PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JULY 12, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
6:50
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING
A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGNAGE FOR RESALE FURNITURE AT 30 WEST COLUMBUS STREET
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda
Yartin, Steve Smith,Jr., 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 stated the applicant currently has a temporary sign and is proposing to install a new wooden sign to their building to replace that temporary sign.
Mr. Blake ascertained there were no comments either for or against the proposed sign.
Mr. Blake stated as there were no 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 6:53 P.M., July 12, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JULY 12, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:00
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD LOCATED AT GAZEBO PARK
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COLUMBUS STREET AND NORTH CENTER STREET FOR
PICKERINGTON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr.
Kramer. Others present were: Lance
Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Steve Smith,Jr., and others.
Mr. Schultz stated the Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce is proposing to install a billboard at the Gazebo Park that would be approximately five feet tall and six feet wide, with approximately 54 square feet of sign area. He further stated it would be three-sided.
Mr. Blake ascertained there were no comments either for or against the proposed sign.
Mr. Blake stated as there were no 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 7:05 P.M., July 12, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JULY 12, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:10
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING OF 8.874 ACRES FROM AG (RURAL DISTRICT) TO PM-1 (PLANNED
RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PICKERINGTON ROAD
AND STEMEN ROAD FOR A NEW VIOLET TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND ROAD
MAINTENANCE FACILITY (VIOLET TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES)
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr.
Blake. Others present were: Lance
Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Steve Smith,Jr., and others.
Mr. Schultz stated Violet Township is proposing to locate their new administration building and maintenance facility at this site. He stated this would encompass approximately 23,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Stemen Road and Pickerington Road. He stated they were requesting a Planned Restricted Industrial zoning as it would be a maintenance facility and garage as well as the Township offices. He stated we would limit the industrial use just to Township operations, so future uses, if they were industrial, would have to come back for rezoning.
Mrs. Anita LeGrand stated she would like to know what the accommodations were for utilities at this site. Mr. Schultz stated he understood the Township was working on extending water and sewer to the site.
Mr. Bill Yaple, Violet Township Administrator, stated they are in the process of discussing with the City Engineer alternatives for extending utilities to this location. Mrs. LeGrand clarified there would be no on-site facilities such as a septic system. Mr. Yaple stated one alternative for extending utilities was in the Root Addition, and another was a straight bore down Milnor Road. Mrs. LeGrand stated in order to go through the Root Addition they would have to go through farmland that is currently in crop. She stated she is very interested as to how they would be notified. Mr. Schultz stated once it was determined which alternative would be recommended, it would be reviewed by the Service Committee and a lot of those questions would be answered at that time. Mrs. LeGrand inquired if the neighbors would be notified of that meeting and Mr. Schultz stated normally they were not, however, he could notify them.
Mr. Yaple stated this will be a staged facility, with the maintenance facility being the first phase. Mr. Yaple stated there are no plans to come across the drainage ditch on the property, the remaining property will remain green space. Mr. Yaple stated they are proposing two accesses to the property, however, he did not know if that would be the final decision.
Mr. Blake stated as 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 7:20 P.M., July 12, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JULY 12, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING OF 145 WEST COLUMBUS STREET FROM R4 (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT) TO C2 (CENTRAL BUSINESS/MIXED USE DISTRICT) FOR CHESTA CO., INC.
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda
Yartin, Steve Smith, Jr., and others.
Mr. Schultz stated the applicant purchased the house at 145 W. Columbus Street and proposes to move their offices to that location. He stated this would require a rezoning to C-2 and there would be no site plan improvements.
Mr. Jeff Berman stated this business is an import company and they have been located at 93 West Columbus Street for approximately five years. He stated they have no retail foot traffic and they are just moving their offices from 93 to 145 West Columbus Street.
Ms Carol Girardi stated she lives next door to 145 West Columbus Street and she is concerned about the parking as she heard they plan to put a parking lot in the back. Mr. Berman stated there are no plans to put in a parking lot, this is simply an application for rezoning. Mr. Schultz stated any exterior renovations to the building or to the site itself would require a Certificate of Appropriateness approval from this Commission.
There was a question as to the plan to keep the mixed use zoning in the old downtown, and Mr. Blake responded the plan is to keep a mixed use in the downtown area. Mr. O’Brien stated, in fact, earlier this year there was a rezoning from commercial back to residential for one building. Mr. Schultz clarified there is not a specific ratio of commercial to residential that is desired in this area.
Mr. Blake stated as 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., July 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,
JULY 12, 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. Fix, Mr. Binkley, 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, Steve Smith, Jr., Kevin Kenning, Rich Pontius, Lou Visco, Eric Leibowitz, Roy Turley, Anita LeGrand, Bill Yaple, Kristin Foster, Lawrence Cohen, Carol Girardi, Darla Berman, Jeff Berman, Debra Dino, Nadine Molinaro, Kate Martin, Steve Hermiller, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 14, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Fix moved to amend the minutes to reflect on page 4 that his comments regarding asking the citizens to pay for a road extension that would lead into the center was a question, not a statement; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken on the motion to amend with Mr. O’Brien abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Roll call was taken on the minutes as amended with Mr. O’Brien abstaining, and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve Final Plats for Section 2 – Phases 3 and 4 of the Spring Creek Subdivision (Dominion Homes). (TABLED, 06/14/05). Mr. Blake stated this would remain on the Table.
B. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Signage for Resale Furniture at 30 West Columbus Street. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to replace the existing temporary sign and install a new wood sign. He stated the proposed sign would be 8 feet long and 16 inches high for a total of 12 square feet, it would have two colors, a green background with red letters, and would be attached to the front canopy by eyehooks. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions that the sign area be a minimum of 7.66 feet above the ground level and that the sign shall be secured to allow for minimal swaying. Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to clarify that the lowest part of the sign shall be a minimum of 7.66 feet above the ground level. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Olde Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Signage for Resale Furniture at 30 West Columbus Street with the conditions that the lowest part of the sign shall be a minimum of 7.66 feet above ground level and the sign shall be secured to allow for minimal swaying; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
C. Review and request for motion to approve a Olde Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Comprehensive Sign Plan for a Community Bulletin Board at Gazebo Park located at the northwest corner of Columbus Street and North Center Street for the Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Schultz stated the Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce is proposing to construct a community bulletin board for advertisement of community and downtown events, and to eliminate the need for sandwich board signs in this park area. He stated the sign would be located at the northeast corner of Gazebo Park, three to five feet from the sidewalk. He stated he would recommend that staff and the City Engineer actually locate the sign to reduce the amount of grading required and sight distance. Mr. Schultz stated the sign would be three-sided, approximately 5 feet tall and 6 feet wide, with a sign area of 18 square feet on each side for a total of 54 square feet. He further stated the sign area would have a glass or plexi-glass panel with a locking device to protect the advertisements and would be constructed of wood and stained white to match the gazebo. Mr. Schultz continued the sign would not be illuminated and the Chamber of Commerce would be responsible for maintaining, monitoring, and updating the sign; however, the City would own the sign because it would be on City property, and the City and the Camber of Commerce would need to discuss and document the rules for posting on the Community Bulletin Board. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the conditions that the City staff shall determine the location of the sign and that the sign shall be owned by the City, but the Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce shall be responsible for maintaining, monitoring, and updating the sign. Ms Dino stated she works for the Chamber and they felt this would be an asset to the City as it would provide a location for people to go and see what is happening in town and give us an old village type look. Ms Dino stated since submitting the application they have discussed perhaps having the sign constructed of vinyl instead of wood. Mr. O’Brien stated Mr. Schultz had mentioned this would replace the sandwich boards and inquired if it would be enforced by Code Enforcement to make sure the sandwich boards are not used everywhere. Mr. Schultz stated this would just replace the sandwich boards in the park area. Mr. Schultz stated the Chamber has spoken to the schools and the Olde Pickerington Village Business Association and they have agreed to put their posters on this sign. Mr. O’Brien stated with the history we have of signage in the old downtown area he wondered if that should be a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Schultz stated the sandwich boards can be in front of the business, not on the corner, and hopefully this sign will address the needs for the entities that are using that corner right now. Mr. Fix inquired if the sign would be visible and readable from your vehicle, or if you would have to go up to the board to read it. Ms Dino stated the plan is that it is something you would walk up to, but some of the signs may be large enough to be visible from your vehicle. Mr. Fix stated as long as the schools did not have a problem with this, he thought it was a great idea. Mr. Blake stated he felt the sign being constructed of vinyl was a good one as it would be very low maintenance. Mr. Nicholas stated he would abstain from voting on this issue as he helped prepare the drawings, however, it appeared the dimensions of the sign on the drawing had been changed. He stated the new dimensions would not allow for a poster and he would recommend they go back to the original dimensions and lower the post. Mr. Blake clarified Mr. Nicholas was recommending adding approximately one foot to the height of the actual signage area. Ms Dino stated in speaking with Mr. Schultz and Mr. Carr, Mr. Carr was concerned with the height and that it would block the view of the gazebo. Mr. Nicholas stated he would recommend leaving the height of the sign at 6’4”, lowering the bottom of the sign area six inches and raising the top six inches, so it would be 1’6” off the ground and the top of the sign area would be 5’6” off the ground. Mr. Schultz stated he had no issues with that change. Mr. Blake clarified the overall height of the sign would stay at 6’4”. Mr. Binkley clarified staff would determine the location of the sign so it would not interfere with utilities and as limited amount of grading as possible would be necessary. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for a Community Bulletin Board at Gazebo Park with the change of adding six inches to the top and bottom of the sign area as stated earlier and to be constructed of either wood or vinyl; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas abstaining, and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. Review and request for motion to approve the rezoning of 8.874 acres from AG (Rural District) to PM-1 (Planned Restricted Industrial District) located at the southeast corner of Pickerington Road and Stemen Road for a new Violet Township Administration Building and Road Maintenance Facility (Violet Township Board of Trustees). Mr. Schultz stated Violet Township is proposing to construct a new Township Administration Building and Maintenance facility. He stated the entire facility would encompass approximately 23,240 square feet with 52 parking spaces. He stated 94 spaces would be required at full build out, so a variance would be necessary as they go through the site plan process if additional spaces are not added. Mr. Schultz continued there would be a single curb cut from Pickerington Road and Stemen Road, respectively. He stated the building would likely be constructed in three phases with Phase I consisting of an approximately 5,200 square foot maintenance facility, and the two curb cuts and four parking spaces would be constructed in this phase. He continued Phase II would consist of an 8,900 square foot addition to the maintenance facility with four additional parking spaces. Further, Phase III would consist of 9,400 square feet of administrative offices and meeting hall and the remaining parking spaces. Mr. Schultz stated the southern portion of the site, south of the ditch area, will be reserved as park area owned and maintained by the Township, the Township is reviewing options to extend sanitary service to the site, and storm water would have to be detained on the site per City requirements. Mr. Schultz stated this site is identified for agricultural use in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, however, the Township garage has been located across the street for years. He stated the recently adopted City Thoroughfare Plan identifies Stemen Road as a major collector, which would connect with Courtright Road, which would connect to Pickerington Road, and Stemen Road would be ultimately widened to Allen Road. He stated this would likely occur ten to fifteen years in the future. Mr. Schultz continued that buffering adjacent to the residential properties to the east and south would be required per our zoning code requirements. Per the Thoroughfare Plan 40-feet from centerline of Stemen Road and 30-feet from centerline of Pickerington Road would have to be dedicated to the City, and a dedication plan and legal description would have to be prepared for the City to accept and record. The curb cut on Stemen Road would likely need to be moved to a minimum 175-feet east of the Pickerington Road right-of-way to get it away from the Stemen Road intersection, and a traffic impact study should be prepared and approved by the City. He stated further the scope of the traffic impact study should be determined by the City’s Engineer. Mr. Schultz stated the development would have to receive Certificates of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials, landscaping, lighting, and signage if the zone change is approved, and the proposed concept site plan commits the Township to the size and location of the proposed administration building and maintenance facility. Mr. Schultz stated, again, the required number of parking spaces per the zoning code would have to be provided for each phase of construction, and ultimately, a parking variance approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, buffering to the adjacent residences would have to meet the zoning code requirements of mounding, fencing, and landscaping, outdoor storage (salt barn, recycling, etc.) would have to be identified and would require screening in the form of fencing or landscaping. He stated the uses in the proposed planned restricted industrial district should be limited to Township maintenance and garage facilities uses and prohibit more intense industrial uses to protect the residents in the area. Office uses are permitted in the restricted industrial district. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the rezoning with the following conditions:
(1) That a traffic impact study (scope to be determined by the City Engineer) shall be approved by the City.
(2) That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the city to accept and record right-of-way along Pickerington Road and Stemen Road per the City Thoroughfare Plan.
(3) That the site plan and building shall meet the City’s Commercial Design Guidelines.
(4) That the site shall be used for Township office, maintenance, storage uses and operations only, and any other industrial uses and operations are prohibited without a rezoning.
(5) That a parking variance shall be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
(6) That any outdoor storage shall be identified and screened with fencing and/or landscaping.
Mr. Schultz stated this would go to the Service Committee and require a public hearing at City Council and three readings at Council with a 30-day effective period after the third reading. Mr. Blake stated he would like to clarify the action this evening was for the rezoning of the land only, not the details of the building, the landscaping, or anything else.
Ms Nadine Molinaro stated she would like to know if there was any kind of preliminary plan for the location of the building, etc. Mr. Yaple stated this will be completed in three phases as stated earlier, and there will be buffering. Mr. Schultz stated to the east, a 25-foot buffer with mounding, landscaping and fencing would be required, to the south it would be 50 feet, and also Mr. Yaple indicated that the area south of the ditch would likely be parkland, owned and maintained by the Township. Mr. Schultz stated the specific buffering would be addressed at the time the Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping is submitted. Mr. Yaple stated they do not have a specific start date at this time, but they hoped to start next spring. Ms Kate Martin stated she would like to know what kind of fencing will be required. Mr. Schultz stated to the east we would require a six foot opaque wood fence and mounding and landscaping.
Mr. Fix stated Mr. Schultz had stated the curb cut on Stemen Road should be moved a minimum of 175 feet east of Pickerington Road, and inquired if that was reflected on the plans the Commission received and should that be a condition for approval. Mr. Schultz stated it was not reflected on the plans and it should be a condition, and it would be identified more fully when we do the traffic analysis. Mr. Fix clarified for the rezoning it should be added as a condition that 175 feet is the minimum it would be. Mr. Schultz stated it might be more appropriate to add the condition that the curb cut would have to comply with the traffic impact study. Mr. Schultz stated we have to weigh the distance of the curb cut from the residents and the safety of the intersection, so the impact study would probably reflect what would be appropriate out there. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed the City Engineer should make recommendations on this issue, and Mr. Schultz stated this would be addressed during the site plan and elevation approval. Mr. Bosch clarified the site plan will come back with those dimensions identified, and he agreed with Mr. Fix’s recommendation of the condition that the curb cut would comply with the traffic impact study. Mr. Bosch stated this rezoning would be for the entire parcel and questioned if there was anything in the rezoning where we can hold them to the parkland to the south, so there isn’t a salt barn or something on the southern half of the property. Mr. Schultz stated we could put conditions on what happens to the south, he has not discussed that with the Township. Mr. Bosch stated he was just thinking in good faith for the residents there, if we can guarantee it will remain parkland. Mr. Yaple stated he would hate to see that condition put on right now as the Courtright Drive extension may come right in where the existing facility is. Mr. Bosch clarified we do not have the final determination on the Courtright Drive extension and based on that, the entire site plan may have to shift to accommodate it. Mr. Yaple stated that was correct, they thought the building was back far enough, but they didn’t know what would happen on the other side of the street where the existing facility is. Mr. Schultz stated if the site plan is added to, they would have to come back for at least a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new building and potentially, depending on what it is, back to rezoning for a significant change in the site plan. Mr. Blake clarified when the site plan is submitted they are locked into a concept plan. Mr. Schultz stated if they were to come back and move the building further south, for example, they would have to go back through rezoning because this is a planned district and that requires a concept site plan. Mr. Yaple stated they are willing to work with whatever is needed for this street extension as they knew it was necessary for the future street, they just did not know as yet where the street would go. Mr. Blake clarified the section of the property they were discussing was approximately four acres. Mr. Bosch stated then, if this concept plan with everything to the south being identified as parkland, is approved, and then during the traffic analysis it shows everything has to be moved to accommodate the road, that would mean a significant change and they would have to come back through this Commission. Mr. Schultz stated it would have to be reviewed to determine if it is a significant change. Mr. Schultz stated he would suggest this concept plan be approved and when we get into the site plan Certificate of Appropriateness in four or five months, we should know these answers and any conditions can be put on the parkland or whatever if appropriate at that time. Mr. Blake clarified we hoped to know in four or five months what is going on with this extension. Mr. Yaple stated if any of the other service functions from across the street need to be relocated, it was not like the entire area would be filled up. He stated the goal was to keep everything as compact as possible and in the end there will still be some sort of large green space. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the rezoning with staff recommendations; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz clarified that the condition that the curb cut comply with the traffic impact study was covered in the first condition set forth. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
E. Review
and request for a motion to approve the rezoning at 145 West Columbus Street
from R-4 (Residential District) to C-2 (Central Business/Mixed Use District)
for Chesta Co., Inc. Mr. Schultz stated
the owner proposes to renovate the existing single-family house into an office,
which is permitted in a C-2 district. He
stated office and commercial uses are located within the block of this existing
house, and the Columbus Street corridor has a variety of mixed uses including
retail stores, restaurants, and professional offices. He stated the Olde Pickerington Village Plan
encourages pedestrian type commercial development along Columbus Street. Mr. Schultz stated the building apparently
would remain the same; therefore, Certificates of Appropriateness for building
materials, landscaping, and lighting are not required. He stated any exterior changes and/or site
plan revisions would likely require Certificate of Appropriateness
approval. He further stated any signage
would require a Certificate of Appropriateness approval by this Commission, and
although additional parking is not required as part of the site plan approval
in the Olde Pickerington Village area, staff strongly encourages parking in the
rear of the site for employees to allow more spaces on Columbus Street for
patrons. Mr. Schultz stated staff
supports the rezoning request. Mr.
Lawrence Cohn stated he was present on behalf of the applicant and the building
would be used for office use. He stated
the current office for this company is located just down the street and there
would be no changes to the exterior of the building for the proposed use. Ms Kristin Foster stated she would like to
know about people parking in the alley because her driveway is located there
and that is the only entrance into her garage.
She stated in the past it has happened that her driveway is blocked and
her concern was that would happen regularly with deliveries, etc. Mr. Schultz stated that alleyways are public
right of way so that would be enforced by the police department. He further stated on-site parking is not
required in the old downtown district.
Mr. Bosch clarified that if the owner wanted to change the on-site
parking, that would have to come back before this Commission. Mr. Fix moved to approve the rezoning at
145 West Columbus Street from R-4 (Residential District) to C-2 (Commercial
Business/Mixed Use District) for Chesta Co., Inc.; 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.
F. Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Plat for Windmiller Square Commercial Subdivision (property south of Kroger). Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposes to develop the 8.82 acre site into four commercial out lots. He stated the existing road into Kroger would, at this point, remain private and the road would be extended south to Diley Road along this project, and when it crosses onto T&M’s property it would be a dedicated 36-foot public road. Mr. Schultz stated the change from the preliminary plan that this Commission approved last month is that there is a curb cut adjacent to Lot #13 that is 80 feet wide. He stated he would request a semi-truck turning radius study to determine the appropriate width for that curb cut as it may be to large. Mr. Schultz further stated that is likely the way the trucks would get behind the center so we can understand a larger curb cut, however, we want to make sure it is not to large. He stated further staff would recommend the construction of the entire public road to Diley Road right of way be required at one time and not in phases as the out lots develop. He stated this is important so we can connect into the new Diley Road as soon as possible. Mr. Schultz stated we are requesting building set backs, which they complied with, and the parking set backs are identified. Mr. Schultz stated with regard to buffering, there is one new request and that is streetscape buffering just north of the existing private drive, adjacent to the gas station, shall be required with the appropriate mounding and landscaping per the zoning code. He stated that was not included in the preliminary plan approval. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the request with the following conditions:
(1) That the proposed plan shall be revised
to meet the above traffic access plan, building/parking setback requirements
and buffering requirements.
(2) That the proposed development shall meet
all other City development requirements.
(3) That the construction drawings shall be
approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat.
(4) That the existing and proposed private
road issues on the Regency Center Corporation property shall be addressed to
satisfy City requirements.
(5) That the entire length of the public
road shall be constructed at the same time to the Diley Road right-of-way.
Mr. Schultz
stated if the Commission approves the preliminary plat this evening, it will go
before Service Committee tomorrow for their review, and will be before
Commission next month for a final plat.
Mr. Steve
Hermiller stated he was present representing the applicant. He stated there are very minimal changes from
what was approved last month and he would answer any questions. He stated just for clarification he would
like to point out the 50-foot right-of-way mentioned in the staff report is
already dedicated to the City, and there are sidewalks along Hill Road, which
are there today. He stated he could
easily provide a simulation of how the trucks will maneuver eventually around
the facility. Mr. Hermiller stated on
the section of the private road, the staff report states the new portion of the
private road will be constructed to public standards. He stated this comment is binding his client
to pursuing this pavement prior to the City’s investigation with Regency. He stated he would like an addition or
amendment that states that once the City moves forward with Regency, and things
are worked out regarding access, that this portion will be installed at that
time. He stated their hands are tied at
this point to work on someone else’s property without approval. Mr. Schultz stated hopefully we will have all
of the approvals with Regency before this gets approved. Mr. Hermiller stated he just wanted to make
sure it did not limit his client. Mr.
Hermiller further stated to keep options open he questioned if they should
install curbing along the south side of this roadway at this time or, depending
on how the lot develops, that installation of curbs and curb cuts not be
installed until it does develop. Mr.
Schultz stated we would want the islands installed per the submitted plan, and
the curb cuts for the out lots fronting this new road should be adjacent to the
ones to the south. Mr. Hermiller
inquired what the timing was for the work on Diley Road since the staff
recommendation is that the entire length of the road be constructed at that
time, and Mr. Schultz stated we did not know, but when the road was started, we
wanted it finished so we can have Diley connect to it once we work out the
issues on what is going to be Old Diley.
Mr. Bosch clarified that the sidewalks should be extended from the
southern property line to Diley Road north to the curb cut at Kroger. Mr. Hermiller stated the buffering will
happen, but because of not knowing the intentions of the layout exactly, they
would request the mounding could be delayed until Certificates of
Appropriateness of each site plan for each out lot. Mr. Schultz stated that was appropriate. Mr. Bosch stated as long as the developer was
aware that we want it to look like it was all done together. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Preliminary
Plat for Windmiller Square Commercial subdivision with staff recommendations;
Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
G. Review and request for motion to approve
a Conditional Use Permit to attach an antenna and equipment cabinets to the
AT&T/Cingular telecommunications tower located at the Pickerington Central
High School Stadium. Mr. Schultz stated
Sprint is proposing to attach an antenna to the existing AT&T/Cingular
tower. He stated the antenna would be
located at the 170-foot level on the 180-foot tower, and in addition, an
approximate 221 square foot lease area for equipment cabinets would be located
just south of the existing lease area.
The proposed equipment cabinets would be 5.5 feet high and installed on
a 6 foot high equipment platform elevated above the flood plain, and the School
Board approved the lease agreement for the antenna . Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the
Conditional Use Permit for the antenna and equipment cabinets with the
following conditions:
(1) That proposed equipment cabinets shall
be enclosed in a white building with a pitched roof to match the existing
equipment building, if technically feasible.
(2) That a tight screen of six foot high
pine trees at installation shall be installed along the eastern and southern
side of the new lease area.
(3) That the existing landscaping on the
east side of the lease area shall be replaced with a tight screen of six-foot
high pine trees.
(4) That a six-foot high chain link fence
shall surround the new lease area.
Mr. John
Bernard stated he was present representing Sprint and he would answer any
questions the Commission may have. Mr.
Bernard stated they have been considering installing a fence that is slatted,
so you cannot see in, and not worry about the landscaping on the outside. He stated there is only about three feet
between the actual fence that exists and the drive so there is not a lot of
room for trees to grow. Mr. O’Brien
stated a six-foot pine tree is probably six feet wide at the base, so we are
already into the driveway or whatever, and perhaps we should think about a
fence. Mr. Bosch stated he kind of liked
that idea as well. Mr. Bosch moved to
approve the Conditional Use Permit with staff recommendations one and four; Mr.
Fix seconded the motion. Mr.
Bernard clarified the approval was for building the shelter and installing the
chain link fence. Roll call was taken
with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and
Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion
passed, 7-0.
Planning and
Zoning Commission recessed at 8:45 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:55
P.M.
H. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Hunters Run Center Phase IV commercial
building (22,000 square feet) located at 10501 Blacklick Eastern Road for Plaza
Properties. Mr. Schultz stated the
applicant is proposing a ground sign and wall signage on the commercial
building. He stated the ground sign
would be located on the southeast corner of Blacklick Eastern Road and Freedom
Way and is similar to the Hunters Run sign on S.R. 256. He stated the sign would be approximately 6.5
feet high and 13 feet wide and would encompass 100 square feet, and would
contain space for four tenants. Mr.
Schultz stated the sign would be green with white lettering, would be
internally illuminated, would be 34 inches in depth, and would have a brick
base with side columns also in brick.
Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the
following conditions:
(1) That the ground sign shall be five feet
from the right-of-way and outside the sight triangle.
(2) That the wall signs shall be limited to
three colors for the entire building.
(3) That the ground sign and building sign
letters shall have a matte finish.
Mr. Jack
Reynolds stated he and Mr. Nick Volman were present representing the
applicant. He stated they would be happy
to answer any questions, and the signage was a mirror image of what is already
in Hunters Run. Mr. Fix stated he has a
significant issue with staff recommendation on the limitation of colors for the
signs on the walls. He stated it is not
consistent with what is in the rest of the Hunters Run area, all the signs in
that facility have their own logo colors and they are not limited to a certain
number of colors that we decide what they are, and he felt it was a significant
mistake to continue to push for this when we have small businesses out there
that have spent a good deal of time and money trying to develop logos that are
their brand identity. He stated we strip
some of that identity away when we limit the colors to what we think is
best. Mr. Fix continued he does not
believe our code substantiates our doing that and it is not in line with our
code and this is an issue we should deal with.
Mr. Fix stated it is not right to make tenants, small businesses,
conform to what we think are the right colors.
Mr. Fix stated he felt this was wrong and it should be stricken from the
recommendations. Mr. Schultz stated our
code does restrict a sign to three colors under our Comprehensive Sign Plan
approval. Mr. Fix stated it does not
restrict an entire building with multiple signs to three colors, so on each
individual sign he had no problem with limiting it to three colors, but
limiting it to three colors for the entire building, for all the tenants in
that building, is wrong and is a mistake.
Mr. O’Brien stated one of the differences between this outbuilding and
the center itself, is that the center is so far back off the road and what we
are discussing with the three colors are those that primarily abut the 256
corridor and are visible clearly from the road versus the ones done several
years ago that are back off the road. He
stated he felt there was a delineation on this particular property. Mr. Fix stated he understood Mr. O’Brien’s
point, but he felt there were a lot of signs up and down 256 that carry the
logo colors of the individual businesses within and that we should allow for
that in these businesses as well. Mr.
Schultz stated the applicant has agreed to having the three colors. Mr. Fix stated he understood they have agreed
to the three colors, but he felt as a body what they were doing was not in line
with our own code and is plain bad business and we should not be doing it. Mr. Nicholas stated if he recalled correctly
when this was approved, a brick water table was to be along the entire
elevation and he did not see that on the site.
Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to have staff review the prior
approval to see if that is correct. Mr.
Fix moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with staff recommendations 1
and 3. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kramer moved to approve with all three
staff recommendations; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz inquired for a point of
clarification if the approval was for three colors for each sign, do we want
them to have the same background, or does it matter if it is red letters. Mr. Reynolds stated they were proposing to
use green, red, and white, and the background will all be the off white. Mr. Schultz clarified the panels will be
white with red and green letters. Mr.
Fix stated would like to remind the Board they have sworn an oath to uphold the
laws of the City of Pickerington and they are not doing that if they vote for
this. Mr. O’Brien inquired if there was
documentation on any of this. Mr. Smith
stated the Code does state that each sign shall be limited to three colors,
however, if staff proposes, and the applicant agrees, they basically can make
the agreement not to exceed what is set forth in the code. He stated if the applicant willingly agrees
to limit the color pallet to three colors for all of the signs, the applicant
can do that. He stated the code states
three colors per sign, not three colors per plan. Mr. Kramer clarified that our Commercial
Design Guidelines state that no sign shall have more than three colors. Mr.
Kramer stated then, this Commission is abiding by the law. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix voting
“Nay,” and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr.
Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed,
6-1.
I. Review and request for motion to
approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for
Landscaping for Hunters Run Center Phase IV commercial building (22,000 square
feet) located at 10501 and 10503 Blacklick Eastern Road for Plaza
Properties. Mr. Schultz stated the
applicant is proposing streetscape and interior landscaping for the retail
commercial building. He stated typically
the landscape area is 30 feet, however, they did receive a variance reducing it
to 10 feet as they have dedicated some right-of-way to City in this area. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the
Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping with the following conditions:
(1) That a one to two foot high undulating
mound shall be installed along Blacklick Eastern Road.
(2) That a one to two foot high undulating
mound with landscaping shall be installed along Freedom Way. The landscaping shall include trees and
shrubs.
(3) That additional shrubs shall be
installed in the parking islands just south of the building.
(4) That interior landscaping islands shall
be mulched and the open areas shall be planted with seed or sod.
Mr. Reynolds
stated they have no problems with the recommendations of staff and would agree
to those conditions. Mr. Nicholas
moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping with staff
recommendations; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
J. Review and request for motion to
approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for
Building Materials for National City Bank attached to the east side of Giant
Eagle in the Pickerington Run Shopping Center (Casto). Mr. Schultz stated the owner was proposing to
attach a 3,200 square foot bank to the Giant Eagle with a three bay drive
thru. He stated the site plan was
approved in February with six conditions as a part of the Giant Eagle approval,
and this is for approval of the building materials for the bank. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the
Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:
(1) That the color of the brick and soldier
course on the front, side, and rear elevations shall be Adrian in color to
match Giant Eagle.
(2) That the color of the EIFS shall be a
natural earth tone color to match Giant Eagle.
(3) That a cornice to match Giant Eagle
shall be required along the front, side, and rear elevations.
(4) That the bank drive thru canopy shall
have a pitched roof with dimensional asphalt shingles.
(5) That the columns anchoring the drive
thru canopy shall be constructed of brick to match the building.
(6) That all mechanical equipment on the
roof shall be screened with brick to match the building.
(7) That any dumpster shall be screened with
brick to match the building with a wooden door.
Mr. Lou Visco
stated he was with Casto and representing the applicant this evening and would
answer any questions. Mr. Nicholas
clarified the mortar joints on the brick along the face of the canopy would not
crumble and be a problem for the cars below.
Mr. Bosch clarified the applicant had no problem with staff
recommendation that all of the mechanicals be screened. Mr. Schultz stated that was an original
condition for the Giant Eagle building because there are residents on the south
and east sides and we don’t want them to see the mechanicals. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate
of Appropriateness with staff’s recommendations and directing staff to verify
the screening of the mechanical units; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake
abstaining, and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and
Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion
passed, 6-0.
K. Review and request for motion to approve
Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping and
Lighting for Giant Eagle in the Pickerington Run Shopping Center (Casto). Mr. Schultz stated landscaping adjacent to
the residents is required. He stated as
part of a parking setback variance approved in March, the Board of Zoning
Appeals required that an eight-foot high wood fence be installed along the
southern property line, and a six-foot high wooden fence be installed along the
eastern property line, and that the pine trees there shall be maintained. He stated if those trees should die, they
must be replaced with the same size trees.
Mr. Schultz stated it would require action by the Board of Zoning Appeals
to change that variance. Mr. Schultz
stated landscape buffering is required adjacent to S.R. 256 and Refugee
Road. He continued on Refugee Road the
parking abuts the right-of-way, and based on a variance approved by the Board
of Zoning Appeals, the City does not want landscaping in the right-of-way. Mr. Schultz stated when discussed with the
developer, the City indicated we would support that variance if increased
landscaping would be placed along S.R. 256 to offset the landscaping on Refugee
Road. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported
the Certificate of Appropriateness request for Landscaping and Lighting with
the following conditions:
(1) That an 8-foot high wood opaque fence
shall be installed along the southern property line to replace the existing
fence. If the existing pine trees are
damaged from the installation of the new fence or any other reason, they shall
be replaced with the same or nearly the same size pine trees.
(2) That a six-foot high wood opaque fence
shall be installed along the eastern property line. If the existing pine trees are damaged from
the installation of the new fence or any other reason, they shall be replaced
with the same or nearly the same size pine trees.
(3) That the existing trees north of the
main entrance shall be identified and preserved along S.R. 256. The existing mound shall be undulating where
feasible and additional shrubs and flowers shall be planted to enhance the
landscape plan.
(4) That a three to five foot high
undulating mound with appropriate landscaping shall be installed south of the
main entrance along S.R. 256.
(5) That all the parking islands shall have
trees and the larger parking islands shall have multiple trees with more shrubs
and flowers.
(6) That the trees along the southern
property line shall be spaced forty-feet on center along the length of the
southern property line adjacent to the proposed fence.
(7) That the interior landscaping islands
shall be mulched and the open areas shall be planted with permanent seeding or
sod mixture.
(8) That the illumination of the lights at
property lines shall meet minimum City standards.
Mr. Lou Visco
stated he was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Visco stated they had submitted high pressure sodium for the
lighting plan, however, in speaking with Giant Eagle they prefer to use lights
like those approved for the Kohls’ development.
Mr. Bosch clarified the 35-foot mounting height was from the top of the
two and one-half foot base, so the mounting height is actually 37 and one-half
feet. Mr. Blake ascertained the City
requires the high pressure sodium lights.
Mr. Schultz stated he did not recall what was approved at Kohls’. Ms Peggy Portier stated she was present
representing the Mingo Estates Civic Association. She stated the residents would prefer a
uniform height of eight feet for the entire fence, however, she understood that
would require approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Schultz stated the Board of Zoning
Appeals had required a six foot high fence along the eastern property line and
eight feet along the southern property line.
He stated he felt if the developer voluntarily increased the height to
eight feet that would be appropriate, but to change the height would require
action by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Visco stated they have agreed to the six foot fence at an additional
expense, and there was also a request to take the trees down. He stated with regard to the trees, they have
indicated if they are on their property they would take them down if that is
okay with the City and the Township. Mr.
Schultz stated the Board of Zoning Appeals would have to approve the
elimination of any trees. Ms Portier
stated their concern was that the trees were not being maintained, there is
debris around them, etc. She stated they
do not mind the trees, but they wanted them taken care of. Mr. Schultz stated he understood the trees
were on Casto’s property. Mr. Visco
stated according to the survey there is three feet between the existing asphalt
and where the property line is, then the trees start. He stated he thought the trees were in the
right-of-way. Mr. Schultz stated that
would have to be clarified, because if they were in the right-of-way, the
Township would be responsible. Mr.
Schultz stated at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing it was inferred the trees
were on Casto’s property, and if they are not this is new information. Mr. O’Brien clarified if the trees overhang
the Casto property, would it be required to trim the trees to put a fence in,
and Mr. Visco stated he did not know.
Mr. Schultz stated the fence is a BZA requirement, so we cannot eliminate
the fence, and at that meeting it was inferred the trees were on Casto’s
property. Mr. Schultz stated this will
have to be clarified and Mr. O’Brien stated an option might be that the trees
will to be trimmed off of Casto’s property in order to install the fence as
they have been asked to do. He stated
further since the trees may have to be trimmed at least on one side, they could
be trimmed all the way around at least up to the height of over six feet. Mr. Schultz stated they should be trimmed on
Casto’s property if it needs to be done to install the fence, and it sounds
like they need to be trimmed facing Mingo Estates just to groom them
properly. Mr. Schultz stated the
developer would have to document where the trees are located, and then he will
have to get with the attorneys and see if we have to go back to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, because at that time it was inferred the trees were on Casto’s
property or we would have never had that condition. Mr. Smith stated if the trees turn out to be
on the developer’s property, this Commission could add a condition that they
would have to maintain them, however, if we find out that they are not on their
property then staff could work with the appropriate body in terms of getting
the issues that exist with the trees resolved.
He stated that way, if they were their trees then they would be
responsible for them. Mr. Nicholas
stated with respect to the fence, he was presuming the structure side of the
fence would face the developer’s property, however, no color was approved by
the Board of Zoning Appeals to stain the fence.
Mr. Nicholas stated he assumed the developer would be willing to stain
the wood portion a natural color and would work with staff on the fence
color. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve
the Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping and Lighting for Giant Eagle
in the Pickerington Run Shopping Center with staff conditions and that staff
work with the developer on the fence color to be of a natural color, and also
resolve the concerns that the Commission has with respect to the trees and
whose property they are located on; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Smith inquired if the motion included if
the trees are on their property they will maintain them. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not feel it was
necessary to include it in the motion if it is already in the Code that they
maintain them. Mr. Schultz stated that
would be in our maintenance code. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Blake abstaining, and Mr. Fix, Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
Mr. Bosch
requested Mr. Schultz have the City Engineer review the lighting to see why or
if the City may want to expand on the high pressure sodium. Mr. Schultz stated he would get with the
engineer on this issue.
L. Review and request for a motion to
approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan/Building Material and Landscaping for Barnyard Primitive store located on
Windmiller Drive across the street from World Gym. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant had
submitted revised site plans and building elevations today and he had just
distributed those to the Commission. Mr.
Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a 9,500 square foot building
(barn) that would be approximately 35 feet high. He stated the site would have a single access
point from Windmiller Drive, and the site plan identifies 48 parking
spaces. He continued in the revised site
plan the retaining wall along the northern and eastern property lines is
eliminated, and a dumpster would be located next to the wall at the terminus of
the entrance road. He further stated
storm water would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to
meet all zoning requirements and there appears to be sufficient area to
accommodate the interior and perimeter landscaping requirements. Mr. Schultz stated the original elevation
showed T-111 siding which is not acceptable as it would not meet the City’s
design standards. He stated the revised
submission identifies a reverse board and batten siding and in reviewing this
with the City Manager today, reverse board and batten is plywood and we require
natural wood for the materials of the building.
He stated further the City Manager had some concerns with the porch
elevation and the water table material, if it should be brick or stone, which
would be more appropriate. Further, the
City Manager wanted to ensure the Planning and Zoning Commission was
comfortable with the character of a barn in this area blending in with the
other buildings. Mr. Schultz stated
overall staff felt the concept of a barn was a good idea, it is unique, and if
done correctly it would look really nice.
Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness
request for Site Plan/Building Materials and Landscaping with the following
conditions:
(1) That the dumpster shall be screened on
three sides with the stone to match the building. The door shall be made of wood.
(2) That the wood siding shall meet City
design standards.
(3) That the Board of Zoning Appeals shall
grant a variance for any portion of the structure over 35 feet, and the revised
cupola shows it at 43 feet and staff suggested they have it that high for
aesthetic purposes.
(4) That an undulating two to three foot
high mounding with trees, shrubs, and flower beds shall be installed along
Windmiller drive.
(5) That the trees installed in the parking
islands shall be two and one-half inches in caliper.
(6) That the interior landscaping islands
shall be mulched and the open areas shall be planted with permanent seeding or
sod.
(7) That a sidewalk shall be installed
(extended) along the frontage of the parcel.
Mr. Steve
Eversole stated he was present with the applicants and in looking through staff
recommendations he felt every one was easily attainable with the exception of
the wood siding. He stated they were
proposing over the reverse batten, a true batten that is applied overall to
give it more depth perception. He stated
the sample they had with them is a wood product, they were just trying to work
within their budget. Mr. Blake inquired
how the joints would be sealed from water infiltration, and Mr. Eversole stated
there is a z-trim, designed and manufactured for that product, that goes over
and has about a ¼ inch return. Mr. Blake
clarified on the end elevations there would be two joints. Mr. Eversole stated the new submission was based
on suggestions made by staff, and Mr. Schultz stated staff would support the
variance on the height issue. Mr.
Schultz stated the primary concern on the materials was that the City just
wanted to ensure that the building materials for the barn would be acceptable
for other buildings in the City. Mr.
Blake stated his concern regarding the T-111 product was the longevity of this
product on a building that is in the City, and this is a big building. Mr. Eversole stated this would be a craft
store. Mr. O’Brien stated his concern
would be if at a point in the future this would no longer be a craft store, and
given the amount of parking that is there, what could we see for the potential
reuse of the building with these building materials. Ms Linda Scott stated she is co-owner of the
business and they picked this type of building because theirs is a novelty,
specialty store they want to build and because that property was once farmland
they wanted to show that. She stated the
way she saw the building, it would be an elegant barn, and if for some reason
they would vacate the property it would be an excellent facility for a
restaurant or more specialty shops, etc.
Mr. Schultz stated staff likes the barn concept, the T-111 material was
the concern. Mr. Blake stated his
concern was the longevity of the plywood siding and how it would hold up. He stated you would not have the delamination
issues with a natural wood product that you do with a plywood product. Mr. Eversole stated if the Commission
approved a standard shiplap siding they might be able to make that work in the
budget, but without the battens. Mr. O’Brien stated he had gone to the site and
looked at the plans, and he is very impressed with the building and its
design. He stated his concerns centered
around future reuse of the building and the exterior materials. Mr. Nicholas stated there were various
options for building materials that could be used for this type of
building. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt we
needed to go on a case-by-case basis by the area where the building would be located,
but this would set a precedent. Mr.
Nicholas stated he agreed with Mr. O’Brien that this would set a precedent, and
for this building type the sample presented would be appropriate. He stated by our zoning code this Commission
does have the ability and the privilege of working with the owner on the
building materials based on each particular building style. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to the water
table, he did not feel brick would look as good as the stone. Mr. Nicholas stated if done properly, he felt
this building would look good, however, he felt the Commission does have to be
careful as they move forward about the precedent setting concern. He stated this particular type of building
and architecture does require this type of aesthetics for the majority of the
siding. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan
is sufficient, however, the new submission was just received at about two
o’clock today. He stated staff would
like to have more time to review them, compare them with other barns in the area,
and staff was just not comfortable with the building materials. He further stated if the building material
approval is tabled until next month, he hoped we could reach a consensus on
what the City would be comfortable with based on what the applicant is trying
to do. Mr. Blake stated he could not
support the proposed building materials.
Mr. Schultz stated there are issues with some of the details, and they
just need to be worked through. Mr.
Nicholas clarified Mr. Schultz was recommending the Commission move forward
with this, but table the building materials, then they can keep pressing
on. Mr. Schultz stated they can move
forward with the site plan, get the engineering drawings in, as he knew that
was their concern. He stated he hoped
staff and the applicant could come to some sort of consensus before the next
Planning and Zoning meeting on the building materials. Mr. Blake stated he had serious concerns with
the exterior material and he agreed with Mr. O’Brien that this would set a
precedent in the City and we needed to move forward carefully. Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to make it
clear that he would not vote against this project because it is precedent
setting, he was just reminding the Commission of that issue. Mr. Kramer stated he felt the type of the
building was extremely acceptable and it would be a beautiful building, but he
would really need to have staff support the material that was going into the
building. Mr. Eversole stated their
concern was to try and get some kind of direction from the Commission this
evening, to get some sort of general direction so they can come back with a
proposal they feel would be approved. He
stated they would like to have the site plan approved this evening. Mr. Blake stated he would not vote on
something he was not sure would look good in the City. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to see what
shiplap is, he would like to know what the exact materials are. Mr. Nicholas asked the applicant if they
could provide samples of shiplap so staff can see it and then have it at the
next meeting for the Commission to look at.
Mr. Eversole stated he could do that and try to get staff comfortable
with something on that as they would like to keep the project moving forward,
but they do not want unrealistic cost factors put on the building that will keep
the project from happening. Mr. Schultz
stated the sooner the applicant can provide something for the staff to look at,
the sooner they can determine if it would be acceptable. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed this was a great
location for that type of project, and he liked the stone as it gave more of
the feel of an old barn. Mr. Binkley
clarified the building site is level so the exposed stone or brick would
maintain an equal height all the way around.
Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines
Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan with staff’s recommendations 1, 4,
5, 6, and 7, and that building materials be continued to be reviewed at the
next meeting; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas stated he would clarify for the
applicant that the motion this evening would approve the site plan and not the
building materials so the builder can continue with his process and next month
the Commission can review a revised material and color pallet for approval. Mr.
Schultz stated the City Engineer will have to review all grading plans and they
will have to meet our standards regardless of what site plan is approved. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
M. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Preliminary Development Plan for Ashton Crossing just west of Freedom
Way and north of Holiday Inn Express.
Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposes to develop the 13 acre site into 7
commercial out lots ranging in size from 1 to 3.3 acres. He stated a proposed private road would
extend from Freedom Way west into the site and stub approximately 270 feet from
S.R. 256. He stated there would be no
access to the site from S.R. 256, and a detention basin would be located in the
southwestern corner of the property next to the Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Schultz further stated the southern
property line essentially follows a creek, which is required to be a
conservation easement per the EPA. Mr.
Schultz stated the private road would be approximately 660 linear feet and 30
feet wide and constructed to public street standards. He stated the road would be within a 60 foot
easement. Further, the three out lots
south and one out lot west of the private road would each have a single curb
cut, however, consolidation of curb cuts is preferred. The three out lots north of the private road
would share a single curb cut through a 30-foot access easement. Mr. Schultz stated the City has no objection
to this being a private road because it dead-ends into a commercial property
and sidewalks shall be installed along one side of the private road for
pedestrian safety. Mr. Schultz stated
staff supported the preliminary plan with the following conditions:
(1) That the stream mitigation plan,
conservation easement, and five-year monitoring
plan shall be approved by the EPA and the City.
(2) That the proposed plan shall be revised
to meet the traffic access plan, building/parking setback requirements and
buffering requirements.
(3) That the proposed development shall meet
all other City development requirements.
Mr. Scott
Blackwell stated he was present representing the applicant and would answer any
questions. Mr. Binkley stated he would
abstain from voting on this issue as he has worked on this project with the
applicant’s engineer. Mr. Blake
ascertained the developer had no problem with any of staff
recommendations. Mr. Bosch stated he has
worked with the engineer as well, and he would be abstaining from voting on
this issue. Mr. Kramer clarified there
are no plans to connect with the Holiday Inn as they would have to go across
the conservation easement and there is a big swale there. Further, this
property is to the south that fronts S.R. 204, and the Fire Department issues
do not pertain to this site. Mr. Schultz
stated he would address the concerns of the Fire Department as the project
moves forward. Mr. Nicholas stated the
bottom line is no access to Holiday Inn unless in the future we look at the
properties to the east of the Holiday Inn.
He continued when they come in there could be the potential for getting
some type of access there. Mr. Schultz
stated that was correct. Mr. Bosch
stated the Holiday Inn is in a limited access area so the State controls that
access, and their permits states that at said time they gain access to the
back, the right-in/right-out on S.R. 256 goes away. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve with staff
recommendations; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch and Mr.
Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr.
Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed,
5-0.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated in June
there were five cases that were all approved and in July there are two cases
for deck variances on their agenda.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz the Commission extended the preliminary plan for the Meadowmore subdivision, and approved the final plat for Haff Farms, Section 5, which is the last section in the County.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
B. Central Ohio Planning and Zoning Workshop. Mr. Schultz stated this workshop is scheduled for next Wednesday, and he needs to know by tomorrow who would be attending so he can complete the registration.
Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to know what was happening with all the Dispatch recycling containers. Mr. Schultz stated he had noticed those and there was no approval for those. Mr. Nicholas stated he would also like to remind Mr. Schultz to follow up on the Hunters Run brick. Mr. Blake stated it appears that over the weekends the realtor signs are going up like crazy, and questioned what we can do about this. Mr. Schultz stated he and the City Manager had discussed looking at weekend enforcement, and we are looking to see what our options are.
Mr. Blake stated he would like to state with regard to one issue this evening that in his experience T-111 is a terrible material to try and keep any type of coating on. He stated if T-111 is approved, even with our property maintenance code he felt it would be difficult to enforce making someone with this large building maintain it.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. O’Brien moved to adjourn; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 11:15 P.M., July 12, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning