CATAWBA ISLAND TOWNSHIP
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUAR 25, 2023
Attendees
Candice Irlbacher Mike Irlbacher
Bob Martin Philip Enderle
Laura Enderle Ed Schafer
Lesta Schafer Don Habegger
Dominic Insana James Dick
Theresa Dick Molly O’Neal
Doug Focht Connie Focht
Jim Radloff Michael Prosser
John Granzier Jack Madison
John Mahoney
Members of the Commission in attendance were Chairperson Jordan Davenport, Paul Shaw, Dr. Gregory Hart, Kevin Howe, Matt Gottron and Alternates Bill Barnes and David Wonnell. Also in attendance were Todd Bickley, Zoning Inspector and Matt Montowski, Trustee.
Chairperson Davenport called the meeting of the Catawba Island Township Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. For the record, he identified the date as January 25, 2023. The Zoning Commission procedure was reviewed by Chairperson Davenport.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Chairperson Davenport reviewed the agenda.
Agenda Item 1 – Election of Officers – 2023
Paul Shaw made a motion to elect Jordan Davenport as 2023 Chairman. The motion was seconded by Dr. Gregory Hart. Motion passed.
Dr. Gregory Hart made a motion to elect Paul Shaw as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Kevin Howe. Motion passed.
Paul Shaw made a motion to elect Todd Bickley as Secretary. The motion was seconded Kevin Howe. Motion passed.
Agenda Item 2 – PUD Application
Case #157916 JTG Hospitality, LLC – Marsh’s Crossing PUD
Chairman Davenport questioned if the Case #157916 is the correct assigned number. Mr. Bickley indicated that the case number was correct.
Dr. Gregory Hart indicated that he had a conflict of interest and he was replaced by Alternate Bill Barnes.
Chairperson Davenport recognized Michael Prosser and John Granziles. Mr. Prosser commented that he was the project designer and John Granziles was the property owner. Mr. Prosser noted that the property was recently rezoned to the “R-E” District and the proposal is a mix of single family house lots and multi-family residential condominiums. Mr. Prosser felt that the project was self-explanatory and that the first phase will be the single family house lots. The reason for the PUD was the density consideration and that the project will stand on its own. There will be thirteen (13) lots with enhancement of the marsh area, similar to Marsh’s Edge. The development will include a clubhouse and pool area. The multi-family will be two and three bedroom units. The owner is under contract with engineers and landscape engineers. Mr. Prosser noted that he was involved with the development of Marsh’s Edge. There will be grading and trees will be reviewed to determine which ones will remain. The entrance off of NE Catawba Road may be similar to Marsh’s Edge. Mr. Prosser commented that the project will be a showplace and he noted that the commercial development is not part of the PUD. The commercial shown on the plans is a general idea.
Mr. Granziles noted that when completed, Catawba Island will be proud of the development.
Mr. Prosser commented that his past work included Hidden Harbor and Falling Waters and that Marsh’s Edge development was considered when doing this project.
Chairman Davenport questioned that since architects are working on the project, will there be any changes. Mr. Prosser commented that there will be no changes on the PUD; however, design work continues on the entrance to the development and that the development entrance will be showcased near the existing trees. The plan shows the entrance shared with the restaurant. Mr. Prosser noted that ODOT only wants one (1) entrance into the development.
Kevin Howe reviewed correspondence from Philip Enderle and Chairman Davenport reviewed correspondence from Chris McIntire concerning an existing wetland easement.
Chairman Davenport reviewed the items a PUD concept is to achieve as outlined in the “R-E” District of the Catawba Island Township Zoning Resolution.
Chairman Davenport began the review of Marsh’s Crossing PUD.
2. Type of Uses Permitted – It was determined that the uses permitted, single family and multi-family are permitted in a PUD. Commercial are uses are not proposed and that a trail is included in the plans. Mr. Prosser indicated that the PUD will not have accessory buildings.
3. Development Standards – Mr. Prosser noted that the development contains 17.160 acres, which exceeds the five (5) acre minimum requirement. Chairman Davenport noted that the PUD is an integral tract of land. Mr. Prosser commented that with the platting of Orchardside Drive and Marsh’s Crossing Drive, the PUD will meet the minimum lot width requirement of 200 feet. Chairman Davenport noted that the proposed single family lots meet the minimum requirements of sixty feet (60’) of lot width and 7,000 square feet of lot area. Mr. Prosser noted that the lots are approximately 60’ x 200’.
4. Density – Chairman Davenport noted that based on the land use plan, the density requirement may exceed four (4) units to the acre. Mr. Prosser indicated that the amount of land at or above 574 feet above sea level is 13.65 acres. With forty-one (41) homes proposed, the density is at three (3) homes per acre. The board noted a correction on the drawing: 14 duplexes versus 13.
Mr. Prosser stated that the first phase will be the platting of the thirteen (13) lot subdivision. The multi-family units will then follow once the lots are sold.
Chairman Davenport noted that aggregating is not an issue.
5. Common Open Space – Chairman Davenport noted that at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross area shall be set aside for open space and one-third (1/3) of that must be dry land. Mr. Prosser noted that the open space includes the trails/walkways which are accessed at three (3) different locations. A bridge is proposed at the location between lots 7 and 8. Mr. Prosser commented that the ponds would be available for recreational use. Mr. Prosser indicated that open space totals 9.45 acres with 4.88 acres of water to be removed, resulting in 4.57 acres of dry land. The total of dry land open space is 26.6% of the PUD. Kevin Howe noted that the open space includes the clubhouse and pool. Mr. Prosser indicated that was correct and the open space area within the multi-family area was not included in the totals.
Chairman Davenport reviewed the open space maintenance requirements. Mr. Prosser indicated that a Master Association will be in charge of the open space and right-of-ways and the multi-family condominium will have a separate association, which will be part of the Master Association. The associations will be setup similar to Catawba Bay. Mr. Prosser noted that the association would hire a local management company to handle the maintenance requirements.
Mr. Howe noted that the maintenance will be handled by the association, which is a private development with private roads.
Chairman Davenport indicated that a proposed set of deed restrictions or private covenants will need to filed with the zoning commission before action can be taken. Mr. Bickley commented that submission is needed before final development approval.
6. Building Height – Chairman Davenport commented that the duplexes building height is 31’ 4” and Mr. Prosser noted that the single family homes will be less than thirty-five feet (35’) and meet the “R-3” zoning requirements. Mr. Bickley commented that the PUD regulations do not require single family house lots to meet the “R-3” district requirements. The regulations do require the use, height, floor area, number of each type of dwelling units, and the outline and location of all buildings and structures; which includes the single family dwellings. Mr. Bickley noted that minor modifications can be made, if for example, the square footage changes.
7. Building Yards – Mr. Prosser noted that the minimum setbacks for the single family house lots will be thirty-five feet (35’) for the front yard, ten feet (10’) for the side yards and twenty-five feet (25’) for the rear yards. Chairman Davenport questioned whether the multi-family building separation is at least twenty feet (20’). Mr. Prosser indicated that the separation is at least twenty feet (20’) for the multi-family buildings.
8. Dwelling Size and Accessory Structure Standards – Chairman Davenport noted that additional information is required for the single family homes and that the development will not have accessory structures.
9. Off-Street Parking – Chairman Davenport commented that two (2) parking spaces are required per dwelling unit. Mr. Prosser noted that the single family house lots have sufficient room for two (2) parking spaces and that two (2) spaces per unit are provided for the multi-family dwellings. The Board commented that six (6) additional spaces are required for the multi-family dwellings. Upon review, Mr. Prosser agreed and will provide six (6) additional spaces.
10. Commercial Uses – Chairman Davenport noted that commercial uses are not proposed for the PUD.
11. Traffic Circulation – Chairman Davenport commented that the internal traffic circulation is appropriate. Chairman Davenport did indicate that landscaping should not interfere with site line distances at the road intersections. Mr. Barnes questioned the size of the turnarounds. Mr. Prosser indicated that the turnarounds will meet the county subdivision requirements.
12. Non-Illuminated Signs – Mr. Prosser noted that the issue between the commercial building and the PUD entrance is still being worked on. A design is being considered for an interior sign, with no PUD signage along NE Catawba Road.
13. Fences – There will be no fences, other than around the swimming pool.
Chairman Davenport reviewed the data required with the submission of a PUD application.
1. A legal description was filed with the application.
2. The density, the type of dwelling unit and the open space is properly addressed.
3. The location of open space is identified; however, the covenants are to be submitted addressing maintenance.
4. The information for the duplexes have been submitted but similar information was not submitted for the single family homes.
5. The open space requirements have been met.
6. Conceptual plans for drainage, landscaping and preservation of vistas and natural features were submitted with the application. The Board reviewed the storm water plan. Mr. Prosser commented that the commercial property will drain into the upper pond, which will be metered. The development will drain into the lower pond, which will also be metered. The big pond will be used for retainage. Mr. Prosser noted that the County will require a drainage plan with the submission of the subdivision.
7. The application includes the submission of conceptual water and sanitary sewer plans. The Board determined that approval from the fire chief is necessary for hydrant locations.
8. The proposed schedule is for the thirteen (13) lots to be platted and once sold, the second phase, duplex development, would follow. Mr. Bickley noted that if the PUD is approved, the applicant will have thirty (30) days to elect to accept the PUD approval and two (2) years to begin construction.
9. Mr. Prosser noted that the street widths will meet the County Subdivision Regulations and that the right-of-way width of the condominium road will be twenty feet (20’). Chairman Davenport questioned if landscaping will be within the center of the turnaround. Mr. Prosser indicated that the turnaround centers will be landscaped. Mr. Prosser also noted that the roads will be privately dedicated. If publicly dedicated as a township road, no tree or other landscaping would be allowed within the right-of-way.
10. The walkways are identified; however, a sketch of the pool fence will need to be submitted. Mr. Granziles stated that the fence will be a six (6) foot, wrought iron fence with a gate.
11. Chairman Davenport noted that covenants will need to be submitted for the maintenance of open space.
12. Chairman Davenport questioned the landscaping plan for the Phase II area. Mr. Prosser commented that the area is thick brush and that it will remain the same as Phase I is developed.
13. No other information to be submitted.
Chairman Davenport reviewed the items that need to be addressed for the Zoning Commission prior to commission action:
• Covenants/deeds.
• Additional information for the single family homes.
• Clarification on the number of parking spaces.
• Signage.
• Street lighting.
• Sketch of pool fence.
Chairman Davenport recognized Dominic Insana. Mr. Insana noted that he is directly affected by the proposed development and noted that the condominium road goes up to his property line and there would be no room for landscaping. Mr. Prosser commented that the road can be moved off the property line so that a mound with landscaping can be installed along Mr. Insana’s property line. Mr. Insana expressed concern with people going through his property to get to the commercial property and as a result, requested a fence be installed. Mr. Prosser indicated that the developer could install a fence. Mr. Insana also was concerned with the height of the duplexes. He noted that his house is a one-story ranch and that the duplexes will be over thirty-one feet (31’) in height with three floors. Mr. Insana commented that this type of building does not fit the area. Mr. Insana hoped that the developer and commission take this into consideration and that he was concerned with the property values.
Dr. Gregory Hart commented on the drainage plan and that the drainage will ultimately drain into the marsh. Mr. Prosser commented that the water will be detained in the ponds, which is based on a 25-year plan.
Chairman Davenport recognized John Mahoney, who lives across the street from the development. Mr. Mahoney noted that the traffic comes out in one (1) spot, coming out in his front yard. He noted that bushes/shrubs could provide protection from the restaurant, but the entrance/exit for the development and restaurant is across from his front yard. He questioned if a second entrance/exit could be added in the area of the duplexes. Mr. Prosser indicated that the State wants to limit the number of accesses to NE Catawba Road.
Chairman Davenport recognized Jim Dick. Mr. Dick indicated that he represented the homeowner’s association and he wanted to make sure the property owners had the opportunity to have their voices heard.
Chairman Davenport noted the time and suggested the commission continue the meeting and have the applicant provide the requested information prior to the next meeting. The commission agreed to continue the review of Marsh’s Crossing PUD at 7:00 p.m., February 8th with the applicant to submit the requested information a week before the meeting so that the information can be made available to the commission and the general public.
Adjournment
Chairman Davenport adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Bickley
Secretary