On the agenda: Troy meeting — Data Center (Jul 22)

TROY

OHIO

AGENDA - TROY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2026, 3:30 P.M.
CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1. Roll Call

2. Approval of Minutes - July 8, 2026

3. Unified Development Code (UDC) (note - link that has the current updates will be provided on Monday)
A. Summary Update by Staff
B. Public Comments

C. Planning Commission Discussion of Next Steps

4. Other

5. Adjourn

Next Meeting Date - 8-12-2026

Members - if you will not be attending, please call or email Sue

July 8, 2026

A regular session of the Troy Planning Commission was held in Council Chambers, City Hall on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 3:30
p.m. with Vice-Chairman N. Lawrence Wolke presiding. ATTENDING: Members — Wolke, Titterington, Oda, Ehrlich, Westmeyer and Emerick;
Development Staff - Eidemiller and Burgei; Development Director Tim Davis. Also attending were Council President Rozell and Council
Members Westfall and Hickman.

Amaotion was made by Mr. Titterington, seconded by Mayor Oda, to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2026 regular meeting; motion
approved by unanimous voice vote.

AMENDMENT TO THE AMEND! PLAN OF THE TROY CHRISTIAN S OLS EDI AND

PERFORMING ‘ACILITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD-R) FOR 6” SITE PRIV, FENCE TO BI STALLED ON THE
PATIO OUTSIDE ERNST CAFE (SOUTH SIDE OF APAC); OWNER - ARBOGAST PERFORMING ARTS CENTER: APPLICANT —
WESTERN OHIO FENCE & SUPPLY. Staff reported: Arbogast Performing Arts Center (APAC) applied for a minor amendment to the General
Plan of the Planned Development as approved by City Council (Ordinance No. 0-43-2021). This requested minor amendment is for the
installation of a 6-foot composite privacy fence, located on the patio outside of Emst Café (south side of APAC). The applicant is proposing to
install a total of 43 linear feet of fencing atop the existing 2-foot retaining wall, which necessitated this request. The primary purpose of the
fence is to shield the patio area from high winds. This minor amendment may be approved by the Planning Commission without the submission
of the revised general plan to City Council. Section 1145.17 of the City of Troy Zoning Code does not require a revised Final Development Plan
to be submitted. Staff recommends approval. Staff clarified that this would just be a small fence section to shield the patio and would be
mounted on concrete.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION: A motion was made by Mr. Westmeyer, seconded by Mayor Oda, to approve the minor
amendment to the Amended General Plan of the Troy Christian Schools Education and Performing Arts Facility Planned Development (PD-R)
for 6' composite privacy fence to be installed on the patio outside Emst Café (south side of APAC) as submitted and based on the

recommendation of staff. MOTION ADOPTED, UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE
REZONIN' PLICA’ —28 W. EL DO8-0115: B-: INTRAL BUSINESS Di: AND
-5, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DI: TO R-5, SINGLE-FAMILY RE: IAL DISTRICT; f/APPLI — HEATHER
STURGILL. Staff reported: the property is located west of S. Market Street and is currently used as a single-family dwelling; the property has

two zoning districts; the application submitted the application at the request of the City so the parcel would have a single zoning district;
surrounding zoning districts include the B-3 General Business district to the east, M-2 Light Industrial District and B-3 General Business district
to the south and the R-5 Single Family Residential District to the west; and the Zoning Code describes the proposed R-5 zoning district as
“designed to accommodate single-family dwellings on lots with areas of at least six thousand (6,000) square feet per dwelling unit. This district
will be mapped to protect areas that now meet these minimum lot sizes and for comparable areas which will develop in the future.” 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. The proposed rezoning is
consistent with the 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. The changing condition that led to this rezoning request is the property owner wishes to fix the
split zoning issue on the property. The principal structure is split between two zoning districts, the B-3 Central Business District and the R-5
Single Family Residential District.

(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 residential uses that currently exist to the west.

(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 no available vacant land for development with the R-5 zoning classification.
(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.

Staff did not recommend a public hearing and staff recommended approval of the rezoning application based on the following:

° The proposed rezoning is consistent with the intent and purposes of the City of Troy Zoning Code; and
° The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning districts; and
° The proposed use is consistent with permitted uses in the R-5 Single Family Residential District.

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PUBLIC HEARING: A motion was made by Mr. Titterington, seconded by Mrs. Ehrlich, that the Planning
Commission does not hold a public hearing on the rezoning of DO8-011550 from R-3 and R-5 to R-5, noting that City Council will hold a public
hearing. MOTION ADOPTED, UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION: A motion was made by Mayor Oda, seconded by Mr. Emerick, that the Troy Planning
Commission recommends to Troy City Council that 28 W. Canal Street, Parcel DO8-011550, be rezoned from B-3, Central Business District,
and R-5, Single-Family Residential District, to R-5, Single-family Residential Distirct, as submitted and based on the. findings of staff that:

° The proposed rezoning is consistent with the intent and purposes of the City of Troy Zoning Code
° The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning district
° The proposed use is consistent with permitted uses in the R-5 Single Family Residential District

MOTION ADOPTED, UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE

REVIEW OF IFIED DEVE! Et ODE |. Staff provided the following to discuss updates since the last
meeting, which was discussed by staff:

* Principal Buildings (pg. 16). Add language inthe draft UDC to ensure that agricultural buildings in the agricultural district
associated with agricultural uses are considered principal structures and not accessory structures.

* Gateway Overlay District (pg. 32). This new chapter is intended to provide guidance to architects and designers when developing
commercial property along major thoroughfares. Clarify language in the UDC by removing "and intersecting street" to ensure only
properties that have frontage on main thoroughfares are included.

* Data Centers Use-Specific Standards (pgs. 45-46). Added language to strengthen the requirements for this use classification.

* Wireless Communication Facilities (pgs. 61, & 65-66). Language finalized by American Structurepoint to comply with federal law.

* Wind Energy System (pg. 73). The draft UDC does not allow wind facilities as an accessory use as determined by the Planning
Commission.

* Beekeeping (pg. 77). Added "as determined by the DCA" to the end of the 1104(E)(6)U).

* Solar Energy System Accessory (pg. 80). Removed the first sentence in 1 104(E)(22)(a)(7) that reads "Roof-mounted solar
energy systems shall be placed only on the roof of a conforming structure."

* Nursery Parking (pg. 98). Clarified language to require one space per five hundred square feet of retail space and in the case of
no retail space, require 10 parking spaces.

* Cross Access (pg. 207) Section 1105.04(G)(3) of the draft UDC allows for two or more adjoining properties to have cross access.
Added language to cite traffic safety and traffic for cross access.

* Sign code (pg 124) Sign Code (pg. 124). Section 1105-05 - Removed the sign color provisions to comply with copyright laws.

* Sign Code (pg. 150). Fixed Table 1105-26, Temporary Signs, maximum duration from 30 days to 28 days in a calendar year which

may be split into a maximum of four (4), seven (7) day increments.
* Sign Code (pg. 151). Altered Table 1105-27, Temporary Yard Signs, to allow 2 temporary yard signs on residential lots in the UC
district.
* Completeness Review of Applications (pg. 206). This section highlights the process for which the Development Code Administrator
determines whether an application is complete or not as determined by the Planning Commission.
* Staff Review following Completeness Review of Applications (Page 206). This section highlights the process by which the Development
Code Administrator (DCA) proceeds with the various applications as determined by the Planning Commission.
* Inactive Applications (pg. 210). Process and procedures for when an application goes dormant and voiding procedures as determined
by the PlanningCommission.
* Planned Unit Developments (pg. 232). Outlined the process for Planned Unit Development.
* 1109-06(4)(b)(6) (pg. 233). Corrected the typo in referring to the Planning Commission as the Planning Board.
* Demolition by Neglect (pg. 252). Section 1109k(1)(b), added the language that was recommended
* Non-Conformities (pgs. 274-280). Merged the existing Zoning Code language into the draft UDC. New sections include:
1. Zoning Permit requirements to prove that the nonconformity was legally established.
2. —Nonconforming Signs.
3. Replat requirements for nonconforming lots.

4. Iconic Sign exemptions for the downtown.
* Added Terminology. (pg. 290). Added additional terminology to the Fourth-Degree Misdemeanor classification to include “after

proper notice."
* Definition (throughout UDC). Site Development Plan renamed Subdivision Development Planand relocated in alphabetical order.

© Definition "Subdivision" (pg. 327). Updated the definition to match the ORC.

It was noted that the wording under “demolition by neglect” reflected concerns about interpreting the word “severe”. It
was discussed that the iconic signs referred to those such as “K’s Hamburger Shop” with the Commission member
Suggesting there be a minimum time frame for those signs being up as part of the definition of being “iconic”.

Regarding gasoline stations, staff provided a map showing the location of the current stations and where land is
located that would accommodate new gas stations. Regarding the wording in the UDC. regarding gas stations and the size
of building required to have a gas station as an accessory use, some Commission members indicated they could not
support that wording and asked staff to come up with something more acceptable between the current stand along gas
Stations and what is now in the draft UDC. Mr. Westmeyer commented that legislation is now before Council to extend the
current moratorium on gasoline stations and social service agencies to November 27, 2026. He indicated he believes the
moratiorium should be extended to allow the Commission time to complete the UDC review, recommend it to Council and
for Council to complete its review process. A motion was made by Mr. Westmeyer, seconded by Mrs. Ehrlich, that Troy
Council adopt Ordinance No. 0-29-2026 to extend the moratorium on Automobile Fuel Dispensing Stations and Automobile
Service Stations and Social Service Facilities for an additional 90 days, through November 27, 2026. Planning Commission
recognizes the need for expedient review and is working towards a recommendation to City Council as soon as possible.
In the meantime, Planning Commission requests that Council approve this ordinance to allow for thorough discussion. It
should also be noted that City staff will be meeting with an interested gas station developer to discuss alternative language
for the PC to consider.

Vote: Yes: Wolke, Ehrlich, Westmeyer, Oda and Titterington; No: Emerick. Motion Adopted

It was asked that the motion and the map showing gas station locations/available land be sent to the Council with
copies to the Commission.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m. upon motion of Mrs. Ehrlich, seconded by
Mr. Westmeyer, followed by unanimous voice vote.

Respectfully submitted,

Chairman

Secretary

Development Department
i ed 4) Y City of Troy, Ohio

DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Troy Planning Commission Members
FROM: Tim Davis, Development Director
Austin Eidemiller, Planning & Zoning Manager

DATE: duly 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Draft Unified Development Code (UDC)

A Workshop Session of the Troy Planning Commission on the Unified Development Code (UDC) was held
on July 8, 2026. The Planning Commission requested that Planning Staff evaluate alternatives to the
proposed automobile fuel dispensing station language. Staff is proposing the following alternatives (UDC
Page 77):

1. Reducing the required square feet of the principal building from 50,000 square feet to 10,000
square feet.

2. Automobile Fuel! Dispensing Stations only permitted as an accessory use to a grocery and/or a
gas station. This also adds a floor area requirement of these uses to fifty-one (51%) percent of
the building.

3. The canopies will be required to be in the rear yard, so staff removed the limitation on the fuel
number of fuel pumps. If a Traffic Impact Study demonstrates an unsafe maneuverability of the
site, the Planning Commission could approve an alternative location for fuel pumps.

4. Adding a dimensional requirement of 2,000 feet away from another automobile fuel dispensing
station.

5. Updated the definition of a grocery and restaurant using the American Planning Association (APA)
Planners Dictionary.

The next topic that the Planning Commission brought up for discussion is Tattoo Parlors. Staff is proposing
the following alternative for this use classification (UDC Pages 85-86):

1. Removing the use type from the prohibited uses list. This would allow Tattoo Parlors as an
accessory use to a principally permitted barber or beauty shop. A personal service use includes
barber shops, beauty salons, etc.

The full additions in code text can be seen in red. Deletions in code text can be seen via a strikethrough.
Please note that these changes are pending legal review with the Law Director.

Page 1