streetsboro planning and zoning commission … · 2019. 10. 1. · mr. harrison presented a 29.2 sq...

City of Streetsboro Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 10, 2013

Note: These minutes were compiled by extracting certain facts the essence of testimony from an audiotape made of this meeting. Complete detail and verbatim statements can be heard and transcribed from the tape.

The tape is available in the office of the Department of Planning and Zoning for a nominal fee.

STREETSBORO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting

September 10, 2013 7:00 PM

Call to Order Chairperson Horsfall called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation Roll Call: Davene Sarrocco-Smith, Warner Batten, Ed Lupton, Jason Winkler and Tom Horsfall were present. [Mr. Pavlick entered the meeting at 8:17 pm] Mr. Horsfall reported Mr. Pavlick had called to say he would be 40 to 50 minutes late to the meeting this evening, he had not heard from Mr. Mitchell but there was still a quorum so they would continue. Also present: Mayor Broska; John Cieszkowski, Planning and Zoning Director; Matthew Vazzana, Assistant Law Director; and Zoning Inspector Stacey Vadaj. Disposition of Minutes: April 9, 2013 Regular Meeting, May 14, 2013 Regular Meeting, and August 13, 2013 Regular Meeting. Motion: Mr. Lupton To accept the April 9, 2013 meeting minutes as written. Seconded by Mr. Winkler. Upon voice vote motion carried. Old Business- none Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith To suspend the rules and regulations and accept all seven items on the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Batten. Upon voice vote motion carried. Sign Review- Chapter 1159 – Advance America Cash Advance – 9315 Unit C – wall sign Albert Haddad from Ellet Sign Co, 3041 E Waterloo Road, Akron, Ohio presented a channel letter wall sign, the existing sign being relocated one tenant space over, taken off the wall and neon lighting being switched out with LED. It existed to the right of the where the sign is shown in the drawing and they were moving one space over. They had gotten a variance for the size and the space to the end of the lease space being 2 foot 1.5 inches on each side.


Mr. Cieszkowski had nothing more to add from his memo and was willing to answer any questions the commission might have. Mr. Horsfall pointed out the light emitted was at 85 foot lamberts which was well within the code. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve a wall sign for Advance America Cash Advance, 9315 State Route 14 Unit C. Parcel #35-055-00-00-053-000. Per sign plan received 07-08-13. Revised 08-26-13, per BZA variances approved 08-20-13 and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Winkler. Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked if the sign specification plate will be a part of every motion as opposed to being on the plans themselves. Mr. Cieszkowski answered that a flush mounted wall sign that was not illuminated would not meet the intent of the code but all other signs would need to include the sign specification plate. If it should be excluded he had and would make reference in his staff report. Mr. Horsfall asked if it would be in all the motions from here out. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed if it was applicable. Liberty Corners – 9350 Market Square Dr and 9349 SR 43 – monument signs Mr. Horsfall stated they would start with the 9350 Market Square sign. Chuck Steven, 7471 Tyler Blvd, Mentor, Ohio presented the existing sign would be reworked, the center portion would be removed and they were going to install an illuminated cabinet with the multi-tenant panels for all the tenants within the complex. There would be 14 panels, 15 inches by 48 inches, two rows of seven each. The cabinet was an all aluminum construction, finished in Duronodic Bronze color, illuminated with LED 24 volt/80 watt fixtures, output limited to 150 lamberts, overall height was 12 ft 3 inches, the separate top piece which was non-illuminated was 1 ft 6 inches and the width would be 86 inches. There were two brick pilasters that would extend beyond that. Mr. Horsfall reiterated per Mr. Cieszkowski’s memo that the 150 foot lamberts were within the code for non residential within 500 ft. Mr. Cieszkowski added in addition to the dimensions being in line with the granted variances he had also verified the setbacks relative to the right-of-way and the landscaping in this case would be reutilized when the sign face was redone. The existing will remain. He


thought sign panels on multi-tenant signs normally needed to come before the commission for review and asked the Planning Commission to consider granting the Planning Director the authority to administratively approve sign panel changes on these two multi-tenant ground signs only. That authority was per Section 1159.03(e) which was referenced in the motion. He read the code section into the record: “Modifications proposed for any sign that has received Planning and Zoning Commission approval, whether installed or not, must be approved by the Commission pursuant to the applicable procedure in Section 1159.03. The Commission at its discretion may direct the Planning Director to authorize amendments by written administrative approval.” Mr. Horsfall restated he would approve them administratively and then let the commission know about the changes. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith suggested the landscaping be added to because what was there was very limited. Mr. Steven stated the landscaping was quite limited there due to the width of the island but he offered to take the landscaping to the ends and put in more variety. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve a planter/monument sign for Liberty Corners, 9350 Market Sq Drive. Parcel #35-045-00-00-042-006 per sign plan received 08-09-13. Revised 08-28-13 per BZA variances approved 07-16-13 and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. Pursuant to Section 1159.03(e), for this multi-tenant planter/monument sign only, the Planning Commission hereby grants the Planning and Zoning Director the authority to review and approve sign panel changes. Upon approval of any sign panel changes, the Planning & Zoning Director shall communicate such changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission in writing. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Lupton. Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. Mr. Horsfall stated they would now consider the 9349 State Route 43 sign. Mr. Steven said this would be a new monument sign, the cabinet was all pre-manufactured aluminum extruded components with the LED internal lighting, 16 acrylics panels for the tenants, 6 ft 4inch high by 11 ft wide cabinet made of Duronodic Bronze with the overall size of the monument being 10 ft high by 14 ft wide by 2 ft deep including the columns, illuminated with LED 24 volt/80 watt fixtures with an output of 90 foot lamberts and they would match the brick as closely as they could to the Market Street monument sign so they would be similar in appearance. Mr. Horsfall asked if the applicant meant there were 15 panels, 3 rows of 5.


Mr. Steven affirmed. Mr. Cieszkowski pointed out the landscaping met code requirements and was asking for the administrative review of the sign panels again. Mr. Horsfall asked if there was supposed to be a phone number and address on the sign plate. Mr. Cieszkowski said the code did not include that, it includes reference to the date of installation, permit number, primary voltage and any electrical components. Mr. Horsfall asked how the city would contact someone if there was a problem with the sign. Mr. Cieszkowski said it would provide the application contents and therefore find the contact. Mr. Batten thought they should document that the applicant shows 8 plants in the motion sheet. Mr. Cieszkowski stated as long as the applicant shows it on a plan he could then use the plans to verify that what is developed is in conformance with the plan. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve a planter/monument sign for Liberty Corners, 9349 State Route 43. Parcel #35-045-00-00-041-000 per sign plan received 08-09-13. Revised 08-28-13 per BZA variances approved 07-16-13 and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. Pursuant to Section 1159.03(e), for this multi-tenant planter/monument sign only, the Planning Commission hereby grants the Planning and Zoning Director the authority to review and approve sign panel changes. Upon approval of any sign panel changes, the Planning & Zoning Director shall communicate such changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission in writing. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Winkler. Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. First National Bank – 9305 Market Square Drive – wall and monument signs Major Harrison, Brilliant Electric Sign, 4811 Van Epps Rd, Cleveland, Ohio presented a revised site plan (Exhibit A) to the commission and stated the original site plan did not accurately show the correct setbacks from the right-of-way for the directional signs; items 3 and 4 were now accurately depicted on the plan. He presented an internally illuminated, individual channel letter wall sign on a raceway painted to match the building fascia as close as possible, a 57.3 sq ft sign replacing the existing Parkview Federal wall sign, has 55 ft lamberts and this is the only wall sign in the package. First National Bank has taken over 15 Parkview Federal locations.


Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed the sign on the wall met all the code regulations. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked for clarification as to when a logo could be used. Mr. Horsfall thought it was permitted on the large signs but not on the directional. Mr. Cieszkowski concurred. There was a general discussion on the types of wall signs and what they were approving at this time. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve a wall sign for First National Bank, 9305 Market Sq Drive. Parcels #35-045-00-00-007-006 and 35-045-00-00-042-003. Per sign plan received 08-09-13. Revised 08-27-13 and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. Mr. Harrison presented a 29.2 sq ft sign cabinet on the existing brick base, taking out the existing cabinet from Parkview and replacing it with a 1st National Bank cabinet, an aluminum sign with routed out faces with logo which when illuminated in the evening the only thing visible will be the logo and the address as well as the wording “1st National Bank. He thought it was a clean and aesthetic look. Mr. Horsfall reported the BZA approved the variance for location of the base in May 2004. He asked if the landscaping existing was to code. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed the landscaping was more than sufficient as it related to the regulations. Mr. Batten and Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith pointed out there was nothing around the sign at all, it was all behind it. Mr. Cieszkowski said the picture provided was accurate and the aerial showed the amount of landscaping. The existing landscaping more than met the code requirements in his opinion. Mr. Horsfall said the landscaping was to the left and there was nothing to the right or in front. He asked the applicant if the landscaping could surround the sign. Mr. Harrison said he was from the sign company and this was beyond his scope but he would take it to the customer, he was not sure what would be required of the landscape plan, if it would have to come from a landscape architect or what it would entail but the plans now were to use existing landscaping as the Planning Director stated. The applicant


was not changing anything including the base, just replacing the face and cabinet of the sign. Mr. Horsfall thought it looked bare around the sign itself. He thought there was mulch around the outside of the base that could be planted. Mr. Harrison said he was under the commission’s discretion, he was just the sign guy and they were replacing existing from existing. Whatever is mandated from the Planning Department, whether it is from a landscape architect in detailed plans or another form was something he would bring back to the customer. Mr. Horsfall asked he convey to the customer the landscaping to the side of the sign but the commission would like it to surround the sign. Mr. Harrison said he would be more than happy to convey that. Mr. Horsfall thought they could put it inside the existing stonework. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve a planter/monument sign for First National Bank, 9305 Market Sq Drive, Parcels #35-045-00-00-007-006 and 35-045-00-00-042-003, per sign plan received 08-09-13. Revised 08-27-13, per variance approved 05-18-04 with the addition of landscape plantings to be planted around the base of the sign per Administrative Review and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Lupton. Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked why they were reviewing directional signs which in the past they had not. Mr. Cieszkowski answered as he interpreted the code there was not an explicit exemption provided to directional signs, there were detailed standards for directional signs without explicit exemption for Planning Commission review so they need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Horsfall added unless the commission gave the approval to the director which he didn’t think there was an allowance for that so the commission had to review them. Mr. Harrison said they had changed the placement of the directional signs [Exhibit A], there were two directional signs, at the points of ingress and egress. The ingress was 3 sq ft directional sign indicating entrance and drive-up, double sided made of aluminum, non-illuminated and the egress sign was 1.5 sq ft of the same construction. Both would replace the existing signs which at this time were in the right-of-way but the new would be out of the right-of-way.


Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed this site plan corrected the issue he had with the directional signs being in the right-of-way and were within code requirements. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve directional signs for First National Bank, 9305 Market Sq Drive, Parcels #35-045-00-00-007-006 and 35-045-00-00-042-003 per sign plan received 08-09-13. Revised 08-27-13. Revised 09-10-13, specifically the map placement page and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Winkler. Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. Mr. Harrison presented the safety related signs were standard for any bank with an ATM canopy, non-illuminated exit sign and clearance sign to navigate properly through the drive-thru and make the customer aware of the height restriction for larger vehicles. Mr. Cieszkowski said he had made all his comments in his memo. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve “safety related” signs (on drive-thru canopy) for First National Bank, 9305 Market Sq Drive, Parcels #35-045-00-00-007-006 and 35-045-00-00-042-003. Per sign plan received 08-09-13. Revised 08-27-13 and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Batten. Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. Streetsboro Veterinary Center- 9324 State Route 43 – planter sign Angie Smith, A Sign Above, 8982 Dutton Drive, Twinsburg, Ohio presented a planter sign made of high density urethane sign board mounted to two white poly-vinyl posts, two sided with an overall square footage of 32 sq ft, the color scheme was a reflex blue background (the same color as the new city gateway signs) with a white border and metallic gold inset border, the letters were white with a thin black outline, the word “Streetsboro” was also in metallic gold and the address was white. The sign will stand 82 inches from the grade to the top of the sign with a masonry landscape bed. The landscape block will be an off white color to compliment the building and sign, the concrete landscape block was made by Fulton, and was 12 inches long and 4 inches high tan basic retaining wall block. The landscape bed containing the sign will be setback 10 foot from the road right-of-way and 10 foot from the northern property line, per a variance approved by the BZA at the 07-16-13 hearing. No exterior lighting on the sign, the landscape bed will have small low growing annuals and green velvet boxwood bushes. There will be a specification plate per code [Exhibit B] and showed the commission the new site plan [Exhibit C] with the correct distance from the right-of-way and no portion of the sign or landscape bed would fall within the 10 foot setback.


Mr. Cieszkowski said he had nothing to add since the documentation presented by the applicant addressed the two questions he had brought up in his memo (sign in relation to the right-of-way and sign specification plate. Mr. Batten pointed out two landscaping plans and asked which they were to use. Mr. Cieszkowski said the one in the application was the most current and up to date version, the other was what was provided with the initial site plan approval with sign approval to be secured at a later date. Mrs. Smith affirmed. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission approve a planter/monument sign for Streetsboro Veterinary Center, 9324 State Route 43, Parcel #35-046-10-00-060-000. Per sign plan received 08-12-13. Revised 08-15-13, per BZA variance approved 07-16-13, revised plan received 09-10-13 for the setback and in addition landscaping to be installed per color sign diagram and including the required sign specification plate per Section 1159.20. No sign can be installed until a permit has been paid for and issued through the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Lupton Roll call: Yes – 5, No – 0. Motion carried. New Business – Deck at Thomas Heritage Park Mr. Horsfall reported Mr. Mytinger could not attend this evening but had asked Mr. Cieszkowski to present. Mr. Cieszkowski said he would use his memo as an outline. The City of Streetsboro Parks and Recreation Department was proposing to utilize a grant program and volunteers to construct a 50 ft by 20 ft deck which was 1,000 square feet adjacent to the existing fishing pond at Thomas Heritage Park. There was some question before the meeting regarding the dimensions of the posts, he realized it was not included in the documentation submitted, he verified with Mr. Mytinger the posts were 4” by 6” treated lumber. Included in the documentation the commission was provided was a cover letter by the Parks and Recreations Director Greg Mytinger outlining essentially the grant program, the donation as part of the grant program as well as an aerial overview of the park showing the location of the dog park as well as the proposed deck relative to the fishing pond. In addition there were some very general schematics of the deck in terms of the materials. The deck and the railings are composite; all other components would be treated lumber. He wanted to point out the Parks, Recreation and Conservation Advisory Committee recommendation made at the 09-03-13 meeting which referenced the committee’s recommendation to the commission to accept the proposed Thomas Heritage Park fishing deck location and dimensions. He had mentioned in his cover letter/memo a reference to Charter Section 14.03 and the definition of structure, the Charter references the plan, design, location,


removal, relocation, and alteration of any public building or structure and public property should be considered by the Planning Commission. He made the determination that the proposed deck would be considered a structure that is to be located at a public park which was why it was before the Planning Commission for consideration this evening. He was looking for a recommendation and input from the Parks, Recreation and Conservation Advisory Committee which he referenced earlier and in terms of action moving forward he was looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission as a motion to City Council to accept the Lowes donation and approve construction of the proposed deck at Thomas Heritage Park as submitted. He offered to answer any questions. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith thought the deck in this location was a great thing and was thrilled that Lowes was partnering with the city to do this but was disappointed with the location map because it didn’t show walking trails or anything in the park. She wanted more specifics for the location in relation to the pond and the rest of the park. She would be willing to allow the process to be handled administratively but didn’t think it was appropriate to have a different standard for the city than we had for the citizens that we serve and the application had no detail. Mr. Lupton stated the deck would be on the north east corner of the pond not to far from where the dog park was which was right off State Route 303. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith affirmed that was what it looked like. Mr. Cieszkowski reported in viewing the pond there was an open area where there was no vegetation up to the edge of the pond which is where the deck was proposed as shown on the drawing. He said most of the remainder of the pond had vegetation of some sort all the way to the edge which is what lends itself to, along with the change in grade, the proposed location at the northeast side of the pond. Mr. Winkler asked if an engineer would be looking at the design. Mr. Cieszkowski said given the size of the proposed deck it would have to go to the building department for approval and the building department would make sure it is structurally sound. Mr. Winkler wondered if there would be foundations required and things like that. Mr. Horsfall pointed out there were no dimensions on the joists either. Mr. Cieszkowski said there were many more pages associated with this but he had suggested it was not necessary for the Planning Commission to get the forty pages that were included originally. It was primarily to save trees. Mr. Mytinger provided this submittal based on Mr. Cieszkowski’s recommendation. Mr. Horsfall thought this was a small piece of a much larger picture; there was 100 plus acres there which tied in further down to even more acreage. He asked if there was a comprehensive plan for how to develop the land because as recently as a year and a half


ago there was talk of putting a new city hall there, recreational area and any number of other things. He reminded the Mayor of the meetings for that. He knew the Parks and Recreations Department had a comprehensive plan written prior to when this was purchased. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed it was in 2007. Mr. Horsfall didn’t think they had to redo the entire comprehensive plan but having a piece of land that size that belonged to the city shouldn’t be done a little bit here and a little bit there, it would be rational to lay out a comprehensive plan. He knew there was a drawing of some of the walking trails that was mapped out by Mr. Pritchard because of the knowledge he had of different varieties of plants which showed the walking trails going around sensitive areas. He knew Mr. Pritchard had mapped the entire area and asked the directors to find it. He didn’t want to see the city build something that would have to be torn out in five or six years because it was in the way for something else. He thought they could do it administratively without the Planning Commission seeing the plan, with an engineer drawing it up and putting exactly where on the site plan but didn’t want to because there should be a master plan for this with as many of the pieces as they could put in for a good overview of what was going to happen there. He didn’t know about the man power to do it or the funds needed but that was up to other entities to make it happen. It was his recommendation at this point. He asked if Lowes had an idea of when they wanted to do this project. Mr. Cieszkowski could not recall with any degree of certainty the timeframe associated with installation. Mr. Horsfall pointed out the memo from Mr. Mytinger which said he would have the information to the commission by this meeting. He thought it should go through the standard procedure through the commission. Mr. Cieszkowski said the park was going through City Council and thought there was still additional consideration for the donation from Lowes to be formally accepted by City Council and the recommendation from this body would be formally recognized as well. Mr. Horsfall saw in the motion the commission was recommending to council the approval of a deck which he had no problem doing but the questions he had were how these things would be added in, he agreed with Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith in that it was not fair to treat the city any differently; to require this of other applicants then we do what we want on ours was not the way it should be. The city had to do their due diligence and bring the same requirements for ourselves. Mr. Cieszkowski agreed and said his comments were duly noted. Stephen Kolar, residence 6615 Meadow Farm Drive Hudson, business 9127 SR 14, Streetsboro, and property owner of 9208 Olga Ave Streetsboro, commented the reason he was there this evening was his insistence that these projects come to the Planning Commission. He said the director had read the section of code which embodies the


commission to make these decisions. He appreciated all the good comments that evening so there was a lot he didn’t have to say at this point but the one concern he had with the park area was there was no master plan for it. He felt the city had to hold itself to the same standards as they held the citizens. He was concerned about there being no parking lot. He handed out photos of the area he was concerned with [Exhibit D] which showed the project was already started. Mr. Horsfall interrupted Mr. Kolar for a minute to acknowledge that Mr. Pavlick had joined the meeting (8:17 pm). Mr. Kolar asked the commission to send this back to the Parks Department, get the Engineering Department involved and come up with an overall plan. Mr. Horsfall asked how the motion before them would affect how the deck was reviewed. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked if this was supposed to be a site plan review of where the deck was going instead of the deck itself. Mr. Horsfall agreed it was a little fuzzy and the motion was to approve a deck without the mention of site plan dates etc. He asked if the commission was okay with recommending a deck with the documentation presented that evening. Some of the commission members were not. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith looked at this as though it were a site plan and asked Mr. Vazzana if that was the way this should be looked at. Mr. Vazzana said Mr. Cieszkowski and he had talked about this today and thought they had decided it didn’t have to go through the full site plan and Mr. Cieszkowski had referenced 1152.02(a)(3). Mr. Cieszkowski read from the code “Projects (except single family, two-family or agricultural) that are contemplating an addition or expansion which have any of the following” and it talks about “Increase the floor area by fifteen percent (15%) or more”…” Alterations or re-arrangement of on-site parking”…”Alteration of traffic flow by way of ingress and egress”…”Construction of public or private off-street parking areas”… Mr. Pavlick pointed out that assumes there was already a site plan. Mr. Cieszkowski answered when the dog park initially came through (he did not attend that meeting) that was a conditional use approval for a outdoor recreational area in an R-2 district included in that was a site plan that showed the location of the dog park. That was the original site plan and he didn’t consider the deck rose to the level of requiring what a normal site plan amendment review would require. Mr. Horsfall reported that at the meeting Mr. Cieszkowski had not attended the commission had pointed out to Mr. Mytinger that as a site plan it was woefully insufficient, it showed no


parking lot which had been referenced in this meeting also. Usually the parking lot was the reference point for a whole bunch of other things and he thought the commission was making it clear they needed some kind of a site plan for this site. Mr. Vazzana said I would also like to mention that, and sadly I was not part of the conversation, didn’t the Law Director tell Mr. Cieszkowski that no site plan was necessary for this. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed the Law Director and he had specifically discussed the deck project both initially after it was brought to their attention by the Parks and Recreation director and also after the Charter provision was brought to their attention and following that coordination they had talked about the documentation to be provided and it was that this did not again reach the level of a formal site plan but that it was kind of information to be provided to the Planning Commission for the commission to get an idea of the location of the deck relative to the dog park and the pond. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith stated she could not do that from the documentation submitted. She could not tell how far or close… the commission could not tell what Mr. Cieszkowski just said from what was submitted. Mr. Horsfall added the commission had asked for those items when they okayed the dog park and Mr. Mytinger, and they could reference the tape if necessary, said that there would be a site plan forthcoming for this site. Mr. Pavlick added when a resident put a deck on their house they had to show the house and all the outbuildings and all the dimensions. The commissioners voiced their agreement. Mr. Horsfall didn’t know exactly where “we don’t need a site plan” came from and he thought it was being attributed to Mr. Maistros: he was not sure if Mr. Maistros understood but this would be an ongoing thing and building it a piece here and a piece here and a piece here, somewhere they were going to have a site plan so why not have it at the beginning. Mr. Pavlick said it belonged at the beginning. Motion: Mr. Lupton To table this item until next month so the applicant can get the commission real drawings that include where it is going to be, what it’s going to be, and what they are looking at. Seconded by Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith. Upon voice vote motion carried unanimously. Mr. Horsfall suggested that all the departments work together to come up with the plan and asked the Mayor to coordinate it.


Mayor Broska said he was frustrated since this was a simple 20 x 50 deck that was going to be designed so people could put their lawn chairs out there and drown some worms. If the commission had taken the time to go out to the park… Mr. Horsfall stated he did. Mayor Broska continued they would know exactly where it was going to go. We do know exactly where it is going. As far as a drawing… a conceptual plan for the park, he asked if they had $65,000 to $100,000 they didn’t know what to do with because he knew the city didn’t. He said we are trying to put the park together so the citizens could have someplace to recreate. This park was not going to be fully developed, they were trying to put in things that were not that intrusive, they were not going to have ball fields over here or all this other stuff so to spend that type of money to indicate where a deck might go or where the dog park may go to him was not cost effective. What the city had done so far was done with labor within the city, they had not had to contract any of this out, and they were trying to make this park nice so the citizens could enjoy it. When we get an individual at the meeting that doesn’t even live in our city, throws stuff in the City’s face about the Charter; he was well aware now of the Charter and that they made a mistake because they didn’t know it had to come to the commission but they have corrected that by being here. He said to have the commission direct them to have dimensions and such was very frustrating for him since it was a simple 20 x 50 deck that sits on a pond. Mr. Horsfall commented that he didn’t think anyone on the commission wanted a $65,000 comprehensive topography study done. Mayor Broska said that’s what it is. Mr. Horsfall said no. He thought what the commission was asking for was someone with a tape measure to go out there and say “it’s going to start here, it’s going to end here, and the parking lot is going to be here”. He asked if that was a lot to ask. He thought the city had an Engineering Department that could do all kinds of things like that; why can’t they go out and say the proposed parking lot is going to be this dimension, located right here. Just something so the commission could see how it was going to look. Right now the commission was being asked to kind of imagine where it was going to be and they were afraid it was going to come in piecemeal. Mayor Broska said it would not come in piecemeal. Mr. Pavlick wanted to see this done but done right. The commission would not accept this from a resident to build it this way. All the commission was asking for was for it to be documented so everything was in there. They were not asking for topographical maps but he wanted the basics laid out, what was planned and what was in place. Mayor Broska thought they would want the topographical from a citizen. So if the citizen had to have the topographical then the city would too.


Mr. Pavlick said when he wanted to put a deck on his house he would have to put the dimensions on it and show how it fits on the house, had to show his outbuildings and how far away things were from each other. He had to do all those things when he put up the deck and pool. The commissioners agreed. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith agreed it could be drawn by hand and would not have to be an engineered stamped drawing. Zoning Text Amendment – Code Section 1157 Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.02 (a) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Streetsboro, consider a zoning text amendment to various sections of Chapter 1157 Nonconforming Uses. Seconded by Mr. Pavlick. Upon voice vote motion carried. None opposed. Mr. Cieszkowski reported he included existing text with additions in bold outlines and deletions with strike through; wanted the commission to know the proposed text is following continual coordination with the Law Director regarding draft proposed language and then revision of that draft proposed language following his coordination with him. He outlined his memo: 1.) separating residential and nonresidential structures, permitting complete restoration of damaged nonconforming residential buildings or structures, while keeping in place the limitation on rebuilding of nonresidential structures to that of 50% of the replacement cost of the building at the time such damages occurred; 2.) decreasing the period of discontinuance or abandoned nonconforming uses can be reestablished from 2 years to 1 year (1157.02 (f)); and the removal of the references to Certificates of Nonconforming Use because very few of these certificates have been issued since the effective date of the ordinance in 1980. He and Mr. Maistros felt the risk of removal of that section was minimal. He pointed out changes that he thought would make sense to subsection f which would be the discontinuance or abandonment, he thought it made sense to remove nonconforming signs since nonconforming signs were addressed specifically in their own section of Chapter 1159 and to add a reference to nonconforming buildings wherever you see use so to summarize (f) should be revised to read as follows: “Whenever a nonconforming use”, add “or building”, “has been discontinued for a period of one year or more, the nonconforming use or building shall not be reestablished and any further use or building shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance.” The addition of the reference of building is simply as a point in clarification to the reader. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith questioned if the existing Certificates of Nonconforming Use were recorded with the lot at the auditor’s office because if they were then we probably shouldn’t do that but if they aren’t then it probably doesn’t matter. She suggested they have an internal policy for what the City considers the definition of abandonment is because that becomes difficult so if it was internally consistent with how it is interpreted it shouldn’t be an issue.


Mr. Horsfall asked if abandonment was in the glossary of the code. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith said it was only a comment, something to consider. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed he would follow up with the Law Director. Mr. Horsfall clarified this would go to Council in the form of a recommendation and “a report supporting the proposed zoning text amendment is hereto attached” and that report would have the changes Mr. Cieszkowski suggested along with the change from Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed the additional revisions as discussed this evening. Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.02 (a) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Streetsboro, recommend approval of a zoning text amendment to City Council for various sections as amended of Chapter 1157 Nonconforming Uses. A report supporting the proposed zoning text amendment is hereto attached to this recommendation as required. Seconded by Mr. Lupton. Roll call: Yes – 6, No – 0. Motion carried. Donation Bin Regulations Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning Commission, consider a text amendment for the creation of Chapter 729 Regulation of Donation Bins. Seconded by Mr. Pavlick. Upon voice vote motion carried. None opposed. Mr. Cieszkowski explained this amendment was initiated by Councilwoman Pavlick, discussion commenced at the Council level at the August 12th meeting. The discussion primarily focused on the issues associated with items that are proposed to be donated are being left outside of the bin that is probably full, the reason is the bin is either full or the items to be placed in it are too large. Essentially the issue was safety issues associated with that and aesthetic factors associated with the boxes. Other items discussed were the fact that these boxes just seem to show up, unbeknownst to anybody, property owner, business owner or whatnot. As a result these regulations, as proposed by the Law Director and Mr. Cieszkowski, had been in coordination about the revisions to the regulations. He mentioned the second reading of the proposed regulations (it may have been the first) took place at the City Council the night before as part of a reference on the agenda to this. The Law Director is leaning more towards including this in Chapter 729 as part of the Business Regulation Code as opposed to what was shown on the commission’s agenda which was Chapter 1165 which would be a new chapter proposed in the zoning code. He and the Law Director had extensive conversations about it and it appears the Law Director is leaning toward including it in Chapter 729. The Law Director asked the commission be provided


with what was presented to City Council as of the date of transmittal of this packet to the Planning Commission which is why what the commission was given shows Chapter 1165, what was included in the City Council packet for yesterday’s meeting referenced Chapter 729. You will see throughout there are references to zoning enforcement officer; those would all be changed to zoning inspector throughout. The other change that he pointed out was in what the commission had as 1165.06, it references approval by the zoning inspector and would be changed to approval by the Planning and Zoning Director or his or her designee. Primary consideration behind this is essentially a licensing of these boxes to make sure the Planning and Zoning Department or the City in general can keep tabs on where these are located, who owns them, who’s responsible for maintaining them and then requiring that the property owner where the boxes are placed are in agreement and in the know as it relates to the location of the boxes on their property. It is our intent to begin implementing this beginning of next year, no grandfathering of any existing boxes and start afresh at the beginning of the year by contacting each of the box owners and letting them know the new regulations that are in place. You’ll notice donation boxes are permitted inside a building and under registration “donation boxes located completely inside a building shall not require a permit and is not subject to these regulations.” There has also been significant discussion at Council level regarding 501(c)3s and the permits associated with administering these regulations as referenced in 1165.03 “permits shall be granted to recognized 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations that meet the standards”. In terms of fees in 1165.04 “the donation boxes located on the property of the nonprofit applicant the City shall not charge a fee associated with the permit application.” If the applicant is not a nonprofit then a permit application fee of $25 will be charged and that is to assist in the administration of the regulations and enforcement thereof if necessary. He offered to answer any additional questions. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked if the intent was to include the paper recycling/donation boxes. Mr. Cieszkowski understood those would not be included. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith thought since they were out there at the schools and churches as a donation box it was something to consider. She suggested in the definition section they were talking about unattended receptacles so maybe unattended should be added. In .03f [.06b] about where they were and were not permitted should there be mentioned the receptacles should not be put in fire lanes and who would check this. In .06a where they talk about “no person shall place or maintain and no property owner or tenant shall permit or maintain any donation box in any location unless approved by the zoning inspector.” Perhaps “applied for and approved by” and in .07 in the third sentence where they talk about who’s responsible to fix it, “an order to correct any condition shall be issued to the property owner, tenant, or primary contact” she suggested “and/or” to save time chasing one down, if it was all inclusive it might be easier to take care of the issue and the last sentence in the paragraph was not so much about the box as it is about the stuff outside the box so if nobody takes care of the stuff outside the box maybe that’s the stuff that the municipality takes care of and removes. Mr. Cieszkowski asked for Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith’s markups. She affirmed.


Mr. Horsfall suggested on 1165.06b “no more than one outdoor box shall be permitted on any parcel of property or at any single business location.” He pointed out Streetsboro Crossing had four boxes and asked if that would be one property so restricted to one or was that 9 properties and they could have nine boxes. Ms. Vadaj said there were four parcels there and listed the different lots. Mr. Horsfall said so Lowes would not be in compliance because they have three, they would be allowed one and the out lot at Broad and SR 14 has one. He understood Councilwoman Pavlick was concerned with one box that was jammed and overflowing so they set up another one to take the overflow but now they would have to drive to another parcel somewhere to handle the overflow. Was it first come first serve so if one charity plunks their boxes all over the place then everyone else is boxed out. Mr. Pavlick stated the goal was to stop occurrences like the box at Walmart where the furniture was stacked next to it and by Lowes there were three across; one was a book and the other two were clothing and miscellaneous and there was junk between the two boxes. Mr. Horsfall saw this going the way of garage sale regulations. He thought there was a lot to consider, this was a nice regulation which would hopefully work; he just wanted it to do what it was supposed to do. Mr. Pavlick thought the other solution was to ban them completely and that way there were not the eye sores. Mr. Horsfall added the fact that they have to get a permit is going to clean them up. Mr. Pavlick thought it would give data to the city to help deal with the problem. Mr. Horsfall said it would give the city the teeth to get rid of the ones that were not supposed to be there. He did want people to be able to donate though. Jeff Allen, 8221 State Route 14, reported that clothes are getting to be worth a lot of money overseas, 10 – 15 cents per pound, they were baled and sent over so this would be who can get the most boxes in Streetsboro to get all the clothes to make the money. Policing this is simple if you only allow it if you have a store front, we have a Goodwill and a Big Brothers and Sisters at Fabulous Finds, it would be good for economic growth, easy to police because you can knock on the door and they come to a physical location everyday as part of their business. If they fill a store front they can have a box, if not then no. He was not against donations but you can go online if you want to donate to a specific entity and find out where they have a box. They would have it on the site plan so the city would know where the box is supposed to be. Mr. Horsfall added some would pick the donation up.


Motion: Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith I hereby move on this 10th day of September, 2013, the Streetsboro Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a text amendment to City Council for creation of Chapter 729 Regulation of Donation Bins. A report outlining suggested revisions/additional items for consideration is hereto attached to this recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Lupton. Roll call: Yes – 6, No – 0. Motion carried. Reports, Communications and Correspondence Master Plan Review Commission Mr. Pavlick said the meetings were complete and the document was now in Mr. Cieszkowski’s and the Regional Planning Director’s hands. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed the Master Plan Review Commission had made a recommendation at their last meeting; the revised draft that incorporates what was discussed by the MPRC at their last meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and will appear on the agenda for the October meeting. At this point Mr. Peetz had made the lion’s share of the revisions and is waiting on information from Mr. Cieszkowski which included Streetsboro specific pictures. He will be utilizing existing pictures before he goes out to take new. Mr. Pavlick asked when the commission would have the document. Mr. Cieszkowski said they would be given the document at the October meeting. He was hesitant to provide it earlier because the clock for the Planning Commission consideration starts once the commission has formally received it and he didn’t want to send it outside a meeting. The Planning Commission had a four month time frame for consideration which will begin at the October Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Horsfall clarified the commission would have through January to consider it. He asked about the design standards for the Woodmont Development at Streetsboro Commons and whether Mr. Cieszkowski, Mr. Vazzana or Mr. Maistros had met with the developer to clarify what kind of restrictiveness could be enforced. Mr. Cieszkowski said there was a memo from Mr. Vazzana as it relates specifically to that question, they had not had a follow up conversation with individuals at Woodmont, the conversations that he and Mr. Vazzana had to date were focused on the fact they would have a conversation once an application for future development was submitted. He thought that would be the next time the opportunity would present itself and they would utilize it as the opportunity to coordinate with Woodmont about it. Mr. Vazzana and he would have additional conversations about the standards and what made sense. Mr. Horsfall pointed out there had been a number of phased developments come through the city over the last 10 to 15 years and unfortunately what seems to happen is all of the stuff that is promised is left for the end and it never gets done. He asked they somehow


incorporate the phases in which the amenities would be completed so it would be done before the developer left town. He asked about Loan Max. Mr. Cieszkowski said it was brought up at the last meeting and following the meeting the plans had been pulled but he had not had a chance to look at them or coordinate with the applicant regarding the deficiencies associated with the plans. He planned to follow up with the applicant once he had a grasp of what was built versus the approved plans. Mr. Pavlick pointed out what the commission was talking about was not on the plans but part of the motion for approval. Mr. Horsfall asked about El Campesino. Mr. Cieszkowski understood that following the meeting last month the Mayor and Commissioner Pavlick took a drive to El Campesino to look at the landscaping along the rear property line. The resident at the meeting had concerns about the noise for the proposed outdoor seating area. He also visited the site a day or two after the meeting and pulled the aerial which showed from the fence at the rear property line to the closest residential building was approximately 177 feet and looking at the landscaping that was there in the treed area between the rear property line at El Campesino and adjacent residential properties he didn’t feel it was necessary to require the owners of El Campesino to supplement the landscaping at the rear property line. Mr. Horsfall asked about the APA seminar in September. Mr. Cieszkowski said there was no money for the commission members because it was a three day State Conference in Cleveland with a cost of $175 each. He presented a proposed modification to a previously approved sign for Sears Appliance. He had referenced previously the Planning Commissions ability to provide the Planning Director the ability to administratively approve a previously approved sign and per 1159.03(e) asked them to consider giving him the ability to administratively approve the change without having to come back in a month. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked what was changed. Mr. Cieszkowski said it was approved for Sears Appliance Showroom and now it was Sears Appliance and Mattress. Mr. Horsfall asked if that was their name or an advertisement. Mr. Cieszkowski said it appears it was their name. Mr. Vazzana said that was what they were calling themselves. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith said that was not what was on the paperwork.


Mr. Vazzana said it was not their actual business name; they did not go with the formal business name. He pointed out the commission had taken the words on the packages from the Oasis business sign. There was discussion on what had and had not been allowed in the past on different signs. Mr. Vazzana asked if we are the ones to say no that’s not your business name. Mr. Horsfall thought they should have a business name and asked if they had one. M. Vazzana said they were showing that this was their business name there. Mr. Horsfall asked what it said on the application. Mr. Cieszkowski answered he did not have an application as yet he was just asking permission to administratively review and approve it. Mrs. Vadaj clarified the application came from a sign company so the application name was the sign company for Sears Appliance Showroom plus there were so many Sears stores out there, if they didn’t put what they have in the store it could be a hardware store, etc. which could be why they were going with the new name. Mr. Pavlick thought they should be consistent. Mr. Horsfall asked if they had to know right away or could they do it in a month. Mr. Cieszkowski said they were asking for administrative approval so as not to have to wait. Mrs. Vadaj said the signs were going up at the end of September. Mr. Horsfall asked the commission if they wanted to give Mr. Cieszkowski the authority assuming the name of the business was Sears Appliance and Mattress. Mr. Winkler agreed there were all different kinds of Sears and didn’t think it was necessarily advertising, it just defined who they were. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith agreed with Mr. Pavlick that they had to be consistent. Motion: Mr. Winkler To empower Mr. Cieszkowski to administratively approve an amendment to the previously approved Sears sign. Seconded by Mr. Pavlick. Roll call: Yes – 2, No – 4 (Pavlick, Batten, Sarrocco-Smith and Lupton). Motion denied. Mr. Horsfall asked if they would have to come before the commission for a new wall sign. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed.


Citizens’ Comments Paul Yupa 8749 Seasons Road asked if, when the commission delegates their authority to the Planning Director to handle something administratively, was there a remedy if the director does something in conflict to the code. Mr. Vazzana said there are only certain things that the commission can delegate to the director and if he did something wrong, he did something wrong and the commission could go to the Mayor to have it handled. Mr. Yupa asked if there was some kind of remedy or a time period for someone to see the mistake and remedy it. Mr. Vazzana said one of the remedies was what Mr. Yupa does, you keep an eye on the City and you come here and talk with the commission. The same thing could happen with something the commission did that was not following the law in the city; you could show up here and alert the Mayor, myself or the Planning Director. So the remedy in government was alerting the appropriate authority to the issue. Mr. Yupa understood the commission’s concern and thought it would be a good thing to have the parking area and that the city was using what resources they could to get that done and he understood why the commission would want to see an overview of what to expect there but they were not talking about a thirty acre lake where the construction of a fishing dock or deck would be in such a position to be inaccessible or there would be no trail to it so they would want to see the overview but he thought the major concern, since it was just a pond that was pretty much accessible all the way around, would be that when it was built it would not in any way interfere or compromise the earthen dam that was there. Mayor Broska understood the commission wanting to do things the right way but the zoning laws were in place to make sure the decks were so many feet from a property line and like Mr. Pavlick said when building a deck on a house there had to be a plan because it would affect the neighbors. But this is a deck that was out in the middle of the woods, the commission wanted them to provide dimensions or the distance back there. He asked if the commission was going to take a wheel out there to make sure it’s 130 feet 6 inches from the trail. Did they want a site plan of this thing where we go back down the driveway and over the hill and have it so many feet from this corner of the pond and so many feet from this corner of the pond, is that what you’re asking. Mr. Batten said they were asking the city to do exactly what a citizen had to do; it could be hand drawn and give the commission some kind of diagram. The city expects the citizens to come with that and it cost a lot of money to come here to get a variance or anything like that and provide all of these items, if the city wanted to put a deck on a property we own all we are asking is some dimensions and a picture of where it is. He pointed out the commission had this conversation before Mayor Broska was mayor and the city was setting a bad example and thought Mr. Cieszkowski already knew what paperwork was needed for the approval so the commission didn’t have problems with the public.


Mayor Broska didn’t think the commission would have had a problem with this if a non-resident had not come to complain. Mr. Batten said the commission had this problem with other city projects and had told administration to provide the commission with the same things others were required to have. The commission just wanted to be fair and transparent to the public so the city does the same thing the commission asked the residents to do. Mayor Broska thought if they were building a bathroom or something that was a true structure then the city would get stamped plans and everything they needed but this is simply a wooden deck on a one acre pond. Mr. Batten understood and replied the commission was not asking for a million dollar plan just a print out with dimensions so the commission can say they saw the location. It was not fair to the citizens and the city had the employees who could do it. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith thought they could have something that showed the deck, for example, was 50 feet from the earthen dam. Mr. Horsfall didn’t know there was an earthen dam there. Mr. Yupa pointed out the major consideration for location was that the deck did not interfere with the dam. He didn’t know if the distance from the road to the deck even matters because there was a trail that went all the way around the pond. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith wanted the parking lot shown so they would know where to park the cars. Mr. Pavlick stated without the drawing the commission didn’t know if it mattered. He just wanted to be consistent for everybody. Mr. Yupa asked if there were people who put decks or docks on their lakes. Mrs. Vadaj affirmed a zoning certificate and building permit were needed and residents turned each other in if one wasn’t gotten. Mr. Cieszkowski asked what documentation was needed to meet the commission’s requirements; he heard it was missing dimensions to property lines, location of proposed parking lot although as he understood it that might change. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith said they could put where people were parking now to get to the pond. Mr. Cieszkowski had worked with Mr. Mytinger for the dog park and the city had paid GPD to provide a site plan with the location of parking and the dog park.


Mr. Horsfall clarified there was already a drawing for it; if it had been presented they would have been okay. Mr. Cieszkowski said the city would have had to pay GPD again to zoom out on the drawing and show the pond. Mr. Horsfall said when he wanted to put up his deck he had his kids strung out across a swamp with a 100 foot tape measure but he got the dimensions exactly as required so if an old guy in a neighborhood could do it with a bunch of kids he was sure the city professionals should have no problem getting the distance to where the deck was. Mr. Cieszkowski understood where the commission was coming from and wanted to know if the commission wanted elevations or… Mr. Horsfall said they wanted a flat scale picture of here’s the parking lot, in relationship to the dog park, in relationship to the pond and the dock. Not scaled to the hundredth but roughly where things are. Mayor Broska explained what had happened so far with the parking lot; GPD said there was too much of a slope then Zip City offered the city fill so the city got a fill permit and the dirt was taken down there. The city could now put in a nice parking lot but this was all part of the process and they were doing it within the confines of the budget we have. All of the work there had been done by city personnel. The drawings presented showed where the lake was and he wanted to know what difference it made to have dimensions on it. It was more than adequate distance from any property line and falls within all the zoning requirements and there was an area on the pond they knew it would fit. Eventually because the area was a natural bowl they planned to show movies in the park overlooking the park by running electricity down there. He just thought the dimensions would be meaningless to know whether it was 311 feet or 313 feet back. Mr. Cieszkowski commented as someone who wrangles with applicants on a daily basis to get them to provide the information that we require what it came down to with this was we’ve got this proposed deck, the drawing shows the location of the deck relative to the dog park, so what is the requirement in the code that I need to make sure it conforms to as it relates to this deck relative to the pond. There is none. There isn’t a requirement that says a fishing pond deck has to be x number of feet from the property line. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith asked then why did it come before us. Mr. Cieszkowski answered there is a Charter provision that says if there is a structure that is placed on public property then it has to go before the commission. Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith clarified so it has been determined that this is a structure. Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed it is but asked what the dimensional or locational requirements of that deck were.


Mrs. Sarrocco-Smith pointed out this doesn’t say how to get in and out, this doesn’t say where you park the car. She pointed out they had asked for this before on three separate occasions. She had to do this for her job with a tape measure and whatnot. It did not take that much effort. Mrs. Vadaj asked to make a suggestion and was allowed. She pointed out what was presented on the GIS drawings would be acceptable if the pathways were drawn in. For the dog park the commission asked for the location of the chain across the road to stop cars and there were a couple of small items that were requested for the dog park but were still not on this drawing. She said 400 foot from the side line was not important but it was important to see how they were traveling to get to the pond or if there was a path that goes around the pond. She knew there was a drawing showing the pathways. Mr. Horsfall pointed out the commission had already acted on this so the decision was not going to change. He thought they were past citizens comments and thought these were probably commission member comments so he moved to announcements. Announcements: The next Planning Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, October 8, 2013, at 7PM Streetsboro Municipal Building. Adjournment There being no further business before this Commission a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Pavlick and seconded by Mr. Lupton and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. Attest: _______________________ _______________________ Stacey Vadaj, Zoning Inspector Tom Horsfall, Chairperson

streetsboro planning and zoning commission … · 2019. 10. 1. · mr. harrison presented a 29.2 sq...

Documents