1. Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment –
Leali - City of Hermitage – Mr. Dash
explained that he received a rezoning request from the City of Hermitage from
High-Density Residential (R-4) to Central Commercial-1 (CC-1). The applicant
is Mr. Dan Leali and the property is located at the southwest corner of East
State Street and South Darby Road. The approximate size of the property is
5.26 acres and is generally flat and wooded. He noted that the existing land
use is open space/vacant land and the proposed land use is unknown. The
property has frontage on South Darby Road, a secondary route, and East State
Street (U.S. 62), a principal arterial road with 11,000 ADT. He stated that
the area to the south along South Darby Road was rezoned from Single-Family
Residential to High-Density Residential in March 2004. He explained that the
surrounding zoning on all four sides is zoned High-Density Residential (R-4).
He noted that the land uses to the north and south is open space/forestlands.
The land uses to the west is the Hickory VFW (Institutional) with open
space/forestlands; and the land uses to the east is single-family residence
and a tree nursery for Kraynak’s. He stated that the site is serviced by
public sewer and water. He next reviewed the five zoning amendment review
criteria as it pertains to this rezoning. He noted that after reviewing this
proposed rezoning, the MCRPC staff recommendation was to deny the proposed
rezoning, due to the fact that this property does not connect to an existing
Central Commercial zone, and would be considered a spot zone. In addition, the
City has made decisions within the past couple of years to limit the size of
the Central Commercial zone to keep development in the City’s core, which is
also a priority of this office.
Mr. Dash next opened the floor
for discussion. Mr. McCandless explained that this is considered typical urban
sprawl, were moving out and not using what we have available. There was also
discussion on the past land uses that have closed up at the Neshannock
Road/East Sate Street intersection and the State Street corridor. Dr. Brenner
stated that this would be considered spot zoning. Mr. Hughes agrees that this
is typical urban sprawl. Mr. Leali next discusses the reasons for requesting
this rezoning. He noted that after going door to door in the surrounding area
of the proposed rezoning, the majority of the neighbors were in support of
this proposed rezoning and some would consider rezoning their property the
same way.
After discussion, a motion
was made by Mr. Hogan to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning, due to it
being a spot zone, as well as to limit the size of the Central Commercial zone
to keep development in the City’s core and in the vacant areas already in
the existing Commercial zones. Mr. Lengel seconded. The motion passed.
2. Zoning Ordinance Text & Map
Amendment – Mercer Borough - Mr. Dash
explained that he received a rezoning request from Mercer Borough to rezone
5.26 acres from Industrial (I) to Residential General (R-2). The property is
located on the east side of McKinley Avenue, south of the Findley Township
line. He noted that the existing land use is Single-Family Residence. The
property has frontage on McKinley Avenue, a dead-end street that feeds into
East Market Street, a rural minor collector with 2,700 ADT. He noted that this
area was rezoned from Residential General (R-2) to Industrial (I) during the
last comprehensive amendment to the Mercer Borough Zoning Ordinance in 2002.
The property is generally flat and wooded. The surrounding zoning and land
uses to the north is Agricultural/Rural Residential (R-1; Findley Township);
Single-Family residence and agricultural uses; to the south is Industrial;
Thomas & Betts, Inc.; to the west is Residential General (R-2);
Single-Family residences; and to the east is Industrial (I); Otter Creek. He
next reviewed the five zoning amendment review criteria as it pertains to this
rezoning. He noted that after reviewing this proposed rezoning, the MCRPC
staff recommendation was to approve the proposed rezoning, due to the land use
being consistent with the R-2 zone.
Mr. Dash opened the floor for
discussion. Mr. McCandless questioned if there was anything on this property.
Mr. Dash stated that there is a Single-Family residence. After discussion, a
motion was made by Mr. Hogan to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Faull seconded. The motion passed.
3. Mercer County Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance Revisions – Mr. Dash
next reviewed the Draft Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance. He explained the three new classes of subdivisions and the
improvements required with each; and the recording of land development plats,
and including provisions regulating land developments. In discussion, the
Committee decided that MCRPC staff should prepare a process guide for
municipalities that are under the Mercer County Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance, as well as attending municipal meetings to discuss
these changes with them. Also, the Committee discussed how municipalities and
MCRPC handle engineering review for certification of improvements; and the
changes previously approved to the fee schedule. Mr. Dash stated that he will
look into fees for buying the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance books. Committee members agreed to read over the Draft Ordinance and
discuss this at their next meeting, which would be June 21, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further
business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Dash,
Planner
