June 22, 2010 Meeting City of Huber Heights

Download 50.28 Kb.
Date conversion14.06.2018
Size50.28 Kb.

Planning Commission

June 22, 2010 Meeting

City of Huber Heights

I. Chair Jeff Hallett called the meeting to order at approximately 7:02 p.m.
II. Present at the meeting: Ms. LaGrone, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Walton, and Mr. Hallett.
Members Absent: Mr. Layton. (His absence was excused.)
Staff present at the meeting: Scott Falkowski, Engineer, and Margie Muhl, Planning Administrative Secretary.
III. Opening Remarks by the Chairman and Commissioners

IV. Citizens Comments

V. Swearing of Witnesses
Mr. Hallett explained the proceedings of tonight’s meeting and administered the sworn oath to all persons wishing to speak or give testimony regarding items on the agenda. All persons present responded in the affirmative.

VI. Pending Business

VII. New Business

  1. MAJOR CHANGE – Applicant, SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, is requesting approval of a Major Change to construct a new two-story building addition to function as an Emergency Center at property located at 8701 Old Troy Pike (Huber Health Center) (ZC 22-E).

Scott Falkowski stated this major change would allow for the expansion of the existing medical facility, along with related site enhancements. Previously, the applicant was approved for a two-story expansion located in the center of the site. The next phase was to encompass the construction of a one-story building located at the northern end of the building. The existing building consisting of 19,000 sq. ft. was to be demolished. This was done, but now the applicant is seeking approval for a two-story building which would include an emergency center. Emergency care is not presently offered at this facility.

Mr. Falkowski further stated the proposed two-story building would consist of approximately 29,720 sq. ft. which would be connected to the Phase One structure. During this construction, additional improvements would be made to the site, including the parking lot, landscaping, and lighting. The proposal calls for the exterior of the building to consist of similar materials used in the Phase One construction. The height of 33’ 5.5” for the proposed building is lower than the existing two-story building that is adjacent.
In order to construct the new building, additional parking would be required, and Mr. Falkowski proceeded to show on the site plan where such parking would be located along Old Troy Pike, and to the north of the site. Parking would also be added behind the building which would be mainly for employees. There are two access points to the site. One is located off Old Troy Pike, and the other is off Charlesgate Road.
A water line currently loops around the building, and an additional fire hydrant would be added at the rear of the building. He proceeded to show its location on the site plan. Service for water would be connected inside the building. Sanitary service will be connected at the rear over to an existing sanitary sewer line on site. Grading issues were mentioned, and it was explained that a retaining wall would be added.
The applicant would be adding 49 parking spaces to the site bringing the total number of parking spaces up to 330. This represents approximately four spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. which is reasonable for such a facility. Drainage has been addressed with two detention basins which are located at both the northern and southern ends of the site that are capable of handling the expansion.

The applicant is proposing some island treatments. He proceeded to show existing islands on the site plan, and explained that some modifications were to be made. Staff is recommending that some island treatment be installed in the expansion area at the front of the facility in accordance with the City’s landscape code. Per the previous approval, the existing sign located at Charlesgate Road and Old Troy Pike was to have landscaping installed, but that had not been done. Therefore, staff is recommending such landscaping be included.

The applicant is not proposing any signage with this application. A minor change would be submitted at a later date. The landscaping around the ground sign could be postponed until such time when modifications were made to that sign.
Mr. Falkowski proceeded to show on the site plan the location of a concrete pad which he believed had previously housed a dumpster. There is a temporary construction dumpster at the site, and he proceeded to show its location on the drawing. At the southern end of the site, there is also a wooden dumpster enclosure that contains two dumpsters. There is currently an additional dumpster sitting outside of that enclosure. Staff recommends that a new dumpster enclosure be placed at the northern end of the site in accordance with Code requirements, and that all dumpsters be placed inside the enclosures.
The applicant is proposing to add additional lighting at the northern end of the site that would match what had previously been approved in the Phase One construction. The lighting levels meet Code requirements.
Mr. Hallett asked if the landscaping around the ground sign had been a condition of approval in conjunction with a specific phase of development. Mr. Falkowski stated that the conditions did not mention a specific phase of development. Mr. Hallett asked for some further clarification regarding the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Falkowski proceeded to explain.
Mr. Rodriguez asked about the minor modifications that were mentioned. Mr. Falkowski explained the process followed by the Engineering Department in regard to reviewing plans.

Domenico Stolfo stated that he is with Synergy Development, and is also the agent for Kettering Hospital who owns the property. He stated they agree with staff’s proposals, and a dumpster enclosure would be constructed at the northern part of the site. Issues involving the dumpster enclosure at the southern end would also be addressed. He stated that this project began approximately two years ago. He proceeded to provide a brief history of the improvements that had been made to the site.

Mr. Stolfo continued stating that the third phase of the project consists of the two-story building being proposed. Originally, a one-story had been planned, but after evaluating the needs of the community, it was decided that a larger building would be constructed, along with the creation of the Emergency Center. He explained that the center would be a step above Urgent Care, and would allow for trauma cases to be brought there for evaluation. The Center would always have two ambulances available that would be fully staffed for individuals needing to be transported to a hospital. The building would consist of 12 emergency rooms. He added this Center would cut down on runs the EMTs made to the hospitals.
Mr. Stolfo stated they have proven to be a good steward of the community, and want to continue as such.
Ms. LaGrone asked to which hospitals individuals would be transported. Mr. Stolfo stated that obviously they would transport individuals to the closest place available depending on the situation, but reminded everyone they were a Kettering affiliate.
Mr. Hallett asked for further clarification regarding the trees along Charlesgate Road. Mr. Falkowski explained that part of the previous approval for this site was that street trees be placed along Old Troy Pike and Charlesgate Road. In reviewing the site, staff feels that trees should not be planted along Old Troy Pike due to the location of utilities in that area. Staff does recommend the planting of trees along Charlesgate Road. In previous discussions, the issue of the widening of Old Troy Pike was raised. This is in the design phase and the City has procured State funding. The work would be done in 2012. Mr. Hallett clarified that the project would add a second lane which exists from Shull Road that would continue north to Gibson Road.

Mr. Falkowski proceeded to read a letter received objecting to the project:

“From: Kathy Justice – There is no reason for an ER to be built at Huber Health Center. There is not a hospital there and patients will still have to be transported. This is a waste of money and time and people will lose their jobs!”
Luis Machuca of 6625 Tavenshire Drive stated he has various concerns regarding the conversion from Urgent Care to an Emergency Center. He continued stating that no beds would be available in the facility, and therefore, regardless of how patients enter the Center, they might still have to be transported to a hospital. He stated that neighbors would hear the sirens all hours of the night. He added that presently the Urgent Care facility treated many indigent patients that are handled by the Federal Government. Costs would be higher in an Emergency Room than in an Urgent Care Facility. There would be a loss of funding to Kettering in the process. Also, people who go to this facility pay a low co-pay. Emergency Room charges will be high. He proceeded to state the type of patients who go to the facility. He stated they have been told that once the Emergency Center is completed, the Urgent Care facility will be shut down.
Mr. Machuca stated he did not see any advantages to having the Emergency Room facility, other than the fact that Kettering might feel they would make more money. He stated that Kettering is presently building a hospital on Fairfield Road. He believed the hospital in Greene County would eventually be shut down. This could reduce the number of patients at the proposed facility, and therefore, the facility could be shut down in the future. He is not sure the construction of this facility is a wise decision. He feels the Urgent Care facility should be retained in addition to the Emergency Center.

Kathy Bruce of 8377 Chinaberry Drive (the address was on the sign in sheet, but she would not state her address at the meeting) stated they were promised by Mr. Huber that a public park would be located at the site where Meijer presently exists. She continued stating that the Emergency Center would be open 24/7 and feels the surrounding neighbors would be affected by noise. She asked what was the City’s obligation in regard to notifying homeowners about the proposed construction of the Emergency Room.

Mr. Falkowski explained that all property owners within 200’ of the proposed site would be notified. Ms. Bruce asked for clarification and whether individual homeowners received notices outside of the article that had been published in the newspaper. Mr. Falkowski again explained the requirements. Ms. Bruce asked if a siren could be heard beyond the 200 feet. Mr. Hallett stated that Mr. Falkowski explained the notification requirements. Ms. Bruce reiterated about noise from the sirens. Mr. Hallett explained that notification to property owners was in connection with property law, and the other issue pertained to how far sound travels which has nothing to do with this property. Ms. Bruce kept reiterating about the noise, and how noise from an airport affects properties. She asked what is her recourse.
Ms. LaGrone stated that she owned property in various areas of this City, and stated that she lives close to SR 202 and hears sirens constantly, especially from Spring Creek. Ms. Bruce asked if Ms. LaGrone lived next to an Emergency Center or ever worked in such a center. Ms. LaGrone asked the developer what percentage of emergency room visits require admittance to a hospital that would involve a transport. She also asked what percentage of transports required full use of lights and sirens. She then asked whether Urgent Care would still be provided at this site.
Ms. Bruce stated that it was up to the squad whether sirens were used or not in a transport.
Mr. Stolfo stated that urgent care would be integrated into the Emergency Center. Urgent Care would still exist. The reimbursement would be a discussion between the hospital and insurance companies. The Emergency Center would be much larger than the existing Urgent Care facility.

Ms. LaGrone asked if in the eyes of the Health Center there was a difference between Emergency Room Care and Urgent Care. Mr. Stolfo stated there was a difference, but he was not a medical person to offer a detailed explanation.

Mr. Hallett proceeded to explain the procedure followed for these meetings. He advised that only one person should speak at a time at the podium. There was to be no cross conversation.
Mr. Stolfo continued stating that there was no reason to have an urgent care and emergency center located next door to each other. Circumstances would dictate what needed to be done for a patient.
Ms. Bruce asked if there was a medical person available at this meeting to explain the difference between urgent care and emergency room services. She also asked about cost for the services. She questioned whether everyone understands the type of facility being proposed. She also raised the issue of traffic. She feels there were many accidents at Old Troy Pike in front of the Urgent Care Center. She asked if any traffic studies were being done. She asked if a traffic light would be necessary at that intersection. She is concerned about the neighboring residents. She asked how this facility will benefit homeowners, and how will it affect their quality of life.
Mr. Hallett stated that in this case a traffic study was not required. The Health Center has been in operation for a long time. This plan was approved two years ago by the Planning Commission, and it was advertised and a hearing held. Tonight’s hearing is not about the difference between Urgent Care and Emergency Care or how much it costs. This hearing is about the land use and the plan being presented by the developer.

Ms. Bruce reiterated that she was concerned about homeowners in the area, and asked about the City’s responsibility regarding notification to the homeowners. Mr. Hallett explained that the issue of notification was explained. Ms. Bruce asked how the homeowners were notified. Mr. Hallett stated that a legal ad was placed in the newspaper. Mr. Falkowski added that a notification was mailed to the appropriate homeowners located within 200’ of the proposed site. Ms. Bruce again brought up the issue of sirens being heard beyond the 200’. Mr. Hallett stated that Ms. Bruce was here because she had received some type of notification. He added this was an opportunity for everyone to comment on this matter. She stated that promises were made and not kept, and therefore, she needs to know what the elected officials are doing for her. Mr. Hallett asked for more specific information, and asked if Ms. Bruce had any questions specific to the issue being heard. Ms. Bruce proceeded to review the notice requirements, and again asked about studies being conducted regarding traffic and noise.

Ms. Bruce asked about emergency signs being installed along the highways. She also asked if helicopters were going to come and go from the site.
Mr. Hallett stated that tonight they were discussing the plan proposed, and none of the drawings show a helicopter pad at the site. Ms. Bruce stated that a two-story building could have a helicopter pad. She asked if helicopters could land in adjacent areas to the site. Mr. Hallett reiterated that no helicopter pads were shown on the plans.
Mr. Falkowski stated that SR 202 will be widened in 2012, and turn lanes will be constructed.
Ms. Bruce asked if this is going to be good for Huber Heights. Mr. Falkowski stated that widening the road would be good for the area. Ms. Bruce asked if the building was also going to be a good thing.
Al Tewksbury of 7359 Calmcrest Court stated that he was not aware of this issue being discussed two years ago, but there appears to be confusion as to what the neighborhood would be getting. He asked if Urgent Care was going to be provided at Emergency Room costs, along with there being an Emergency Room. He asked if there would be separate entrances. Economically, he did not feel the facility could support both types of services. He felt the costs would probably be increased. He asked for someone to check on the cost. He believed the percentage of individuals needing the higher cost service would be small.

Mr. Machuca asked if the Urgent Care facility was going away, and the area would house additional doctors’ offices. Mr. Stolfo explained the Urgent Care and Emergency Room would be available in the same area. The area vacated by the Urgent Care in the existing building would be available for additional doctors’ offices. This need had been identified, along with having such services on the second floor. The existing area is slated for a time share plan.

Mr. Tewksbury stated that a decision evidently was made two years ago regarding the Emergency Room. He asked if Urgent Care services were included in that approval. Mr. Hallett stated that when this was originally proposed, it was understood that services would be shuffled. Mr. Tewksbury asked if there had been any discussion regarding the Urgent Care facility remaining once the Emergency Room came into effect. It was his understanding that Mr. Huber wanted an Urgent Care facility at this site when he donated the land. Mr. Hallett stated he did not recall all of the discussion held more than two years ago. He added that the only difference between the two applications was what the change was from the one-story building to what was presently being proposed. He stated that the applicant had explained this in his opening remarks. There appeared to be a demand in the area for such services. He proceeded to explain what the applicant was proposing with their present application. He added that he was not a medical professional, but it appeared to him this was an overall trend for hospitals to diversify into the community. He referred to the Good Samaritan Medical Center located in the City. Mr. Tewksbury stated that it did not appear that the public could impart too much influence on the issue of retaining the Urgent Care facility. Mr. Hallett stated that from the Planning Commission’s perspective, the answer would be no, but the applicant has stated that the services would be one and the same at the facility. He did not know how the billing would be done.
Mr. Hallett proceeded to explain the job of the Planning Commission in connection with this application. He also explained that since this was a major change, the matter would be forwarded to City Council for their review and approval, along with this Commission’s recommendation.
Mr. Falkowski stated that this matter would probably be heard by the City Council in about one month.

Mr. Hallett reminded everyone that they could call City Hall and ask about issues being placed on Council’s agenda, and the date they are going to be heard.

Ms. Bruce stated she was not concerned about the difference in costs between Urgent Care and an Emergency Center. She was concerned about semi’s being parked in residential areas. She stated that if she had property on Mardi Gras Drive she would never expect an Emergency Center to be constructed in the area. She reiterated her concerns regarding traffic. She never thought her property would abut a “slaughterhouse.” She was also concerned about the crime issue because she believed crime rose around 24-hour establishments. She stated the City needed to address the possible consequences of permitting the construction of such a facility. She added that she became “active” in this regard due to information she received from other homeowners. She stated that change is not bad or good. The voters of this City should be informed of the good, bad, and ugly. She is not against or in favor of this project, but only stating that the residents need to be informed.
Mr. Rodriguez asked if a separate application would be submitted in respect to signage. Mr. Falkowski confirmed.
Mr. Hallett moved to approve the Major Change request by the applicant, Synergy Development, to construct a new two-story building addition to function as an Emergency Center at property located at 8701 Old Troy Pike (Huber Health Center) (ZC 22-E) in accordance with Staff’s Memorandum dated June 17, 2010, and the Planning Commission Decision Record attached thereto.
Seconded by Ms. LaGrone. Roll call showed: YEAS: Ms. LaGrone, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Walton, and Mr. Hallett. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried 4-0.

  1. REZONING/LOT SPLIT – Applicant, CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, is requesting to rezone property located in the Carriage Trails Development known as Part Inlot 352 from PM (Planned Mixed Use) to PP (Planned Public and Private Buildings and Grounds), and also requesting approval for a lot split of 1.919 acres out of 158.958 acres (ZC 10-08).

Scott Falkowski stated that the northern segment of the City has one water tower located off Emeraldgate Drive located where a new school was currently being constructed. The site was known as Standpipe Park. Due to development at Carriage Trails, Windbrooke, and other development sites, along with industrial areas expanded along Executive Boulevard, a need exists for another water tower. Discussions have occurred with DEC Land Co I LLC about obtaining a two-acre site at the northern end of the development for the water tower. It would be centered between SR 201 and SR 202 which is the high end of where such tower would normally be located to provide increased pressure and flow. He proceeded to show the area on the map for the tower, and explained where various sections had been approved in Carriage Trails for development.

Mr. Falkowski proceeded to show an updated concept plan for the Carriage Trails development. There would be access easements for the tower. In the interim, there would be a gravel drive leading to the tower. He added there would be a landscape buffer on all sides in accordance with the Code. The tower has not yet been designed, but would be centered on the lot.
Mr. Hallett proceeded to open the public hearing.
Public Hearing
Ken Conaway, DEC Land Co I LLC, stated when they did a water study, the results showed that after 200 homes were built, there would have to be a water tower. Currently, they have sold 42 lots in the development this year. They are pleased to donate the land to the City. He proceeded to show on the map the highest point in the area, but it was too narrow for the tower. Therefore, the current site was selected with the Engineering Department.

There being no other individuals who wished to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed, and discussion was brought back to the Commission.

Mr. Hallett moved to approved the request by the applicant, City of Huber Heights, in their request to rezone property located in the Carriage Trails Development known as Part Inlot 352 from PM (Planned Mixed Use) to PP (Planned Public and Private Buildings and Grounds), and also requesting approval for a lot split of 1.919 acres out of 158.958 acres (ZC 10-08) in accordance with Staff’s Memorandum dated June 16, 2010, and the Planning Commission Decision Record attached thereto.
Seconded by Mr. Rodriguez. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Walton, Ms. LaGrone, and Mr. Hallett. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried 4-0.

  1. FINAL PLAT – Applicant, DEC LAND CO I LLC, is requesting approval of a Final Plat for Section 14, Phase II of the Carriage Trails Development (ZC 08-02Q).

Scott Falkowski stated the Detailed Development Plan for Section 14, Phase II had been approved at a previous meeting. He stated the site is located at the south side of the Carriage Trails Parkway, and is on the west side of Senna Street. This section consists of 37 new building lots which have frontages ranging from 60’ to 65’. All lots have the required 25’ setback. All minimum requirements approved in the Basic Development Plan were met.

Ken Conaway stated that Brighton Homes have already sold 8 lots in this section.

Motion made by Mr. Hallett to approve the Final Plat request by the applicant, DEC Land CO I LLC, for Section 14, Phase II of the Carriage Trails development (ZC 08-02Q) in accordance with Staff’s Memorandum dated June 16, 2010, and the Planning Commission Decision Record attached thereto.

Seconded by Mr. Walton. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Walton, Ms. LaGrone, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Hallett. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried 4-0.

  1. MINOR CHANGE – Applicant, ABBOTT SIGN COMPANY on behalf of CBS Personnel, is requesting approval of a minor change to install a new sign at property located at 8186 Old Troy Pike (ZC 156-QQ).

Scott Falkowski stated the name of the company is being changed. The location is at the North Heights Plaza. The sign is just under 40 sq. ft. (13’ 4” x 3’). The previous sign consisted of 70 square feet. The raceway would match the fascia, and all lighting requirements would be met.

Ken Brightman, Abbott Sign Co., stated that he had nothing to add to staff’s memorandum.
Mr. Walton asked if the LED signs could be adjusted in connection with the illumination. Mr. Brightman confirmed, and stated that dimming the brightness could be arranged.
Motion made by Mr. Hallett to approve the Minor Change for the applicant, Abbott Sign Co. on behalf of CBS Personnel, in their request to install a new sign at property located at 8186 Old Troy Pike (ZC 156-QQ) in accordance with Staff’s Memorandum dated June 16, 2010, and the Planning Commission Decision Record attached thereto.
Seconded by Ms. LaGrone. Roll call showed: YEAS: Ms. LaGrone, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Walton, and Mr. Hallett. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried 4-0.
Mr. Falkowski explained to the applicant that they would have to come in to the Zoning Office and apply for a zoning permit.
VIII. Additional Business

Mr. Hallett asked about the sidewalk at City Hall. Mr. Falkowski explained that the sidewalk would go back to the Court Building. Mr. Hallett stated that this was a Planned District, and therefore, a Minor Change application should be submitted. Mr. Falkowski confirmed and stated that such application would come before the Planning Commission at their next meeting.

Mr. Hallett stated there was a sign at Shull Park advertising Fireworks for July 3, 2010. He advised that site was also a Planned District.
Mr. Falkowski stated that he was unaware of the signs advertising the Fireworks but would check into the matter. Mr. Hallett stated that the City was not exempt from submitting these types of applications, but only exempt from paying the fees.
Mr. Falkowski stated that he saw signs at Cloud Park, but was not aware of other locations where such signs were located.

IX. Approval of the Minutes

Without objection the minutes of May 25, 2010 were approved.

X. Reports and Calendar Review

Minor Change – City of Huber Heights for installation of sidewalks.

Minor Change– Stratacache (Old Kroger Site) computer installation and sales facility.
Mr. Falkowski stated that a church had applied for a Special Use for the Old Kroger site, but that had been pulled. He explained that both users approached Kroger about the site.

XI. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Hallett adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:20 p.m.

__________________________________ _____________________________

Jeff Hallett, Chairman Date

___________________________________ _____________________________ Margaret A. Muhl, Administrative Secretary Date

: docs -> 2010
docs -> It’s Your Story—Tell It!: A world of Girls Audience: This series is for Brownie Girl Scouts and is suitable for in-school and after-school troops. Purpose
2010 -> Candidate guide
2010 -> Is It Just War? The violence and security politics of Taliban in Pakistan
2010 -> A key and Beyond: Palestinian Memorabilia in the Economy of Resistance
2010 -> Louisiana state university health science center new orleans emergency medicine residency program policies to supplement lsuhsc house officer manual
2010 -> Ce 1, 2, 3 appendixes appendix 1 ce 1, 2, 3: group discussions
2010 -> Theology at the Movies: Looking at Film Through the Lens of the Christian Worldview
2010 -> Table of Contents Introduction
2010 -> Field of vision 2010 Arts in Education Partnership Conference Programs & Workshops
2010 -> 2010 Poland Tour My Blog By Leon G. Konieczny 2010 Leon G. Konieczny

The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page