Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call this evening's meeting of the planning commission to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Mr. Prescott, Mr. Wagner here, Mrs. Trepto, Mr. Basik here, Mr. Duliaak here.

All right. Is there a motion on the minutes of PC 31026? I make a motion to approve uh the minutes from PC 310 26. I second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Any old business? No sir. Uh there was a tabled item for that conditional use for the daycare uh last meeting, but they decided to withdraw the application. Okay. Uh, new business.

Thank you.

Uh, first item is PC26-26. This property is at 3657 Fish Creek. Uh, this is where Pellis is located. Property is about 4.7 acres in zone C2. And this is our first use variance application under the new code. Uh, this is for a self- storage facility. Uh so some of you might remember this application came through about a year ago to split the property in the back to create a separate parcel with the intent to um reszone it to industrial to construct self storage since that's only conditional in the industrial district. Um at that time it wasn't the reasonzoning was in line with the comprehensive plan and wasn't being uh fully supported by council. So I think that was actually withdrawn at the end. Um we talked with Mr. Ruth at the time let him know that they were making updates to the code and that we'll have this process that he can follow. So this is the right now just basically a concept or preliminary site plan um for three self- storage buildings about 16,000 ft² total. Uh again three buildings 80 8800 ft² 6600 ft. There's a 1,200 foot building in the back here with potential for an additional building. Again, self storage is still only conditional in the industrial district. Uh so we have the use variance process which was established to uh allow relief from the code which will permit a use on property that is not permitted otherwise. So, this process is only intended when reszoning or amending the code um doesn't align with the comprehensive plan or doesn't make sense for the area and when the requested use will not negatively impact the surrounding area.

And if this is approved, self storage is permitted on this property alone. It does not mean that it's permitted on all C2 zone properties. It only applies to this site. Um and to be clear, this this application itself is only for the review of the use. This is not include site plan review. Um they want to make sure that they can use the property for this before they proceed with any site plan um you know final drawing. So that will come later. There are other supplemental regulations for self storage that we'll have to review uh identify any variances and go through that process later on. So, you know, these are these are all the supplemental regulations for self storage. Um, we've had past inquiries about self storage on commercial property. So, we didn't anticipate a few of these coming up use variances. So, we included uh some regulations if they are in a commercial district. Um, they might need a couple variances from these regulations, but again, that'll come later on in the road. Then use variance criteria. This is what applications should be reviewed on. Um just basically at this point in the stage is that all standards of the code are met. Um that the proposed use shall not adversely affect the surrounding property or neighborhood. The granting of the variance will alleviate practical difficulties or hardships which cannot be addressed by reszoning which they went that route and did not work. Uh number five, the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Our comprehensive plan designates this area as retail/service. There's no there's not necessarily a list of uses in that. Um you know, so this is arguably still a service use. Uh it's more importantly, it's not an industrial district open for

industrial uses. Uh number six uh the establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding property and adequate utilities, access roads, drainage etc. Those are all being provided which those will be verified during the site plan stage and then measures have been or will be taken to provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic and that will be some of these are overlapping with site plan and variance criteria. So again, these will be further evaluated the site plan, but um that's all I have for this application. There was a recommended condition of approval that if approved uh you can add in language that not more than 18,000 square ft of self storage building shall be permitted. That way in the future they wouldn't be able to just turn the whole property into self storage. They'd be limited to a certain square footage. This site plan is again about 16,600 square ft. 18,000 gives them a little wiggle room if they need to modify the plan at all, but that's open to plan commission if they want to add that condition. Happy to take any questions. So when I was reading through the um um some of the regulations, right? Why do we have a policy in commercial districts only to have interior access to self-s storage units only? Why is that a Why is that Why do we have that, right? To not have an outdoor because this would be an outdoor

Yeah, this is an outdoor access self- storage unit. So, and it's in a commercial district. So, we have a conflict where we're going to approve potentially a self- storage unit that's going to have outside access, but but yet one of the requirements for self- storage units in commercial districts is to only have inside access, inside door access.

Yeah. The intent of requiring inside access is in a commercial district is to maintain that commercial character of the area. Yeah, we only have so much land left in the city. So, we want to make sure it's quality development with, you know, nice building facades. Um, so you see them pretty often where they have just a large building facade with, you know, a lot of windows and then storage inside the actual building. So, that's the intent. Um but I understand with those regulations, you know, not matching what's shown on this plan. But again, the site plan will be reviewed separately and at that time we'll we'll have to come through with likely variance.

Were there any uh comments sent by email? No. Okay. Uh anyone in the audience care to address the subject? Please state your name and address. Good afternoon.

Okay. And do you swear what you're about to say will be the truth? Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks. Nothing really to add. Comments are all true. Right.

There's there's not much to it. It's completely Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. and name and address, please. Excuse me if you can. What you're about to say will be the truth. Go ahead. Sorry. Sir, if you can What's wrong? Excuse me. You got to turn turn the mic on and and state your name and address again. Dave Bombgardner, 3078 Snowshoe Circle.

Thank you. Uh just learning about this now. I just wish that the commission would take it in consideration the additional building that's going on in that area. I'm a resident of Snowshoe Circle which is in Hunter's Crossing and the traffic in the building there is getting extensive. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Well, I will move to approve the use variance for PC 2026-006.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the use variance for PC 2026-00006. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Basik, yes. Mr. Dulak, yes. Motion carries. Moving on to uh PC 2026-009.

Thank you. Uh this one is at 4185 Kent Road, about 4.5 acres, zone C3. And this one is just for an extension of the approved Panda Express that came through almost a year ago. Uh so plan commission recommended approval on April 8th which is valid for one year. They have not began construction and they approval shall expire one year from the date of enactment unless construction and erection commences. Construction is deemed to have begun when all necessary excavation and peers or footings of one or more principal buildings included in the plan have been completed. So they're not quite there. Uh, I did speak with the I think it was the architect a couple weeks ago. I think they're maybe a month out from beginning. So, they're very close. Um, but to avoid letting it expire and reapplying, they just want to uh get this extended and plan commission can typically they've been extended for a year. Plan commission could set a time other than that if they wish, but happy to answer any questions. Anyone in the audience care to com comment,

state your name and address. Hello. Uh, my name is Michael Weiss. I'm with Goodman Real Estate Group. I represent Panda Express. My address is 25333 Cedar Road in Lynhurst, Ohio. And I'm just here and do you swear that what you're about to say will be the truth? Yes. Thank you. I'm just here to answer any questions. I was asked tasked to come here and if you had any questions about the project or anything like that. Nothing has changed, right? No. No. Other than the time unfortunately. I understand. Yes. Okay. Jamie, are there any emails or anything?

No, I didn't have anything. Okay. Any other questions? Like to make a motion to approve PC 2026- 009 extension of the site plan initial use variances for the Panda Express. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the uh extension of the site plan. Uh, any other discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, I. Mr. Basik, yes. Mr. Duliaak, yes.

Motion carries. On to PC 2026-007, amends section 1104. Thank you. Uh, this application was submitted by myself. Um, this is a text amendment to section 1104.04 A6, which is part of the supplemental regulations for multif family uses. Um, this amendment is to essentially just remove section B on the screen, which is uh caps the density of multif family to six units per acre. So, a little bit of the background. Uh, this is part of the whole update to the zoning code. It was a two-year process. Um, this included meetings with uh we had an 11 member steering committee. Some of you were on that met with consistently with staff, consultants, and uh just evaluating the the entire city and and development regulations to make it more effective and development friendly. Um, but this whole effort included workshops and stakeholder interviews, public surveys. Uh, we had many sessions with planning commission reviewing this stuff. Um and this was always in the code from the early stages. So this is always in the review through steering committee and planning commission which was part of the final recommendation from both uh before it went to council. Um and that was to remove which was a pre-existing requirement six units per acre but the new code was to remove that. Um so the final draft submitted to council did not include that but during the adoption process in the last meeting actually about 5 hours before the meeting uh council members submitted a few amendments. Um one of them was this one in the next application that we'll talk about. Um but they submitted an

amendment to take out or put back that six units per acre in the code. And this was done after the public review process. It wasn't evaluated as part of the this two-year process that we just went through. Wasn't necessarily evaluated on how it would impact other parts of the code or future development. So, we're proposing to put this back in just to align with what was already there and recommended by steering committee and planning commission. Uh, so existing conditions with uh development patterns around the city. Just want to talk about that a little bit. Um we have we have many apartments and condos. Uh they all average again an average of about nine units per acre. Actually think about 9.4 units per acre between all of them which is a lot higher than the six units per acre. Um so that the six units per acre just doesn't match what we have today. You know whether they were done before that cap was in place or they received variances. Um there's quite likely a lot of them that are just non-conforming due to that non uh due to that density cap. So just want to show you a few examples of apartments around the city. This is Brighton Place Apartments on Maplewood in 91. This is about a 5.3 acre property, 83 units. This one's at 15.6 units per acre. Um there's a couple that are right next to each other. Ren's Trail Garden. off of Stone Fish Creek. It's about 15.3 units per acre. Right next to it is Ren's Cross at 9.1 units per acre. Uh Cypress Park Apartments on Fish Creek, that's 13.4 units per acre. Stoke car Stoke Kent Gardens 8.6 units per acre. And these are just a few examples. We looked at we looked at over

28 apartments around the city. All but three were over the six units per acre. So, it's just not consistent with how development has happened in the past. So, we're just trying to make make it more consistent and get rid of that get rid of that density cap. And to be clear, this does not include this is only for the apartments. This doesn't include all the condos around the city as well, which would add to both ones that meet the density requirement and exceed it. Um, but just want to clarify these are only for the apartments. Another reason why we're trying to put this back in is that it does uh greatly restrict mixeduse developments in the city. Um throughout the process, we identified an area in the city that could potentially become, you know, a walkable environment, which is just one of the comments that we always receive from residents about missing what other communities around us have is that walkable dense environment with shops and restaurants. So we created this overlay, this mixeduse overlay with regulations to allow that uh development to happen organically. Uh but a big part of that was allowing for mixed use development, you know, ground floor, commercial, residential above. Um so capping at six units per acre, especially in this area on the smaller lots would basically prohibit that. And I want to be clear, I mean, know developers can apply for variances, but the variances, they they need to be based on an actual hardship. Uh some um you know, some something with the property that prevents them from meeting that requirement, not just I want more units. Um so if it's being reviewed based on variances, it can easily easily be denied um if they're not meeting those requirements. So average lot size in the MUO or mixed use overlay is about8 acres which would allow about four units which

is just not feasible for a mixeduse development. Oftent time developers aim for 20 to 40 40 units per acre uh to be economic economically feasible and support ground floor commercial business. Just a few examples of these types of developments. This is on Front Street. Um, again, ground floor commercial, three floors residential above. This is actually something that could meet our design requirements and be located in our city. Uh, this one is at 43.3 units per acre. This is only on 1.2 acres, 52 units. Um, you know, even if this was on a 2acre lot or they had 25 units, that I'd that still bring it up to 20 units per acre approximately. So, just another reason why we need to eliminate that density cap, just allow for more flexible development. Another potential site, you know, recreating this whole AMP uh district. If it's wildly successful, we could see development on this vacant piece of land. Not saying it's going to happen, but it's another potential site where we could see mixeduse development in the future. Uh this property is about 4 acres, so that would only allow for 24 units. So, And then also with this code, um, just because we're taking out the density cap, doesn't mean we're going to see a bunch of highrises. There are still height requirements. There are height transition requirements when they're abing, you know, single family uses. Uh, we have a more robust design, building design standards that they had to follow. There's open space requirements and social gathering space requirements. So all these factors, you know, they they come together when developing these types of uses that prevent them from becoming these overgrown um incompatible developments with the area.

And then another very important thing to remember is that these are still conditional uses. They still have to go through the process of planning commission review, council approval. Um they're conditional in the R2 and R3 district for just multif family developments and then the multif family above ground floor conditional in the commercial districts. uh conditional use criteria uh pretty standard but there are you know there's a lot of power behind them and what on what the deniability can be um you know they have to provide adequate utilities they cannot impede traffic uh cannot impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding area so there can always be an argument for these types of developments if they're just requesting way too much there's always there's always an argument for deniability through And then we you know another goal of this code update was to follow follow modern zoning code practice um focus on form not just arbitrary numbers. So that's why we that's why we bumped up our design guidelines our landscaping um our parking and circulation requirements. We want to focus on quality design in this code. Again, with given the limited number of land that we have available for development or redevelopment, we just want to make sure that everything's high quality development. So, that's what we've done in the zoning code. Um, also eliminating that six units per acre does support additional housing diversity um and the feasibility of doing mixeduse developments and again also realign with what we went through during this two-year public process. So, Yeah, with that I'll take any questions. Um, yeah, looking to get this through to council and try to fix what was amended by council. Thank you.

The um senior living assist living facilities, it's over off of Hudson Drive. Um I I forget it's called like Arbor, something like that maybe. Off of Hudson. Hudson Drive. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's part of a battalia. Yeah. Right. What would the density on on Cuz that's a multi-story building. What kind of a density would you say? Oh, that one. Um I don't know. I I think that was done under like a an assisted living facility which would be a separate use. So I don't know the density of that one.

So that would that would you look at that type of a building under the same type of parameters for residents per acre because effectively those are apartments, right? Uh that one I'm I'm not sure how that one went through before whether it was multif family development. I think I'm pretty sure it was assisted living development. So it probably didn't follow the multif family regulations which there's not a cap on the assisted living one.

So and effectively you could have 20 40 60 units per acre on a assisted living facility. um if if somebody was building that. So that wouldn't be governed by a sixunit cap, right? Correct.

Is timing of us doing this contingent on anything? Be because we're missing two members. Yeah. And I wasn't aware we were going to be missing two. I'm not sure. And maybe we because of timing we have to, but should we be passing something that I think's pretty controversial from all the phone calls we keep getting? Mhm. Without all five members being here, but if if this is a timing that has to be done. Yeah. I was only made aware today that there only be three of you today. Um there there's no rush right now. There's no pending projects that would apply to this. But so I understand if

Yeah. Yeah, I would feel much more comfortable if five people were here voting on this. Um I don't know that it would change anything, but I I think for just general purposes, the entire commission should be here and voting on on something like this because this is significant. We're we're going back to what we originally proposed. Uh, but city council, as they many times do, went the other way. So, I I think we need all five. I don't know what Sure. I'm I'm happy to still have the discussion with you tonight if you have any more questions about it.

Yeah, I have no problem with that, but I just really would like to table a decision until we have everyone here.

Yeah. So, couple of questions. We keep going back to this area right here. And I don't understand, and I've said this all along, why do we keep getting into this? Because Marhoffer is not going anywhere. The church isn't going anywhere. Holy Family isn't going anywhere. CVS isn't going anywhere. The realators aren't going anywhere. Where are we going to get this area where people can walk across the streets? And we're talking 91 or 59.

Uh it I don't see that that's even remotely realistic. Am I missing the forest for the trees here? So based on my review there, I mean it is possible. It would take a significant investment from somebody who wants to do it. Um but again, this is in response to a lot of public comment that I've always heard as soon as I started working here. Yeah.

You know, this was identified as an area that has the most walkable potential in the area. It's city center. Um 91 has some great, you know, local shops, you know, right on 91 and uh sorry, on 59 and 91, there's some great local shops there that could be, you know, ramped up and and that corridor of 91, it's it is possible where it could be bought up and redeveloped. It's not like we have any plans now, but we wanted to have these regulations in place so if it does happen in the future, these are there.

Okay. But by the same token, if in fact somebody did come forward, we could always do a variance to let them do it. Correct.

Well, that's the thing with the variance I mentioned. Variances, I know there's been a lot in the past and I understand, you know, it's based on the the code that we've had for 30 40 years. Um, variances should be based on hardships or practical difficulties, uh, unique circumstances that prevent them from meeting the code requirements, not just because they want it. Um, so planning commission, council, BCA, you know, they all have a reason to be more strict with this new zoning code. Make sure it's implemented correctly and that's being applied consistently. So variances should be based on a hardship. So just because they want more units,

Yeah. doesn't mean they should be afforded. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Not a question, just a comment. I know the uh and Jeff and I were both on the steering committee for this and we used um again I can't remember the name of the consultant how house living.

Yeah. So we, you know, we had many Zoom calls with them and and they provide a lot of input here based on what the rest of the world is doing, if you will, of where whatever kind u project they had, they had worked on um very similar type of situations where they didn't have that type of uh of a restriction. So it's not like we decided to come up with this just by the 11 person steering committee. We had a lot of input from a very reputable, you know, planning um planning company or, you know, design company. So, just want to make sure that people are aware of that, too.

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Were there any emails other than the one you forwarded to us, Jane? No. And I figured since he's here, I wasn't going to Yeah. Yeah. I just I have that and I'll put it with the minutes. Okay. Thank you. Anyone from the audience care to comment?

Dave Bombgardner, 3078 snowshoe circle, lifetime resident of Stow. I'm the one that sent you an email this week, but I'd like to read it for the group and on camera here. On December 4th, 2025, the city of Stowe council voted unanimously on amending the planning and zoning code 2025-208, which included five amendments to the proposed changes. We are thankful for council member Kelly Coffee for thoroughly analyzing the proposed changes and proposing amendments that make sense for the citizens in Stowe. There were multiple public workshops and steering committees meetings held that were open to the public. Basically, attendance was minimal as most likely 99.5% of the citizens trust the council to represent their best interest. One of the main zoning changes pertain to the density of multifamily dwellings units per acre. Kelly Coffee proposed an amendment to the proposal zoning changes limiting the number as to a reasonable number based on citizen input. The vote was 64 and one nay and that nay was Kyle Herman. Now, it's almost four months later, and I see there's a proposed amendment 2026-007 on the March 24th, 2026 planning commission agenda to remove the maximum density of multifamily dwellings, units per acre. The scuttle is that the council didn't represent the citizens of Stowe. Again, on December 4th, 2025, the council voted six to one to set a limit of six dwellings per acre. What is the common denominator here? Could it be Kyle Herman pushing the pre council president pushing the Zack Cohen the planning director for this change? I find it suspicious that the vote on December 4th, 2025 was 6 to1 to limit the density of dwelling units per acre and now they are trying to slip this

back in almost four months later. If the planning commission approves this, it will take a 5 to2 vote by the council to overturn this approval. Please tell me where the citizens were not represented in the December 4th, 2025 meeting. Currently, 29% of the housing units in Stow are rentals with a 9.8% vacancy rate. Does Stow really need unlimited multifamily dwellings per acre. That doesn't sound like that would be great for Stow property values. I would bet anything if it went to the community for a vote, it would fail. The following are rental percentages by surrounding cities to Stow. Hudson 11.6 to 12%. Talmage 17 to 18%. Paga Falls 36%. Kent 58 to 60%. Do we want Stow to become Ka Falls or Kent? I don't think the citizens would vote for that. In my opinion, 29% seems to be sufficient. Currently, I'm requesting the planning commission not approve the proposal. In summary, I don't think we can guarantee that we're going to have multi-units with businesses underneath like Koga Falls. And where are you going to put the parking on front on Daryl Road anyway for those units? But on December 4th, in summary, on December 4th, 2026, the council voted 6 to1 to amend the proposed zoning of unlimited apartments per acre. The council represent their constituents with exception of one. Therefore, the people of Stow spoke. Planning director is not an elected official. The planning director does not live in Stow and paid and does not pay any real estate taxes. Stow. And don't tell me this doesn't increase potential crime. Just look at Silver Meadows or look at the apartments at the end of Graham Road. Call this Kent Police or the Ka Falls Police and see where the crime is. Don't tell me it doesn't decrease the

value of the homes in Stow. Look at Chicago Falls homes by the apartments on the end of Graham Road or Silver Meadows. My personal opinion is Kyle Herman and the mayor are also pushing for this stove has 29% of the housing and rentals again with 9.8% vacancy. I'm asking the commission to vote this amendment down like the people of Stow did on December 4th. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? My name is Bob Ner, 2444 Shadow Lane in Stow. Uh, I second his You you swear what you're about to say is the truth. Oh, yeah. Why would I lie? Go ahead.

Um, I agree with uh Mr. Bombgardner. He he has facts. Facts don't lie. Uh and I was just thinking myself, if you go from six to 9 or 9 to six, the less you're going to have fewer people even if you have it passed. If you try to squeeze more people in, number one, you're going to have infrastructure problems. You're going to have uh you know, where you're going to get a lot of the things for the people who need it. The schools are going to be affected because you're going to have possibly more children. But I thought always still wanted to have more single family dwellings. That's why we moved here 25 years ago. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much

and thank you for your recommendation for holding and tailoring this motion today.

For the record, I'm James Jagger. uh 4485 Knob Hillsto, Ohio. And you swore what you're about to say is the truth? I do. Go ahead.

I'm a uh I'm a home builder and a property developer. I've built many uh multifamily homes in Stow and I've asked this committee and different members and the council for their permission. I've had to have many variances over the years. It's not an easy thing to do. It's uh it's daunting at times and you wonder if it'll be worth the investment. We've invested uh I would guess a few million dollars into modern uh three-bedroom multifamily properties. They have been a success for us and for the city of Stowe. And uh there's another side to this. There's we've attracted a tenant, a clientele that has been uh I I would say a benefit to Stow, not a detriment. I look at the buildings that you've uh shown and and uh that being of uh in Ka Falls, which I've built houses in. I've worked in Ka Falls, not as an employee, but as a home builder, and they've done a great thing over there. We have every place has vacancies. I don't agree with 10% vacancy in Stow. I don't see it. I haven't heard of a 10% vacancy in Stow. The Kent, for example, may have a vacancy. They house a university. We don't. The university setting is not what we have. We have an oldfashioned town that's very quaint, but it needs to modernize. And part of modernization is change. Every day things are changing. And if we set things in a static way and say that all we're going to do is keep it the way it was in the good old days, the good old days never come. All we have is a bunch of old and what this town needs is more new and fresh, invigorating things. I think that whoever the young people are that's going to put this ahead of us, they need we need laws and rules that will allow them to bring this thing into a modern city like Kyoga Falls has like other cities I've worked in that you go out there and you look at parts of Madina and you go, "Wow, what happened to old Madina?" Well, it's new Madina. It's their Madina. It's going to be a new

Madina that's not the same old farm community it once was. Stow was once a farm community. I knew the calls. I know many of the people that had farmed here and they let me build their homes, I mean new homes, brand new homes on their farms. And the point I'm getting at is that change is inevitable. And whether we admit it or not, we have to have the rules. And I think to the one credit, I mean, the one point I would make is we need realistic rules. So these so that when you're building and you're you're trying to propose and pitch, which I'm not doing. I've got nothing on the table. I'm not digging any holes. But when you're wanting to go through all those hurdles and you look at all the things it takes to build this building, do you need to have a bunch of other things or you got to beg and plead and say, "I promise." I think rules should be tidy and they should be uniform. Everybody should have the same rules. But I think we need to be fair and understand that this town is growing. It's becoming better. It seems like everything they're doing lately around the the city and the operations and our infrastructures are getting better. So, the last thing we should be doing is rolling this stuff back and saying, "Let's go back to the good old days." We're in some good days right now. And I think it's up to people like you and our council members to take us to the next step and be have laws and rules in place to be to allow that to happen. So, I want to thank you for listening to me and I pardon me for my uh my excitement and in wanting to, you know, thank these people for the stuff you guys have been doing. It's been going great. Thank you. Angie Charles, 3447 Saratoga Boulevard. Um,

you swear what you're about to say is the truth. It is. Thank you. Thank you.

First off, I just wanted to say I think it's an embarrassment that we would have any citizens of our city treat other people as less than. Um, everybody that lives here belongs here and we should make them feel welcome. Um, next I just wanted to point out I'm a landlord in Kaga Falls. My parents are landlords there. My two sisters are landlords there. For many years, we've had a lot of apartments. And what I can tell you is apartments are vital for young people who are just starting out. Um, it brings liveless to the city. Look at Ka Falls. Look at their front street. Lively every single every single day now with the way that it's been restructured. And that's what we need in our community. We need folks that are willing to come here, start their lives as young people, and then grow into the community when they're ready to buy their first home. Um, I've never had a problem with renters. Yes, every now and then you get somebody that doesn't pay rent, you got to toss them out. But you know what? Let's not let's not um put all those people under one umbrella and say they don't belong here. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Kyle Herman 3652 Highwood Avenue and you swear about your save will be the truth. Yes, sir. I swear that what I say uh will be the truth.

Uh and thank you uh both for your service on the steering committee and everything uh that that you do. And uh I know that it's frustrating when the planning commission makes recommendations and council doesn't always agree, but I know that there are a lot of reasons sometimes for those whether there are these multi-party negotiations going on between the city and developers and things like that or whether we might get into judicial trouble. Uh and of course council doesn't always agree with each other. And uh in this case, I would encourage you to watch the December 4th meeting. I think it's clear that there were some misunderstandings about the amendments that were being proposed and uh that this uh density cap uh was part of a larger amendment in which this was not been really talked about. Most of the discussion focused on uh whether uh multi-unit homes on our main roads uh should be conditional or not and whether or not they should have uh additional red tape and have to go uh through city council in addition to the planning commission. Uh and uh I think it's clear from what was said at the December 4th meeting that uh the the motives behind this really weren't consistent with uh the recommendations of Hel Lavine with what we all discussed as a steering committee with the vast majority of the public input that we received that was supportive of the idea of allowing uh the long-term development of a mixeduse district. And that is consistent with uh the 2017 comprehensive plan that encourages this. This was one of the reasons that uh council uh engaged consultants originally in trying to update the code, but then received a diagnostic report in 2022

that uh encouraged uh allowing a mixeduse uh district and uh encouraged diversifying our housing supply. Uh it's demographically unhealthy for any city to be a city of entirely single family homes. And we worked really hard on the steering committee to make sure that we were protecting the integrity of our single family neighborhoods while allowing some strategic areas to have things like market rate condos that uh especially younger people could be able to afford because we are in a regional housing crisis. And the reason that our housing uh costs and our property taxes have been increasing is because we don't have enough supply to meet demand. And so you personally I come from this to this from an an economic perspective.

How how does that affect the property taxes? So our I'm confused there.

Our property values are inflated because we don't have enough housing supply to meet the demand. And so if we are able to increase the demand by diversifying our housing supply, especially to allow more younger families to be able to work in the city, especially what's going on with property taxes at the state level, the city of Stowe needs to be able to increase its income taxes because of what's going on with the cut the attempts to rightfully cut the property taxes. But in order to do that, we need younger families and businesses that are able to produce that income. And so, yeah, uh but uh happy to answer any questions uh as we go through this. Uh but I I just want to try to uh clarify uh the background behind this, which you're you're very familiar with. And uh if you haven't seen an analysis by Andrew Branch about how the density cap uh affects the like long-term plans to achieve this mixeduse district. Uh I could uh help you get that as well. But uh I think that what is h happening here was the consequence of a misunderstanding in which most of council even after the vote expressed that they were supportive of the mixed use downtown district and had not understood the implications of that density cap. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anything else? Kim Young 2515 Riverd Downs. Um I swear to tell the truth you're about to say will be the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you.

Um I wasn't here in December to vote on that, but in um I was campaigning for council uh last year and in walking many many houses, knocking on many many doors, uh this came up over and over again. So, uh, residents of the city do want something that this plan was proposing. And I said, well, it's in the works and it's going to be voted on. And they've been working on it for two years, as you know, um, with consultants, with uh, citizen input and a lot of work that went into it. And it was on track to to go into place. And when um I saw the the last meeting in December, um it was very confusing that those amendments were added and not a lot of discussion and just an immediate vote. So I would concur that um I think some of the council members were confused and did not intend to vote the way they did. And what happened is basically with those amendments, it's negated the entire uh purpose of the two years of the money that was spent and the time and the involvement of everybody that was included. So um to Mr. Jagger's point, you know, it's like we're going backwards instead of moving forward. So um u Mr. Herman already mentioned Andrew Branch uh in the January meeting. He gave a very detailed explanation of um this this situation and if you don't have a copy of that, we'd be happy to provide that to you as well and uh it was already mentioned about helping the tax base. So, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Got a question. Where else do you see you showed two places tonight? You got the 91 corridor and the Norton Road uh property. Where else would you see this type of development, high density housing, retail m blend mix at in the city of Stow? Where else do you think that where else would be other possible? Yeah, in in the city um all the other commercial areas are kind of like the regional commercial areas, hight traffic areas. Um you know it they pop up sometimes in other cities and you know in like in plazas. I know Meyer location before Meyer they're proposing something similar to this. So I think before Chick-fil-A and sheets went in this that could have been a potential site for this type of development. Uh again, most of it is filled out now. So there's probably not much room for these in the future, but you know, it's there's still potential for redevelopment always.

Zack, wasn't there a um I know you quoted a number probably several meetings ago that there's only so much developable properties, floor, single family homes. were running out of space. Basically running out of land except for maybe some industrial type zoning over near Route 8. But um I don't know if there was a percent that we had of land that could be used for single family housing and then how many we have against it, you know, is how much how built out we are. I do have that but not with me tonight.

I don't want to give you a wrong answer but I can bring that the next meeting. All right. Well, there's a lot to be considered and uh I really want the entire commission to be involved in this. So, I move that we table this uh today and uh readress it at the next meeting.

I'll second. It's been moved and seconded that we table PC 2026-00007 amends section 1104.04. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Basik, yes. Mr. Duliaak, yes. Motion is tabled. Anything else? Yep. We got another one.

Um, yes. Next application is PC26-8. This is another text amendment in response to the amendments that were made at council uh in December. So, this one applies to the minor plan development overlay. Uh, specifically the modification standards which are highlighted as B. uh these were all taken out of these regulations which really defeats the purpose of this overlay. Uh so a minor plan development this applies to uh developments that are 10 acres or less. So we have a minor one that's treated as an overlay. Then we also have a major plan development that's basically a resoning where you they write their own development code. Uh so with a minor plan development, sorry background's the same. Um the purpose of it is it's it's another tool that we can use in our code uh just to provide for more flexibility for development where you know the zoner code it can regulate the norm but we can't account for everything. So there's always going to be something down the road where we just the zoning code did not account for. Um that's where the PDO comes into play. So there's a unique project that doesn't meet the zoning code, the base district, you know, if it's something proposed in a C2 district and doesn't meet setbacks or landscaping or whatnot, rather than applying for a bunch of variances, they can apply for a plan development overlay on that property. Um, and in doing so, um, those are treated as modifications rather than variances. So each modification from that they're not meeting in the zoning code they have to identify those uh clearly they have to justify those modifications and based on the modification standards and then they have to be shown to be compatible with adjoining development. Um and so if approved the modified

standards become the adopted regulations for that specific overlay site. um this whole process just make sure there's predictability for the applicants, it's transparent for the public, still has to go through planning commission and city council. Um so again, it this process allows these unique developments to move forward without having to give a bunch of variances which again need to be based on hardship. um and why they're not and sorry these are just these site plans are just examples pulled offline is not actual plans here in the city. Um, but again, just couple ideas. There could be um, you know, kind of like a mixeduse development that, you know, it's not in the overlay, but they want to be closer to the road. Maybe they don't meet, um, all the landscaping requirements, so they want to apply for a PDO, and that's where the modification standards come into place. And same thing with the residential project. This could be residential, commercial, industrial. Uh, with the residential project, same thing. if they just don't meet a bunch of the code requirements, they could try under a PDO. Um, and then the modification standards. So, if they don't meet the code requirements, the pro the point of the modification standards are to provide a public benefit back to the city. Uh, so that they'd have to make the building lead silver certified. Um, they and these are all options. They don't have to do all of these. Um, so one option is to make it lead certified. Second one is if they're doing residential devel development with it, they can make a certain percentage of the units affordable units which are defined by you know at the federal level uh department of housing and urban development. Um also similar to that they can provide a certain percentage of

the units as accessible design for ADA residents. And then there's an other category where if they don't want to do those or if it's for a commercial development or industrial uh there's an other where they can propose their own benefit which could be you know increased landscaping or buffering standards, more trees on the property. Um it could be higher quality building design, anything like that which would be reviewed by planning commission and council. um you know and why these are needed without it it just it lacks those benchmarks there's no there's there's no standard that anyone can at this point can go for a PDO and just do what they want and not have to provide any public benefit back to the city um it still supports high quality high quality design and responsible site planning um you know there there's always going to be sites that have physical constraints for wetlands or um you know bad grading there's a stream there's streams that run through all these properties. So this just provides more flexible development around those uh you know prevents over reliance and um you know relying on variances and also restores the vetted version of the zoning code that was processed through steering committee and planning commission for two years. So with that happy to take any questions. I understand it's only three of you. So if you want to table this one, I understand as well.

Okay. Need a motion. Yeah. Sorry. I would check for public comment. Sorry. Were you going to make a motion? I I'd check for public comment first. Yeah. Sorry. Were there any emails, Jane? No, there were not. Any comments from the audience?

Now, I'd like to make a motion to table um PC 2026-008, amend section 1103-04 until further meetings, the future meeting. I second that. It's been moved and seconded that we table PC 2026-00008. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Basik, yes. Mr. Dulak, yes. Motion is taped. Quick question. Um, for the next meeting,

is there any more information that you'd like to see on this one? any more examples or I know I ran through it pretty quick, but the first one I I think we've heard a lot, but I just want our other two members to hear it. Um I don't have any specific questions. I don't know if anyone else does that wasn't covered that you want to hear. So, there were several amendments that were removed from the zoning um from the zoning code

as it had been worked over the last couple years. What other amendments were removed? We're not that we're not seeing or we're seeing two two pieces here that you've proposed to to review. What other uh amendments were were deleted or not part of the zoning bud that was that was initially planned or presented?

Yeah. Uh these two were just identified as ones that they need to be corrected sooner than later just because they create other issues. Uh the other ones were um and the version that you saw uh it was duplexes, triplexes, quadlexes, town homes. Those were limited permitted uses, meaning that they were permitted by right in certain areas of the city. Uh council amended that to make them all conditional. So that was changed. there's a an amendment to the chicken coupe regulations and uh something in the non-conforming section, but the other ones were fairly minor.

So, you were saying that that first one on the duplex, twinex, triplex, quadplex, whatever those series was. So, those were still they're still allowed but on conditional use correct approval. Right. So having us go to that removing the per unit density would still give us the conditional use permitting which would be consistent on both of those uh pathways for different building types. Is that correct? So the duplex the triplex is a conditional use permit. Yeah. And effective by removing the density cap you would still have a conditional use permit. Yes.

To consider. So it would be a consistent process for for approval. Yeah. All all the Yeah. It be all conditional uses going through the same process. Okay. I just have a comment or I don't know if it be a considerate question, but it seems like we've had this thing as many people have said in process for two years. I think we let it out in what Septemberish because we needed three months or three readings because December was the third reading. Yeah.

Roughly. Uh, I'm just a little troubled why it just appeared last minute at the last meet last reading and why it wasn't addressed or why weren't these addressed in the the October reading or the November reading if it was it just seems like a lot of last minute and I just concerned about why that occurred or is there any reasoning why that happened? I guess

uh I don't know why it happened at the last meeting. Uh, I encourage everyone who's, you know, EZA, planning commission, council members, just encourage everyone to read it, provide feedback early on so we could address this before it gets to the final stages. But, um, yeah, we we got I don't have a reason why it happened that way, but we did get the submitted amendments about five hours before the last meeting, the third reading. So, yeah. Anything else? All in favor of ajouring signify by saying I.

I. Meeting is adjourned.