LAFAYETTE TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing for
Chippewa Resort Overlay (CRO) District Map Amendment
6776 Wedgewood Road, Medina, Ohio
May 6, 2008 @ 7:00 p.m.
Chair Karen Schoonover called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call indicated five members of the Zoning Commission were
present: Karen Schoonover, Dianne Wenslow, Sherri Meinke, Russ Green and Mike Biskup. Peggy Folk (alternate) and Dave Hollish
(alternate) were also present.
Others who were present included: Zoning Inspector Alliss Strogin, Anthony Wenslow (5750 Chippewa Road), Cynthia Naragon (248
Beachside Blvd.), Sandra Cotman (988 Shorewood), John Miller (7279 Lake Road), Gary Sills (Medina), Attorney Doug Drushal (Wooster),
Mike Cavey (5588 Wedgewood Road), Ray Hanley (5588 Wedgewood Road), Jason Brenner (Wadsworth), Attorney Ted Lesiak (Medina)
and Attorney Stan Scheetz (Medina).
Minutes
Upon motion by Dianne Wenslow, duly seconded by Sherri Meinke, the minutes of the April 1, 2008, regular meeting and the minutes of the
April 22, 2008, special meeting/ workshop were unanimously approved and signed.
Correspondence
Items received and distributed to the Board members included: Grassroots Clippings (April 2008 issue), MCDPS letter dated 3/26/08 re.
Zoning Text Preparation, List of 2008 Township Zoning Permits (as of 3/29/08), Lafayette Township Roster (revised 4/28/08) and MCDPS
letter dated 4/3/08 with Staff Report recommending approval for the proposed zoning map amendment relative to the change from RR-LC
to CRO, Chippewa Resort Overlay District.
Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Map Amendment for Chippewa Resort Overlay District (CRO)
Chair Karen Schoonover opened the public hearing. Roll Call indicated the same Board members and audience members as noted
above.
Chair Schoonover stated that the text amendment for the Chippewa Resort Overlay District (CRO) had already been approved and the
trustees had already held their public hearing and approved the text amendment. The map amendment was considered at the 4/2/08
Medina County Planning Commission meeting and tonight’s public hearing is relative to the Zoning Map Amendment for Chippewa Resort
Overlay (CRO) District.
The Chair did a review of the MCDPS Staff Report and ascertained that each Board member had reviewed the MCDPS Staff Report. There
were no public comments relative to this proposed map amendment. There were no questions/comments from the Board members.
Chair Schoonover stated that Item 3 under the MCDPS Staff Comments mentioned New Flood Damage Reduction Regulations that had
recently been adopted by the Medina County Commissioners (Resolution No. 07-798). Sherri Meinke and Dianne Wenslow were asked to
check out these regulations on behalf of this Board.
Karen Schoonover made a motion that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment (MCDPS application #050-2008 MA) for the Chippewa
Resort Overlay District (CRO) be approved. Russ Green seconded the motion.
Mike Biskup - yes
Russ Green - yes
Sherri Meinke - yes
Dianne Wenslow - yes
Karen Schoonover - yes
MOTION PASSED. This map amendment will be forwarded to the Lafayette Township Trustees for the scheduling of their public hearing.
Chair Schoonover closed the public hearing. The regular meeting resumed.
Old Business
Chair Schoonover – The large portion of our business tonight is going to focus on Granite Golf language. In reviewing things I think some
of the issue is getting muddled. It seems like every time we come here what we are focusing on seems to be growing. I want to point out
that we are only looking at language for the south side for an overlay district. (The amended application that was already sent to the
trustees was for the north part for LTTD.)
Discussion on 309.05 A. Density Requirements
The issue that we need to resolve first and foremost is density. I would like to know what the board members have come up with or have
been thinking about or if there are questions or feedback into that issue.
Wenslow – We decided on the south side there were going to be how many homes - 50 homes?
Chair Schoonover – What is on the map is about 50 but actually their original language would have given them an overall density of one per
acre (LTTD), which considering this would be 109 acres would be 109 homes. The RR zoning that is there now is one home per two acres.
Chair Schoonover – There was some talk about encompassing the whole acreage or a larger portion of the golf course to get one home
per two acres, which is there now, but the difference would be that we would allow the density – we would allow them to be clustered closer
together – that was something that was possibly put on the board and we had gone over the text and what A.P. Thorne had talked about in
some of his things and I sent everyone home with the task of looking at the density and to come up with some definitive ideas.
Cavey – I think that after we had approached you about the south side being LTTD and that was approved, we went to the trustees and that
is when they ended up having the meeting where some of the people who live at the back of the golf course were concerned about
contiguous property being able to continue to expand that zoning. At the trustees meeting we were asked what did we feel about splitting
up the request. Attorney Stan Scheetz then went ahead and tabled the south side portion to give the township a chance to solve the
problem while going ahead with the north side. If I remember right nobody was against what we were doing, they just didn’t want to have
contiguous property on the south side where the density could continue to expand. That was our understanding of that meeting. We were
only dealing with the 109 acres. We have 200 acres on the south side so the other acreage to the south we weren’t doing anything with
and that’s where the RR (one unit per every two acres) and that’s where it gets confusing. We never were bringing that segment of the
property into the discussion about density because it is non sewerable and we understood that it had to stay what it is and we weren’t
trying to do anything with it, it was just the transitional (LTTD) zone that we thought already had been approved. But then we understood
that if it is causing problems let’s go back and solve that problem so you don’t have contiguous property where other people would be able
to keep expanding on that.
Attorney Scheetz – The LTTD we had applied for on both sides. We successfully accomplished that on the north side. We are only working
on the transitional district (not the Medina City Buffer Zone which is at a higher density). We both had the feeling when we left the trustees
meeting that there wasn’t an issue about the density at that time. The issue was about the potential of it migrating south if the Chippewa
plant ever opened up. We were looking for a way to alleviate that fear of the migration to the south.
Chair Schoonover – Then I wish the trustees who were at that meeting were here tonight because we’re going through all this for the same
density?
Attorney Scheetz – That’s because you felt you had more control using a site specific PUD – that was the rational for going back and doing
this. The site specific PUD still keeps the underlying zoning in case it is never built. That’s the advantage for it but it still gives us the
opportunity to build it at the density we had proposed. We were only showing the 47-48 units on the east side of the club because that is
what was contemplated for now. We were always contemplating potentially doing something on the west side.
Chair Schoonover – From my point in looking at the map and reading the language I thought it was exactly how it was stated – 50 units – 50
units were being proposed and that’s what I read and in my mind that was it. That’s how I interrupted it at the time of the discussion with
the Board when it was passed. How did anybody else interrupt it when it was first discussed?
Attorney Scheetz – I can see how you could have interrupted it that way. The reason no set aside was put for future development is
because that could only occur if Mr. Cavey would be successful in acquiring additional property because the only way he could ever build
those other 45-50 units is if he could move three or four more golf holes and he doesn’t have the land to accomplish that. We had no idea
of whether it might simply go out to Lake Road or simply be another cul-de-sac coming through to Wedgewood Road so there was no way
we could show that unless it was totally a fabrication as there is no way it could be accomplished without him acquiring additional land to
move holes.
Chair Schoonover – I understand that but we have to focus on the application and my impression was there were only 50 units. I think the
people who attended that meeting were also under the impression there were only 50 units.
Cavey – On RR aren’t we allowed 100 on that property anyhow – on the entire 200 acres, not the 109 acres. Why would we even need a
transitional district if we have the right for 100 right now?
Meinke – Here’s the original application and it has 50 units right there.
Chair Schoonover – I would like somebody else on the Board to state what their perception was.
Wenslow – When I read it I also understood it was 50 but in reality when you were asking how many, I knew it was 100.
Biskup – I think kind of what Karen said is what everybody was thinking because we were focusing on the 50, not to say we are tailoring
this to you guys because it has to fit the whole township in general but we want to make it work for you. I think we were thinking 50 homes
and Cavey was saying we need to keep the third nine for the family nine, etc. In our mind we thought everything sounds good but when the
application came through we saw 109 potential homes and I think everybody was caught off guard because we were talking about the first
half and having the cluster homes in there and I think between that time it didn’t get clarified but it kind of caught us off guard and was kind
of confusing.
Wenslow – I do believe it was a little bit misleading.
Attorney Scheetz – I can assure you there was no intend to mislead. The only thing we knew for certain based upon the zoning we had
requested, we were trying to protect five or ten years from now if other property could be acquired to reconfigure, we could still do those out
front near the club.
Green – We are here this evening to look at what they are requesting today. They are requesting a PUD.
Chair Schoonover – They are not requesting anything as basically they tabled their request.
Attorney Scheetz – We tabled the request subject to crafting language for a site specific PUD that will set the criteria.
Chair Schoonover – I would like some feedback from the Board. As a Board are you willing to go ahead and create a site specific PUD that
allows one unit per acre for the 109 acres (109 houses)?
Wenslow – So that is 109 houses.
Attorney Scheetz – For clarification, backing out the road right-of-ways, there would probably be a maximum of 105. We do have some
alternatives that we would like to provide.
Green – I think that by them eventually getting two PUDs, one house per acre is allowing the property to be developed within reason and it
also gives us some control over it in that if it doesn’t to through it reverts back to its standard zoning of one house per two acres. But there
is sewer and water there and I think it is a positive move on their part and it should be a positive move on our part to allow things to come in.
Biskup – And with the extra, you had to provide that to Planning Services – of a potential future – of a maximum that you can see down the
road but may never happen but you had to have it on there to show what could potentially be done in that area.
Attorney Scheetz – Yes, and if you fail to do that it could never become open space under your current zoning code to be used as
developable land so that’s why the open space needs to be designated, the block needs to be set aside for potential future development,
which can only happen if they acquire additional acreage for reconfiguration of other holes. We are trying to protect much further down the
pike. What is contemplated now is the 47-48. It might be five or ten years or never because land may become too valuable because of the
college being down there and it wouldn’t be at a reasonable price to acquire it.
Biskup – I like the idea you have with everything over here and I know you have everything planned out but to throw another 50 homes in
there it would probably make you some money but as you said the last time it goes to what you see the golf course as being and it might
take some of that away if you put another 50 homes out there.
Cavey – I liked Karen’s question because I think that was important on what do I see and what do I feel. I have a partner who believes he is
paying back to the community. This is his club because he likes the people and likes what it stands for. This was a dream in my
prospectus in 1982 into developing the club where people could live there and share in this dream. It’s not about just making money. We
are trying to make it realistic. I have to draw these plans because County Planning told me to do so and I feel like I am lying. I’ve got to
draw roads and plans that I had no plans to do but they said we have to know where it might be. I’m paying an architect to draw plans so
County Planning has plans and I don’t want to upset Litchty’s but we’ll do what we are told to do. We were approached a long time ago
about doing all kinds of different things but we want the integrity of what we have and I don’t see me living long enough to see enough
sewerable property being put around the rest of the place and it doesn’t even make much sense. There’s going to be a lot of green space
left there.
Wenslow – I have said many times about Medina Country Club being a jewel but from my perspective the people who were here were
looking at these 100 homes in their back yard and that’s a very realistic concern of their part. I think 100 homes right through there is a lot
of homes and pretty heavy density in my opinion.
Cavey – I don’t think in their backyards they will live long enough to see that. I understand their concerns but it is not a high-density area
back there.
Attorney Lesiak – That’s one of our concerns also. If the entire course comes in then County Planning is also going to make us put a block
in that area to the south for future development. There are no plans to go back there now, as it is not sewerable.
Folk – I think there was some confusion. As I said before I wouldn’t live where I live today if it weren’t for development and I think a lot of
people who moved here probably feel the same way. The other thing is that I think we need the new comprehensive plan to review. From
my experience I do think you have the wants and needs of Lafayette Township in mind.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – The question comes back to density. If you take the 109 acres and give them 100 units then he’s got another
100 acres that he could develop for another 50 units. A way to alleviate that situation is if you leave the density of one unit per two acres,
encompass the whole southern portion of the land and allow them to cluster those units, the density is there and in the meantime the
entire golf course is going to be open space – whatever is left after those 50 or 100 units is going to be open space. Either it’s going to be
a golf course for 99 years or perpetuity or it’s going to be just plain open space if it goes under - that land could not be developed. You have
to look at either going with the 109 acres or go with the whole 200 acres. Personally I would go with the 200 with one unit per two acres.
That gives them the density they need and gives the township the protection they want.
Attorney Scheetz – I was going to give you some alternatives to consider in the form of conditions to the approval of what we are
requesting. Allow the 109 acres to come into the site specific PUD at the one unit per acre, less the public right-of-way. However, based
on that approval, we would further encumber the other 115 acres but we would agree that nothing could be built on that 115 acres other
than at one unit per two acres if that ever came up in the future if he acquired other land off of Lake Road. It would be a compromise.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – That’s 150 units?
Attorney Scheetz – Yes, a potential of a maximum of 50 on the south and a maximum of 100 on the north for a total of 150.
Cavey – All of that would be on the south side of SR162. Again more property would have to be acquired for that to happen but the potential
is there.
Attorney Scheetz – I think with that type of agreement it would appease the neighbors because they would know regardless of whether the
Chippewa plant came on board where we would be entitled to request something more, that we would restrict to no more than one per two
acres so you would know that would never be developed more than the RR that’s just using the current sewer – that’s a second
alternative. The first one is what we initially presented. A third would simply be a compromise of the density (1 unit/1 acre or 1 unit/2 acres)
so the compromise would be one unit per one and one-half acres. So on 150 acres you could have 100 units. On the remaining 60 acres,
it could possibly be a maximum of 30. The only thing they are looking to develop currently is the 47 but there could be the potential for the
other 47-50 on the west side if he acquires that corner. There could be a potential of approximately 28-30 to the south but that could only
be if they acquired something else off of Chippewa Road or Lake Road to go down there, none of which would be anywhere near the
Country Club Estates. Those are alternatives to see if we could find a compromise that is worthy of your recommendation.
Wenslow – What is the possibility of coming through on Chippewa Road? I could see that happening.
Attorney Scheetz – Very remote.
Cavey – We did look at that but there are a lot of wetlands, the creek and floodplain and it would practically be impossible.
Chair Schoonover (to Scheetz and Cavey) – So we have the current one; we have the 109; and we have the further encumbered (115); the
150; the 1.5, do you give credence to what the zoning inspector suggested?
Attorney Scheetz – It would be extremely restrictive if you looked out 25-30 years. We are trying to keep this open where there is some other
options in the event other acquisitions are made and it may not be in Mr. Cavey’s lifetime. We are tying to come up with something that
would be agreeable not only to you but also to the trustees and to the objectors as a compromise.
Cavey – I brought water in a long time ago and if I’m going to bring sewer in I think we are asking for a little consideration. We would be
spending money to sewer the place instead of having a bunch of septic fields like Rustic Hills.
Chair Schoonover – I understand what you are saying about compromise and I understand that the Board is challenged to look into the
future – that we are visionary but it would help us immensely to have this almost ready comprehensive plan looked at and adopted within a
few months. It would be helpful to have it in front of this Board to give us some guidance because to me it feels like we are shooting in the
dark. It’s frustrating but I understand that we owe you some forward movement on this but you need to understand that we are reacting to
an application, not planning.
Cavey – I think within the comprehensive plan with Bob Arnold that it urges us not to be so restrictive and to be open minded as a
community but that it has some guidelines of what we are trying to achieve as a community. This is where we are coming up with a
community outline to encourage different points of view of what might be, like the Chippewa Lake development, being fit into what could be
outlined so they are saying not to be so super restrictive. I could go ahead and put in 100 homes but I guess as the employer that I am, the
taxpayer that I am as a business, I am looking for a little consideration; I am not just a developer.
Wenslow – This is a really tough situation and it kind of puts us on the spot because we want to make the right decision for the future.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – To play devil’s advocate – Stan is looking 20-25 years down the road - he wants to have the option to put in more
houses. On the other side of the coin it’s your job to look down the road 20-25 years to determine if you want more high density on the far
side or would you rather just see the 100 units up closer to SR162 and the balance of it stay as open space. Is that the way the
comprehensive plan is going? If you do this compromise you have committed to a very strong possibility regardless of what they say right
now, and right now they may be saying one hundred percent of what they feel, but we all know how things change and as soon as that
other sewage line comes on, etc., or a new owner who doesn’t have a passion and who is strictly looking at a dollar sign - so if you are
looking at both sides of that coin what does your Board see the land south of SR162 being. Do you want to see that rural as much as
possible or do you want to have more high density? If you go with the one unit per two acres with the ability to cluster, you are giving them
the 100 units and you are protecting the future of the township to keep that rural. So look at it from both sides.
Biskup – What does the comprehensive plan say about SR162? I’m assuming with the university and the tech park it may have to be
commercial around there.
Chair Schoonover – We don’t know. The problem is as of October the meetings stopped but we are having a Steering Committee meeting
this Thursday at 7 p.m. I think that is part of the issue – we as a Board don’t have direction from that document.
Folk – What would happen if we waited until after the Thursday meeting? My understanding that the draft of the plan is pretty much written
but it needs to be reviewed.
What’s it going to hurt for us to get a better feel of that comp plan if we wait until after Thursday’s meeting?
Cavey – The problem is that we are proposing to put our corporate headquarters here also. We have been talking about housing but
putting the corporate headquarters here with about 15 jobs that are all around $50,000 going in here as part of an economic development
plan. I need to have zoning in place to get the dollars and the economic plan looked at by the county and the port authority. We have to
keep moving or our time lines don’t work.
Chair Schoonover – In my opinion we do need to get the text done and get it to County Planning so they can weigh in. My hope was that we
could have Board discussion and get this to them by May 16th so it could be on their June agenda.
There was discussion about the time lines for development, MCDPS and Economic Development as they have a pretty extensive list of
what they need and zoning needs to be approved. Economic Development can’t start looking at the plan until they know the zoning is
approved.
Attorney Scheetz – It’s also about the time needed in order to put in the site improvements, whether it is for 50, 100 or 150.
Hollish – My personal view, you are not going to stop growth, maybe you can stop it for a few years, but it is coming. Do we want this style
of growth or do we want another type of growth. The bottom line is that 30 more homes is not that much in my mind if you are dealing with
200+ acres and they have to get some other acreage contiguous to this to make those other 30 homes so why couldn’t you draft some
language saying go with the 109 but if they get extra land a few years from now, they can then look at those other 30 homes.
Wenslow – Just to clarify, we are not doing this just for this party. We are writing this for anyone who might be available to develop it.
Attorney Scheetz – This is for a site specific PUD. We have been with you for seven months and I respect everything you are trying to do
here and we even deferred to allow you to proceed with the Chippewa matter on at least two occasions and that’s why we are trying to seek
a compromise because it’s not just the planning for Economic Development but it has to do with what the planned density is in order to
justify the off-site improvements. We have to put the off-site improvements in whether it is for 50, 100 or 130 so there are lots of other
factors.
Cavey – We have worked hard on the comprehensive plan and I know it is not going to hurt me. If your Board needs direction and if you
agree to have another meeting next week and we can still meet the timeline of MCDPS, as that’s the critical thing for me, then we can come
back next week.
There was discussion about waiting until after the Steering Committee comprehensive plan meeting on Thursday and then meeting next
week to continue the review. The Board agreed to go forward reviewing the balance of the draft text and come back next week to finish the
discussion.
Biskup – One quick question, total acreage is 224, correct?
Attorney Scheetz – 115 and 109, that is correct.
Biskup – So as it sits right now the RR, one house every two acres, you could have 112 houses. That’s another thing for the Board to think
about - would you rather see 112 houses sitting on two acre lots all through there or have a denser area and more of them.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – If you are taking the density off of the whole parcel and putting them in a small clustered (grouped together)
area, one of the things I have always been leery of over the years is you have to tie that open space up tight because 10, 15 or 20 years
from now a good lawyer will come in and say what are you doing with all that open space, let’s build on it and you’re going to get two or
three times the density when it is all coupled together.
Biskup – But we can do that – we can control everything on there just from what everybody said tonight. We can lock up that acreage. They
would have to buy more property to get more houses.
Discussion determined that the density issue (Section 309.05 A.) would be continued until the next meeting date.
Discussion relative to Section 309.05 B. Open Space Requirements: 4.
Chair Schoonover – This is pretty standard, am I correct?
Zoning Inspector Strogin - Pretty standard. If you used the 212 acres and they put their future block in they are fine but they can’t reuse that
again. They can’t buy another 30 acres and use the same open space for that. So if they buy 30 acres and want to put houses on that and
use the golf course, they can’t do it.
Brenner (engineer) – Once it is dedicated open space, it is open space.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – To me, you want to dedicate it, you want to lock up that open space so it can’t be reused again down the road.
Cavey – Kind of like what happened at Weymouth where they had a time frame for expansion, a particular number of years.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - In that case we gave them, I think it was five years, they could expand and add additional land in and by the time
the guy wanted to do that it was like seven years and they couldn’t do it, which was quite good because they were trying to take that 44
acres and put the maximum density on there with no open space because they had the golf course.
Meinke – In reading Stan’s notes, he says need to reserve future block development on west side of country club and he says separate
entity with dedicated open space, 50 years, 75 years, 99 years.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - He is saying to dedicate the open space, I would go with the 99 years personally. If they reserve the right of the
100 units, it doesn’t mean they have to build 100 units right now but it means they are reserving the right to build those 100 units and they
have the open space to justify that 100 units.
Attorney Lesiak - What we want to make sure of though, let’s say Cavey does acquire property to the west, we still would want to be able to
use that open space – it may not be that block though is what I am saying.
Chair Schoonover – That’s what Alliss said they did at Weymouth but they gave them conditions on how many years so the Board would
need to determine whether they wanted to go that route.
Ted – I guess in the block you are saying we are not dedicating the block as open space in the beginning here.
Chair Schoonover – Am I correct, Alliss, this is the possible block for the additional 50?
Zoning Inspector Strogin - If it’s a future block for the development, it’s a development block, it’s not an open space block. But the golf
course counts as open space.
Chair Schoonover – But this would not be counted as open space because it is a development block. Does everyone on the Board
understand that? They got it.
Cavey – County Planning wants me to run that road out to Lake Road (the road that isn’t there yet). They want it to come out on property on
Lake Road for two ways in and two ways out. That’s my dilemma, I have no plans, and they are trying to make me make plans. I don’t want
any more density, I’m not trying to pull any games but I don’t know where the fighting people want things or where it would even be - one of
two areas.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - Are you worried that once the block is there you can’t move the block?
Cavey – Yes.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - To me that is not an issue. You are putting a block in for future development. If that block moves a little bit, who
cares. If it moves into green space, what it vacates will become green space. If you’ve got ten acres for Block B and you move the 10 over
here, where you move that 10 from then becomes open space.
Chair Schoonover – Right.
Biskup – If you do an acreage block
Cavey – Ok, that’s fine then.
Attorney Lesiak – Can that language be adjusted, because that is not what it says.
Brenner – Whatever we dedicate as open space on the record plat we have to dedicate it as open space or recreation and in a sense we
have to dedicate future development. Once this piece of land becomes recreation open space, I can’t move it over here.
Cavey - That’s exactly what County Planning made us do in York Township. Whatever we said is open, it is open for 99 years.
Chair Schoonover – That seems very ludicrous that they would not give us the flexibility to go ahead and, like what Alliss and Mike said, you’
ve got 10 acres here and as long as you have 10 acres, you can move it within the same development
Attorney Lesiak - The difference in York Township was that somebody else did the housing; we only had the golf course.
Chair Schoonover - And you say there is no way around that, in your experience?
Brenner – Not in my experience. If I told you that the parking lot right there was considered open space, we would not be allowed to erase
that open space and move it to the front yard.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - You couldn’t replat as long as the numbers stayed the same?
Brenner - I don’t believe so. We have to be very certain.
Cavey – This delay will help me a little with this problem because my guys are telling me I can’t do that. I have an architect drawing two
scenarios and we’re going to sit there and say well what’s the most likely one because I’ve been told by people I’m paying a lot of money to
that you are not going to have a choice. Once you dedicate it, that’s what it’s going to be and I’m looking at it and saying, okay, I’ve got to
make a decision on something I never thought about really doing but County Planning is going to push me going out to Lake Road.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – But you are not going to dedicate that until the whole thing is practically done.
Brenner – Forward looking in our preliminary plan if we are going to have to show say for example 38 or 40 units today, we’re going to have
to show the block of land for open space and we have to show them the block for future development. What we would end up doing is to
show the minimum amount of open space we need for the number of lots for the acreage we have and whatever is left is future
development.
Attorney Lesiak – The other problem is that County Planning is telling them that this block is on land that is not even being considered at
this point in the PUD.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – All I know is that in a subdivision up in Medina Township that open space and the plats and everything have
been moved so many times I’m not even sure what’s what up there up anymore.
Cavey – Let me get my plan and see if we can’t make alternatives work for us with what we’ve been told by County Planning already and
just like we were saying we will probably have to use the minimum amount of green space so that we can make plans over here that say
future development.
Chair Schoonover – Russ, can you call County Planning between now and Monday and could you ask them regarding this issue - of about
the future development block and open space and whether or not it can conceivably be moved around before the final plat.
Attorney Lesiak – I will also get some language to give you as an alternative to allow that movement.
Chair Schoonover – Okay. Let’s highlight this item as one we’ll come back to.
The Board continued the review of the draft language with the following summation.
Review of Draft Amendment to Zoning Resolution of Lafayette Township – Section 309 Overlay District for Golf Community PUD (review of
proposed text – continuation from 5/6/08 meeting).
After thorough discussion and review of each item and all comments made in writing by A.P. Thorne as well as those made in writing by
Attorney Scheetz, the following revisions were made:
(page 4) Section 309.05 A. Density Requirements – ON HOLD (See discussion notes above.)
(page 4) Section 309.05 B. Open Space Requirements – okay with the following changes:
- 309.05 B.2 b. – REVISE TO READ: Required setbacks between residential dwelling units, parking areas and project boundaries;
- 309.05 B.2.c. – REVISE TO READ: Required setbacks between residential dwelling units and streets;
- 309.05 B.2.d. – REVISE TO READ: Required minimum spacing between residential dwelling units and parking areas;
- 309.05 B.4. & 5. – Attorney Lesiak to revise language (Discussion Note for Board relates to open space and future block for
development and whether it can be moved around prior to the final plat; Russ Green will check with MCDPS for clarification. See
discussion notes above.)
- 309.05 B.6.c. – Add the change that A.P.Thorne suggested, revise to read: Provision for non-interrupted maintenance should the legal
entity go out of business or become insolvent.
(page 5) Section 309.06 A. Maximum Height of Structures - REVISE TO READ:
No building or structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height.
(page 5) Section 309.06 B. Utilities – REVISE TO READ: All proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Any access boxes or
terminals that must be installed above ground shall be screened and landscaped as required in Section 307.4 F.5.
(page 5) Section 309.07 – REVISE TO READ: Design Considerations
(page 5) Section 309.07 A. – REVISE TO READ: Building and Site Considerations
(page 6) Section 309.07 B. – REVISE TO READ: General Street Design Considerations
(page 6) Section 309.07 B. 1-4 REVISE TO READ:
1. All public and private streets shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Medina County Highway Engineer
standards for public or private streets.
2. Boulevard entrances are encouraged within the GCPUD.
3. Landscaped islands within cul-de-sacs are encouraged within the GCPUD.
(page 6) Section 309.07 C. – REVISE TO READ: Parking Lot Considerations
1. Parking as regulated by Article V. of the Lafayette Township Zoning Resolution.
(page 6) Section 309.07 D. 3. – REVISE TO READ: Trails for which public right of passage has been established may be encouraged in
the pedestrian circulation system.
(page 6) Section 309.07 E. 1. – REVISE TO READ:
1. Landscaping shall be provided as part of the Final Site Plan submittal. The standards contained in Section 309.10 are considered to
be minimum standards for this district.
(page 6) Section 309.07 F. – REMOVE this item.
The Board decided to finish the discussion relative density and the balance of the draft overlay district text starting with Section 309.08 at a
special meeting to be held Monday, May 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., which will need to be held at the old Lafayette Elementary School zoning
room since the Fire Department will be using the township hall for training on that date.
New Business
John Miller indicated that he would appreciate any assistance that the township could provide him or point him in the right direction relative
to the neighboring property at 7287 Lake Road, which continues to become more unsightly and a possible nuisance or health problem.
Also the elevation of the 7287 Lake Road property has changed and is causing additional water runoff/flooding. The Board members
made suggestions that he could contact the following agencies: Medina County Division of Soil & Water, Medina County Health
Department, Medina County Engineer, Medina County Storm Water Management. In addition, the township zoning inspector will check out
the complaint.
Announcements
- Zoning Commission special meeting for general business is scheduled for Monday, May 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the old Lafayette
Elementary School, 6357 Lafayette Road, Medina, Ohio, in the previously used zoning room.
- Lafayette Township Zoning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the township hall.
- The next MCDPS zoning workshop is scheduled for all day Friday, June 6, 2008, at the new Medina County University Center on
Sustainability and Economic Development.
Adjournment
Upon motion by Karen Schoonover, duly seconded by Mike Biskup, it was unanimous that the meeting be adjourned. Adjourned at 9:30 p.
m.
Marlene L. Oiler, Certified PP, PLS
Lafayette Township Zoning Commission Secretary
(Note: Minutes approved on 6/3/08.)