PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
MAY 10, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING
A PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AT 80 WEST CHURCH STREET (CHURCH STREET PROPERTIES, LLC)
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda
Yartin, Philip Jennifer Readler, Dale Estep, Dianna Estep, Jeff Brooks, Sharon
Kraft, and others.
Mr. Schultz stated this site is located in the Olde Downtown Village area so a public hearing is required for any modifications to the site. He state the applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Sign Plan for a ground sign and wall signs on the new building. Mr. Schultz further stated this is included on the agenda for tonight’s regular meeting.
Mr. Blake asked if there were any comments regarding the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan.
Mr. Dale Estep stated he resides on Church Street and he had no information on what type of sign was being proposed. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is requesting a ground sign that is approximately six feet high and six feet wide in front of the parking lot and five building signs, one at each entrance into the building. Mr. Blake clarified that further discussion on the size, illumination, etc., would take place during the discussion of this item on the regular meeting agenda. He further stated residents would have the opportunity to address the Commission at that time as well.
Mrs. Sharon Kraft stated she hoped the Commission would address the issue of similar signage in a residential neighborhood, directly across from people’s homes. She stated they already have a neon sign shining in their homes and she would like to know what else would be there. Mr. Blake stated that issue would be discussed during the regular meeting.
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 7:25 P.M., May 10, 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,
MAY 10, 2005
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. Binkley, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien were present. Mr. Nicholas arrived at 7:35 P.M. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Philip Hartmann, Dale Estep, Dianna Estep, Jeff Brooke, Ryan Shrimplin, Sharon Kraft, Jim Good, Ted Lamb, Tiffany Davis, Charles Workman, Nathan Reed, Barbara Giest, Dave York, Ryan Shrimplin, Mike Allen, David Youse, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 12, 2005, Public Hearing. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 12, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, 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 Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for the Mayflower Building at 80 West Church Street (Church Street Properties, LLC). Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing one ground sign and five building signs for the businesses utilizing the building. He stated the ground sign would be on the east side of the building, along Church Street, in the landscape island in front of the parking lot. He stated the sign would be six feet high and six feet wide with a sign area of 17.5 square feet. He stated the sign would be white with red lettering and a green border, the base would be made of bricks to match the building, and have six inch columns extending up the sides of the sign. Mr. Schultz stated staff recommends the columns be made of wood or PVC to emulate wood to be consistent with the sign guidelines in the Olde Downtown Village District. Mr. Schultz further stated the top of the sign would have a standing seam metal roof to match the building and staff recommended the top also be constructed of wood or PVC to emulate wood. Mr. Schultz stated the sign would be internally illuminated, and the Olde Village Guidelines permit only unlighted or externally lighted signs. He stated externally lighted signs are allowed with special permission of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Schultz further stated of the five building signs two would be located on the elevation facing Church Street, two facing the parking lot to the east, and one facing the open space to the west. He stated the signs will be 2 feet high and 2.33 feet wide, with a sign area of 2.66 square feet, they would be white with red lettering and a green border, appear to be constructed of aluminum with PVC letter panels, and would be illuminated with existing wall mounted light fixtures. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the following conditions:
(1) The columns on the ground sign shall be constructed of wood or PVC to emulate wood.
(2) The top of the sign shall be constructed of wood or PVC to emulate wood
(3) The ground sign shall be externally illuminated
(4) The ground sign can be located within five feet of the property line, but outside the site triangle
(5) The building signs and ground sign letters shall have a matte finish
(6) The lights of the ground sign shall be turned off at the close of business which is opened latest or at 11:00 P.M., whichever is earlier
(7) The top of the building sign shall be constructed of wood or PVC to match the ground sign
Mr. Jim Good, of Church Street Properties, stated he was the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions. He stated Mr. Lamb of DaNite Sign Company is also present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Lamb stated they would like to keep the metal roof on the top of the sign because the canopy that wraps around the building is a metal roof and they felt it would be in keeping with the building and would last longer. He stated the sign is at street level and they would like to make it as vandal proof and indestructible as possible. Mr. Lamb further stated with regard to the internal lighting, businesses in this area are not doctor’s offices, but these would be retail offices that are open after dark. He stated in other historical areas they have used internal lighting but diffused the light so it was a subdued lighting. He stated when you use external lighting at ground level, kids can play with it and you end up with the light shining into traffic, etc. He stated by using subdued internal lighting they could avoid that. Mr. O’Brien stated by the drawing it appeared the sign faced away from the homes across the street, and with the diffused light rather than the external lighting it could not be moved to shine into someone’s home. Mr. Bosch clarified the applicant did not have a problem with complying with staff’s recommendation regarding constructing the columns out of wood or PVC. Mr. Bosh further clarified the metal roof proposed would be to scale to match the building. Ms Tiffany Davis stated she resides on Church Street and even with the lighting diffused she felt it would shine into her bedroom. Mr. Lamb stated the light would be turned off at night. Mr. O’Brien clarified the sign would not face Ms Davis’ window, but she felt it would still glow. Ms Davis stated she felt any light would be intrusive to her home. Mr. fix clarified there are street lights on Church Street, but they have shields to prevent them from shining into the homes. Ms Kraft stated her concern was this was an historical district as well as residential, and she did not feel it was appropriate in this neighborhood to have a lighted sign. Mr. Blake stated he understands this is a tough situation being this is a mixed-use neighborhood, and this Commission wants to do the best thing possible for the residents and the businesses. Mr. Kramer ascertained the sign at the building up from this property is internally illuminated and is on all the time. Mr. Nicholas clarified the material under the roof on the monument sign was aluminum. Mr. Nicholas stated as he understood it, the banner would be white and the letters would be opaque. He stated, however, if the banner itself is opaque and only the letters are translucent, it would not be glowing and it would be just the lettering that was showing. Mr. Lamb stated that is a very good suggestion and is a good option in this mixed-use area. Mr. Good stated he would have to see it, but it seemed like that would be a good option. Mr. Nodin stated he lives on Church Street and he clarified the recommendation of staff was that the sign be turned off at either 11:00 P.M. or when the business open the latest closed, whichever is earlier. Mr. Nicholas stated he would be in favor of the top of the sign being the standing seam material to go along with what is on the building. Mr. Bosch clarified there would be five wall mounted signs. Mr. Good stated he was not aware of the 11:00 P.M. condition and he had not run that through his tenants. He stated one business, the pizza parlor, is open until midnight on Friday and Saturday, but other than that he did not have a problem with the 11:00 P.M. condition to turn the sign off. He stated he would like to get permission to have the sign left on until midnight on the nights the pizza parlor is open late. Ms Kraft stated the pizza place does have a neon sign in the window so why would they need two signs. Mr. Bosch stated there should not be any internal neon signs at all. Mr. Schultz stated that neon sign should not be there so he will address that issue. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Olde Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for 80 West Church Street based on staff recommendations, with the exceptions that the ground sign may be internally illuminated as long as the background is opaque and only the letters be lit, the top of the wall sign may be standing seam metal to match the building, and the top of the ground sign may be standing seam metal to match the building; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Fix clarified that the motion removed staff recommendations 2 and 7, and amended recommendation 3. Mr. Nicholas stated that was correct. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
B. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for BP Gas Station at 995 Refugee Road. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing new building signs and to replace the panels on the ground sign. He stated the existing building sign is approximately 23 square feet, is four colors, and is illuminated. He stated they are proposing two oval signs that would encompass approximately 11.5 square feet, that would have six colors, and would be illuminated. Mr. Schultz stated our sign guidelines limits signs to three colors. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is also proposing rectangular poster panels that would encompass approximately 9.5 square feet each and these panels would be for random advertising. Mr. Schultz stated our Sign Code only provides for thirty percent of the sign to be for non-permanent lettering for promoting special events. He further stated the poster panel signs are not aesthetically pleasing and approval would not set a good precedent for future sign quality in the City, and would increase the total wall signage to almost 65 square feet. He stated on the ground sign they were proposing to replace two panels and include the “Wild Bean Café” graphic, and that would be an additional six colors to the sign. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for BP Gas Station with the conditions that the sign colors of the “Wild Bean Café” match the colors of the existing signage on the ground and wall signs, and that the poster panel wall signs not be permitted. Mr. Ryan Shrimplin stated he was present representing the applicant. He stated this site is one of several in the Columbus area that BP has selected to have the new “Wild Bean Café” concept. Mr. Shrimplin stated the logo presented this evening is a corporate approved logo and is not easily changed. Mr. Schultz clarified that the three color limit for signage does include black and white. Mr. Shrimplin stated the current signage has four colors and would, in that respect, be a nonconforming sign. He stated a lot of the colors in the Wild Bean sign are more for accent, and essentially you see mostly red and yellow in the sign. Mr. Shrimplin stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Fix stated he felt it was a mistake to try and tell corporate entities what their logo should look like, and to continue to push them to change color schemes takes away from all the value they have built up in their corporate logo. Mr. Fix further stated he is not a fan of poster signs, however, if they are not approved we might see gigantic static clings in the window promoting the things that would be in the poster signs. Mr. Blake clarified that only 25 percent of the windows can be allocated for signage. Mr. O’Brien stated this Commission had debated the logo issue in the past, and he has been in areas where entire development districts have non-corporate logo colored signs. He stated this is not something that is not done in other communities. Mr. Blake clarified that BP was also putting this sign in Worthington and they have a restriction on the number of colors as well. He provided a sample of the sign approved in Worthington that had a green oval with white text and some yellow. Mr. Shrimplin stated he thought that would meet the color restrictions in Pickerington’s Code. Mr. Blake stated he thought the sign approved in Worthington would be acceptable. Mr. Bosch stated this Commission has tried to stay consistent so as things come in they try to have the same standards. He stated when the ground sign is worked on, he would like to see the brick added to the bottom of the current sign. Mr. Nicholas stated with respect to the colors on the Wild Bean Café he would be in favor of approving the alternate color scheme of white, green, and yellow. He continued with respect to the brick at the bottom of the sign, if they were to span between the existing two columns and face it with thin brick it would give the appearance of a brick base without having to do a footer. Mr. Shrimplin stated BP may be open to that if they could then have the six color sign. Mr. O’Brien stated this would not be a trade-off, if you are updating the sign then you will bring the sign up to Code. Mr. Kramer stated he did not feel it was appropriate to ask them to put brick at the bottom of the sign that would require a foundation, footers, etc. Mr. Shrimplin stated the proposed poster boards are rigid, corrugated plastic that would be mounted to the wall. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the ground and wall signage for the BP Gas Station using the color scheme from the BP located at High Street and Wilson Bridge Road in Worthington and not allowing the poster panel signs, and to include the thin brick at the base to make the existing sign comparable to all the other signs that have been approved along the S.R. 256 corridor; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Shrimplin stated he would prefer not to have the requirement for the thin brick included in the motion. Mr. Bosch stated if Mr. Shrimplin would like to have this issue tabled to confer with his client that could be done. Mr. Shrimplin stated he did not wish to have it tabled this evening, his concern would be that they could not get brick in a color that would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Kramer stated he could not support asking the applicant to change their color scheme and also adding another stipulation requiring them to add a base to the sign. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not feel there would be a problem with getting the thin brick in an acceptable color, and he felt very strongly the sign should comply with the rest of the signage that has been approved in the past. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-1.
C. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit to construct Bleachers and a Press Box and relocate Track Event Facilities for Pickerington Central High School. Mr. Schultz stated all schools in the City require Conditional Use Permits per our Zoning Code. He stated the school is proposing several revisions to their existing athletic complex. He stated they are adding new bleachers and a press box that would be approximately 39 feet high. He stated the bleachers would seat approximately 2,276 and would be the same size as the previous bleachers. Mr. Schultz further stated the pole vault and long jump areas would be relocated to just east of the visitor’s bleachers, the discus area would be relocated to the northeast corner in the existing open field area, the existing track would be replaced with an all weather track surface, a gravel path will be added just south of the football field, and the high jump area would be enlarged but would remain at the same location. He stated the site appears to meet all the setback, lot area, minimum frontage, and maximum lot coverage requirements. He stated as these will replace the bleachers and press box that are already located on the site, so the impact to adjacent neighbors would be minimal. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Conditional Use Permit request. Ms Giest stated she was present representing the school, and Mr. Dave York of Dave York Sports, Inc., was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. O’Brien clarified the press box would be constructed with fire retardant lumber and steel. Mr. Blake clarified the bleachers would be similar to the ones installed at the other high school. Mr. Nicholas clarified the School Board members were very pleased with this replacement. Mr. Kramer clarified the track will be seven lanes. Mr. Brooke stated in order to put in eight lanes, they would have to extend outside of the existing outside line by another four feet six inches. He stated the visitor bleachers stairs come straight down onto the track and the eighth lane would go through the handrail of the of the south set of stairs. He further stated the concession stand is off the existing track right now by five feet and if we put in another lane the concession stand would be two feet from the edge of the track. Mr. Kramer stated he was happy there were improvements being made to Tiger stadium, however, he felt we should try to have the same facilities as the new high school. Mr. Bosch clarified the gravel path did not have to be ADA accessible because it is not a required path from the school, there are other avenues that are ADA accessible. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit to construct bleachers and a press box and relocate track event facilities for Pickerington Central High School; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-1.
D. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting for Remax office building at 10400 Blacklick Eastern Road. Mr. Schultz stated the owner constructed a two-story office building on the site and there is the potential for a new two-story building just east of this building. He stated the owner has already installed the lights without this Commission’s approval. He continued they have installed eight light poles that are approximately 28-feet in height and the light fixtures are the cut-off type with a square lamp. Mr. Schultz stated the light lamps do not match the lamps that were installed at PowerShack just west of the building and staff would have recommended the light fixtures match. He further stated the plan does not show any other light fixtures, and the lighting plan does meet the foot-candle illumination standards at the property line. Mr. Schultz stated staff reluctantly supported the light plan. Mr. Mike Allen stated he was a managing partner for the developer and he would answer any questions. Mr. Blake clarified the lights have been installed. Mr. O’Brien stated there was a doctor’s office that started construction before coming to Planning and Zoning and a church came in after meeting at a location without a permit for some time. Mr. O’Brien inquired how long this Commission would entertain items long after the work is complete. He stated if someone is in violation, they should be dealt with as a violation. Mr. Schultz stated this is a decision the Commission has to make. He stated right now, if this is a violation it would have to go to Mayor’s Court to rectify the situation. Mr. O’Brien stated this particular property has been discussed at length many times regarding the site plan, and it has even been tabled at one time. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant was informed in 2003 that they would need landscaping, signage, and lighting approval. He stated for whatever reason they did not come for lighting approval and when he drove by he saw the lights had been installed. Mr. Fix clarified if the approval failed this evening, they would then be cited and would have to go to Mayor’s Court. Mr. Blake asked Mr. Allen if he could explain how this situation came about, and Mr. Allen stated this was the first he had heard that they did not have approval. He stated he thought they were at the meeting this evening because a neighbor had complained about the brightness of the lights. Mr. O’Brien stated this was not the first time everyone in his group was made aware of the fact that landscape, sign, and lighting approval was necessary. Mr. O’Brien stated there was lengthy discussion with representatives from this site regarding trees, replacement of trees, and we had legal intervention on that, and we have discussed signage and landscaping. Mr. O’Brien stated thinking back to those other meetings and what has transpired in the past will weigh into their decision tonight. He further stated he felt it was incumbent on this Commission to set the rules straight. Mr. Fix stated he felt this should be dealt with in Mayor’s Court. Mr. Schultz clarified that in September 2003 this Commission approved the site plan and building materials, and they were well aware they needed approval for landscaping, signage, and lighting. He continued in January 2005 this Commission approved the signage and landscaping. Mr. Bosch stated this Commission has determined the height of the light poles to be approved, and Mr. Schultz stated these poles are 28 feet from grade. Mr. Schultz further stated on smaller retail sites we try to lower the poles as much as possible to keep them in scale with the buildings and adjacent uses. Mr. Bosch moved to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting for ReMax office building at 10400 Blacklick Eastern Road; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Mr. Phil Hartmann clarified if this motion fails, the applicant would be in violation and it would be a staff decision directed by this Commission, Council or the Mayor to enforce it either by taking it to Mayor’s Court or there are civil remedies available in Fairfield County or they could be cited in Fairfield County Municipal Court. He stated civil and criminal options are available. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Nay.” Motion failed, 7-0.
E. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Landscaping for Huntington Bank located on S.R. 256 just south of Postage Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a 4,245 square foot bank that would be 26-feet high, with two access points from a private access drive in front of Kohl’s. He further stated a drive-thru is proposed on the western portion of the building that would require conditional use approval. The site plan identifies 42 parking spaces while 22 are required. He stated the site plan appears to meet all zoning setback requirements and accommodate the interior and perimeter landscaping requirements. Mr. Schultz stated the site will not have direct access to S.R. 256, Postage Drive, or the southern access drive Kohl’s. Mr. Schultz stated the existing access drive would likely be extended to connect with the proposed extension of Stonecreek Drive to the south, and access to the future out lots would utilize the private drive. He continued, therefore, it is important to limit access in this area for the access road to function appropriately. Mr. Schultz stated with regard to building materials, the front elevation is separated into two distinct design elements north and south of the main gable entrance comprised of EIFS and aluminum storefront doors and windows. He stated north of the main entrance the elevation would be comprised of brick to match Sky Bank and there would be two bays of aluminum windows divided into grids. He stated south of the main entrance would be a radial element comprised of glass and EIFS incorporated into the design with the windows divided into grids and extending to grade. Further the roof would have asphalt dimensional shingles to match Sky Bank. Mr. Schultz stated the west elevation would be comprised of brick with two bays of windows including the drive thru window located on this elevation. He stated the radial element would be on the south side of the elevation. The north elevation is comprised of brick with two windows and the drive thru canopy would be located on the west side of the elevation and would have a pitched roof with asphalt shingles. He further stated the mechanical equipment would be on this elevation and would be shielded with a brick wall. The south elevation would have the radial window element on the east side with the remainder being brick with two bays of windows and the drive thru canopy. He continued that perimeter landscaping is not required, however, trees are suggested to the north, south, and west. He further stated there appears to be sufficient interior landscaping in the parking islands and around the existing building. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials, and landscaping with the following conditions:
(1) The southernmost curb cut shall be eliminated
(2) The brick color shall be Continental 450 Full Flashed Colonial to match Sky Bank
(3) The dimensional asphalt shingles color shall be Valley Forge Green to match Sky Bank.
Mr. David Youse and Kellie Caruso were present to answer any questions for the applicant. Mr. Youse stated with regard to eliminating the curb cut, most banks do have two curb cuts. He stated this is not on a major street, it is all on an access road and faces a substantially sized parking lot. He stated they would modify the site plan so the drive thru is on the south side of the building to make the flow work better. Mr. Fix clarified staff was not comfortable with the southern curb cut because it is very close to the existing entrance drive into Kohl’s and it would create a dangerous intersection. Mr. Schultz stated he has discussed this with our engineer and she also feels it should be eliminated. Mr. Schultz stated when Stonecreek Drive gets extended, a traffic impact study would be prepared for this entire area and that would likely determine any existing or future curb cuts in the area. Mr. Nicholas stated he has seen buildings similar to the one proposed, however, our Code does not permit large expanses of glass and the round element is all glass. He stated with the design as it is, he could not support it with all the glass. Mr. Nicholas inquired if there was a way, architecturally, that they could break up the large expanse of glass. Mr. Youse stated he has discussed this, but he does not know what would be acceptable. Mr. Schultz stated staff’s original recommendation was to have a building similar to one in Westerville, but apparently Huntington Bank decided to go with this option. Ms Caruso stated Huntington Bank has surveyed their employees and customers and designed this prototype based on that. She stated the one Mr. Schultz referred to in Westerville is a very small building and not one they wanted to build here. She stated they have had a great deal of success with this building. Mr. Nicholas stated he understood that, and he personally liked the building design, however, it does not comply with our Code and lacks the rural character our Code requires. Mr. O’Brien stated he understood the bank had surveyed their customers, however, they did not survey the communities to see what they would accept. He stated each community is setting their own type of design standards and ours is more rural where other areas are more contemporary. Mr. Fix stated he felt the question was if there was any alternative to this design that might fit for the bank in Pickerington because this design does not fit the Code. Ms Caruso stated this is Huntington’s only prototype and it is for the interior layout. She stated there have been exterior modifications, but she did not have another alternative. Mr. Nicholas stated he understood they were under time constraints to get something approved as the construction fence went up around the existing development in the past few days. Mr. Fix stated he felt the problem was how we defined “rural in nature” as stated in our Code. Mr. Schultz stated staff’s initial recommendation, when he first saw the design, was they go with the design of the bank in Westerville that matches exactly what the City is looking for, and he recommended they go with that design. Ms Caruso stated that is an older bank and is not the building they want to do. Mr. Hartmann stated rural character is defined in our code as follows: “Rural character means an appearance with a distinctive style associated with a country atmosphere as opposed to the city, especially as it relates to materials and color. Materials and color with a rural character are those which are primarily natural in nature.” Mr. O’Brien stated as he understood it the concerns with this building included the elimination of the curb cut, the rural character issue, the color of the bricks, and the large expanse of glass. Mr. O’Brien stated before debating all of these issues, did the Commission feel they could deal with all of these issues. Mr. Youse stated they would use the brick recommended by staff to match the other bank. Mr. Fix stated he would recommend we table this issue and let the applicant work with staff and any of the Commission members to get this to meet our Code. He stated if they could come up with something that would fit our zoning code, and he felt the Commission would be happy to schedule a special meeting to review it if necessary. Mr. Fix moved to Table; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. (TABLED)
F. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru for Huntington Bank located on S.R. 256 just south of Postage Drive. Mr. Blake stated he would like to have this item continued on the agenda for the next meeting.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated last month the Board approved a fence variance in Sheffield, and this month they will consider a minimum dwelling size variance and front yard setback variance for a home on Reynolds Avenue.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated Winding Creek, Section 5, Phase II, the final plat was extended, and Sagamore Ponds preliminary plan was approved. He stated this is located on Stemen Road and there are 31 lots on 23 acres.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
B. Mr. Schultz stated he is trying to schedule a Work Shop for the Commission members and he would like to include the Board of Zoning Appeals members in the work shop as well. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to schedule the work shop for May 26, 2005, at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Schultz stated if any Commission members could not make that work shop if they would let him know then perhaps the work shop could be rescheduled.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:35 P.M., May 10, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning