as 22% in 2016, 25% in 2021, and 29% so far in 2025. Uh the justifications I just mentioned mostly pertain to privacy, safety, andor containing dogs. Um staff also researched 17 other cities in Ohio. Of

those 17, eight of them were demographically similar to Sunduski in terms of population size, racial makeup, median household income, and geography and were the cities of Ashtabula, Chilikothy, Lorraine, Mansfield, Marian, Portsmith, Tiffen, and Zanesville. All of eight of those cities allowed fences and sideyards of residentially zoned properties to a height of six feet above grade or even greater in some instances. Um this was comparable to the five largest cities in our state uh by population of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo as well as to four of our neighboring cities of Hiron, Norwok, Port Clinton, and Vermillion. uh all the cities that we've researched maintain provisions to ensure corner lots would be treated differently which have been uh maintained in our proposed text amendments which I'll put on the board in a moment. Um so basically what we provided are amendments to ensure 6ft fences are not constructed next to front porches but to otherwise allow them in sideyards. Corner lot rules are not proposed to change. Neither would front yard fencing. So, here is one of two. This is where really the meat and potatoes of this proposal is. Uh, as you can see in D under side and rear yards, a lot of that language is condensed. um including both the side and rear yard to a height of uh both 6 ft as opposed to um differentiating them. And then bullet or subsection G refers to um again the 6 ft above grade maximum um and is where the provision for whether it's next to porches it can be up to 4 feet but not 6

feet uh porch or other front entrance feature. So that was in your packet. Other changes, we're reumbering to just make sure like make it more logical. Uh there's no actual text changes in the rest of this section. Uh just to make it easier for the average person if reading or contractor to understand it on the first read. So therefore, staff recommends that planning commission motions to recommend approval to the city commission uh to adopt the proposed amendments to chapter 1145 supplemental area and height regulations section 1145.17 landscape fee features and yard structures to allow the construction of fences and walls along the lines of a sideyard to a height of not more than 6 ft in height and to a height of not more than 4 feet above grade. if adjacent to the front porch or other front entrance feature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Pants. Questions for Mr. Pants? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zul.

Yeah, I I'm all for it. I'm I'm glad to just say, you know, motion to approve except the very first what's now G1. Uh, I like to think I have a pretty com pretty good command of the language and I find that really difficult to to read and I find it ambiguous and for lack of a few commas, you know, could be interpreted not even be a sentence. Um, 6 ft above grade and to a height of no more than 4T above grade if adjacent to the front porch. I think the intent is if it's adjacent to a a front porch or structure, then the limit's 4T. I think we attempted to do this all in one sentence when we should have needed more than one sentence for clarity. If you said but to a height of not more than four feet uh that might lend some clarity and a few commas might lend some clarity or except uh to to a height of 4T. Uh but right now um I don't know where it came from. I'm not criticizing anybody but I I read this you know with fresh eyes saying This is a confusing sentence that could be actually construed to be not a sentence w without some comments

through the chair. Thank you, Mr. Zulof. Miss Blair, thank you so much. I just wanted to mention that I I added that um in it is modeled exactly off of what the existing language is that's crossed out here that says along the lines of rear yard to a height no more of six feet and otherwise da da da. So certainly word smith if you see fit but it it is structured the sentence is structured the same as the existing code. Well, um minimal change and the front porch I also missing a comma then at least the front porch and front entrance features are described in the code otherwise u around the in the section Adam

11:45 I knew you were um 6 15 and 16 all right those are pointing to things that are defined in yeah I I don't I don't think that the fact that the original ordinance was was hard to read and had the same possibly have the same problems. I haven't looked at it that way. Uh is a defense. Uh if we're going to change it, let's not miss a chance to make it clear. Mr. Hastings, do you have a comment? Yeah, I I I guess uh to satisfy Mr. Zulof. Um, if we change it to a height of not more than 6 ft above grade,

unless it's adjacent to a front porch or other front entrance feature, then 4T above grade. [Applause] Same as motion motion to recommend for the legislation subject to that adjustment. Is there a second? Second. Discussion.

Discussion. Um, I'm not sure what adjacent to means as far as specific. Um, I mean, I'm trying to picture. So, this four or or six foot fence, I mean, wrapped around the front door or I don't I don't know what that means. I What do What are we trying to prevent somebody? We're trying to maintain lines of sight uh while you're in your vehicle, while you're walking out of your driveway and onto the public sidewalk facilities. That's the main thing. Um the facade and aesthetic considerations and by extension probably property values are definitely um secondary, but secondary.

So is I'm just trying trying to understand. So, uh, is that at the edge of the yard, but in towards the front where the front door is? I think I understand better now. Up to the front building wall of the dwelling. So, if you have a porch on that after, if you think you need a fence, you know, you're welcome to have one, apply for that, but it just it then has to step down past the front side. So, if you're going from to the rear to the front of the yard, this these text amendments would shift the checkpoint from which you were required to step down the fence height. Okay. Could I help answer that, Mr. Zula? Yes. Um,

okay. So, yeah, basically it's like the front yard starting at the porch or whatever. It goes to 4 feet. Law enforcement doesn't like tall fences in the front. Nobody likes Public Safety doesn't like it. uh you can't see over it for it's it's just unabyt fence in the front. Uh used to be unighborly to have a sixoot fence in the back, but uh you know moors have changed. You know, out west it's unably to not have a fence. You know, Midwesterners don't even like fences, at least in the old days. It's like you put up a fence with a 4ft fence. It's like why why do you hate your neighbor? You know, um so but standards have changed. So, this this is really kind of updating our expectations and what people want, but it's still a matter of public safety. Uh, and I think the police would agree uh, you know, to have keep it down to 4T in the front.

Mr. Jack. Yeah. I'm still confused. Okay. When you talk about where it drops down to four four feet. Yeah. Is this when something goes past the front of your house?

Yes. That's that's the point that Mr. Mcgori was asking about when we were talking about adjacent to um so the way and I think we're talking about G1 on um the PowerPoint also in the packet which is saying it's b you're we're changing the point on like a site plan but if you're looking at it and you see a fence and it's like oh that's next to the house right now I have to flag every single one of those and either ask if they will comply with the regulation or guide them through a variance process. And the data shows almost every single time we approve it as long as there's a justification, which some of them were for safety, trespassing reasons. Uh some are dogs, but a lot of its privacy expectations have changed. But to your original, does that help answer it? If not, just that's fine. I can explain it differently.

If I could say how I perceive his answer, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGill. So, it's my understanding that from the front corner of a residence going towards the backyard, you could the proposed increase or the proposal to modify is to raise it to six feet from the front corner of the house going forward towards the the street, the front yard. It's it is still 4T. That's correct. 3 ft from the front yard across the front yard from the front yard but adjacent. I understand I understand I understand that the the the cut off point is the front corner of the house.

Yeah. And maybe I could have explained better too um that the the front porch is considered an entrance feature and which is different from the front building wall of the you know the principal dwelling. Yes. Okay. We we have a motion and a second. Yes, we have a motion and a second. Would you call the roll, Miss Rample? Steve Pali, yes. David Miller, yes. Jim Jackson, yes. Mike Zulof, yes. Pete McGory, maybe. No. Yes. Connor Whan, yes.

Motion passes. Thank you, Miss Ramble. The next meeting is September 24th at 5:00 p.m. Uh any any additional information before?

I do have something to share today. Um so we um we have just launched a new project we're calling the housing development accelerator. I didn't call it a plan on purpose because uh the whole point of doing this is to get more housing built in the city. So what we we have contracted with OM advisors and we are going to do some community engagement around three different sites. One of them is city-owned land in the Cold Creek neighborhood. So there's a bunch of land still there. Um the GNC Foundry site over on West Monroe and then city-owned land around Southside. We're going to hold some community meetings for the neighbors in those areas to take a look at what kind of development, what kind of housing development they would really like to see there or not like to see there. Specifically, architectural styles, uh, unit types, height, those sort of things. So, we can get to a final deliverable of a drawing of a development scenario that the neighbors are really supportive of and then do an RFQ for developer to come build. So hopefully we'll do some of that research, primarily the community engagement, also looking utility connections. Um the first round of meetings we're looking at doing in October. Of course, we will make sure your schedule is open, Mr. Jackson, for the Cold Creek one. Um and

well, are is everyone going to be notified of these meetings in the Cold Creek? Yes. Yes. Yes. I will definitely have them all there at your house.

I will I will have them all there. like completed our public engagement plan yet, but yes, we'll make sure that people know that we want to have these meetings. We want we want folks to come. We want to to do some co-design with residents. Um we're also going to look at options for infill development. So, for when where there's vacant land here and there across the city, what type of houses fit on already, you know, created city lots? um if there were going to be somebody that was going to build a duplex or a triplex or a forplex, what might that look like? So, we'll also result on a pattern book for infill development for residential um that hopefully land owners or prospective um builders could kind of take and say, "Okay, we'd like to build that. Let's draw a set of plans that match that because we know it'll fit within the zoning." Uh we're also going to expect that we might find some zoning that's that's in our way. And so if we find any of our zoning is in our way, we might bring zoning amendments to you. Um we have a little bit of money from the Department of Development particularly for zoning if we do find zoning amendments that make sense through this project. So you'll see I'd love to invite you all to those conversations. We're going to do one round in October and then probably another round in like February time frame. Um, and yeah, I think that's a good over overview of of the goals and what we're doing. So, happy to take any questions, but I will absolutely keep you informed of those and hope hope that you'll be involved in the process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any questions for Miss Blair before I get to Mr. Hastings? Okay, Mr. Hastings. Yes, we still need one more vote on the proposed text amendment. Um, Mr. Zulof made a motion to amend it. Uh that was second and then we only had one vote after that which I would interpret as the vote to amend the M. No, I'm sorry. I made the initial motion and and it it did not and and the motion was you have to have first a vote on the amended motion then text amendment. First you have to move to amend. There was only one motion. There was never a motion. I know that's my point. We need another vote on the amended text amendment. Did Did he make a motion to amend that language though?

No. I'm confused. I I remember I'm having concerns about the language, but I don't remember. Well, then I don't understand what was passed. My motion included the amendment. Well, no, that's not how you do it. Okay. You either follow your direction. You if that was a motion to amend. No, it wasn't a motion to amend. All right. Then the vote was on the un amended with the original language as proposed text amendment. Yeah, I think it was.

No, he I thought he wanted to use your So we I interpret that as a motion to amend the text amendment. First, we had to get consensus by everybody to amend the text amendment in case somebody wanted to keep the original language. So we need we need a motion to approve that. Now you need a motion to approve the amended text amendment. Okay. Is is there a motion? So moved. It's been moved by Mr. McGory, seconded by Mr. Miller. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Well, okay. If if there's uh stay in the journal. Okay.