Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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. Shrepto here, Mr. Basic here, Mr. Duliaak here. Here.

All right. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? There are none to approve. Pardon? There's none to approve. That's true. We didn't Thank you. Oh, well. All right. Uh, going on to old business. Uh, PC 2026-007, amend section 1104.04 A6B. You're on.

Thank you. Um, so this is PC 267. Uh, I believe Zach went over a lot of this information at the last meeting, but I'm just going to go over it again in case you have any questions, and I'm happy to go into more detail on anything that uh you would like to hear. Um, so the applicant for this is the planning director and it is a text amendment to the zoning code. Uh the amendment would remove the uh portion labeled red here. So the density of a multif family development shall not exceed six dwelling units per acre. The total number of units permitted shall be calculated by multiplying the total land area exclusive of public streets existing at the time the site plan is submitted by the maximum density permitted per acre. Uh just as a note of clarification, it would also add in for just clarity and succinctness sake this section up here extending it to more clearly cover all the various multif family uses that are in our new zoning code. So, for background, uh, as part of the city's comprehensive update to the planning and zoning code, staff, a team of consultants, as well as an 11 member steering committee spent about two years evaluating our development regulations, looking through the old zoning code, and identifying areas that were out of date and not reflective of the city as it stands today. Um throughout the process, the steering committee and planning commission recommended removing the maximum dwelling unit per acre density requirements for multif family housing. Um as part of that update, we moved to a more formbased code. So there are other

sections throughout the zoning code that uh provide more guidelines and requirements for the type of buildings that can be put in place. put in social gathering space requirements, put in various things like that. Um, so it's just moving away from the capping at a number to a more form-based regulation. I'm happy to go into more detail with that if you would like. Um, we did do an existing conditions analysis. So we looked at the multif family that is already in existence throughout the city and um we did find that very few uh multif family throughout the city comply with that. Um so here's the table that I was looking for. Um, so most of them are much higher density than that cap would permit, whether that was through variances at various times or some of them were probably put in before the cap was put in place. Um, but this shows the way that the city is actually made up now. Um, we did have some examples. I believe Zach went through these with you at the last meeting, but I'm happy to go into more detail. Um just as some examples we have ci Cypress Park apartments, Stoke Gardens, um Ren's trail garden apartments, rents cross town houses. Um okay, so one of the reasons why the consultants and the steering committee proposed we remove this cap was for the to aid in the development of this mixeduse overlay. Um, if any development is going to happen in this mixeduse overlay, uh, it would be likely that small businesses, groundf flooror retail would be on the street level. And then

in order to support that, make that economically viable for developers. There would likely be apartments above to help supplement that lower rent for the retail so that small businesses could afford to be there, create that walkable space. Um the code does have height restrictions that already cap how tall buildings can be. So we couldn't have like these skyhigh um structures. This wouldn't be an unlimited density. The density would just be controlled by setbacks, height restrictions. The requirement to have a certain amount of social gathering space, um open space, landscaping requirements, all of which have been increased in the new code. Um, so it would just control this density through form rather than a cap. Um, so here's an example of another community that has something similar similar height uh to what our cap would be. I have in the mixeduse overlay. I did take some notes on what that height is. I believe it's like 45 feet is the maximum in that mixed use overlay. Um so then we have another example of a place where this could come into effect would be the AMP. Um developers have talked about potentially doing a mixeduse uh space here as well, which would combine that walkable ground floor retail with the residences above that would help um offset the cost of that development. So this slide sums up some of those existing conditions and analyses as well as the revised code and those controls that were added in. We have height limits, we have transition standards. Um those come into effect when a development is adjacent to residential

property. Um so there are additional setbacks and transition zones that are required, some buffering and things like that. Okay. In addition, multif family uses still remain conditional. So in the R2 and R3, you could have various multif family as conditional uses. They would have to be evaluated on a site by site basis to make sure that they fit the surrounding area, that they don't have a negative impact. Um these general use criteria that we always use for conditional uses. And then in the commercial districts that multif family above the ground floor would be a conditional use as well. And again still have to meet the same conditional use criteria that uses have to go through. Okay. Uh just to reiterate so the reason that the cap was removed was to align the code better with current best practices which look at form uh not to pick a number. This helps make sure that we can tailor things to the site. So, social gathering space is dependent on the size of the property, the size of the development, um, and landscaping, those transition zones, those are dependent on what's next door. Is it residential? Do we need extra transition, extra buffering? Um, so it just allows for uh more fine-tuning of what that should be. Um and we do have higher development standards in the new zoning code which you'll be seeing as we start to get more applications in this code. Um this would also support housing diversity, economic feasibility. So we have a lot of um workers in our community. So there are teachers, there are um many many people who would like to have a shorter commute, right? They come to Stow, they support our city,

they live their lives here, and we don't have a lot of um, you know, diverse options for affordable housing. Um, so that is one way to help with that. Again, having those above ground floor uh units. Um, and then there's also the public process considerations. So the density cap was not recommended by the steering committee um or the planning commission under the original uh submission. Um it was also not um recommended by the consultants that we hired to help us rewrite our zoning code. So I will pause here. I'm happy to go back to any of those other slides. Happy to answer any questions that you have. Is the uh amendment restricted only to overlay districts or is it is it open to be uh uh considered for any uh development area uh in the city of Stow?

It would be to any development in the city of Stowe but there are not very many places within the city that it would become relevant just because we are extremely built out now. So those are the places that we've had interest in developers looking at the places that have potential for this to happen in the and when I say near future I mean 20 30 years it might take a long time. So this is just um yeah but it would not just be in the mixed use overlay but they would still would be required to conform uh for conditional use. Yes. Um approval by planning commission. Yes.

For any any plan that's put in that if it's fitting a right for a particular development plan.

That's correct. Yes. It would still have to go through the conditional use process, planning commission, city council. Um it would actually have to meet higher development standards than our old code had. We added in those buffers. We added in um various building design requirements. We added in social gathering space requirements. Um so it they would have to provide many more amenities to the location that they're doing this. Any other questions? Anyone from the audience care to comment? Hi, my name is Kelly Coffee. My address is 2153 Guilford Drive, Stow, Ohio. Um Oh,

do you swear that what you're about to say will be the truth? I do. Thank you, Kelly.

Yes. Um, so I couldn't be at your last meeting, but I watched it online. So, thank you for tableabling that. I think that was wise. Um, so in response to the last meeting, I wanted to address um my amendments. Uh, so I attended some steering committee meetings, uh, some open houses and some of the public meetings. Uh, and I shared my concerns with Mr. Cowen who made some changes immediately, uh, if he had heard similar feedback. He was actually really great to work with throughout this whole year and a half process. Um, some changes, however, I was told needed the support of all of council. Um, so, uh, I had previously recommended to have it done in sections so that it wasn't all at one time at the end, but since it was a rewrite, that was the way it was done. So, I had one opportunity to present amendments to my colleagues, um, which was done at the December 4th meeting. However, I had spoken with all of them prior to that meeting about all of my concerns. Um, the day before the meeting, I sent in writing the amendments to the clerk. Um, and then I sent them to my colleagues in writing before the meeting as well. But we had, like I said, we had previously spoke about those. Um, and then we voted six to one on it um, at those meetings on both of these. Um, but so for the first one, the impetus really for the amendments was from citizen input. uh residents did not want the density changing for multif family from six units per acre um on main roads and I think the biggest concern was if they uh if they live in a neighborhood and their backyard abuts to a main road a property could be um purchased on that main road and turned into an apartment building there are height restrictions but it's still a valid concern for my residents um which is and my main goal is to protect them they bought their homes with certain requirements in place and I feel like those shouldn't be changed on them. I am not opposed to amending the

density in a mixeduse overlay district. I I have always supported the idea of a mixeduse overlay district on 91 between Graham and Kent. Um to Mr. Wagner's point, I think there are some hoops that would need to be jumped through. So, you know, a variance could also be granted, but I do want to be reasonable and I think in a mixeduse overlay district that would make sense amending the density. Um, and I did, you know, I I even called planning directors in other cities. I honestly couldn't find any cities that didn't have a dens that just remove the density cap completely. Um, and the planning directors I spoke with because I wanted to speak with experts in their field and you know, I'm not an expert planning director like like Zach and these planning directors are and and they said they don't they have caps in their city and and they also um would be opposed to this in their cities. Um, and let me see if I have anything else. I I won't speak about the modification standards at this time. I will just stick to the density. Um but I think that is all I have. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Anyone else? Carrie Orus, 3855 Kent Road. I'm here to ask you to um Oh, I I swear to tell the truth. Thank you.

Okay. um here to ask you to uh support the planning director's recommendation. A lot of people put a lot of time in updating our zoning code and um you know I think the new code is about creating a forwardlooking Stow one that serves the needs of young people who want to be in our town who are just starting out in life and creating a town for families who want to raise their children here and for people in my generation who just want to live out their golden years in Stow. So, we need an updated zoning code. An outdated one really doesn't serve our community well. Thank you. Thank you.

Lawrence Croy, 2963 Sabbrook Boulevard, Stow, Ohio. Do you swear what you're about to say will be the truth?

I swear what I'm about to say will be the truth. Thank you. Um, I'd like to support removal of the density cap in the Stow City Center area. So, I'm speaking um specifically to the H quarter corridor along Kent Road, Daryl Road, and Graham Road. Um so, my husband and I moved here from California three years ago and bought our property here in Stow. And we've often eyed a property across the street from the library down on Darl and that there's empty lots there. And we looked at that property and we thought, why isn't anyone buying that property? And we went and we looked around at it. We talk to the realtor and the problem is the codes. We, you know, we we would want to go in there, put in a business, maybe have some offices on the top floor. You need parking and the problem is the codes. So, if you don't change it, you're not ever going to develop that area. And that's a shame because that's prime property there across the street from the library. That's really a shame. I mean, if you change it, maybe we'll buy it, you know. Um, so I would like to support that that you move forward with some kind of a change that works for everybody that will now let that area be developed because it's a shame for it just to sit there empty.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Femer 378 Snowshoe Circle Ohio. You swear that what you're about to say will be the truth. I do. Thank you.

On December 4th, 2025, the council voted 6 to1 to amend the proposed zoning of multifamily unlimited dwellings per acre. On that same day, the council voted 6 to1 to set a limit of six dwellings per acre. The council represented their constituents with exception of one. Therefore, the people of Stow spoke. I'm asking the commission here to turn down the proposal. I'm not against setting or uh I'm against unlimited. I think it's irresponsible to be unlimited. Come up with a reasonable number. Unlimited is just it's irresponsible management on sat on the side of the council and the commission. Come up with another plan. um unlimited. It'll go through again and it'll get passed automatically like it does most of the time. Thank you. Thank you.

Kim Young, 2515 River Down Stow, Ohio. Um, thank you for I swear to

um, yes, this might have been voted six to one, but it was a last minute decision that probably should have been tabled and discussed more because I think that several of the council members didn't fully understand the implications of it. And in the January first meeting in January, uh, one of our uh, Stow residents came and spoke to to council about this, 19-year-old Andrew Branch, and I believe that the uh, his four-page analysis of it has been provided to you, and he has done a far more thorough job, I think, explaining this and why the arguments aren't um, don't don't stand up and that they cause more problems um than they than they address. Um to to the um planning director and assistant u I'd like to u propose that you do move forward. Planning director does know what they're doing. So did the consultants, the architects, and all of the residents who came out to all of these meetings. So um I would appreciate your consideration of moving forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi everybody. I'm Julie Mlan. I live at 43 Luden Avenue in Monro Falls, but I am the executive director of the STO Monro Falls Chamber of Commerce. Do you swear what you're about to say will be the truth? I do. Thank you.

So, I did submit a letter of um support for this action. Um, I do believe that, you know, as a longtime Stow resident and Monro Falls resident, I've lived in this community a very long time. Um, removing the density cap is what this community needs and um the the commission or the the committees and the commissions um have and the community have worked very hard to see the um uh and put together the change of the zoning code to modernize it. Um the fact that the the zoning code is the zoning code is now modernized is going to allow for development in especially that H area there in the city center um which is in dire need of um organic and natural development. um we are lagging behind other communities in our surrounding areas and with this modernized zoning code that's going to help us be able to attract unique and creative and um conscious and responsible development. Um I think that um we need to keep that in mind and I do support that you um um see this through and uh go forward with eliminating that six density cap.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Any comments from the um I received a few. There are the letters of support that were emailed to you guys last week. Um I can just add those to the minutes if you've already reviewed them. Um and then Mr. Bombgarnner's email um that I sent out today. So it's it's all stuff you've seen if I can just add it to the minutes. Okay. Thank you.

I do have a question out. Um I wasn't at the last meeting, but was there conversation throughout this process to um look for a middle ground in some way? like I understand both sides of the the story and um kind of have feelings but but about both, but is there opportunity to um place restrictions on areas outside of the mixed overlay so that or said differently to remove support this but only for the mixed overlay of the eight the corridor or downtown area.

The section of the code that the amendment proposal is referencing applies not just to that mixed use. Um because I'm asking could I was there conversation that it could? Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Um I do know that the reason that the density cap was removed was because we were regulating the number of units that could be present by creating those other development standards. So by limiting the height, by limiting the setbacks and buffer spaces and landscaping and all of those extra development things that were put in the code were in a way a compromise in order to remove this density cap because those will prevent those unlimited, right? So, it's not going to allow unlimited just because by nature of the rest of the code, you you can't there's only so many you can fit and still meet the social gathering space, open space, landscape requirements. And as far as variances to those that are requested, I know that variances in Stow have been granted a lot um simply because our code was so outdated and historically variances were granted. And so, um, both the BCA and the planning commission and council took precedent into account, right? Think things that had been approved before were approved. With this new zoning code update, variances should always be dependent on a hardship, right? Not just that you don't want to meet the code, but there is something specific and unique about the property that makes it unre unreasonable. It's undue hardship for a developer to meet that part of the code. So as staff, I mean, we would expect that hardship criteria to come under closer inspection for variance requests, right? um simply because we don't have

precedent with this current code. So we don't have years and years of approving a specific variance that says we should do that now because we've done it before. Um so when we were working with the consultants and working with residents and working with the steering committee, we were operating under the assumption that the development standards that have been put in place will serve as that cap because they are the code.

It is exactly um it is conditional. um as we said before and it is uh only on those main roads. Um and let me get back to the screen that has them listed. So, um there are not a lot of places in the city where this could happen. Uh where those do butt up against residential houses, there are additional buffer standards that come into play. Uh those include landscaping buffers. It's not just open space between them. it's actually, you know, trees and shrubs and certain types of landscaping. Um, and, you know, all of this was, you know, discussed over a series of steering committee meetings over the two years prior to this code being adopted. And, um, all of these different scenarios were explored. And um we've been using different aspects of the new code to pre-review things and think about what would be um allowed and what wouldn't be for some time now. So

and you said on can you repeat back? You said just on main roads, right? So a few months ago we had that study come before us. Removing this would allow that to move forward, right? That apartment complex. on right next to on by Oregon. Oregon. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. It's in a neighborhood next to already an existing complex. Yeah. On the main road. Was there an existing uh cap in the old zoning? Uh

that's where this cap came from. Um this was in the old zoning code. So it was six before

the Yes. And the amendment um that was proposed a few hours before the council meeting um was to keep that old requirement in the new code. Um so it kind of conflicts again with those other sections of the code that are regulating this in a different way. I really think we're getting into much of do about nothing because the mixed use overlay here is not like Ka Falls where you have a two-lane road going through and all the restaurants and people can walk across the street safely. We're talking about four lanes of heavy traffic. We're talking about an area that has a a car dealer, a church, a library, uh a shopping center, all of these things. There's very little there that could be developed into this walking area where everyone will get out and have a wonderful time. It it just doesn't exist. I really don't think Marhoffer is going to close his dealership. I don't think the library is going to move. I don't think the church is going to move. I don't think CVS is going to move. I mean, if you look at all these things, maybe this maximum would let them develop something, but it's not going to be what you're thinking where you're going to have restaurants and people walking back and forth like you do in Ka Falls. Our shot at that was to do this area back behind the uh city hall, and that got shot down. So, It's just much a do about nothing. Everything that comes through here

would have to come through planning commission anyway. And we can determine it doesn't mean it's going to stand because city council overrules us all the time. Uh, I mean they gave a sign to the Sheets gas station that no other gas station in Stow has and gave them an elevated sign which is a complete competitive disadvantage for everybody else with a gas station. And we as a planning commission voted five to nothing against it. City council overrode it. So, it really doesn't matter. It's going to come through planning commission and we're going to talk about it and we're going to make a decision and city council may or may not listen to what we say and they may do something that different and that's just the way it works. So, that that's where I'm coming.

Was I just was that a question that you wanted an answer to or No, I just I wanted to comment on that. Right. So the one thing like this doesn't take in consideration assisted living facilities, right? Or the kind the developments that's going on at 59 for for high density people living for rehab and so forth, right? They would be way over the six. Yeah. Right. Those facilities, but they don't fall into this because it's not a mixeduse development. So the development that's going on over on Hudson Drive right now with the assisted living facility,

that would not conform to a six standard. it would have to go through for approval. So, um any any highdensity um housing development, I could see where it makes sense up off of Norton possibly as the amp happens, but it's a long stretch over time. Um and still has to go through approval for consideration. And um so again, I I agree with you at times like we're arguing, we're not arguing, we're talking about this. Yeah. to try and set some ground ground rules which are reasonable because what we don't want to have happen I'm sure is have this pop up in a neighborhood someplace that's an R2 or R3 and somebody say I want to put a development in here. Um that that's that's the risk that we're trying to to put some structure on I think but that instance would still have to come through for conditional use approval to to get approved for it.

All right any other discussion? Is there a motion?

I make a motion to uh approve PC-26-7 as presented for amending the zoning uh zoning standards. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve uh PC 2026-00007. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mrs. Chapto, no. Mr. Basik, yes. Mr. Duliaak, yes.

Motion carries 3 to one. Moving on to PC 2026-00008. Thank you. Uh so this is another text amendment recommended by the planning director. Um this one is in reference to the minor planned development overlay standards. Um, so the background is quite similar. The zoning code update, two years, steering committee. Uh, happy to answer any questions about things that came up while we were going through that. And for this one, the modification standards were removed um at that last council meeting. And uh the text for those is here. It's been provided to you. It was also in the original zoning code update uh that you approved prior to it going to council. So the purpose of the planned development overlay uh this is a new overlay for the new zoning code. It was designed to provide very limited predictable flexibility in very specific situations for development projects. uh ones that generally conform to the zoning district but might need a small adjustment that wouldn't qualify as a variance because it is not a hardship. Again, those variances should only be approved for hardships. Um and in that um overlay in order to be granted those small modifications to the code, uh the overlay would also require something extra from the developer. it would require um accessibility or sustainability um or affordability just as an extra

requirement to offset those small modifications from the zoning code. So, in order for a P PDO, plan development overlay to be approved, the applicant would submit a site plan uh that would conform to the base zoning district except for those very specific situations that they are asking to modify. Each of those must be specifically identified, justified based on these modification standards, and shown to be compatible with adjoining development. If it was approved, the modified standards would become the adopted regulations for that specific PDO through ordinance. So again, this is something that would go through planning commission and city council as well. Um, and it would just allow specific development under specific situations, very minor modifications from the code. Um so the reason that these modification standards are necessary is that they will grant that flexibility for the public benefit. They will support higher quality design. Right? So the these extra modifications that are required would be above and beyond. It would cost a little bit more. It would be a nicer development for the city. Um, also those modification standards are the entire justification for those applications. So, um, I would just like to remind you that without those modification standards, if we were to get an application today, we wouldn't have any reason to deny an overlay or any modifications that adjustments that were being requested because those modification standards are not in the code right now. So they would not have anything that they need to meet in order to get that approval. Um they also prevent over reliance on variances.

Again we want to move away from variances as a go-to uh for situations. The new code was designed to reduce the number of variance requests that we get by reflecting the development as we actually see in Stowe. Um, and it would again restore the version of the zoning code that the public had a chance to comment on, come to the steering committee meetings. Uh, the version that was discussed at planning commission and those three city council meetings up until that last one. Uh, so I'll just pause here again on this last page. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about this as well. Does anyone from the audience care to comment?

Should I say my name again? You don't need

Okay. Um, so this was uh another amendment that I had for this. Um, and the impetus was that developers could come in and if they met one of those criteria, then they could circumvent the zoning code. Um, so and I so regarding this, I spoke with realators to ask them if we had affordable housing in Stowe. Um, and they said we do have affordable housing in Stow available and we also have affordable housing in Summit County. Um, so for this I feel like it's not, you know, our job to solve the housing crisis for the country. It's our job to protect residents in Stow. Um, so that was the the reason for this. Um, thank you again for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

You go back uh two pages. High quality design and responsible site planning. Pretty subjective. What are the standards that are going to be met there? Enhanced architecture, improved landscaping. What does that mean? Thank you,

Carrie Oris. Um, I do ask that you support the planning director's recommendation. So the modification standard for uh the environmentally sustainable design is a great here again forwardthinking idea. We want an updated code that meets the needs of our uh world today and is forward thinking not backward thinking. And um I think this code it's interesting. You know I've lived in town 40 years. You've lived in town a long time too. And uh you know uh at first as I was following all the changes to the zoning code it's like okay yeah they're proposing this and that and whatnot. And it's like I now see the vision. There's an idea to do something really wonderful in our community. And you know, it may happen, it might not, but it's like there's there's an idea that is that's it has vitality and it has things that young people would be interested in. And um I think we we have so much potential in this town. We have a wonderful community and I want a code that also helps us with modern ideas for um what our community can continue to grow and become. Thank you.

Anyone else? Were there any communications sent in? No, nothing separately from what we already received. Any other questions? I have a question for the zoning. Um, try to get your name earlier. I'm sorry. I'm the deputy director. Is that Zach? Yes. Zack alternative. I was like I had to check.

My eyes are bad, too. Sorry. Um, why only one as a benchmark for the minimum requirements? Because my concern is is that someone come in here and meet one of those and what kind of a development does that make right if you if we're going to come in here and say I'm all for environmental design right and lead standards I think it's I think it should be a standard we should move to in all instances for new building especially commercial building but this requirement standard doesn't require you to adhere to that you can go to low income 25% of a dwelling to be um put in for for low income. It makes me wonder what the economics look like and what kind of development that's going to lead

or leave with if somebody goes for just one of those uh one of those standards and why wasn't that established to maybe two or a minimum of two maybe of the modification standards as part of this because they're asking for a substantial uh variation by doing this. So, so why wasn't the bar a little higher?

Uh that's a great question. So, a lot of the standards um for higher development quality throughout the code were arrived at through compromise. Uh we had representatives from across different sectors of the community on the steering committee. So we had um people representing the cost of development itself. We had people representing the desire for um that you know higher quality having even higher standards. Um so a lot of our different parts of the code were arrived at as a compromise between those points of view. I would have to go back and check the minutes of the steering committee to identify specifically for the minor plan development overlay uh and what those conversations were just because they were a year ago. Um but I'd be happy to do that and get you that information. Um, additionally, the requirement for meeting those modification standards um, as they were originally proposed would it would depend on how many modifications from the code from that base code they were requesting, how many modification standards. So, they would be weighed against each other in the review process, right? So with these modification standards um you they would be justifying whatever small discrepancies from the code they are requesting. uh that's why as part of the application you know they are having to justify you know what they're asking for for what they're giving right um and without these modification standards in the code they can simply ask for things without giving anything in return. So,

so along that that mindset then um if they meet one of these modification standards then there's no conditional use consideration approval required by planning commission for that project. If they meet one of these standards it it and they submit for it and they meet one of these standards is it automatically check box and move forward?

No, this is not something that could be approved by staff. This is something that will go. So the overlay is a little bit different than a use. So it wouldn't qualify as a conditional use simply because it's it's not regulating the use specifically. It's regulating um the development. So it could be that they're asking for a setback variance or they're asking for a little bit taller of a building or they're asking for um you know very small deviations from the code. Um not necessarily related to the use. Um we do have a use variance process that's completely separate. So the this would go through planning commission and council but it would be the approval of the overlay itself. So planning commission would vote on um you know they would take the application and we would present it sim similar to how we do other items. We would say this is what the applicant is requesting to be modified from the code. This is how different it is from our code. And then we would say and this is the modification standard that they are offering like they are proposing to do in place of those adjustments from the code. Right. Um so that would be presented to planning commission. Um planning commission would evaluate those and would vote and then it would go to city council who would also evaluate it. again looking at what they're asking for, how much of a modification from the zoning code they are asking for and then how much of a modification um in those three categories are they offering. Um and right now again there's nothing to compare it to. Right? They don't have to meet any modification standards in order to have a plan development overlay. Uh, one more comment. I'm sorry,

Councilman Councilwoman Coffee. Um, you uh are the person who drafted the change on this. Um, what was the purpose? What what what was your concern? What was driving you to to restrict this as part of I mean and I I'm going to say that like the baseline I would say is that you have a planning group that studied this for two years, right? And I'm sure this was vetted out in great detail. Yeah. At a late hour we recommended some changes. So what was the what was the driving force you to make that late late hour recommendation?

Yeah. So and I and I had told Mr. cowen about my concerns with it. But again, he said I had one chance, you know, with um with my colleagues, one chance to present any amendments. So, that was my one opportunity. Um but the impetus for this was speaking with um planning directors in other cities. I've never heard of someone having criteria like these criteria to circumvent the zoning code. Um, and I I spoke with a couple planning directors actually today just to substantiate what I was thinking because I, you know, I'm like I I always want to be learning from experts in their fields. And I just I don't I don't see this as a good thing for our city of allowing that. We don't have a lot of developable space. And so allowing um people to present this criteria and some of them are really good things, you know, but allowing them to um present these and then circumvent the code is just not something that's commonly done. Most cities have a cap on their density and most cities don't have this. I just don't see it as a as a good thing. My my ultimate goal is always the residents of Stow and protecting their properties and protecting them.

Does that answer your question? Yep. Thanks. Thank you.

Hi. Uh Kyle Herman, 3652 Highwood Avenue. and I swear to tell the truth. Uh I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about the intent of what this does and uh I just happen to have previous experience with this because I was the assistant to the mayor of Alexandria, Virginia and they dealt with a lot of planning stuff and and uh what this is doing and what we discussed in the steering committee is giving the planning commission and the city staff and the council leverage to be able to hold developers to a higher standard so that when they propose things like in the mixeduse overlay district, then we can allow them a little more flexibility, but also by requiring that they give public goods back to the community by elevating their environmental sustainable sustainability and like making sure that their units are accessible, especially which is really important so that people can like stay and and and and live and age in our community. And often time the affordability is kind of like the last sticking point with a developer because they don't want affordable unions in them. We're talking about, you know, this is prime real estate where we're likely to get uh market rate condos uh rather than affordable housing. And so this is really just a tool that our city can use to negotiate with the developers in order to hold them to a higher standard and get the things out of them that we really want for our city. And in exchange for them being willing to do some of these things, that also gives us flexibility on uh even like what types of trying to make agreements with them about like what types of restaurants we want to bring in and like how many. So

it's similar to the the public private partnership that we have at the AMP how we are requiring them to have at least the the three new local restaurants like this is the this is leverage and bargaining chips that we can use with the developers to get them to bring in the type of development that we want to see in the mixeduse overlay district. Thanks. Thank you.

We currently have a variance. People come to us for variances all the time, right? And we have standards. This basically is open standards. There's no objectivity to it. It's all subjectivity. We have the right to negotiate with builders now on things and Haken Smith variances. So really, it's a moot point whether we need it or not. We still will have this capability. Thank you. Anything else? Didn't think this meeting would be this long, huh? Um just to to to counter that point um that we do have um you know builders and whatever developers can file for variances. I agree that this provides negotiating tools for the city, the planning department, planning commission and council. Um, and from a personal experience, um, it's better to have this in the code ahead of time before something happens. Case in point, I live in Pami Farms and I came to the first meeting with the PY development, Miller's Landing, and the room was full and there was a lot of people objecting to that. But after listening to um all the arguments and all the presentations, there really was nothing that the city could do because PY was abiding by the current code. So we need to be forward thinking and um be able to to have something like this in our code for future for the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, before you walk away, how did this um these covenants affected the PY development in Miller's Landing? Um I'm just saying that um the point was made that we can negotiate with with um builders or or developers. And that's true when you're talking about maybe a smaller development, but I had heard after the fact didn't I was just, you know, a resident coming to the meetings um that lived in the neighborhood, but that the

they were they pre presented two different plans. Both met code, but residents still didn't want it. But the council approved it rightfully so because they were meeting and and I believe planning commission as well. Um they met all the code. Um had they not PY probably could have sued the city for not allowing them to come in and develop land that was coded with um you know the the specific zoning and everything that was there. So, um, again, I'm not Zach or, um, you know, I'm not in this field. I don't know all the ins and outs of it. U, but to me, it sounds like the adding this in on one hand, they want to limit the, um, you know, the density and make it harder for people. And then here where there's little things that we're adding that can help with the negotiation, then then it's like, oh, we don't need that. So, it's like it doesn't make sense, but I don't know if that answers your question.

Well, it gives me some additional like perspective. So,

thank you. So, are there are there any items out of there that would be better removed or modified? I I think that I like the fact there was a modification standard, but maybe Those four points need to be rewritten. I'm just throwing that out there. Sounds like affordability might be one of the ones that people are have a sticking point. I don't think anybody would have a problem with environmentally design um accessible design. We have an aging population in general. Um it's probably the um was it B I think uh the lower income uh portion and maybe the one above it as well. So maybe affordability point could be rewritten to better suit the whole uh development or whole uh development of this modification standard. I don't know what that wording would be. I'm just throwing it out. Well, I'm going to make uh a motion to uh approve PC 2026-00008. Is there a second? Well, if you if we have a second, then we can actually vote and say what we believe.

I'll second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve PC 2026-008. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. No Mrs. Chupto. No, Mr. Basik. No, Mr. Duliaak. No. Motion is disapproved. Disapproved. Uh, and there's no new business tonight. No. We're going to move the public records training to the next meeting.

Then entertain a motion for adjournment. Make a motion to adjurnn. A second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. We are adjourned.