TROY OHIO AGENDA - TROY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2025, 3:30 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Roll Call 2. Minutes - Feb. 12, 2025 3. Rezoning Application - 191 Commerce Center Boulevard, a Portion of Parcel No. D08-105472, from R-4, Single-Family Residence District, and OC-1, Office-Commercial District, to M-2, Light Industrial District Owner Komyo America Co., Inc. Applicant - Craig E. Sweeney, 40N. Main Street, Suite 1700, Dayton, OH -Commission to determine whether or not to hold a public hearing -Commission to provide a recommendation to Council 4. Note that Annie Shoemaker requested Council to permit residents to keep chickens. She was advised that her request would be forwarded to the Planning Commission as the request would be a matter of zoning. 5. Adjourn Next Meeting April 9, 2025 Note to Commission members: If you will not be attending, please email or call Sue. February 12, 2025 Aregular meeting of the Troy Planning Commission was heldi in Council Chambers, City Hall on Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at3 3:30 p.m. with Chairman James McGary presiding. ATTENDING: Members McGary, Oda, Westmeyer, Erlich, Wolke, and Titterington; Development Staff - Eidemiller, Bruner andE Burgei; and Development! Director Davis. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Upon motion of Mr. Titterington, seconded by Mrs. Ehrlich, the minutes of the. Jan. 22, 2025, meeting were approved! by unanimous voice vote. HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATION, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 15 s. MARKET STREET, REVIEW OF PAINTED HDBEROMTOREBAERICANTL TECUMSEH OF OHIOLLC. BETH! KERBER. Mr. Eidemiller commentedt that the applicant is notp proceeding with any additional request for the Commission; sot the Commission is to review the" lagoon" color; staffi is providing the Commission with paint colors swatches, ana analysis is included witht thes staffr report, and the reporti is: BACKGROUND: Thea applicant and owner, Tecumseh of1 Troyl LLC, isr requestingt the Planning Commission tor review painteds storefront at the property located at 15 S. Market Street. The Ohio Historic Inventory form (OHI) describes this buildinga as three-story commercial building with three (3)or more bays. Contributing features include the size and placement within the plane of the commercial streetscape. Previous alterations were to cover the original characteristics oft the building until the owner removed all of ther metal that was hiding the original characteristics. At the June 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, theF Planning Commission approvedt ther requestf fort thea adjacents storefrontt to! be painted Sherwin' Williams SW 6480Lagoon. During painting. the contractor accidentally painted both storefronts at1 13 and 15S. Market Street. This is what led tot this request. PROPOSAL: Alteration #1: 15 S. Markets Street storefront painteds SW6 6480 Lagoon. Before After STAFF ANALY YSIS: (Staff analysis can bes seen belowi inredf followinge eachs section): Design Manual: 2.6 Paint Colors states: Paint colors varied through history, not only with fashions, but also because of available materials. These colors often tiet the architectural elements ando details ofab building together. ip possible, research thel history of the buildinge ando discover its original colors, particularly int thec case of Victorians style structures which were oftennotv white buta variety ofo colors ands shades. A. Aconcentration of similar colors on thes same block should be avoided." There are no similar colors on this same block except the next doorb bullding. B. Historically unpainted surfaces should not be painted. Historically painted surfaces should remain painted. The storefront was previously painted. C. Simpler buildings should have a simple color scheme. More omate structures, such as larger Queen Anne styles, may incorporate three or more colors. Two colors meet this requirement. D. Matte, fiat, or semi-gloss paint should beu used. Avoid high gloss paint. Highg -gloss paint is beinga avoided. E. Inallo circumstances, avoid brighta and obtrusive colors, such as neon or day-glowl hues. Thec colors arer not bright or obtrusive. RECOMMEND DATION: Staff recommends thati ift the color of the storefront is darker to match the upper window trim of thep paint colors that exist, it would be more aesthetically pleasingh however, the proposedo color does complyv with Section: 2.6oft the Design Manual as outlineda above." Staff passed around a color swatch of "SW 6480 lagoon'; and indicated some level of preference as to the color painted would be up to the Commission, withs staff statingity would look! betteri ifp painted tor matchi the upper dark green trim. Mr. Titteringtons stated there seemedt to be some contradiction! nt thes staffr report as ther reportr noted there would be some concentrations of colors ifthe painted color is approved, and asked for clarification. Mr. Eidemiller stated there would be some concentration ift this color is approved, with the concentration being witht thea adjacent building, which hast thes same owner, buti isa separate building. Her noted thatt thep paintings should not look like one storefront, but should look like two storefronts. In responset tol Mr." Titteringtonf form more clarification as toy paint swatches and what was approved, Mr. Davis stated that the swatch of Lagoon was the approved color for 13; itwas accidentally paintedo onto 15 S. Market; when thes swatchi is held against the! buildingi it looks morel liket the color that isr now thes second floor trimo of 15; int the 6-24-2024 Commission packet the colors look similar. Mr. Titterington stated thatit t seems that both buildings were notp painted as represented as lagoon, butp paintedy what looks liket teal. Mr. Davis stated thes application was for paintinga a bluec colora and thet trimo of the north building painted lagoon. Mr.7 Tittering asked if everything on both buildings witht thee exception of the windowt trim ont thes south buildingy was paintedt they wrong color. Mr. Davis stated" wet thinks so". Mr. Eidemillers stated thec only paint swatch provided to staff wasi identified: as' "SW/64801 lagoon". Mayor Odac commentedt thatt the color swatch isr notv whati s on the building. Mr. Eidemillers stated he cannot verify thatt the color swatch was thea actual colorp painted, buti itdoes notl look likeit. Mr. Titterington commentedt thatt thes swatch color wasy what was approved, and thei issue may now bet thatt the owner may now have to repaint both buildings to get rid oft the blue. He commented1 thata another questioni is didt the Commission approvet the yellow/blue colors, as he does notr recall seeing thato combination. Mr. Eidemiller stated hel has thei initial application, butit itwas noted thatt thet blueir int the packet does not appear what wasp painted; however, staff ommentedt thaty whaty was int the packet was a: xerox copy ofas xerox copy and would not show thes shade ont thes swatch. Mr." Titterington commented that isy whyt the actual colors swatch must bep provideda att ther meeting to be viewed by the Commission. February 12, 2025 Page Two Mr. Davis andN Mr. Eidemiller commented thats staff compared the color swatcht to thep paint on the building ont the second floor of 13 S. Market andi it appears tor matchi thec color int the approved application, and when they compared the lagoon swatch to the paint on thet firstf floor oft both buildings, thea actualp paint looks likea lighter bluet thant the swatch. Mr. Davis stated thath het thinks the building was painteda a different color swatch than the lagoon swatch. Mrs. Ehrlich commented that thel lagoon swatch looks liket thet trimp paint on thes second building (15 S. Market), which shet thinks is veryr nice. Mr. Westmeyer concurred thatt the swatch being viewed is darker than the colors actually painted; but he concurs that they yellow does seem to match whaty was approved. Mr. Titteringtono commentedt thatitstilla appearst theb blued on both buildings isr noty whatv was approved. It was noted that the applicant was not in attendance, with Mr. Titterington commenting that it has been difficult to get an application or an appearance byt the applicant overs severaln months. The Mayor stated her concemi ist that there aret twos separate buildings, ande each should be painted different andt thel buildings should not have twor matching upper foors. She stated shev wants tos seet twob buildings looking different. tv was commented thatt the twol buildings are not the same style ors scale. The Commissions viewed thec color swatch oft they yellow color. Mr. Westmeyer stated he was noto okay witht the southem building paintedt teal blue as to does not blend well with the second and third floor and questions thatt thet teal color painted was approveda and commented thath he would not have approvedt thet teal colort thath has been applied. Hes stated hei is okay with the yellow or chartreuse color ont thes second floorc of 135 S. Market Street, and he does noto concur thatt thet firstf floors of both buildings should be painted thes same color. Mrs. Ehrlich stateds shec does notb believe thec color paintedi is what shes voted on as lagoon. Staff commentedt thatt the paint company updatest thec color swatches every therer months. Regardingt thec color of the trim on the on the north building, Mrs. Ehrlich stated she belie eves thati is what she approved for the building color. Staffs stated that thet trimp painty was notp parto oft the applicationa asi itwas matching! like fori likea as maintenance. MOTION: Mr. Westmeyer moved to deny the historic district applicationi for the painting oft the storefront: at 15 S. Market Street, and asked staff to talk to the applicant abouty whata appears tob bea ani incorrect color ont thei firstf floor of1 15S. Market Street. Motion secondedt by Mayor Oda. DISCUSSION: -Inr response toN Mr. McGarry, itv wass stated thatt the applicant could appeal tot the BZA. -Mr. Titterington commentedt that the applicant could provide the Commission with a color thato could be approved, with the Mayor stating that the approved color would then have to be used. -Mr. Eldemiller noted that the applicant has some other required work to bec completed. -Mr. Wolke suggestedt the applicant bea advised thatt the Commission would bea amenable tot thes approved paint colors. VOTE: MOTION ADOPTED, UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE Staffo commented that the applicant will receive an official denial. There being no further business, the meeting adjoumed at 3:52 p.m. upon motion of Mr. Westmeyer, seconded by Mr. Titterington, and approved by unanimous voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Chairman Secretary Austin Eidemiller TROY Planning & Zoning Manager Austin.eidemiller@troyohio.gov DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City of Troy Planning Commission Members FROM: Austin Eidemiller, Planning & Zoning Manager DATE: March 20, 2025 SUBJECT: 191 Commerce Center Boulevard = Rezoning Request BACKGROUND: A request by the applicant Craig Sweeney, on behalf of the owner Komyo America Co., Inc. for the Planning Commission to consider the rezoning of 191 Commerce Center Boulevard from R-4, Single Family Residential District, and the OC-1, Office-Commercial District to the M-2 Light Industrial District. The property is located on Commerce Center Boulevard north of McKaig Road. The land is currently vacant. The surrounding zoning districts include the M-2 Light Industrial District to the north and west. The OC-1 Office Commercial District is present to the south. County zoning of R-1AAA, One Family Residential is present to the south. The property is bounded by interstate 75 to the east. It is important to note that the property has multiple zoning districts on the same lot. The majority of the lot is currently zoned M-2 Light Industrial District. See Exhibit A Zoning Map. DISCUSSION: The Zoning Code describes the proposed M-2 Light Industrial District as "Purpose. The "M-2" Light Industrial District is designed to provide for industrial uses, which can be operated in such a manner as to conform to the applicable performance standards specified in the district. These performance standards regulate such uses in order to prohibit congestion and for the protection of adjacent residential and business activities. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map displays this property as future light industrial land. In reviewing a rezoning proposal, Section 1139.07 outlines the criteria on which to base decisions. Staff analysis can be found in Red below: (A) Whether the change in classification would be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code. Section 1131.02(0) & (r) state the purposes of the Zoning Code are to preserve and enhance property value, and direct particular land uses to the parcel of land best suited for them. The proposed rezoning request achieves these purposes. (B) Whether the proposed amendment is made necessary because of changed or changing conditions in the area affected, and, if so, the nature of such changed or changing conditions. 100 South Market Street, Troy, OH 45373-7303 Austin Eidemiller TROY Planning & Zoning Manager Austin.eidemiller@troyohio.gov DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The proposed rezoning is not made necessary because of changing conditions in the affected area. The proposed use will not have any adverse effects in the area and is similar to the industrial uses that currently exist to the north. (C) Whether the uses that would be permitted on the property if it were reclassified would be compatible with the uses permitted on other property in the immediate vicinity. The proposed use is compatible and similar to the industrial uses that currently exist to directly to the north. It is important to note that the property is currently zoned M-2 Light Industrial District with the R-4 Single Family Residential and the OC-1 Office Commercial District being present on the same lot. (D) Whether adequate utility, sewer, and water facilities, and all other needed public services exist or can be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on a property if it were reclassified. Adequate utilities are being provided to the property in reference. (E) The amount of vacant land that currently has the same zoning classification as is proposed for the subject property, particularly in the vicinity of the subject property, and any special circumstances, in any, that make a substantial part of such vacant land unavailable for development. In the vicinity of the subject property, there is minimal vacant industrial land available for development. Only sixteen (16) acres of M-2 Light Industrial District is vacant in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. (F) Whether the proposed amendment would correct an error in the application of this Zoning Code as applied to the subject property. Not applicable in this request. PUBLIC HEARING: Due to thes straight forward nature of the rezoning request, the compliance with the City of Troy Comprehensive Plan, and the fact that City Council is required to hold a public hearing if the request proceeds on, staff does not feel that a public hearing before the Planning Commission is warranted. RECOMMENDATION: Iti is staff's opinion that the proposed rezoning will achieve the desired M-2 Light Industrial District as identified in the City of Troy's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, about 23 acres of the 29-acre tract is currently zoned M-2 Light Industrial District. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from OC- 1 Office Commercial District and the R-4 Single Family Residential District to the M-2 Light Industrial District based on the following: o The proposed rezoning is consistent with the intent and purposes of the City of Troy Zoning Code; and o The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning districts; and O The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City of Troy Comprehensive Plan. 100 South Market Street, Troy, OH 45373-7303 Exhibit A Zoning Map M-2 M-2 à M-2 M-2 M-2 R-4 0C-1 R-4 R-4 OG Legend Proposed Rezoning R4 R-4 Citylimits Zones Ccunty Zoning (Outside Troy) Agriculture: 20 Acre Min. Agriculture- Residential: 5 Ade Min. R-1 Single Family Residential: 40,000 Sqrt. C-1 R-4 R-2 Residential: 20,000 SqFt. M-2 Single Family R-3 Single Family Residential: 15,000 SqFt. R-3B Single Family Residential: 12,000 SqPt R-45 Single Family Residential: 9,000 SqFt. R-5 Single Farily Residential: 6,000 SyFl. R-61 Two Family Residontial: 3,000 SqPI/DU R-71 Multiple Family Residential: 3,000 SqFL./DU OR-1 Office-Resd dential: 3,00C SqFt./DU OC-1 Office-Commerclal District B-1 Local Retall District el B-4 M-2 B-20 General Business Distric: B-30 Centra Business District B-41 Highway Service Business District -MCKAIGRD M1 1 Panned Industrial District M-2 Light Industrial Distridt M-3 Gen Teral Industial Dstrict PUD Plannec Urit Development wo Wellhead Operahon istrrt City Admnistered Courty Zoning Legend ExhibitB-Futuré Land Use : Troy Cly Limits Wellhead Protectiont District - Downtown Riverfront Overlay District Historic District Parcel Futurel Land Use Character Class - Open Space ando Conservation Agricultural Single-Unit Detached Single-Unittiached Mult- Uni Attached L Traditional Neighborhood Trail-Oriented Development Office Residential Neighborhood Commercial L Regional Commercial Downtown Miked-Use Mired-Use Lighti industrial = Generalindustrial McKalg Rd Future Land Use Map de City of Troy Comprehensive Plan 050093 Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting Office Use (Held every 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month at 3:30 p.m.) Only Date Requested: Date Filed Accepted Applicant(s) scheduled on the agenda will be notified Filing Fee by Pd. APPLICATION IS DUE TWO (2) WEEKS PRIOR TO MEETING Receipt # APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT CITY OF TROY PLANNING COMMISSION (MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK) (READ SECTION 1139 OF THE ZONING CODE BEFORE COMPLETING APPLICATION) An application for an amendment to the City of Troy, Ohio Zoning Code that would change the zoning classification for the property located at 191 Commerce Center Blvd., Troy, OH 45373 D08-105472 (Street Address) being lot number(s) from R-4 and OC-1: to M-2 (Parcel Identification Number) (Existing Zoning Classification) (Proposed. Zoning Classification) OWNER APPLICANT Name Komyo America Co., Inc. E. Name Craig Sweeney Address 11590 Township Road 298 Address 40 N. Main St., Suite 1700 City East Liberty, OH 43319 Dayton City State OH OH State Zip Code 43319 Zip Code. 45373 Phone No. 8033221796 Phone No. 9372456851 Fax No. Fax No. Email Ha.amderon@nahondacom Email CESweeney@taltaw.com The applicant is the counsel for the owner (State the interest of the applicant) of the property, which is subject to this application. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. The reasons for seeking a change in the zoning classification or zoning text: Attach as 2. The legal description of the land proposed to be reclassified: Attach as EXHIBIT "B". EXHIBIT "A" 3. A: site plan prepared by a registered engineer, surveyor or architect in duplicate drawn to such scale show: as to clearly a. The actual dimensions of the subject property according to the recorded plat of such lot numbers, it's present zoning classification, existing and proposed uses: Attach as property, b. The present zoning classification of all surrounding lands located within two hundred EXHIBIT "C". of the land proposed to be reclassified: Attach as EXHIBIT "D". and fifty (250) feet C. A list (see example) of the names, addresses, and lot numbers of the owners of within a of two hundred andi fifty (250) feet from the parcel or parcels of land proposed to property be reclassified: radius Attach as EXHIBIT "E" i. Include one (1) copy of County Tax Maps ii. Include two (2) sets of mailing labels 4. 2 complete sets (Exhibits A-E) reproducible in a format no larger than 11"x17" 5. Filing Fee of $250.00 made payable to the City of Troy Page 1 of 2 I HEREBY DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND THE THE EXHIBITS PREPARED BY ME AND TRANSMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE. STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ALL h (Apicantsignature) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day. of Mack 20 225 ANET mission Expires 1/31 20.28 W (Month/Date/Year) & Danty Hakle (Notary Public) P Oc4 % SION EXPIRES 20 28 (For Office Use Only Do Not Write Below This Line) REQUIRED DOCUMENTS: EXHIBIT A Reasons for Zoning Reclassification EXHIBIT B Legal Description EXHIBIT C Site Plan: lot dimensions, lot numbers, current zoning, existing and proposed uses EXHIBIT D. Site Map with Zoning & Owners within 250 feet of parcel - EXHIBIT E Property Owners List within 250 feet of parcel Labels Two (2) Sets of Mailing Labels of Propérty Owners V Copies (1) Complete Sets in a reproducible format 11"x17" V Map(s) One (1) County Tax Map(s) - Filing Fee Check issued to City of Troy for $250.00 Additional Documentation (List): PLANNING COMMISSION DISPOSITION: PUBLIC HEARING DATE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL DISPOSITION: 1st Reading: 2nd: 3rd: PUBLIC HEARING DATE COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Approved: Denied: CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ordinance Number: Effective Date: Revised 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT : CITY OF TROY PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant KOMYO AMERICA CO., INC. ("Applicant") hereby requests a zoning reclassification for portions of Parcel No. D08-105472 (the "Subject Parcel") from R-4 and OC-1 to M-2. The requested reclassification is to facilitate the construction of an approximately 486,000 square feet industrial facility with adjoining office space (the "Facility"), substantially similar to that illustrated on the Site Plan with zoning map overlay attached as Exhibit C. The majority of the proposed Facility is located on those portions of the Subject Parcel is currently zoned as M-2, however portions of the Facility, surrounding storm water, and an entrance to the Facility is located on the southern-most portions of the Subject Parcel that are currently zoned as R-4 and OC-1. EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION Situate in the City of Troy, County of Miami and State of Ohio and being Inlot Number 9928 of the Consecutive Numbers of Lots on the Revised Plat ofthe said City ofTroy, Ohio. Parcel ID. No. D08-105472 Instrument Reference: Titled in the name of Komyo America Co., Inc. a California corporation, via General Warranty Deed dated March 5, 2008, recorded on March 7, 2008 as Instrument No. 0483689 in the Official records ofMiami County, Ohio INFEET 0 00 200 8 a EXISTING ZONING M-2 R-4 - - OFFICES OC-1 I- 360x1350, - R-1AAA E E H I E a 3 SORM WATER I - a : 3 - a I - - ma D a E - MEKAIGAVE 869-169-008 GVONEd DE OF U - 1 SCLENFEET 5 150 300 2 & OFFICES EXISTING ZONING '360x1350 M-2 R-4 OC-1 T R-1AAA 5 6 7 8 9 3 - a H a 3 5 a - 3 - E 10 4 ME AIG 7V 11 12 13 a € REVISIONS: I à E 5 by s 008 GVONEd 5P JAT 02-78 -2025 PMEETNUMBER OFI EXHIBIT E ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 1. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 151 Commerce Center Blvd., Troy, OH 45373 2. Favorite Farm Limited, 190 Commerce Center Blvd., Troy, OH 45373 3. Charles W. Hormell III and Donna M. Hormell, 1641 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 4. Curtis P. and Susan A. Campbell, 1635 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 5. MS & Leanna, 1633 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 6. Mark S. and Sharon L. Pierson, 1631 McKaig Road W, Troy, OH 45373 7. Megan and Josh Gabel, 1629 McKaig Road W, Troy, OH 45373 8. David and Tracey Harvey, 100 N. Norbert Drive, Troy, OH 45373 9. William and Jenni Bolton, 85 Norbert Drive N, Troy, OH 45373 10. Bradley L. and Rachel Gordon, 1605 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 11. TNT Properties of Miami County Ltd., 1636 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 12. Roger. J. and Katherine H. Fulker, 1616 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 13. Sharon D. Chaney, 1610 McKaig Road, Troy, OH 45373 Miami County OH 401 401 1 e 500 S 510 B 75 610 6 4 510 510 e 300 a 510 510 00 519 500 50 510 E0 a 300 510 600 3 E0G 510 550 8 500 510 401 o G 510 510 610 - 429 447 618 600 510 499 51 - 6 3/20/2025, 9:51:29 AM 1:4,514 Land Use 0 0.03 0.06 0.11 mi Parcels C 512 501 400 300 420 103 Parcel Class E 510 0.04 0.09 0.18 km 520 499 429 650 403 453 Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinsan, R 511 NCEAS. FEMA, Intermap, NLS, oS, and NMA, the GISL Geodatastyreisen, user Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, 599 401 680 447 330 community A 500 Auditors Map