VILLAGE OF RIVERLEA
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
March 13, 2008
The Council of the Village of Rivelea met on the above date at 302 West Riverglen Drive. The following Council members were present: Mary Jo Cusack, Kirk McHugh, John Schaer, Rodney Tettenhorst and Paul Zenisek. Also present were Daniel McIntyre, Street Commissioner, Michael Jones, Zoning Commissioner, Steven Mershon, Solicitor, Jody Croley Jones, Village Webmaster, and Pamela Colwell, acting Clerk of Council. Some residents attended but a roster was not taken because residents were excluded from participating in order to give Council a chance to discuss these recommendations. At 7:30 pm the Mayor called the meeting to order.
PURPOSE: For Council to review and discuss the Riverlea Land Use Committee Recommendations. Michael Jones was asked to read and expand upon each item with Council's discussion to follow. The first part of each item number (in italics) is taken from the Land Use Committee Recommendations verbatim and the second part (?) is what was discussed by Council.
Minimum lot sizes. We recommend that the previous council ordinance, to make lot width an average of the width of lots within 500' both ways or a 50' minimum width, whichever is greater, be reinstated, with an exception added to exclude existing buildable' lots, and to add a maximum of forty percent (40%) lot coverage requirement to the minimum lot size limitation.
The 40% maximum lot coverage requirement includes driveways. It was questioned whether other municipalities had minimum frontage requirements. The Solicitor answered that most municipalities have a minimum front curbside requirement and it was very unusual to not have this. Riverlea has no ordinance that covers minimum front curbside requirements. Council requested to see which lots are buildable in Riverlea and the Zoning Commissioner said he would provide a list. He thought there were nine.
Lot splits. We recommend that the process start with the Planning Commission, to review and make recommendations to Council, rather than starting with the Village Council.
Council agreed that they wanted to have residents' input regarding lot splits and that having the process start with the Planning Commission was a good idea. However, the Solicitor pointed out that Ohio law requires a seven day response to requests for lot splits. He will look into this to see if more time could be made available so residents would have time to be notified and their concerns heard.
Buildable Lots. 50' wide assumed to be the minimum buildable width for the purposes of these recommendations.
This was put in the recommendations to define the term "buildable lot."
Meeting Notices. We recommend that yard "notice" signs should be utilized for Notice to the Public, in addition to the posting in the kiosks, and whether posted on kiosk or by yard sign, shall be no fewer than (21) calendar days in advance of meeting where the matter is to be discussed.
The yard notice signs have already been addressed by Council. 21 days is needed for a Variance and 14 days is needed for a Certificate of Appropriateness. It was suggested that the Riverlea website contain a calendar showing the deadlines before each meeting.
PODS & Dumpsters. We recommend regulation of time in place (1 week max.) and location on property (driveway or behind building line, as approved by the PC), and that dumpsters used for construction or remodeling be placed behind the building line, or in a location approved by the PC, and for a period of not more than (4) weeks.
PODs would be allowed to stay one week and dumpsters four weeks. Dumpsters would need to be approved by the Planning Commission for placement and duration (longer than 4 weeks if needed and approved).
Above-ground Pools. We recommend prohibition of above-ground pools, but allow ponds, water features and hot tubs if they meet current area and water depth regulations. Hot tubs shall be visually screened from neighbors and street view, and lighting of pools or hot tubs must be approved and installed in a manner that does not cause spill-over beyond the property line, or infringe upon any neighbor's privacy.
Council agreed to this item as written.
Building Inspector & Inspections. We recommend a contract be initiated with the City of Worthington, with the fee structure per their ordinances and fee schedule. Non-compliance with ordinances or approvals would result in fines and property liens filed with the Franklin County Auditor.
It was suggested that the Worthington Building Inspector would be the best choice if possible. Council will also review Worthington's fee structure and consider property liens for violations and non-compliance.
Drive Approach Design Standards. We recommend limiting curb-cuts to one (1) curb-cut per house, existing circular drives excluded (considered an existing non-conforming use).
This was felt to be too restrictive. A circular drive with two curb cuts within a 100 foot lot was OK with approval from the Planning Commission.
Parking: Parking of any vehicle, including but not limited to automobiles, trailers, boats, or campers on grass is prohibited. Parking of trailers, boats or camping vehicles in driveways permissible for (1) day only.
Council felt a 2 day limit should be permissible for parking of trailers, boats or camping vehicles in driveways.
There needs to be separation between the Planning Commission, Village Council, and the Mayor. In the event of an appeal of a PC decision to Council, there might be a conflict of interest. The PC should continue to have (5) members.
Council has already addressed this issue.
The quality of the submittals needs to be improved, with rejections if not complete.
Council agreed with this.
Re-filing of a disapproved application can not be made without 'substantial revisions'; simply re-filing the same application should not be permitted.
Council agreed with this.
A time limitation to the validity of an approval needs to be defined and enforced.
Council will consider what the time limitation should be.
A final inspection for conformance to the approved ARB plans and conditions need to be enacted, with an appropriate associated fee.
Council felt an outside building inspector would avoid a conflict of interest. Non compliance should be addressed with fines and liens on property. The Solicitor said this is limited to state statute and he would look into it for more detail.
Bonds and Fees: We recommend a raise in all bond amounts (curbs, street cutting, utilities, etc, amounts to be determined) and utilize City of Worthington building permit fee schedule.
Council agreed with this.
Lighting Standards: We recommend that the replacement, addition or installation of any light fixture be of the type which will not cause spill-over beyond the property line.
This would cover new and replacement lighting.
Additional recommendations. These proved to be very controversial and were somewhat out of the scope of the Land Use Planning Committees objectives but Council felt they are valid concerns to be discussed
Find a location that can be used as a meeting hall, such as the meeting rooms available in the Griswold Center, Worthington Public Library, or Worthington City Building.
Discussions have been entered into with State Representative Hughes to allow Riverlea to hold meetings outside of the Village. A site that is convenient and is free is needed. Sharon Township hall, the VFW hall, and the Worthington City Municipal Building were suggested as possible sites. The Mayor will continue to look into these.
Require street tree replacement at a ratio of 2:1, and any other trees of 3" caliper or larger that are removed in the construction or remodeling of homes require a 2:1 replacement with new trees of 3" caliper minimum.
Replace street line trees with a 1:1 ratio and state that street trees must be deciduous.
Require PC review and approval of exterior color changes, and develop a palate of acceptable colors. Repainting the exterior in the same color would not require PC review.
No approval would be needed if a homeowner wanted to change a house color to a color on the approved color palette.
Require PC review and approval of all landscaping, both plantings and hardscape. Replacing dead plant materials with the same species would not require PC review.
No approval needed but develop a list of banned plants and trees and other undesirable plants.
Have a person knowledgeable in landscape design on the committee, or available on an as needed basis.
This item is no longer relevant.
Require enforcement of minimum property maintenance standards for buildings and yards, through the Title IX, Section 93 Nuisances section of the Riverlea Code of Ordinances.
Council agreed this needs to be done along with fines and liens.
Require that the submission date for any review be made (24) hours prior to the deadline, on a business day only. (therefore, no Sat., Sun. or Holiday submittals allowed)
Council agreed with this.
Any request to add any business item to the Village Council or PC agenda shall be submitted no fewer than (30) days in advance of the meeting. Any matter submitted fewer than (30) days in advance of any meeting will be held until the subsequent meeting. All notice requirements for any meeting shall be no fewer than (21) calendar days, whether notice is by kiosk posting, yard sign, or mail.
This item caused a lot of debate due to the fact that the Village only meets once a month. 24 hours notice was too little and 21 days was too long. The Mayor said she would try to provide 7 days notice concerning Council meeting agenda.
Modify the Riverlea Code of Ordinances to state that emergencies' are defined as issues that affect the conduct of the business of the Village, i.e. contracts, repairs, or legal matters which affect the entire Village.
Council agreed with this.
Modify the Riverlea Code of Ordinances to define Home Occupation and the associated limitations of what is permitted.
The Solicitor again explained how important it was for the Village to define Home Occupation if we still want our community to be residential. It has been brought up repeatedly for the past few years. Council agreed that this must be done soon.
Engage an Annexation Consulting firm to weigh the pro's and con's of annexing the Village to the City of Worthington, and to analyze all associated benefits vs. costs of same. (i.e. street repairs, sewer upgrades, police & fire protection, trash removal, staff availability for services and expertise, etc)
Council will investigate the cost of hiring a consultant or investigating this on their own. Some Council members felt this was not an issue that most of the residents wanted to investigate. It was decided to discuss this more in the future.
There being no further discussion, Tettenhorst moved and Schaer seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 5, McHugh, Schaer, Tettenhorst and Zenisek: Nay, none. The motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.