AGENDA 7-01-2014
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5787
Printed Date: Nov 22 2024 at 3:59pm
Topic: AGENDA 7-01-2014
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Subject: AGENDA 7-01-2014
Date Posted: Jun 27 2014 at 3:24pm
|
BUSINESS MEETING- 5:30 pm – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – LOWER LEVEL 1. MOMENT OF MEDITATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS, GUESTS, ORGANIZATIONS’ REPORTS 4. CITY MANAGER REPORTS Historical Designations for the Manchester Inn and the Police and Fire Pension 5. CONSENT AGENDA. . . Matters listed under the Consent
Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one
vote of consent. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
discussion is desired, that item will be removed and considered separately. (a) Approve City Council Minutes: (b) Receive and File Board & Commission Minutes: Civil Service Commission- February 7 and Cemetery Board- (c) Confirm Personnel Appointments: Mark Clemons- Process Control Supervisor Kaitlyn Mueller- Senior Engineer (d) Approve the purchase of an 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS LEGISLATION 1. Ordinance No. O2014-29, an ordinance levying special
assessments for the improvement of 2. Ordinance No. O2014-30, an ordinance repealing Chapter
283 (Golf Course Commission) of the Codified Ordinances. (2nd 3. Ordinance No. O2014-31, an ordinance establishing a
procedure for and authorizing a third amendment to the contract with ATC
Associates for remediation of the 4. Resolution No. R2014-20, a resolution confirming the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and denying a zoning classification change of two
tracts of land located on 5. Ordinance No. O2014-32, an ordinance to levy special
assessments for the repair of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters in the City of EXECUTIVE SESSION . Under the authority of O.R.C. 121.22 (G) (4) Preparing
for, conducting, or reviewing negotiations or bargaining sessions with public
employees concerning their compensation or other terms and conditions of their
employment. |
Replies:
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 27 2014 at 3:32pm
|
4. Resolution No. R2014-20, a resolution confirming the recommendation of the Planning Commission and denying a zoning classification change of two tracts of land located on Hmmm....Isn't this the same land that MMF wanted to buy several years ago when City Hall gave them $75,000? |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jun 27 2014 at 4:41pm
|
Did you even bother to read the staff report? I think you will find your answers there! |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 30 2014 at 7:50pm
| I believe the research that will be presented Tuesday night will prove that Mr. Kohler made a mistake in the zoning of this property. |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jun 30 2014 at 9:30pm
Your disdain for Marty Kohler really clouds you judgement, Vivian. 1.) Marty Kohler doesn't zone anything. He recommends to Planning Commission, who votes on zoning-related issues. It, then, may or may not require further approval from City Council. 2.) This property in question was originally zoned more than 40 years ago (Marty was likely in high school or college at the time). Apparently, the original "mistake" was made then. The "rezone" was subject of the June Planning Commission meeting. Not necessarily a rezone though It was always I-1 with an overlay. You can watch it here http://vimeo.com/68378364" rel="nofollow - http://vimeo.com/68378364 At this meeting, Jeff Faulkner spoke IN FAVOR of the proposal before planning commission. Called it a great thing for the city. He even as asked what was permitted in I-1 and mentioned specific uses which he was told were NOT permitted. |
Vivian Moon wrote:Posted By: SEEKING THE TRUTH
Date Posted: Jul 01 2014 at 10:14pm
| Wow Jeff Faulkner presented evidence of a major screw up by Marty Kohler tonight at the Council meeting 1. The zoning application for the reduction of the property located at 2410 which is the trailer park never included the plaza lot at 2400 carmody but wow our new city manager said hey we have a map that Kohler took his markers and colored in so it must be part of that application what a cover up. I can tell you this is not over Jeff is not going to quit till the city staff issues a correct zoning for the property at 2400 Carmody to be continued. |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 9:41am
|
I didn’t watch the council meeting so I don’t know what “evidence of a mistake” Jeff presented. I have watched the June 2013 planning commission meeting—you know the one where Jeff spoke in highly favor of the proposal before the commission. The one where Jeff specifically asked what uses would be permitted in I-1 citing examples which he was told would NOT be permitted. I’ve also looked at the Zoning Map that shows the remaining trailer park as I-1(p), the small commercial center as I-1(p), and the vacant land fronting Germantown Road as I-1. If you watch the planning commission meeting, you will see that the both parcels (commercial center and trailer park) were shown on the zoning map as I-1(p) with the p indicated planned development. So according to the zoning map online, the commercial center land retains the I-1(p) zoning. What Jeff is wanting is C-2 zoning for the strip center and the vacant land he purchased. Did he present “evidence” that any of these parcels previously had C-2 zoning? Jeff can piss and moan all he wants. He purchased the vacant property knowing full well the city’s intent to redevelop the land for light industry uses to support the area. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 11:01am
|
Maybe the city should purchase the property(and the trailer park) if it is in their current plans, instead of allowing Mr.Faulkner to buy it. Does the city REALLY have a timeframe plan to use the property? I believe that Mr.Faulkner owns the retail/service strip directly across, so why shouldn't he be afforded the opportunity to use his recent purchase in the same manner? Is this somewhat vindictive because he is a large Section 8 landlord? Hey--city admin made all of his direction possible, so why punish him for trying to provide for residents(also of his units) in the immediate area? |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 11:18am
|
QUESTION: Isn't this the same land where the AVALON DAIRY was located about 65 years ago? I remember going on a school field trip and eating ice cream at the plant.
In fact I own one of the old milk bottles from this dairy |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 11:30am
Avalon Dairy was over by the Aeronca plant http://middletownlibrary.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/Crout/id/1606/rec/2" rel="nofollow - http://middletownlibrary.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/Crout/id/1606/rec/2 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 11:36am
Vivian....I believe the Avalon Dairy was in the area almost across from Frisch's and down from the building that looked like it was a Ponderosa at one time (T-shirt printing/clothes store the last I saw it) It sat back off the road as I remember. Back in the early 50's my parents lived on Winona Dr, around the corner, and took me to the Dairy for the best homemade ice cream in the world. There also was a small walk-up ice cream setup on the corner of Wilbraham and Rt 4 by the gas station (Exxon?) too. ------------- I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over. |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 11:46am
My guess development will occur based on market demands. I have no idea what kind of lead generation the ED has done surrounding this property. But light industrial that can leverage the airport makes most sense. They city's original vision was to clear out the entire area for redevelopment. However, I believe the new owners have made a good faith effort to clean up and rehabilitate the property. If Jeff wants to rehabilitate, my guess the the city won't stand in his way. But fact remains the area is saturated with gas stations and vacant commercial spaces so I question the demand for additional retail in the area. Do these residents really need additional services or decent paying jobs the land good provide with its current zoning. The fact remains Jeff KNEW how the land is zoned and what is permitted with that zoning classification. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 1:05pm
|
Can't disagree with what u say, SWO75--very logical I get weary of city admin long-term coveting property that they don't own and have any real plan to re-develop. Hey--look at the messes created with their current holdings in the former downtown area that were promised to be demoed a decade ago + the acquisitions since(Ligon--M Ward). They are on the forefront of blight ownership and need to clean up their own act imo. Marty needs to turn his attention to these structures instead of other property owners imo. |
Posted By: over the hill
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 3:36pm
| I think if the truth be know, they want that land to develop themselves. They had plans to develop the Aeronca land but spent the the money on Orman clean up. So they can't do any thing with Aeronca land until they fine more money.(the CDBG money may disappear). So they certainly don't want someone else developing the area before they get their hands one it. IMO |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 3:56pm
They aren't coveting property - just setting appropriate long-term land use patterns. Unless Jeff can bring to the table a project has secured, the city is correct to leave zoning as is. It's always been I-1---it just had an overlay, which likely was inappropriate to begin with. His "I picked up the phone and called Speedway/UDF" comments are laughable. Name me one commercial project with a regional/national tenant that Jeff has successfully been involved in and then come talk to me. |
Posted By: SEEKING THE TRUTH
Date Posted: Jul 02 2014 at 5:37pm
| Jeff Faulkner was not pissing and moaning about the 14.5 acre track on germantown road that was split off of the 57 acre track by the application of the new owners of the trailer park. FACT 1. In that 2013 planning commission application Chris Barry "one of the owners" applies for a zoning permit to reduce the number of pads located on the 57 acre track from 306 to 132 and to be clear that address of the 57 acre lot is 2410 Carmody blvd which is what is listed on all of the Notices that Marty Kholer sent out to the surrounding property owners. FACT 2. The map that the owners presented to Marty Kholer is stamped with Riverside Village 2410 Carmody Blvd. Note: The map that Marty Kholer is using to show what is to be zoned I1 after the split was created by Marty and per the application is incorrect for the fact that he is including the Plaza lot located at 2400 Carmody Blvd and that is not what was on the application from the owners to rezone and there was never notice that that separate parcel 2400 Carmody was going to be rezoned. So that being said Mr Jeff Faulkner who was present at all of the meetings never heard one time the address of 2400 Carmody Blvd being mention and purchased the parcel with 1.9 acres at 2400 Carmody that should be zoned still I1p and the 14.5 acre parcel that is Zoned I1 that is what these properties should be but no no no no Marty Kholer and Doug Adkins are not letting him keep the I1p zoning on the 2400 lot plaza they have both stated that the 2400 Carmody Blvd "PLAZA" was involved in the rezoning at last nights meeting but how can this be again I have seen all the paperwork on this matter nothing list that address and I believe Joanne stopped the meeting in 2013 to clarify what was trying to be accomplished and the owner looked at the map on the wall and went on about the reduction of lots and playgrounds that is exactly what was on his application nothing about the 2400 Carmody Blvd. People watch the video http://vimeo.com/channels/planningcommission/68378364 June 2013 TVMIDDLETOWN. All he wants is MARTY and Doug to state that the 2400 Carmody Blvd lot is I1P because that is his correcting zoning and Marty is telling him it is I1 that is why he asked for a rezoning to C2 but they want him to be all I1. So you go do your homework and come back and let me know what they said it was zoned and watch the meeting last night I1 or I1p and tell me if you would be pissing and moaning. |