CITY OF PICKERINGTON

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005

PUBLIC HEARING

7:20 P.M.

OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING AT 90 WEST CHURCH STREET (GOOD PROPERTY)

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present: Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Jennifer Readler, Susan Crotty, Donna Tyst, Avanell Ferguson, Judy Robinson, Thelma Kelly, Robert Robinson, Jerry Good, Mike Kraft, Sharon Kraft, Bob Noddin, Tiffany Davis, Steve Hermiller, John Eberts, and others.

Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing to raze the existing building at 90 West Church, and as it is in the Olde Downtown Village area, a public hearing is required.

Mr. Blake asked if there were any comments regarding the proposed rezoning.

Mr. Mike Kraft stated he would like to see a current map of the historic district and Mr. Schultz stated he would be able to provide that. Mr. Kraft inquired at what point in time, 90 W. Church Street was added to the district, and Mr. Schultz stated he would have to look into that. Mr. Kraft stated he was making a formal request for the documents that indicate the time at which this property was added to the downtown district and a copy of the map. Mr. Schultz stated he would provide that information.

Mr. Bob Noddin stated he would like to know what the future plans were for this property. Mr. Blake stated the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the demolition of the building, not to discuss anything as to the future use of that property, and the applicant is not required to bring anything to the Commission at this time regarding the future use of the property. Mr. O’Brien stated a public hearing for any redevelopment plans will be required.

Mrs. Sharon Kraft stated she would like to know what would be left once the building is razed because they are already having a problem with kids using the neighborhood for skate boarding, etc.

Mr. Robert Robinson stated he lives directly across the street from this property and he has called the police regarding the kids. He stated the police have come out and let the kids know they cannot use that property for skateboarding. He stated the problem has slowed down, but it is not completely resolved. Mr. Blake stated it might be a good idea for Mr. Kraft to contact Mr. Schultz and set up a meeting to discuss the problems with kids in the neighborhood and see what can be done.

Mr. Blake stated if there were no further comments he would close the public hearing at this time, and further discussion would be appropriate at the time the Commission considered this item on the agenda.

The public hearing closed at 7:28 P.M., April 12, 2005.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:

____________________________ _____________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning

CITY OF PICKERINGTON

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Jennifer Readler, Susan Crotty, Steve Hermiller, Donna Tyst, Avanell Ferguson, Judy Robinson, Thelma Kelly, Robert Robinson, Jerry Good, Mike Kraft, Sharon Kraft, Bob Noddin, Tiffany Davis, John Eberts, Travis Zeigler, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 8, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 23, 2005, Special Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Village District Design guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of a building at 90 West Church Street (Good Property). Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to demolish the existing building, with the loading dock and concrete pad remaining. He stated demolition would take approximately two weeks and a street closure would not be necessary. Mr. Schultz stated the existing building is not a historic structure and the demolition of the building, if done property, would enhance the aesthetics of the area. Mr. Schultz stated the City is concerned about leaving the truck dock as it would likely be an eyesore and could pose safety problems. He continued the remaining truck dock would essentially be a retaining wall and retaining walls higher than 30 inches require a railing. Also, the dock area could accumulate storm water if the drainage patterns are changed in the demolition. Mr. Schultz further stated staff is concerned the remaining concrete pad may not be structurally sound to support a new building. He stated staff recommends the filling in of the truck dock and seeding the site with grass to create an aesthetically pleasing site. Mr. Schultz stated construction access is also a potential issue, and no construction access should utilize Church Street west of the subject site. Traffic should access the site on Church Street from Center Street to avoid the residential properties to the west. The Building Department demotion permit only allows demolition to occur on weekdays between 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Further, any studies and approvals from the State, EPA, etc., shall be completed prior to a Building Department demolition permit. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the demolition with the conditions that: all debris from the demolition shall be removed from the site one month from the state of demolition; that the truck dock shall be filled and graded appropriately per an approved grading plan; that the site shall be seeded with grass and maintained to zoning code standards; that construction traffic shall not be permitted west of the subject site on Church Street; and, that any studies and approvals required by the State and/or EPA shall be approved prior to demolition permit approval.

Mr. Jerry Good stated he is the applicant and he would like to clarify a couple of points. He inquired if the demolition permit would require the demolition to take place. Mr. Schultz stated if the applicant changed their mind, they did not have to go through with the demolition. Mr. Schultz stated he was not sure of the time period that a demolition permit would be valid, however, most building permits have a six-month period where construction must start. He stated our Building Department would have to provide that information. Mr. Good further stated with regard to the storm water issue, the dock area has a trench drain in the bottom of it that goes under the building and directly to the storm sewer. Further, he would not object to putting railing on the dock area to keep it safe. He stated the concrete pad would be evaluated prior to any new structure being built, however, he has no plans at this point. Mr. Good stated he is evaluating several options and has not come up with any plans for construction at this site. He stated he would like to keep the truck dock open because it does provide parking. He further stated future construction might require use of the dock. Mr. Good stated with regard to demolition occurring between 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on weekdays only, the contractor is requesting one weekend to take down the west end of the building as it is right next to the day care and would minimize disruption to them. Mr. Good stated the request to the EPA has already been made for approval. Mr. Good concluded he concurred with all of staff recommendations other than the issue of filling in the truck dock and grading and seeding that area. Mr. Fix clarified the building is not being used and the applicant felt it would be better to have the building taken down. Mr. Kramer clarified the day care has been notified of the plans to take the building down. He further questioned how much time on a weekend would be necessary to take the part of the building near the day care down, and Mr. Good stated he understood it would take two days. Mr. Blake clarified the actual time estimated to demolish the building would be two weeks. Mr. Nicholas stated he concurs the building is unsightly and with some hesitation that it should be taken down. Mr. Nicholas stated his concern was with respect to a concrete slab that could be a playground for skateboarders, etc. Mr. Nicholas questioned if putting a guardrail on the truck dock would create a jungle gym of sorts, depending on the style of rail. Mr. Fix inquired if the Commission approved the demolition with the requirement to fill, grade and seed the area, would Mr. Good proceed with the demolition. Mr. Good stated he would not. Mr. Fix stated it seemed then the options were to leave it as it is or turn it into a skate park. Mr. O’Brien stated as far as skateboarders, that was an enforcement issue for the police department. Mr. Bosch inquired if there were any engineered drawings of the site that someone could look at with regard to the drainage issue, and Mr. Good stated he did not. Mr. Bosch stated with regard to the dock, leaving the existing dock in place, put down some filler fabric, and backfill the dock with a granular fill material up to the existing level. Mr. Bosch stated should the dock be needed at a later time, it would just be a matter of digging it back out. Mr. Schultz stated the demolition permit will require a grading plan, it will require showing where the utilities are to make sure we don’t create a problem where it drains off site. He stated each site needs to contain its own storm water. Mr. Kraft stated he concurred with staff’s recommendation relative a fill of the dock area. He stated it is bad enough and the neighbors do not need another skate park area. Mr. Kraft stated he was not sure he concurred with the restriction of the construction traffic. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to the safety concerns of taking down the building, he felt if it stays up there would be even more safety concerns. Mrs. Robinson stated she lives across from the building, and she has noticed at times when kids have gone in that building. She stated she would rather see the building come down than to have an unsafe building the kids can get in. Mr. O’Brien stated he concurred for ease of patrol for the police to keep an eye on things in that area, it would be best to have the building down. Mr. O’Brien stated as far as the skate boarders go, the residents can attend a Safety Committee meeting and voice their concerns. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Olde Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the building at 90 West Church Street with all of staff’s recommendations; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Good stated if this meant they should fill in and grade the dock area, then he would withdraw his application.

B. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Vision Ministries Church located at 1757 Hill Road North (Shoppes at Turnberry). Mr. Schultz stated the Bridge Street Church is proposing to occupy a tenant space in the Shoppes at Turnberry, and a church requires a conditional use permit in a C3 Community Commercial District. Mr. Schultz stated further the church meets all of the conditions for approval and staff supports the conditional use permit. Mr. Travis Zeigler stated he was representing the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. O’Brien clarified the Church was already occupying the space. Mr. Zeigler stated they were not aware they needed a Conditional Use Permit until they applied for a Change of Occupancy with the Building Department, and that is why they were applying at this time. They wanted to take care of all of the paperwork that was necessary. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Vision Ministries church located at 1757 Hill Road North (Shoppes at Turnberry); Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a shelter house for Pickerington Christian Church located at 575 Diley Road. Mr. Schultz stated the Church operates a day care at this facility and the state requires a shelter for the children. He stated the church is proposing a 30’x 23’ shelter to be located within the existing fenced playground area just west of the building. He stated it would have shingles with cedar posts. Mr. Schultz stated there are nine conditional use requirements for a church and pole buildings in this district, and this submission meets all of those requirements. He stated there is an access issue as the church presently has a temporary access to Diley Road. He stated in 1997, when the church was constructed, they indicated this would be a temporary access and their access would be relocated to the property to the south when it was developed, which is Georges Creek. Mr. Schultz stated Georges Creek has been constructed since then and they have a street stubbed into this site, so per that requirement the church will have to access their site through the Georges Creek development through the stubbed street and their existing curb cut will be eliminated. He stated he hopes this will occur during the Diley Road widening and he will meet with the church to go over these issues. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the conditional use permit with the condition that the roof of the shelter be constructed of shingles to match the church. Ms Debbie Andrews stated she is the director of the day care facility and she would answer any questions. She stated they were requesting, if possible, not to have the shingles versus the open air due to the cost. Mr. Bosch clarified this would be Phase I of the shelter and would be added onto in the future. Mr. Bosch further clarified Phase II would be the portion closer to the church building. Ms Andrews stated they were requesting only Phase I of the shelter. Mr. Blake clarified they were not totally against the shingles, they were just concerned that they would fade. Mr. Fix stated he would abstain from voting as his son attends this day care. Mr. Nicholas stated cedar typically is not a structural grade lumber and he noticed the beams were of cedar. He further ascertained structural calculations have been done on the connection at the footer with the cedar posts, and they checked as far as wind shear and so forth. He stated he has not seen one done like this with just cedar on galvanized caps, he has seen treated 6 x 6’s embedded in the foundation and wrapped in cedar. He stated his concern is the reaction of the wind on the structure and the hinge point at the foundation, however, if the architect has gone through all of the calculations and put his seal on it, then he did not have a problem. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a shelter house for Pickerington Christian Church, with staff recommendations; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix abstaining, and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to a storage building at 63 Willard Drive in the Willard Root Addition Subdivision. Mr. Schultz stated a storage building is currently located in the rear yard and the property is approximately two acres. He stated the building has water and electric service, and the applicant is requesting to enlarge the building by 1,156 square feet. Mr. Schultz stated the purpose of the expansion is to allow for a quilt club and entertaining. Mr. Schultz stated there are nine conditions for conditional use permit approval for storage buildings, and this building meets all nine conditions. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the conditional use permit with the conditions that the storage building shall not be used as a dwelling unit or as a home business, and that the building materials and color shall match the existing house. He stated an approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for a building permit. Donna Tyst stated she is the applicant and she was proposing this expansion for her mother to allow her quilting club to meet and have space for all of their quilts. Ms Tyst stated as far as the color of the building matching the house, she had planned on going with a natural looking shingle. She stated because the building sits at the back of the lot and is surrounded by pine trees, she felt this would blend in and not stand out. She stated her mother and her friends currently quilt in the basement and the lighting is not very good down there. She stated she plans on having a lot of natural light in this building that will allow them to see much better. Mr. Blake stated he felt the building materials Ms Tyst had presented were very appropriate for this building. Mr. Nicholas clarified the trim of the building would be the color of the shingles. Mr. Nicholas stated he concurred with Mr. Blake that this would be a very nice addition in the colors that Ms Tyst requested. Ms Tyst stated further she planned on having radiant floor heating installed in the building as well. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the conditional use permit for an addition to a storage building at 63 Willard Drive with the condition that the building shall not be used as a dwelling unit or a home business; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

E. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a 3, 388 square foot office building located on Lot 6 of the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a single-story 3,388 square foot medical building on a one-acre lot located behind the CiCi’s Pizza. He stated the site would have a single curb cut from Clint Drive, there would be 43 parking spaces while 38 are required, a dumpster and loading area are located just southeast of the building and would be screened with the stone and wooden doors, and storm water would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet all zoning requirements. Mr. Schultz stated the single access point would be a shared access with Lot 5, located to the north and which is currently vacant. He stated the engineer has approved the location of the access. Mr. Schultz stated the front elevation would have a two gabled entrance, with the majority of the elevation in stone veneer, and hardiplank siding would comprise the interior of the elevation between the two gables. He stated the stone and hardiplank siding would match the color of the other three buildings that have been approved in this business park. Mr. Schultz stated further the windows around the entrance door shall only extend to the water table and not to grade, and staff is recommending a frieze board be incorporated in the design along each elevation. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the request with the following conditions:

1. That the entrance curb cut into Lot 6 shall be a shared entrance with Lot 5 (currently vacant). A cross easement agreement shall be prepared to document the shared access.

2. That the dumpster be screened with stone material that matches the building and have wood doors.

3. That the stone veneer, hardiplank siding, and roof shingle color shall match the buildings on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Creek Bend Business Park.

4. That the windows around the entrance doors shall only extend to the stone veneer water table.

5. That a frieze board shall be incorporated in the design along each elevation.

Mr. Schultz stated a Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping, lighting, and a Comprehensive Sign Plan will be required.

Mr. John Eberts stated he was present representing the applicant and he would answer any questions. Mr. Eberts stated his client is in the process of negotiating for Lot 6, however, if they can get a better deal on Lot 5, they would just want to flip the building. Mr. Schultz stated if the lot changed, it would have to come through this procedure again. Mr. Bosch clarified on the north and south elevations, should the bottom panels be filled in. Mr. Eberts stated that would be the water table. Mr. Nicholas clarified on the north elevation there are two fields of stone going to the soffits. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to the size of the frieze board, it would be a proportionate size there, and Mr. Eberts stated that was correct. Mr. Nicholas stated he was concerned on the terminus of the hardiplank at the window jams and clarified the windows would probably be a casement type window where the hardiplank can be butted in. Mr. Nicholas further clarified that above each of the entry’s and the gable, it appears there is a round element that has the hardiplank. He stated he was presuming that was a louver, and Mr. Eberts stated that was correct. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for the office building located on Lot 6 of the Creek Bend business Park with the staff recommendations; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

F. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for an expansion and renovation to Kroger located at 1045 Hill Road North. Mr. Schultz stated Kroger is proposing to expand the store by 18,724 square feet. He stated the expansion would be on the north side of the store, relocating three tenants. Additional pavement would be installed to the rear of the building to allow for truck access around the expansion. Further the renovation to the exterior of the building would include a hip gable roof with a copula above the main entrance and a gable roof façade near the expansion area. He stated the building expansion and additional pavement meet the zoning regulations. Mr. Schultz stated with regard to the gas station, to be consistent with other recently approved gas stations, he would recommend the columns supporting the gas station canopy be renovated and constructed of brick, wood, other acceptable materials or a combination of these materials. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness request for Site Plan/Building Materials with the following conditions:

1. That the hip gable roof constructed above the main entrance shall be completed to have a pitched roof elevation facing Windmiller Drive (to the rear)

2. That the gabled entrance feature above the secondary entrance shall be completed for aesthetic purposes.

3. That the existing and proposed rear and side elevations shall be painted to match the color of the front elevation brick.

4. That the columns supporting the gas station canopy shall be renovated and constructed of brick, wood, other accepted materials or a combination of these materials.

Mr. Nick Hodge stated he is the real estate manager for Kroger, and Mr. Jim Brown, the facility engineer with Kroger, and they were present this evening to answer any questions. He stated what they are proposing is an expansion to the current store that will take over three tenant spaces to the right hand side as you face the store, and replacing those same tenants over on the left hand side in existing vacancies. He stated the expansion would be a reformatting of the store to what they call their “Marketplace” concept. Mr. Hodge stated they are suggesting adding some depth to the existing main feature, and also adding a secondary feature which would incorporate some signage for the pharmacy. Mr. Hodge stated with regard to matching the brick, they are in the process of expanding numerous stores and they have always been able to match the existing brick. Mr. Hodge stated as far as painting the rear elevation of the building, they would be willing to commit to doing that. Mr. Brown stated to add what is being requested to the hip gable roof would be a considerable expense they had not planned on for this particular project. He stated he was not certain it would do much for the community as far as a visual field goes. Mr. Brown stated the view from the back of the store would not be aesthetically unappealing. Mr. Brown stated as far as the secondary entrance, they did plan on adding depth to that. Mr. Hodge stated with regard to the request to address the columns at the existing gas station, they did go through the process with this Commission when that was approved. He stated they would like to keep it the way it is right now, not just because of the expense, but there are other factors where they might want to be back in here in the future to propose a possible expansion of that gas station. He stated he felt it would be more appropriate to address the improvements to the columns at that time, and he would request some flexibility as far as when they would make that improvement. He stated at this time he felt this was a separate issue that they were not proposing to touch at this time. Mr. Schultz stated he has seen future plans for the enlargement of the gas station. Mr. O’Brien clarified there is ample parking already there for the expansion that is being proposed. Mr. Nicholas stated he has looked at the facility recently and as you come in off of Refugee, that is the most blatant area that you will see the facades. He continued as you go back on Windmiller, they are relatively not seen. As you proceed around, the heating and cooling company and storage facility screen it so you don’t see much. Out on Diley, as you approach Hill Road, you can see it. Mr. Nicholas stated as he started weighing the staff recommendations, he saw what he felt would be a higher priority to the residents, and that is the roof top units are completely visible. He stated he wondered if there was a way those could be screened, or if they required guard rails. Mr. Nicholas continued with regard to the gas station improvements, he concurred that if it is Kroger’s intent to enhance that, he would consider upgrading those columns at that time. Mr. Fix clarified Mr. Nicholas was suggesting staff recommendation 4 should be deleted from this application. Mr. Hackworth stated with regard to the entrance to the current building, the way it is currently, there is no place for pedestrians to walk in front of the entrance without going out in the parking lot. Mr. O’Brien stated it is very unusual the way it is, and you cannot go from one side of the entrance to the other unless you go through the store. Mr. Schultz inquired if there was any way to put a sidewalk in that area, and Mr. Hodge stated there are no changes proposed to the entrance. Mr. Bosch stated with regard to staff recommendation 1, he agreed with the Kroger people, with the addition of doing the same treatment on the new secondary façade as on the main façade. He stated further he felt some of the roof top units Mr. Nicholas referred to were actually on some of the tenants to the south of the actual Kroger. Mr. Nicholas stated that might be correct. Mr. Bosch stated with regard to painting the building the orange color to match the brick, he felt that might be more obvious than the more neutral color it currently is. He stated further, he thought that might make the roof top units stand out even more. Mr. Fix stated it was his understanding that with regard to staff recommendations, the Commission did not concur with numbers 1, 3, and 4. Mr. Blake stated with regard to number 1, it would look per the plan, and number 2 would have the same depth as number 1. With regard to number 3, the neutral paint would be acceptable, and number 4 would be considered at the time improvements to the gas station were brought in. Mr. Nicholas ascertained Kroger would be willing to do some screening on the roof top mechanicals to break up that view. Mr. Schultz stated if the Commission concurred, the screening could be subject to staff approval, he would get with the appropriate people to sign off on it. All members of the Commission concurred with that suggestion. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for site Plan/Building Materials for an expansion and renovation to Kroger located at 1045 Hill Road North with the conditions that the secondary entrance matches the proposed main feature as far as the gabled entrance, that the left and right side of the building is painted a color to match the front of the building, and that the applicant work with staff to come up with some options for screening of the mechanicals on the roof; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas stated he would just like to clarify that when they do the secondary entrance feature, it is the depth that we want to match, not the style. Mr. Bosch stated that was correct and they want the shingle feature on it to give it the architectural feel. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:12 P.M.

G. Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Plan for Windmiller Square Commercial Subdivision (property south of Kroger). Mr. Schultz stated this is the first time a preliminary plan and plat has been in front of most of the Commission, so he would like to go over the process briefly. He stated tonight the Commission would review the preliminary plan, next month a preliminary plat would need the Commission and Service Committee approval, then a final plat would need Planning and Zoning approval, Service Committee approval, and then Council’s approval. Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposes to develop the almost 8 acre site into four commercial out lots. A public street would access the site from the existing Kroger signal and would extend west approximately 250-feet to a proposed three-way stop intersection. From this point the road would extend south to the existing Diley Road, and the roadway would divide the property into three out lots fronting Hill Road and one out lot west of the public street and just south of Kroger. Mr. Schultz stated the extension of the roadway for Diley Road would not only benefit the subject property owner, but would also provide a more efficient traffic circulation in the Hill Road/Diley Road area with the realignment. He stated the road would be public and 36 feet wide, constructed to public standards, and the City would require a 36 foot right-of-way in the area as there are no utilities under the roadway and to limit the amount of property that would be dedicated to the City. He stated further the curb cuts along the east/west leg, from the traffic light to the proposed three-way stop, would be limited to a right-in only into the Kroger gas station and there would be a curbed island separating the rest of that open pavement to better control access to the gas station area. He stated the engineering of the proposed three-way stop would need minor revisions, and he has met with the applicant and a lot of those issues are being worked out. He continued they will be addressed in the preliminary plat next month. Mr. Schultz stated curb cuts along the north/south leg of the roadway would be limited to the out lots and after discussions it appeared three curb cuts would be best. He continued the City is in the process of determining the final design and time schedule for Phase II of the Diley realignment, and it is essential to have a good relationship between the City and the owner to move this forward in a timely and cost effective manner. Mr. Schultz stated it is possible that Diley Road will be stubbed and the existing access on Diley Road will be eliminated. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the preliminary plan with the conditions that the proposed plan be revised to meet the traffic access plan, building/parking setback requirements and buffering requirements, and that the proposed development meet all other City development requirements. Mr. Chris Hodge stated he was present representing the applicant and Steve Hermiller the applicant’s engineer is also present. Mr. Hodge stated he agreed the overall timing of the relocation of the existing Diley Road, and their connection to the leftover part of the existing Diley Road was very important. He stated if necessary he would like to know if there was a possibility of calling special sessions, etc., to help the process move along, as both the owner and the City have timing issues. Mr. Schultz stated in the past, preliminary plats have been approved as final plats, but this is something that staff needs to discuss and determine if that is appropriate in this case. Mr. O’Brien clarified the City has not dealt with South Central Power as yet, as they are a permanent fixture on this property. Mr. O’Brien further questioned if the old Diley Road would extend to the entrance at all. Mr. Schultz stated right now old Diley Road would end at the substation. Mr. Schultz stated old Diley Road will not access S.R. 256 and none of these out lots would access onto S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated the goal is to have all of the curb cut locations and details worked out when the preliminary plat comes forward next month. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Preliminary Plan for Windmiller Square Commercial Subdivision (property south of Kroger) with staff recommendations; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

H. Review and request for motion to approve a Final Plat for Willington Park Section 1 (Virginia Homes). Mr. Schultz stated this development was approved by Violet Township in 2001 and was recently annexed to the City as part of the 362-acre annexation that was effective on March 31, 2005. He stated the owner proposes to develop the 145.3-acre site with 248 single family homes and a maximum of 175 condominium units for a 2.91 unit per acre density. He stated the single family units would encompass 119.3 acres for a density of 2.07 unit per acre, and the condominiums would encompass 26 acres for a density of 6.73 units per acre. Mr. Schultz stated Section 1 consists of forty-one lots on a little over 23 acres, there would be two curb cuts from Milnor Road to access Section 1, and there are several no build/preservation zones located in the rear of the lots. Mr. Schultz stated the construction drawings are under review and should be approved prior to the Service Committee meeting next month. He further stated Service Committee will review a proposed water and sewer agreement for the County to provide services. Mr. Schultz stated Council is currently considering a Thoroughfare Plan which extends Courtright east to Milnor Road and this extension would likely occur in Sections 2 or 3 of the subdivision platting process for this development. As a result of that, the City would require the elimination of the southernmost access of Section 1 on Milnor Road. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the approval with the following conditions:

1. That the construction drawings shall be approved by the City prior to the Service Committee meeting in May

2. That Breforton Street NW shall be redesigned to a cul-de-sac

3. That perimeter mounding, fencing, and landscaping requirements along Milnor Road shall be reviewed and approved by the City

4. That the homeowners association agreement shall be submitted and reviewed by the city prior to the acceptance by City Council

Mr. Bosch stated since this is the final plat approval, as far as the landscaping and buffering requirements, this Commission would be directing staff to work this out. Mr. Schultz stated this has been approved administratively in the past. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Final Plat for Wellington Park, Section 1, with staff recommendations; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated at their last meeting the Board approved the Giant Eagle set back variances, a set back for a deck in Shawnee Crossing, and the minimum dwelling size for a house on North Center Street. He stated in April they will consider one set back variance for a fence in Sheffield subdivision.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated the preliminary plan for the Eastern Lake Subdivision on Refugee Road was approved. Mr. Fix clarified the density in that subdivision was less than two units per acre. Mr. Schultz stated another rezoning on Stemen Road, just west of Huntington Hills, was approved at the County level for 176 homes, and was also under two units per acre.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission. No report.

Mr. Kramer stated this Commission had discussed temporary signs and what could be done about them, and it appears those signs are growing. He questioned if this could be put on the agenda at some point so the Commission can address the temporary signage issue. Mr. Schultz stated he would review the code to see how many temporary signs are allowed and he would get back with the Commission.

Mr. O’Brien stated signs start showing up in the right-of-way on Friday and are gone by Monday, and our Code Enforcement Officer does not work on weekends. He questioned if there was something we would do about this. Mr. Schultz stated he would look into this issue to see what can be done.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Fix voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:58 P.M., April 12, 2005.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning