City Plan Board

City of Dayton City Plan Board Minute Record Overview November 12, 2024 4:30 P.M. Planning Resource Conference Room, City Hall 101 W. Third Street, Dayton, Ohio Members Present: Mr. William Allen, Ms. Leslie Lovelace, Ms. Rosie Miller, Mr. Matt Sauer, Ms. Ann Schenking, Mr. Greg Scott Members Excused: Ms. Geraldine Pegues Mr. Scott called the meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. A motion was made by Ms. Schenking, seconded by Ms. Miller, and carried to excuse the absence of Ms. Pegues. A motion was made by Ms. Schenking, seconded by Mr. Sauer, and carried to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2024, meeting. 1. PLN2024-00334 – Subdivision Record Plan Located at 143 Holt St Applicant: J Enterprises Construction, Inc. 808 Xenia Ave Dayton, OH 45410 Priority Land Use Board: North Central Planning District: Old Dayton View Decision: Approved with Conditions 2. PLN2024-00344 – Subdivision Record Plan Located at Flats at South Park Applicant: Flats Developer LLC 4197 Research Blvd Beavercreek, OH 45430 Priority Land Use Board: Downtown Planning District: South Park Decision: Approved with Conditions 3. PLN2024-00345 – Vacation of Right of Way at Flats at South Park Applicant: Flats Developer LLC 4197 Research Blvd Beavercreek, OH 45430 Priority Land Use Board: Downtown Planning District: South Park Decision: Approved with Conditions 4. PLN2024-00346 – Vacation of Right of Way at 313 Mound St Applicant: Production Design Services, Inc. 313 Mound St DAYTON, OH 45402 Priority Land Use Board: West Planning District: Wright-Dunbar Decision: Approved with Conditions City Plan Board Minute Record Summary Page 2 November 12, 2024 5. PLN2024-00347 – Zoning Code Text Amendments Applicant: Steven Gondol, City of Dayton Priority Land Use Board: N/A Planning District: N/A Decision: N/A Prior to staff beginning the presentation for case #5 PLN2024-00347 – Zoning Code Text Amendments, Ms. Schenking made a motion to make the case a work session with testimony to provide time for more engagement with the land use boards and historic district representatives. Ms. Miller seconded the motion that was then carried to approve. After all cases were heard, Ms. Hanauer clarified that Ms. Schenking had said that the Zoning Code Text Amendments could be either a hearing or another work session at the January 14, 2025, meeting of Plan Board. Ms. Schenking said that she feels the next time the Zoning Code Text Amendments are heard could take place during the first quarter of 2025, and it should be based on how much is changed with the land use boards so that the Plan Board will feel comfortable making a recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Sauer clarified that the Zoning Code Text Amendments were heard in a work session at this meeting. Mr. Scott suggested staff send future Zoning Code Text Amendment drafts little by little instead of all at once in a big packet, and at the January 14 meeting of Plan Board, they recommend approval on what they are comfortable with recommending to City Commission. Mr. Scott requested that Ms. Hanauer send out the building height illustrations shown during the Zoning Code Text Amendment presentation. The Plan Board meeting was adjourned by Mr. Scott at 6:55 P.M. Minutes approved by the City Plan Board on December 8, 2024. Jennifer Hanauer, Secretary City Plan Board  City of Dayton City Plan Board Summary Minute Record November 12, 2024 1. PLN2024-00334 – A record plan to consolidate three (3) City lots into one (1) City lot at 143-149 Holt Street. The lot meets the minimum requirements of the MR-5 Mature Single Family Residential zoning district. Applicant: J Enterprises Construction, Inc., Jimico Smith Priority Land Use Board: North Central Planning District: Old Dayton View Decision: Approved with conditions Staff Comments Elizabeth Dakin presented the case, a record plan to consolidate three (3) City lots into one (1) City lot at 143-149 Holt Street. The lot meets the minimum requirements of the MR-5 Mature Single Family Residential zoning district. Parcel R72-07410-0031 falls within a Planned Development, PD-109, which was created in 2010 and has minimum lot width, setbacks, and height for single family or two-family structures. Of which, the lot would still meet and give ample space for a structure to comply. Public Comments None. Board Discussion None. Board Action A motion was made by Ms. Lovelace, seconded by Mr. Allen, and carried to approve Case PLN2024- 00334 subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the Record Plan and any Construction Drawings per the City of Dayton Subdivision Regulations and comments from the Division of Civil Engineering. 2. Ensure that the dimensions are close to within a 1:10,000 ratio. 3. Add any easements required by AES, City of Dayton Water, etc. Mr. William Allen Yes Mr. Matt Sauer Yes Ms. Leslie Lovelace Yes Ms. Ann Schenking Yes Ms. Rosalyn Miller Yes Mr. Greg Scott Yes Ms. Geraldine Pegues Excused Minutes approved by the City Plan Board on December 10, 2024. Jen Hanauer, Secretary City Plan Board  City of Dayton City Plan Board Summary Minute Record November 12, 2024 2. PLN2024-00344 – A record plan to subdivide one (1) City lot into fifteen (15) City lots at the west terminus of Hickory Street between Burns Avenue and Adams Street (parcel ID R72 01913 0006). The lots meet the minimum requirements of the MR-5 Mature Single-family Residential zoning district. Applicant: The Flats Developer LLC Priority Land Use Board: Downtown Planning District: South Park Decision: Approved with conditions Staff Comments Jen Hanauer presented the case, a record plan to subdivide one (1) City lot into fifteen (15) City lots at the west terminus of Hickory Street between Burns Avenue and Adams Street (parcel ID R72 01913 0006). The lots meet the minimum requirements of the MR-5 Mature Single-family Residential zoning district. The final plan review for PD-174 (adopted 2018) was approved by Plan Board on July 12, 2023, and includes ten (10) single-family homes, fifteen (15) townhomes, and three (3) apartment buildings for a total of 88 dwelling units. A vacation, item number 3 on the agenda, will need to be completed prior to the finalization and recording of this record plan. Public Comments None. Board Discussion None. Board Action A motion was made by Ms. Schenking, seconded by Mr. Sauer, and carried to approve Case PLN2024- 00344 subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the Record Plan and any Construction Drawings per the City of Dayton Subdivision Regulations and comments from the Division of Civil Engineering. 2. Ensure that the dimensions are close to within a 1:10,000 ratio. 3. Add any easements required by AES, City of Dayton Water, etc. 4. The existing distance from the centerline of Roadway to the new lot line must be shown on Adams Street, Nathan Place, Burns Ave, and Alberta Street. 5. The vacation of the adjacent right-of-way at the terminus of Hickory Street must be approved by City Commission prior to the finalization and recording of this record plan. Mr. William Allen Yes Mr. Matt Sauer Yes Ms. Leslie Lovelace Yes Ms. Ann Schenking Yes Ms. Rosalyn Miller Yes Mr. Greg Scott Yes Ms. Geraldine Pegues Excused Minutes approved by the City Plan Board on December 10, 2024. Jen Hanauer, Secretary City Plan Board  City of Dayton City Plan Board Summary Minute Record November 12, 2024 3. PLN2024-00345 – A request to vacate 0.120 acres at the west terminus of Hickory Street that will allow for the mixed-use development of City lot 77727, known as Phase 3 of the Flats at South Park. The area is zoned MR-5 Mature Single-family Residential and is part of PD-174, which was adopted in 2018. Applicant: The Flats Developer LLC Priority Land Use Board: Downtown Planning District: South Park Decision: Approved with conditions Staff Comments Jen Hanauer presented the case. This is a request to vacate 0.120 acres at the west terminus of Hickory Street that will allow for the mixed-use development of City lot 77727, known as Phase 3 of the Flats at South Park. The area is zoned MR-5 Mature Single-family Residential and is part of PD-174, which was adopted in 2018. The vacation would not affect access to the three lot on the southwest corner of Hickory and Alberta streets. Public Comments None. Board Discussion Mr. Sauer asked if the 12” line shown on Hickory Street on the Water Department’s map of utilities in the area will be affected. Water did not ask for an easement at that location. Board Action A motion was made by Ms. Schenking, seconded by Ms. Lovelace, and carried to approve Case PLN2024- 00345 subject to the following conditions: 1. Easement boundaries for the existing 6” water main and 8” sanitary line within the vacation boundaries shall be shown. 2. The applicant shall supply a metes and bounds description with the Petition to Vacate. Mr. William Allen Yes Mr. Matt Sauer Yes Ms. Leslie Lovelace Yes Ms. Ann Schenking Yes Ms. Rosalyn Miller Yes Mr. Greg Scott Yes Ms. Geraldine Pegues Excused Minutes approved by the City Plan Board on December 10, 2024. Jen Hanauer, Secretary City Plan Board  City of Dayton City Plan Board Summary Minute Record November 12, 2024 4. PLN2024-00346 – A request to vacate approximately 200 feet of Saratoga Lane north of the railroad. The right-of-way is within the PDSI campus at 313 Mound St., bisecting the parking lot and running underneath a portion of the building. The vacation would allow the property owner to complete the lot consolidation that was approved by Plan Board on October 8, 2024. Applicant: Production Design Services, Inc. Priority Land Use Board: West Planning District: Wright-Dunbar Decision: Approved with conditions Staff Comments Jen Hanauer presented the case. This is a request to vacate approximately 200 feet of Saratoga Lane north of the railroad. The right-of-way is within the PDSI campus at 313 Mound St., bisecting the parking lot and running underneath a portion of the building. The vacation would allow the property owner to complete the lot consolidation that was approved by Plan Board on October 8, 2024. Public Comments None. Board Discussion None. Board Action A motion was made by Ms. Miller, seconded by Ms. Lovelace, and carried to approve Case PLN2024- 00346 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall supply a metes and bounds description with the Petition to Vacate. Mr. William Allen Yes Mr. Matt Sauer Yes Ms. Leslie Lovelace Yes Ms. Ann Schenking Yes Ms. Rosalyn Miller Yes Mr. Greg Scott Yes Ms. Geraldine Pegues Excused Minutes approved by the City Plan Board on December 10, 2024. Jen Hanauer, Secretary City Plan Board  City of Dayton Page 1 City Plan Board Summary Minute Record November 12, 2023 5. PLN2024-00347 – Zoning Code Text Amendments Applicant: Steven Gondol, City of Dayton Priority Land Use Board: N/A Planning District: N/A Decision: N/A Prior to staff beginning the presentation, Ms. Schenking made a motion to make the case a work session with testimony to provide time for more engagement with the land use boards and historic district representatives. Ms. Miller seconded the motion that was then carried to approve. Staff Comments Ms. Hanauer presented the proposed text amendments. 1. Bike parking in parking garages. This amendment brings our ratio of bike parking spaces to vehicle parking space more in line with national standards in addition to providing appropriate guidance for bike parking areas within garages including form, placement, and access for bikes and pedestrians. Dayton’s last zoning code text amendment updated many portions of the Bicycle Parking Requirements section including the addition of a requirement to provide bike parking within new parking garages or principal parking lots. However, the code did not provide design or form guidelines for how a bike parking area within a garage should function. 2. EV charging stations/chargers. This will incrementally add electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure requirements and guidelines for off-street parking. The use of electric vehicles (EVs) is increasing rapidly, and the City of Dayton recognizes the need to support this transition by providing adequate infrastructure. To encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the City aims to expand the availability of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) throughout our community and ensure that they are safe and effective. Comments: clean up grammar, 150.700.17(E) doesn't exist; change definition for EV to exclude non-plug; Mr. Sauer wanted to know why these are considered an accessory use 3. Congregate and Protective Care. The intent is to treat Congregate Care Facilities and Protective Care Facilities with a more similar approach by making both uses a Conditional Use in UBD (currently Congregate Care is permitted by right), making them both not permitted in CBD (currently Protective Care is a Conditional use and Congregate care is not permitted) and a Conditional Use in Campus Institutional (currently Protective Care is not permitted in CI, while Congregate Care is a P/P* depending on distance from CI boundary. These uses have similar definitions, and indeed they are both group care facilities. We have had applicants argue that protective care facilities are in fact congregate care when congregate care is the more direct path for approval (and vice versa for the same reason). This will make that perspective moot in CBD, UBD, and CI as they will have the same approval path. For background, here are the zoning code definitions for each use: • Congregate care facility. A residential facility that provides for the needs of individuals who are elderly or disabled. The facility shall consist of residential dwelling units or rooms designed specifically for the elderly or disabled, and may have common social, recreational, dining and/or food preparation facilities. The facility may be for independent living and/or may provide the residents with a range of personal and medical assistance including nursing care. • Protective care facility. A facility owned or operated by an agency or an individual authorized by the appropriate governmental licensing agency to provide housing, food, treatment or supportive  services to: persons who have been assigned by a court to a protective environment in lieu of placement in a correctional institution; to individuals who have been institutionalized and released from the criminal justice system; or to individuals who have alcohol or drug problems and who require the protection of a supervised group setting. 4. Missing “Middle” Multi-Family. The intent is to expand the definition for what constitutes a “middle” multi-family building and make it easier to re-activate existing middle multi-family buildings. Currently, anything above 2 dwelling units is considered multi-family with a higher standard. Many of our historic neighborhoods, zoned MR-5, have mixed density buildings that have been used on and off for decades without issue but now must go through the Conditional Use process to reuse the building even if it were built for it. The idea here, specifically for those 3–4-unit buildings, would be to allow those to be used if the building existed prior to 2006 (to mirror existing standard). Comments: Add illustrations; clarify definitions; clarify if it was built to be a 3-4 unit or if it was illegally converted 5. Parking regulations. The intent is to lessen parking regs where it makes sense, increase powers of Zoning Admin for minor variance regarding parking, instead of district-based parking requirements make it used based only. The intent of these suggested changes is to increase the flexibility of staff to approve minor variances (should sufficient evidence be provided) decrease parking requirements where feasible and combine the parking requirement tables so that they are use based instead of Zoning based. Currently, a use has a smaller parking requirement downtown and with the mature and eclectic zoning districts but when going to the suburban districts that same use will have a high standard. By combining the tables into one use-based table staff, in effect, are proposing that the lesser parking requirements found in mature Zoning Districts will also apply to suburban districts. In staff’s opinion, just because properties are zoned suburban does not mean we should have a greater standard for more parking as the goal is to reduce the amount of parking space required, unless otherwise needed by the use. Comments: Ms. Schenking wanted to know what the land use boards say about this one; what are the max requirements/check for reductions; Mr. Sauer asked for clarification on 150.700.4(C); Not ready for Schedule 150.700.4(B)-(E); Monica Snow said parking regs are the only way currently to control STRs 6. Mixed-use permitted in Mixed-Use Hub. The intent is to make mixed-use residential a Conditional Use in the transitional Zoning District and Permitted with Standards in the Mixed-use Zoning District. Mixed- use/residential should be permissible with standards in the Mixed-Use and Transitional Zoning districts to meet the intent of the code. Also proposing to make some changes found in the supplemental standard for mixed-use/residential properties as nearly all the standards found this section should apply to all Zoning Districts where this use is permitted. 7. ADU Illustration. An illustration of the different ways in which an accessory dwelling unit could be added to a dwelling would be added to the definitions. As ADUs come in many different forms, adding an illustration to the definition will aid those applying for an ADU to understand the different ways in which they may be able to add one to their property. Comments: Ms. Schenking would like ADUs added up front in the design standards for districts. 8. ADUs in Historic Districts. The intent is to clarify conditions for approval for accessory dwelling units as accessory structures. Accessory dwelling units can be approved administratively, as they are considered accessory structures. However, in some cases an ADU might need to be taken to the Landmark Commission for review and approval due to high visibility impact on a historic structure.  Comments: Ms. Schenking said she's okay if the historic districts are okay; Ms. Snow said alleys are important so visibility should not be a criteria for a minor Certificate of Appropriateness, but a garage is different 9. Removal of Density Regulations. The intent is to remove specific density maximums from the SMF and T zoning districts, as the density is a function of bulk, scale, and setback requirements. This is already the case in the MMF, EMF, and MXD zoning districts. The density in the T and SMF districts should be treated the same as other zoning districts – a function of other regulations such as height, setback, lot size, and design requirements. The density requirements are redundant and simply serve as an additional barrier to housing. 10. Telecommunications Towers. This amendment would move definitions to the definitions section of the code, clarify permitted locations within section and within use tables, remove discrepancies, add a height to distance requirement from residential, and re-organize to make it easier to interpret. Large portions of this section contradict or are unclear. Additionally, the way it is currently written, there is no consistent distance requirement from residential. This is an attempt to make this section easier to understand and have a clear path for those seeking co-location and new towers. Comments: Ms. Schenking said it needs clarification; Ms. Schenking also said to consider changing this to match other municipalities because she believes we should not be more lenient than others; clean up sentence in 150.600.7(A) 11. Minor Record Plans. This would define minor record plans and give administrative authority to approve provided the lot(s) meet the Zoning Code and are either simply combining lots or subdividing lots (not resulting in more than three lots). Subdivision record plans are not defined in the current code. Staff uses the regulations followed by Public Works to process all record plans. Minor subdivision record plans currently have to be approved by Plan Board even when they meet requirements. It would be a better use of everyone’s time if record plans could be done administratively. 12. Sidewalk Design and SGC. The SGC district (Suburban General Commercial) was originally omitted from the Commercial Design standards and is now being added. Some additional minimum language to ensure pedestrian safety through a site is proposed. The Suburban General Commercial should, like all other commercial districts, adhere to the minimum design standards for commercial districts. As the design standards section also introduces important pedestrian safety elements, it would be unwise in the long run to exempt the SGC zones from these requirements. Comments: Mr. Sauer asked staff to consider if striping is enough and said it is a low bar. 13. ADU Permitted in Single-Family Districts. This would be a change to the Permitted Uses table for Single-Family Residential districts permitting ADUs by right as opposed to requiring a Conditional Use approval from the BZA. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have many positive effects, both for individuals and for the community. Allowing individuals to age in place, encouraging multi-generational living, diversifying housing stock, and promoting incremental increases in density are just some of the benefits of ADUs. Since adding ADUs to the Zoning Code, every Conditional Use application for an ADU has been approved by the BZA. Comments: Ms. Schenking said ADUs should remain conditional uses; Ms. Snow said she wants ADUs to remain Conditional Uses even though Jeff reminded everyone that two-family dwellings are permitted 14. Food Trucks, Itinerant Vendors, and Graffiti. This amendment creates a definition for “food trucks” and allows them in all commercial and industrial properties with a temporary use permit. Allows the Zoning Administrator the same “uses not listed” power to evaluate and categories uses not anticipated by the zoning code for temporary uses as already exists for primary permanent uses. Provides a definition of graffiti and a mechanism for enforcement of its removal. Food trucks have been considered itinerant vendors without distinguishment and have not been allowed in the T-Transitional District, Suburban Commercial Districts or in industrial districts. This change permits food trucks more widely, while introducing standards. The Temporary Use section lacked provisions allowing the Zoning Administrator the ability to issue temporary use permits for those temporary uses not listed. One-off events, annual holiday events and similar temporary uses were difficult to permit in a timely manner as a result. The Housing and Zoning Codes have lacked adequate definitions and enforcement mechanisms for graffiti. The definition introduced distinguishes unwanted graffiti from desirable art and asserts that the property owner is ultimately responsible for cleanup of their property, like is the case in most cities. Comments: Ms. Schenking pointed at L(1) and asked if that's three calendar or consecutive days (same with graffiti); Mr. Sauer had questions about exempting from 10 not 5 (should exempt 5) and whether this needed to be worded broadly enough to allow parking at curb; Ms. Miller wanted to address what happens to existing food trucks (specifically on east side); John Gower likes food trucks and says they have been incubators for the food hall 15. Restrict Indoor Self-Storage in C, BD, and MX. This amendment proposes to remove indoor self- storage facilities and like uses from the uses permitted in Commercial, Downtown, and Mixed-Use districts. Currently, indoor self-storage facilities are permitted (or permitted with standards) in the UBD, T, EGC, SGC, I-1, I-2, or BP Zoning Districts. Indoor self-storage facilities are a conditional use in the T district only if it is a new build. Self-storage facilities, in staff’s opinion, have some compatibility issues on permitting them along major corridors and closer to the core of the City. They typically present on larger parcels of land that could otherwise be put to more productive use, provide few employees, and generally do not fit the fabric of the area where they are permissible just to name a few issues. This use is more appropriate for industrial zoned properties, of which there are many in the City. This proposal seeks to removing them as a permissible use entirely in all Zoning Districts outside industrial (I-1, I-2, or BP) or at the very least requiring them to be a Conditional Use so the city has some oversight and the ability to object. The proposed changes, as seen in the schedules below, are an effort to restrict a self-storage facility to Zoning Districts that are far more appropriate and safeguarding downtown, commercial and transitional zoned properties for uses that would be more likely to benefit the community and the fabric of the community. Also included on here is the removal of like uses (warehousing) from the UBD/CBD Zoning Districts and small recycling collection facilities from the SGC Zoning District. Comments: Ms. Schenking wondered if we should consider removing them from the Code entirely like Kettering did or if we should also remove them from BP (our attractive industrial areas). 16. Marijuana Regulations. Currently, we define only medical marijuana use establishments, not recreational or “adult-use marijuana” as it is being called. Therefore, we need to update our zoning code to reflect statewide changes. The proposal is to allow adult-use marijuana establishments where we currently allow medical marijuana establishments. Medical marijuana dispensaries are currently allowed in the following zoning districts: CBD, UBD, all commercial districts, all industrial districts, Transitional (T), and Mixed-Use. It is important to note that all marijuana related uses will be subject to state regulations. For example, the state is to require that all dispensaries be 500 feet away from any library, park, playground, school or church. They may not be within one mile of an existing dispensary, or a location proposed by another dispensary applicant. Also, dispensaries can only stay open until 11 p.m. These land uses have not been shown to cause major land use issues. They in many ways act as a regular retail establishment, which are also widely permitted. One could easily conclude that a drinking establishment is more likely to be problematic and they too are permitted in all commercial and downtown zoning districts, for example. Comments: Staff needs to add language saying something to the effect of "with any future amendments changes to Ohio laws." 17. Height Regulations in EMF and MMF. This amendment would reword the height regulations for EMF and MMF districts for primary building to be further clarified and remove any confusion from it. Currently, section 150.310.5(C)(2) conflicts with itself making it difficult to determine what the height standard for a primary building would be in the EMF and MMF Zoning Districts. The proposed change would reword portions of these regulations to further clarify the height of a building under each circumstance in addition to setting a maximum height for multi-family buildings NOT within 200 feet of a residential district. The proposed change would not change the intent of the code as it is currently written, simply make it a little clearer. Comments: Ms. Schenking asked if we should change the Code while there is an active lawsuit, saying it makes the City look guilty (Mr. Scott asked for name of open case); Mr. Sauer asked what a scenario would be where a big lot could have a 60-foot building Ms. Hanauer reviewed public comments that were received from the following: • Lunch & Learn – Hybrid informational meeting for land use boards held October 29, about 20 members in attendance, Zoning Code Text Amendment informational page added to City’s website that includes recording of meeting • Joel Michael – Suggested keeping an eye on the overlap of ADUs and STRs • Mark Manovich – Concerns regarding existing multi-family buildings • Jerri Stanard – Concerns regarding parking for multi-family buildings • Preservation Dayton, Inc. – Concerns regarding existing multi-family buildings, ADUs in historic districts and single-family districts, density regulations in SMF and T districts, height regulations in EMF and MMF districts, and parking regulations • John Gower – Concerns regarding parking regulations and height regulations in EMF and MMF districts Board Action No action by the Board at this time. Minutes approved by the City Plan Board on December 10, 2024. Jen Hanauer, Secretary City Plan Board