Jeff Foster, Warr - City of Bay Village

Minutes of a Meeting of the

City of Bay Village Planning Commission

Held February 19, 2020

7:30 p.m.

Present: Jeff Foster, Warren Remein, Rick Kirk, Sara Byrnes Maier, Kendra

Davitt, Jennifer Lesny Fleming and Dave Maddux

Excused:

Also Present: Mayor Koomar, Eric Tuck-Macalla (Building Director), Mark Barbour

(Law Director), Councilman Winzig, Councilwoman Stainbrook and

Councilwoman DeGeorge

Audience:

*Full recording of the meeting is permanently available on the City of Bay Village website under

City Government /Planning Commission.

Chairman Foster called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:32 p.m.

Following roll call, Mr. Foster called for approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission

meeting held February 5, 2020.

Motion by Remein, second by Davitt to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission

meeting held February 5, 2020 as edited, prepared and distributed.

Motion carried 7 yeas, 0 nays

WORK SESSION:

Stay In Bay-Review of the Bay Village Commercial Code with Jason Russell, Concord

Consulting (The first DRAFT of the Mixed-Use Overlay Code is in bold and italicized

below for reference.)

K. Design Standards and Principles

a. Building Siting and Orientation

The following building siting and orientation requirements shall apply to new development in

the mixed-use overlay district:

Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting

February 19, 2020

2

i. General Requirements

1. Buildings and sites are encouraged to accommodate a mixture of uses permitted in this district. A

mixture of uses is encouraged not just within the overall district, but on individual parcels and within

individual buildings. High activity uses such as retail are encouraged on the first floor, with uses such

as offices and residential encouraged on second floors.

2. Buildings shall be designed to respect the street context, to form street walls where appropriate, and

to respect or create view corridors.

3. Buildings and sites shall be designed to emphasize pedestrian scale, human scale architecture, and

landscaping, while avoiding large expanses of paved areas, large featureless buildings, and

monotonous or franchise-style architecture.

4. All sides of a building open to view by the public shall display a similar level of architectural quality

and shall be subdivided and proportioned using features such as windows, entrances, arcades,

awnings, or other such features.

5. Wherever feasible, buildings shall be designed to provide massing configurations with a variety of

different wall planes. Plain, monolithic structures with long monotonous walls and roof plane surfaces

are prohibited.

6. Each building facade shall incorporate design elements for each 20 horizontal feet, such as changes

in color or texture; projections, recesses, and reveals; arcades or pergolas providing pedestrian

interest; or equivalent elements that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions.

7. Buildings shall have well defined rooflines with attention to architectural detail. Consideration

should be given to the prevailing pattern of roofs in the area surrounding and within the district.

8. Sloping roofs, where used, shall have one or more of the following architectural features: gables,

hips, horizontal or vertical breaks, or other similar techniques that are integrated into the building

architecture.

9. Buildings shall be designed and arranged to define the public and private space with open views and

surveillance for public areas and privacy for private areas.

ii. Principal residential structures–single-family detached.

1. The main entrance(s) to the residence shall face the street.

2. The front wall of the principal structure shall be parallel to the street or perpendicular to a radius of

the curve of the street extended through the approximate center of the main mass, if the street is

curved.

3. Private Garages

a. Doors of attached garages shall not face the street.

b. An attached garage shall be sited so that its door is not visible from the primary direction of

approach.


February 19, 2020

3

c. Detached garages shall be in the rear yard.

iii. Principal residential structures–single-family attached, townhomes, and multifamily.

1. The entrance to at least one dwelling unit within each building shall face the street.

2. The front wall of the principal structure, or the front wall of at least one principal structure in a

multi-building development, shall be parallel to the street or perpendicular to a radius of the curve of

the street extended through the approximate center of the main mass, if the street is curved.

3. Private Garages



approach.


iv. Principal residential structures on corner lots.

1. In general, the structure shall face one of the streets and not the corner.

2. Private Garages



approach.


v. Non-residential development:

1. Commercial/retail buildings shall maintain a continuous wall plane at the front property line.

Architectural features, such as bay windows, may project beyond this plane no more than thirty inches

at a minimum height of twelve feet above the sidewalk.

2. The main entrance to the principal structure shall face the street.

3. The front wall of the principal structure shall be parallel to the street or perpendicular to a radius of

the curve of the street extended through the approximate center of the main mass, if the street is

curved.

4. First floor facades facing streets or pedestrian ways should incorporate large amounts (at least 60%

of the facade) of clear windows that permit views into the interior of the building and/or product

display areas.


February 19, 2020

4

5. Building facades shall have highly visible customer service entrances that feature canopies,

overhangs, arcades, distinctive roof forms, arches, display windows, or landscaped features. Primary

entrances should face and be visible from the street on which they are located and shall be directly

accessible and visible from the sidewalk.

L. Building Materials

a. Building materials shall be limited to brick, masonry, stucco, wood, fiber cement siding, wood

shingle, wood siding, cultured stone, or other similar materials.

b. Prohibited materials include vinyl siding, dryvit-type products on the lowest 8 feet of any structure,

split faced block, aluminum or vinyl siding, and other similar materials.

M. Parking Requirements

The provisions of Chapter 1191 (Off-Street Parking) shall apply except as modified herein. Where

there is a conflict between a provision in this section and a provision in Chapter 1251, the

requirements of this Chapter shall prevail.

a. Modified Parking Standards

i. Parking for any residential uses shall be separate from parking for other nonresidential uses.

ii. Guest parking for multi-family residential projects shall be 0.25 spaces per unit.

Guest parking requirements may be satisfied by non-residential use parking spaces and on-street

parking.

iii. Off-street parking shall be in the rear or side yard, not at street frontage.

iv. On-street parking (if present) may be counted toward minimum required parking spaces when on-

street parking is within 150 feet of use or as a part of the overall minimum required parking spaces for

a proposed development. Such parking shall be properly defined as parking spaces and not intrude into

the lanes of travel.

v. Direct, continuous pedestrian connections must be provided between any on-street parking or off-

street parking and the uses being served.

vi. Due to variations in parking demand and needs of mixed use projects, vehicle parking requirements

and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and egress, may be reduced or modified as part

of the site plan review process, by the Planning Commission, based upon information contained in a

parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, at the developer’s expense.

vii. The Planning Commission may authorize up to a 25 percent reduction of required parking spaces

if transit service is available to the site at the time of project approval.

b. Joint or Collective Parking Facilities.

Shared parking facilities are strongly encouraged and are permitted if multiple uses cooperatively

establish and operate the facilities and if these uses generate parking demands primarily during hours

when the remaining uses are not in operation. The applicant shall have the burden of proof for a

reduction in the total number of required off-street parking spaces, and documentation shall be


February 19, 2020

5

submitted substantiating their reasons for the requested parking reduction. Shared parking may be

approved if:

i. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the highest demand of the participating uses;

ii. Evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, has been submitted by the parties

operating the shared parking facility, describing the nature of the uses and the times when the uses

operate so as to demonstrate the lack of potential conflict between them; and

iii. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed

necessary by the Planning Commission are executed to assure that the required parking spaces

provided are maintained and uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing

the parking facilities remain for the life of the development.

iv. Shared parking spaces shall be located no more than 300 feet from the uses they are intended to

serve.

c. Bicycle Parking Requirements

i. Bicycle parking shall be provided for each commercial structure located within any mixed-use

development.

ii. Bicycle parking shall not interfere with pedestrian passage, leaving a clear area of at least 36 inches

between bicycles and other existing and potential obstructions.

iii. Each building with commercial uses shall have an equivalent number of bicycle parking spaces

equal to 10 percent of required motor-vehicle parking spaces, with a minimum of two bike spaces.

iv. For buildings with multiple uses, bicycle parking standards shall be calculated at 10 percent of the

total required motor vehicle parking, with a minimum of three bike spaces.

N. Signage

Parcels receiving the mixed-use overlay designation will automatically be concerned an Area of

Special Control as defined in Chapter 1179.07 (Areas of Special Control). In addition to complying

with Chapter 1179, sign plan submittals should:

a. Enhance and protect the physical appearance of the community.

b. Promote and maintain visually attractive, residential, retail, commercial and industrial districts.

c. Ensure that signs are located and designed to reduce sign distraction and confusion that may be

contributing factors in traffic congestion and accidents, and maintain a safe and orderly pedestrian

and vehicular environment.

O. Development Plans

Preliminary and final development plans shall be required for all proposed development in a mixed use

overlay district:

a. Preliminary plans.


February 19, 2020

6

i. Plan requirements.

1. Survey. A survey of the property and topography, showing the land owned and proposed for

development.

2. Buildings. The locations, size, height and use of all main and accessory buildings and their general

design and color.

3. Streets. The proposed pattern of vehicular circulation, including estimated traffic volumes, service

access and relationship to existing streets.

4. Utilities. Evidence of adequacy of all required utilities and services.

5. Parking. General Layout and estimate of spaces provided, both open and enclosed.

6. Miscellaneous. Other site improvement. including general drainage pattern.

ii. Submittal of plans.

1. Presentation of preliminary plans shall be made concurrently with the Building Department (to file

an application for construction) and to the Planning Commission.

2. A nonreturnable application fee in the amount of $10.00 per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor

space shall accompany application in the Building Department.

3. Planning Commission shall submit plans to the appropriate departments within the City for their

comments, i.e. Fire, Police and Service.

iii. Approval of plans.

1. If preliminary plans are not acceptable to the Planning Commission, based on the requirements and

intent of this chapter, a revised preliminary may be submitted.

2. If preliminary or revised preliminary plans are acceptable to the Planning Commission with slight

modification, final plans, including such modifications, may be submitted.

b. Final Development Plans.

i. Plan Requirements.

1. Site plan. All items submitted for preliminary approval, with modifications as requested.

2. Utilities plan. Detailed drawings of all required utilities, including water, sewers and underground

electric and telephone systems.

3. Fire protection plan. Water mains, hydrants and other appurtenances.

4. Landscape plan. Landscaping, buffers, drainage and grading.


February 19, 2020

7

5. Miscellaneous. Construction schedule and disposition program and any other information

specifically required by the Planning Commission.

ii. Submittal of plans.

1. Presentation of final plans shall be made to the Planning Commission.

2. Planning Commission shall submit plans to the appropriate departments within the City for their

comments, i.e., Fire, Police, Service and Building.

3. When development given preliminary approval is to be constructed in two or more phases, final

plans shall be submitted separately for each phase, prior to scheduled construction.

iii. Approval of plans.

1. If final plans are not acceptable to the Planning Commission, based upon the requirements

and intent of this chapter, revised final plans may be submitted.

2. Only when final or revised final plans are acceptable to the Planning Commission without

modification, shall final approval be given.

Mr. Foster introduced the next agenda item, Stay In Bay with Jason Russell from Concord

Consulting.

Mr. Russell explained that he wanted to start where the Planning Commission had left off on

page 9, K. Design Standards and Principles. He stated that he plans to incorporate the

discussions and changes that were made at previous meetings and the current meeting into a

second draft. The second draft will be presented to the Planning Commission and the City

administration.

Mr. Foster asked if there was anything discussed in the previous meeting held by the Planning

and Zoning Committee that the Planning Commission should be aware of.

Ms. Byrnes Maier explained that they focused in on the broader questions that were discussed at

the end of the last session and whether they wanted to go with the Zoning Overlay approach.

There was agreement that the Zoning Overlay does make sense to the committee members. For

the approval approach, it is still along the track of putting it up for a vote when we are done at an

agreeable time hopefully to minimize the cost to put it on the ballot. They would also like to

pursue a slightly modified Overlay for the Clague Parkway area. They also discussed a couple of

items within and the approval process. Jason Russell is currently working on the additional draft

that will be completed by March 4, 2020. There is a public meeting scheduled for the first week

in April, prior to spring break and then it will go through the Council process.


February 19, 2020

8

Mr. Russell explained that based on discussions, there will be changes in the Applicability

section of the draft.

Mr. Russell moved on to the section, K. Design Standards and Principles. He explained that this

is where a property owner or developer would understand how it is supposed to look and feel and

put into context with pedestrians and adjacent buildings. He asked if there were any questions,

comments or concerns on the building siting and orientation. He explained that this section really

speaks to making sure that there is a mixture of uses, not only in general site plan but hopefully

that there is a mixture of uses within buildings and parcels but also gives flexibility to the

Planning Commission. It is important that they should be designed with respect to the streetscape

context, especially when creating corridors. There is a lot of great green space throughout the

City. They want to make sure that green space is a part of the development and that there is

always some sort of view to green space if possible.

Mr. Maddux asked if the mixture of uses puts them at odds with building owners.

Mr. Russell explained that yes and no. He would primarily say no because it provides options. It

does not necessarily force the mixture of uses. As long as the site in general has a mixture of uses

then it complies with the Code. If they were to force it within a specific building, it would be a

little heavy handed at times.

Mr. Remein discussed not having a specific limitation of size of the building. There are

limitations on specific uses but not on the size of the building within a given district. Someone

could potentially have unlimited square footage.

Mr. Russell said no, the way that the Code is written now is that the size of the building is

dictated by the size of the lot. They are also saying that the highest they can go is four stories.

They have created the envelope. The size of the building will be dictated by the size of the parcel

that it is placed on.

Mr. Remein asked of there was a percentage of cover stated in the draft.

Mr. Russell explained that there is an open space requirement which was discussed at the

previous meeting. (20%) There is also a setback requirement for the front, side and rear of the

yard.

Mr. Remein asked what the acreage of the primary lots at Dover Junction and Bay Square are.

There are multiple lots on each section.

Mr. Russell explained that Dover Junction is just over 6 acres.


February 19, 2020

9

Mr. Maddux explained that there are parking requirements and limitations.

Mr. Remein asked if the Overlay supersedes the Base Overlay, what would be the specific

parking requirement for a specific area.

Mr. Russell explained further in the draft they discuss the specific parking requirements and it

ties back to C.O. 1191. It refers to what is already written in the Code but adds additional

requirements and flexibility to that as well. There is a limitation on the site based on the parking

and green space requirements. They do not dictate the specific size of the building, but the site

does start to create those restrictions.

Mr. Foster pointed out that section D and E have square footages in them for the specific use.

Mr. Remein stated that within the building there could be any number of uses.

Mr. Foster explained that from the Planning perspective, the primary concern is the uses.

Someone could potentially buy from here to the tracks and put up one massive building up but as

long as it conforms with the Mixed-Use Overlay it gives the City the urban environment they are

looking for.

Mr. Remein said he would be concerned with a massive building.

Mr. Foster explained that that would never happen and that there are enough parameters in this

draft. Combined with the Building Code, it takes care of itself.

Mr. Remein stated that it seems like it should be stated that they cannot go over a certain square

footage.

Mr. Russell clarified Mr. Remein’s comments and suggested stating something along the lines

that, “no building should exceed X number of square feet without a break in creating another

building within itself.”

Mr. Russell discussed the Van Aken District and stated that Mr. Remein had come out to the area

within the last few weeks.

Mr. Remein explained that he went to look around and take some pictures. He stated that it was

very neat and it was made up of a five story apartment building, three story office building,

parking garage and a mixed use area where a grocery store once was. Shaker Heights has a

population of 280, 000. If you take the cities that are immediately around us, we have nothing


February 19, 2020

10

like that. We have a 125,000-150,000 population counting Bay Village. The market will

determine what gets built. Van Aken is very nice but we need to keep in mind that Bay Village is

not Shaker or Dublin. Bay Village is completely different. He feels that it will get rolling at some

point and there will be a lot of residents surprised.

Mr. Russell explained that in the Van Aken District, the office building is about 97,000 square

feet. If you see that on one story it is a massive building but spread over three stories it is not

nearly as big.

Mr. Russell agreed with Mr. Remein that a large building would not being appropriate for Bay

Village. Bay Village has the Lake as a barrier. As a developer, there is not as much of a market

here. Everything is going to be smaller scale because that is what the market can support in this

area. There is a potential to put a safeguard in there so future Planning Commissions can say that

they do not allow buildings over a certain square footage on the first floor.

Ms. Davitt asked how far apart the buildings have to be.

Mr. Russell explained that it depends. If it is a commercial use, they can be right up against each

other. If it is residential, there is a 5’ setback for multifamily and 20’ buffer for single family.

Ms. Davitt said that theoretically someone could build a bunch of separate building that is one

contiguous building the entire length of Dover Center except for streets.

Ms. Byrnes Maier explained that the Zoning Overlay is just for Dover Junction and Dover

Commons.

Ms. Davitt stated that Mr. Remein’s point would be moot if they just built separate buildings that

are right next to each other. She wondered if it was worth it to make that type of regulation when

people can build separate buildings right next to each other.

Mr. Russell stated that as a community, that is what you want because it reduces the scale.

Mr. Russell went back to page 9, section K. Design Standards and read over the list of

requirements.

Mr. Russell reviewed #2 under section K. Design Standards, Principal residential structures-

single-family detached. The most important parts of that section are that entrances shall face the

street, that homes shall be either parallel or perpendicular to make it more organic and that

garages are hidden to the rear of the property.


February 19, 2020

11

Mr. Russell reviewed the next section discussing townhomes. He explained that these Codes are

really important as things get developed over time. The City wants to make sure that over time as

things are developed they have the same look and feel to make it look intentional from a design

standpoint.

Mr. Russell discussed the non-residential development section under section K. Most

importantly, making sure that there is clear glass so that pedestrians have the ability to view into

the building and not have a solid façade. A common number is 60% for the façade must be clear

glass but the number is flexible.

Mr. Remein discussed the possible conflict/confusing language under section between K I.

general requirements #5 and v. 1.

i. 5. Wherever feasible, buildings shall be designed to provide massing configurations with a

variety of different wall planes. Plain, monolithic structures with long monotonous walls

and roof plane surfaces are prohibited.

v. Non-residential development: 1. Commercial/retail buildings shall maintain a continuous wall

plane at the front property line. Architectural features, such as bay windows, may project beyond

this plane no more than thirty inches at a minimum height of twelve feet above the sidewalk

Mr. Russell explained that for v. 1., it is trying to avoid someone doing a peak so the building

hits the setback they are required to, you want a continuance wall plane.

Mr. Maddux stated that the confusion is due to the fact that they are using the same wording but

different meaning.

Mr. Russell explained that in the section that was just discussed, they are talking about building

siting and orientation. All of the items discussed address the building itself not the overall parcel.

The building has to have a continuous wall plane facing a primary street regardless of the

setback.

Mr. Maddux clarified that it is not just a straight wall.

Mr. Russell stated that he will make a note of it and asked if there were any other questions.

Mr. Russell moved on and reviewed section L. Building Materials. This is an opportunity to put

in some design guidelines. In this draft, it just gives the brief understanding of what the City

would permit for any type of construction. He stated that they need to still make it clear who

decides what building materials are allowed. He asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Remein stated that masonry could include concrete block.


February 19, 2020

12

Mr. Russell stated that he would argue that it would not be acceptable but it could be up to the

Planning Commission or Architectural Board of Review.

Mr. Remein stated that they would not want to see plain concrete block either.

Mr. Foster asked if it was better to say only what is NOT allowed.

Mr. Russell said it is probably better to give the flexibility to the ultimate decider. (Planning

Commission and Architectural Board of Review)

Ms. Lesny Fleming explained that there are advancements made all the time and only stating

what is not allowed may change as time goes on. She wonders if they are creating a document

that will be obsolete. Due to needing citizen approval on the document, we would not want to

have to go back to make changes as newer products come out.

Mayor Koomar agreed and stated that he would rather give the latitude to the Planning

Commission to make the decisions.

Ms. Lesny Fleming agreed and stated that it gives the City more flexibility.

Mr. Foster suggested that they add wording to the end that states, “unless specifically approved

by the Planning Commission.” He feels it is good to list what is prohibited because it sends the

message but gives some latitude. The Library is a good example. It has some vinyl product on it.

Mr. Russell moved on to section M. Parking Requirements. C.O. 1191 rules the day unless there

is a modification. It gives the Planning Commission more flexibility depending on the demand

and use of the building to relax the parking standards.

Mr. Foster asked if our current Code addressed screening of parking.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla said yes, both residential and commercial.

Mr. Foster asked if it addressed screening of parking from the street to the property. He

wondered if they should say something about that, especially on a corner lot.

Mr. Russell continued to review section M. Parking Requirements part b. Joint or Collective

Parking Facilities. He explained that the intent behind here is to allow property owners to work

with their adjacent property owners on parking. Depending on when parking uses are needed by

the property owners, they could share the total amount needed. Instead of recreating the 100 on


February 19, 2020

13

the new site, the property owner could have 50 and use 50 from the adjacent property owner to

accomplish the space requirement. This is supportive of making sure that we do not over park

but it will be up to the Planning Commission to decide if it is an effective solution. They would

have to be signed agreements between the property owners and would be required to file it with

the County. It would be on Public Record in perpetuity until it would get changed. But it is

important to have something on the record that reminds the property owners of the parking

requirements. It is a good way to protect yourself as a City to have those things on file.

Mr. Russell explained that he would like to add, “Adjacent uses” to part i. A sufficient number of

spaces are provided to meet the highest demand of the participating uses; We want to make sure that

there is adequate parking for all the different uses in the area.

Ms. Byrnes Maier agreed and stated that looking at it more globally is important.

Mr. Foster asked how the City would remember the parking requirements that are on file.

Mr. Russell explained that anyone interested in the property is most likely going to do a title

search to see any type of lien, easement, assessment or deed restrictions. Whether or not they

disclose that to the Planning Commission is another story.

Mr. Remein explained that there is section in the Code on traffic and it could be required to be

recorded in that section.

Mr. Foster asked how it would show up to the next round of Commission members.

Mr. Remein stated that it would be recorded in the Code.

Mr. Russell explained that he feels a better way to do it is for it to be recorded with the County

so it sits with the property. Then it is placed on the City and future development’s review of the

title records.

Mr. Kirk asked if there is agreement and one property owner leaves what would happen to the

owner that was using the other parking spaces and they are no longer available. What is the result

for the owner that now has 25 less parking spaces that were once approved by the Planning

Commission? We would have to figure out what could be done.

Mr. Russell explained that it would go to how it is filed. Either they would have to discuss it with

the new property owner to find a solution or it could run with the property in perpetuity but that

would be a different conversation.

Mr. Maddux stated that it would have to be part of their acceptance and development of their

site.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla explained that it would have to be recorded as an easement and they have to

maintain it like any other easement.


February 19, 2020

14

Ms. Byrnes Maier said it would make sense to have some sort of term limit on it which would

give them some flexibility. It could automatically renew for five year terms unless recorded

differently.

Mr. Maddux asked if they would lose their occupancy if they lost the parking spots.

Mr. Russell explained that if that would ever go away and comes to the City’s attention, they

would not be incompliance with their approval. They would have to go out and find those 25

parking spaces within 300’ and have another agreement in place.

Ms. Lesny Fleming asked if there was an obligation under the Code to report when somebody is

in noncompliance. It is really what they should have to do.

Mr. Russell said he would not put it in the Code but would probably make it a condition of

approval. It would make it prescriptive and make it harder to change later. It would be on a case

by case basis.

Ms. Davitt stated that when a property is being developed the Building Department/Planning

Commission should be aware of the restrictions on the property.

Ms. Lesny Fleming stated that Heinen’s may be a good neighbor but they will not want to have a

formal easement that would run with the property and diminish the value of their property. If we

really care about the issue, there needs to be some kind of self-reporting otherwise the City will

never know if they are out of compliance.

Ms. Davitt asked what the penalty was for being out of compliance.

Mr. Russell said they could revoke their certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Kirk explained that for the purposes of this, the language could be cleaned up. It gives a ton

of flexibility. It is really up to us to make a decision as to whether or not it is acceptable. If it

every gets adopted, it should be flushed out more.

Ms. Lesny Fleming suggested enforcing it with this particular overlay and if they are ever not in

compliance, they have to come to the Planning Commission with a proposal to remedy it.

Mr. Russell explained that he made a note to add, “should parking agreements change or no

longer be in compliance, property owners must self-report to the Planning Commission and

provide a plan to be in compliance.”

Ms. Lesny Fleming agreed with the wording.


February 19, 2020

15

Mr. Foster explained that the spirit of this is important, we want owners to share in parking. We

do not want a sea of parking.

Mr. Foster stated that he would move the 150’ up to 300’, the length of a football field.

Mr. Remein agreed and said that 300’ is not far.

Mr. Russell moved on to part c. in section M. bicycle parking requirements. One thing Mr.

Russell did not put in this portion of the draft, is to allow larger sites with multiple buildings to

have a bike corral. There could be flexibility on that.

Mr. Remein asked how many parking spaces are currently in Dover Junction.

Mr. Russell stated that there are about 100-150, so 15 bike spots.

Mr. Foster asked if the draft discussed parking structures. (ex: Hudson’s parking garage)

Mr. Russell stated that no, it is not discussed and that C.O. 1191 is silent to it.

Mr. Foster said that it would be great to have one and there should be some language in the Code

that puts the parameters on what they are.

Mr. Russell agreed.

Ms. Davitt asked if vehicle charging was added to the draft based on discussions at the last

meeting.

Mr. Foster asked if it should be required or just encouraged.

Mr. Russell and Mr. Remein felt it should be encouraged.

Mr. Russell explained that he would actually put that under the modified parking standards

section.

Mr. Maddux asked if it should only be in the Overlay or if it should be in C.O. 1191.

Mr. Foster does not have issue with encouraging it but not requiring it. It is not a cheap

requirement. Bay Village isn’t necessarily a destination. People are still within 5-10 miles of

home.


February 19, 2020

16

Mr. Maddux is not sure that the property owners should be required to provide that either.

Ms. Davitt asked if it needs to be required if it is a residential area and people are living there.

(ex: leased property)

Mr. Russell said he is not sure that they want to get in the position of requiring EV chargers. But

people should know what the community would prefer to see and let the private market decide if

one is necessary.

Mr. Remein explained that Tesla’s goal is to have EV chargers within the distance a car could

drive across the entire United States. (every 300 miles)

Mr. Russell reviewed the next section N. Signage. He discussed C.O. 1179.07 (Areas of Special

Control) which basically gives City Council and the Planning Commission the ability to establish

specific sign guidelines for a specific property or development.

Mr. Foster explained that that section of the Code is really geared towards big developments and

not necessarily a smaller parcel of land. He is not sure if that is necessarily the right place to

direct them.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla explained that the whole Sign Code needs to be redone. This is a nice

opportunity to be able to start looking at that, especially with signage in this Overlay. The current

Code is really outdated and in some respects kind of illegal.

Mr. Russell explained that it would be beneficial to have a robust sign Code within the Mixed-

Use Overlay that will automatically be applied to all the commercial parcels right away.

Mr. Foster suggested having an updated sign section that applies to everything and the Mixed-

Use Overlay could refer to it.

Ms. Byrnes Maier stated that it is a parallel track item.

Mr. Russell said he will take a look at C.O. 1179 and make changes there.

Mr. Russell moved on to the last section, O. Development Plans. This portion as taken right out

of the existing Bay Village Code. He feels this is an opportunity to ensure greater public

engagement in this process. There would not be a vote in front of the people for each individual

parcel. The thought here was that we make this development plan process more robust to allow

for more public interaction. Then the Planning Commission and Architectural Board of Review

really can refine what the project looks like.


February 19, 2020

17

Ms. Lesny Fleming asked if there were any sort of requirements that they develop 3-D drawings.

She feels something like that would be helpful particularly given the potential scale of some of

the buildings.

Mr. Russell stated that showing the closest single family home in relation to the project is

important as well so you can see the impact of the development on that home.

Mr. Foster asked if they would be required to have 3-D renderings at the preliminary or final

approval. He does not think our process is very clear on that right now.

Mr. Russell agreed. A preliminary site plan gives a property owner/developer a good

understanding of the agreement on the basic bones of the project. Then it would go to the

Architectural Board of Review and then to the Planning Commission to sign off on the final

plans for the project. Each step of the way the developer is able to refine the design, more and

more. It does not make sense to require the 3-D renderings up front, it is more towards the back

end once the design has started to be finalized.

Mr. Foster explained that some of the projects that have previously come through, have gotten

into trouble because they have jumped ahead on design when the project is not really understood

by anybody. (ex: the Library) A lot of judgement was had on what the building was going to

look like and not necessarily how it fits on the site or what it actually does. This gives folks an

early look at how the project is coming together and keeps that open dialogue. Architectural

Board of Review really does not come in until the second half of the process.

Mr. Remein said that at the preliminary site information you need accurate surveys, dimensions

and locations. He has noticed that a lot of the drawings lack well detailed dimensions. Especially

with the library. They did not adjust the scale in cad so the scale that was being looked at could

be read.

Mr. Kirk said the question is, the degree of the preliminary and being aware of the cost that goes

into 3-D drawings or the amount of work that goes into it when it is going to be changed.

Ms. Byrnes Maier agreed and suggested that they show the massing and how it relates to the

other buildings around it too. It would not be a full on 3-D rendered drawing but shows the

envelope of how the building is sited with others and the certain viewpoints.

Mr. Maddux explained that at this point, it does not take much to put massing models together

and 3-D. We are not expecting flashy renderings at a preliminary state but we need to understand


February 19, 2020

18

the massing of the buildings and how that relates. It is important to get those as early on as we

can.

Ms. Byrnes Maier agreed and stated that the relationship to the other buildings around it and the

look are most important.

Mr. Remein stated that we want to see where the adjacent structures are and the relationship.

Mr. Foster said he does not feel like we need to get buried down in some of that detail. What is

written in the draft speaks to that. The general design and feel is most important. It may not be

fully designed but it shows the feel they are going for.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla explained that the Planning Commission can ask for any information that they

want to have.

Ms. Lesny Fleming said that the Planning Commission has asked for things in the past but

sometimes it seems like it surprises the applicant and they look aggravated. If it was more part of

the requirements, they would be more prepared for it.

Mr. Russell agreed.

Mr. Foster clarified that they are minimum requirements and not the only requirements.

Mr. Russell explained that he thinks they need to be clearer. If they come in for the preliminary

plan approval they need to understand what they are getting and where they go next. It is

important that they are aware of what is required every step of the way. Also, as members of the

public, it is important to get their engagement as well. The road map needs to be very clear for

everyone involved. Right now it does not seem to be much of a difference between the

preliminary and final.

Mr. Foster asked if this preliminary presentation is the Public Hearing.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla explained that with the Library project, they never called the preliminary

meeting the public meeting so it had to jump through more hoops than what is typical. We need

to remember that the first meeting can be the Public Hearing. At that point they can start

requiring specific things that we would like to see at the following meetings. The process can be

streamlined.

Ms. Davitt asked about when the traffic impact study would be required.


February 19, 2020

19

Mr. Russell explained that it would be required at the final approval along with a parking study.

Mr. Foster said the traffic study should be completed, IF required by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Russell asked Mr. Tuck-Macalla if it would be worth adding the Architectural Board of

Review route in this section as well. It is already required by Code but if it was put in that

section, it would serve as a reminder.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla stated that he thinks they could go through all the Boards and Commissions

and flush the sequence out so it is written in there. It is important that they know when they have

to be in front of the different Boards and Commissions.

Mr. Russell agreed and said it is nice to know where the finish line is and to have a road map.

Mr. Kirk said that it would be god to communicate the process to the community as well.

Ms. Byrnes Maier agreed and said that it is even hard for the community to understand the

terminology.

Mr. Russell said it is important for the public to know the difference between a Public Hearing

and public meeting. The Public Hearing is their chance to have their say.

Ms. Byrnes Maier agreed and thinks it is important for the community to understand that they

will have the opportunity to give their input and influence on projects even with the Overlay.

Mr. Russell clarified that there was no Public Hearing requirement for the Architectural Board of

Review.

Mr. Tuck-Macalla explained that the Planning Commission Public Hearings are advertised in the

newspapers where regular meetings are only posted on the City’s website.

Mr. Foster said what is proposed in the draft is really no different than what is required right

now. It is just a reiteration of the same thing.

Mr. Russell agreed but explained that it also is an opportunity to add more safe guards as well

and provide ample opportunities for the public to be involved.

Mr. Russell asked if there were any other thoughts, comments, questions or concerns about the

current draft.


February 19, 2020

20

Mr. Russell explained that the next check-in would be on March 4, 2020 when he will have

completed the next draft using past comments and discussions. It will be sent to the

administration and it will be sent to the Planning Commission. It will introduced at the City

Council level so it can be put in legislative form. It will be introduced to City Council and then it

will be referred back to the Planning Commission. The next Public Meeting will be the week of

April 6, 2020. That meeting will have a lot more visuals and will give the public the opportunity

to interact with the proposed Code and see how it can be implemented.

Mr. Foster asked when the Planning Commission needs to formally send the proposed Code to

Council.

Mr. Russell explained that the goal would be to have it approved by Council prior to the summer

recess. (July/August) Hopefully by the second meeting in June, City Council is on the third

reading for that.

Ms. Byrnes Maier explained that there needs to be some time for the Planning Commission to be

comfortable with it, bless it and move it up to the Council Committee.

Mr. Foster clarified that that will be after the public meeting.

Ms. Byrnes Maier stated that it will most likely be the third week in April.

Ms. Davitt asked if the Planning Commission would be sent any proposed changes that are going

to be done with the other sections of the Code.

Mr. Russell said yes. They will be sent to Mr. Tuck-Macalla first and then be sent to the

Planning Commission because it ties to the approval of the Overlay.

Mr. Kirk asked if the Code changes have to be done by Council and/or a public vote.

Mr. Russell explained that the Code changes would only have to be approved by Council and the

Code would be updated.

Mr. Foster thanked Mr. Russell and asked if there was a Council update.

Council Update:

Ms. Byrnes Maier stated that there was nothing of note beside the discussion of how this will be

approved by Council. (as discussed above)


February 19, 2020

21

Councilman Winzig asked if there has been discussion about the reason why the City is doing

this. When it is explained to the public it would be important to have the history/back story

behind it. Aside for Code, what are the trends, market place and goals behind it? It would be

beneficial to have a document to help explain it further. There may be examples of where this

has been implemented and why the current commercial areas are no long as viable. It is

important for the citizens to understand some of the thinking behind it and what it is hoping to do

and accomplish.

Ms. Byrnes Maier agreed and said that they should also tie it back to the specific points in the

Master Plan.

Mr. Winzig told Mr. Russell that it would be helpful if he were to take the first two pages of the

draft and customize it to Bay Village. It was beneficial when the Library did research from

around town and took pictures to explain the design choices that they made. It gave a vision for

the building.

Mr. Russell agreed and stated that his point was well founded. It is important to explain it using

common sense language so it can be understood by the community.

Mr. Kirk agreed and stated the importance of being able to explain it to the community not as if

the change is going to happen immediately but more of a precaution for when and if it does

happen over time.

Mr. Winzig agreed and explained that it is important to point that out that and explain the long

term vision for the City.

Ms. Byrnes Maier explained that there is also a concern from people not wanting to push our

existing businesses out. It is important to make sure that it is communicated that that is not the

goal. It would provide them the opportunity to grow further if they wanted to or they are allowed

to exist as they are now.

Mayor Koomar stated that they have met with some of the larger property owners and they have

continued to make connections with the others throughout town so they are a part of the process

and they know what their options are.

Mr. Foster explained that none of this new. This is not a trend. This is 1920’s urban

development. He suggested that Mr. Russell boil down that first presentation that he gave to a

door hanger to give to the community. It gives people enough understanding of what this all

means.

Mr. Foster asked if there were any other comments.

There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

____________________________________ __________________________________

Jeff Foster, Chairman Kateri Vincent, Secretary

Jeff Foster, Warr - City of Bay Village

Documents