PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 8, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:00
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING OF 194 WEST CHURCH STREET FROM R-4 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
TO C-2 CENTRAL BUSINESS/MIXED USE DISTRICT
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. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
O’Brien. Others present were: Lance
Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Jack Bowman, Suzie Bowman, Keelie Weaver,
Francis Weaver, Richard Ricketts, Jeff Monebrake, Jim Watkins, Jeff McInturf,
Todd Ferris, and others.
Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing to convert the existing single-family home into office use, for an insurance office, which is permitted in the proposed C-2 Central Business/Mixed Use District. Mr. Blake ascertained the adjacent and contiguous property owners have been notified of this request by both regular and certified mail.
Ms Keelie Weaver stated she and her husband are the owners of the subject property. She stated she is an insurance agent and she would like to use this property as her office. Ms Weaver stated she is a board member of the Olde Pickerington Village Business Association and she appreciates the historic integrity of old Pickerington and she does not plan on changing this home, but to keep its historic character, other than updating some things inside.
Mr. Jack Bowman, 193 West Church. Mr. Bowman stated his property is right across the street from this property. He stated his question would be what else this zoning would allow this property to be. He stated if this was an office, that was one thing, but could it be retail, what would the signage be, where is the entrance to and from the property, and what is going to happen to the rest of Church Street since it is supposed to be a residential street, etc. Mr. Bowman stated he would like to know what position the City was going to take as far as what is designated a residential area. Mr. Bowman further questioned if he would be allowed to do the same thing with his property.
Mr. Blake stated these were all very good questions, and typically the public hearing is for public comments. He stated these questions would be addressed when the item came up on the agenda.
Ms Weaver stated she would like to add that directly across the street from her property is the old Dairy Queen that is now a PaPa Joe’s Pizza, there is an attorney’s office, another insurance office is a few houses down, and next to Mr. Bowman is the Christian Counseling Center. She further stated one of the largest commercial sites in old historic Pickerington, the old creamery, actually resides on West Church Street. She stated she felt this was mixed use already, however, she did understand the concern about what type of business would go in there.
Mr. O’Brien clarified this would be owner occupied versus tenant occupied. Ms Weaver stated she was astounded to see that most of the homes that are zoned residential on the street are tenant occupied. Mr. Blake further clarified this property would be used strictly for the business, it would not be a residence with her business.
There being no further comments, Mr. Blake declared the public hearing closed at 7:09 P.M., November 8, 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,
NOVEMBER 8, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:10
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING OF
100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
(CITY HALL)
FROM AG RURAL DISTRICT
TO O SUBURBAN
OFFICE DISTRICT
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
O’Brien. Others present were: Lance
Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Jack Bowman, Suzie Bowman, Keelie Weaver,
Francis Weaver, Richard Ricketts, Jeff Monebrake, Jim Watkins, Jeff McInturf,
Todd Ferris, and others.
Mr. Schultz stated the City is proposing to rezone City Hall from AG Rural District to O Suburban Office District to be properly zoned for a potential building expansion. Mr. Schultz stated City Hall was constructed in 1992 and has been an office use since that time. He stated if we do any expansion, it must be properly zoned.
There being no comments, Mr. Blake declared the public hearing closed at 7:12 P.M., November 8, 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,
NOVEMBER 8, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RETREAT AT SPRING LAKES CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE SYCAMORE CREEK CHURCH PROPERTY JUST WEST OF
PICKERINGTON NORTH HIGH SCHOOL
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. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
O’Brien. Others present were: Lance
Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Jack Bowman, Suzie Bowman, Keelie Weaver,
Francis Weaver, Richard Ricketts, Jeff Monebrake, Jim Watkins, Jeff McInturf,
Todd Ferris, and others.
Mr. Schultz stated the preliminary development plan was approved by this Commission last month on the proposed 90 detached single-family condominiums on the 20 acre site for a density of 4.5 units per acre.
Mr. Richard Ricketts stated he was the attorney for the developer and he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have.
There being no comments, Mr. Blake declared the public hearing closed at 7:22 P.M., November 8, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 8, 2005
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley were present. Mr. Fix was absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Tracy Beckman, Sharon Bucilla, Jack Bowman, Suzie Bowman, Keelie Weaver, Francis Weaver, Lou Visco, Jim Dreiss, Richard Ricketts, Jeff Moneybrake, Kevin Zippernick, Jim Watkins, Todd Ferris, Doug Calper, Jeff McInturf, Mark Phillips, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 13, 2005, Public Hearing regarding Comprehensive Sign Plan at 19 North Center Street. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 13, 2005, Public Hearing regarding Comprehensive Sign Plan at 18 East Columbus Street. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 13, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed 5-0.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 11, 2005, Public Hearing regarding the Retreat at Spring Lakes Condominium Development. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch abstaining, and Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 11, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blake abstaining, and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
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 a Final Development Plan for the Retreat at Spring Lakes condominium development located on the Sycamore Creek Church property just west of the Pickerington North High School. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report that had been provided to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated the County Engineer has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study that was required on this site, and their recommendation is that the eastbound turn lane into this site is warranted and should be constructed prior to occupancy of any condominium units, and that the Sycamore Creek Church access drive should align with Sandpiper Lane prior to occupancy of any condominium units. Mr. Schultz stated this was the one outstanding issue from last month’s meeting. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Final Development Plan with the following 11 conditions:
(1) That the eastbound left hand turn lane on Refugee Road shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any condominium units.
(2) The Sycamore Creek Church/condominium access drive shall align with Sandpiper Lane prior to occupancy of any condominium units.
(3) That all the private streets shall be constructed to public street standards.
(4) That the active open spaces and the open space around the existing pond and retention ponds shall have amenities installed to create a park like setting.
(5) That the perimeter buffering to the west shall meet the Type B buffering requirements while maintaining the existing trees along the property line.
(6) That the Sycamore Creek Community Church shall dedicate a bike/pedestrian path easement across their property to the City.
(7) That the condominium unit building model type specific housing mix shall meet the plan submitted to create an aesthetically pleasing development.
(8) That the condominium buildings shall meet the minimum standards of the proposed Residential Design Standards if approved by the City.
(9) That a condominium association document shall be prepared and reviewed by the City prior to third reading at City Council.
(10) That the condominium entrance sign shall be five feet from the right-of-way or street easement and outside the site triangle.
(11) That the development plan shall meet the fire department requirements.
Mr. Schultz stated the first two conditions are additions to the conditions that were placed on the approval of the preliminary development plan. Mr. Blake clarified the applicant had been provided with these conditions. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission had also been provided with a copy of the letter from the County Engineer, and the applicant also received a copy of that letter.
Mr. Ricketts stated he was the attorney representing the developer, Beazer Homes. He stated Mr. Schultz had provided the Commission with a very detailed overview of the issues and he would be happy to answer any specific questions there might be. Mr. Ricketts stated with regard to the 11 conditions Mr. Schultz had detailed, at the last meeting we were waiting on the input from Fairfield County, specifically the Fairfield County Engineer’s office as to their recommendations. Mr. Ricketts stated this is an area that has been annexed into the City, there is an agreement with the Township about the maintenance of the roads within the area, and we are dealing with a County road. Mr. Ricketts stated they needed to reach an agreement that will be workable not only with the City, who might have more jurisdiction over the road in the future, but also make sure the Fairfield County Engineer’s office was satisfied with what was done. Mr. Ricketts stated the Traffic Study was completed and delivered to the City, the proposed developer, and also to the City, and they received the formal position of the County last week. Mr. Ricketts stated the developer is not in opposition to the two conditions set forth by the County Engineer and the City with regard to the left hand turn lane and the alignment of the access with Sandpiper Lane. Mr. Ricketts stated with regard to the remaining nine issues, they have either already dealt with them or they have agreed that they will be addressed. Mr. Ricketts stated he would like clarification with regard to Condition No. 6 regarding the dedication of the bike/pedestrian path easement to the City. He stated everyone agrees that at some point in time there will be a walkway that extends over to the school property line. He stated the plan was that as all the properties develop, there would be a path at some location to allow pedestrian and bike access across the properties, and the issue with the Church is not whether or not to do it; they are willing to do it. Mr. Ricketts stated where they would like clarification is right now there is no stub from the school property, and they were speculating where the school would want to stub anything to the property in terms of a bike/pedestrian path, and at some point in time there could be a redevelopment of the site that would put a building at that location. Mr. Ricketts stated the Church requests, for the purpose of clarity, they are willing to put on record whatever is necessary that they will agree to provide the City with that easement, but that the location of the easement not be identified until the final development of the site and the linkage with the school property is known. He stated to summarize, the Church is willing to commit to do it as a part of the development of the property, but they were asking for clarification that they would not, as a part of this project, dedicate a specific eight foot path that may in fact, in the future, might be in the way of a building or may not line up with the access that the school prescribes. Mr. Ricketts stated the balance of the conditions are acceptable or have already been addressed, and he would answer any questions anyone might have.
Mr. Blake clarified this property was zoned as a mixed use property, and the portion they are developing is zoned as PR-10. Mr. Schultz stated the portion to the east, where the Church is located, is zoned C-2, which allows a mix of housing and retail uses. Mr. Blake further clarified the remainder of the property is zoned commercial. Mr. Blake stated he understood Mr. Ricketts’ question, and they do not want to do this bike path twice. Mr. Schultz stated it was his thinking to have a document that says an easement between the school and through the church property will occur based on future development. Mr. O’Brien questioned if that document could be provided prior to this issue going before Service Committee, and Mr. Ricketts stated they would be glad to provide that document in whatever format the City required. Mr. Schultz stated it would also be the anticipation that the Church constructs the path as a part of their development project. Mr. O’Brien requested the schools be contacted to see what their intentions were. Mr. Schultz stated we are in the process of doing a Parks Master Plan and that discussion would occur during that phase, we would determine the appropriate alignment for the bike path and we would work with the school at that point. Mr. Blake stated this path is not for this development only but is potentially a part of the master plan for the parks, for bike trails. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct, in lieu of putting the main trunk path through this site as the developer didn’t think it would be appropriate to have the main path going next to the condos, we reached an agreement that it could be on the church site, next to the condo development, where they could have paths going into this main trunk alignment.
Mr. Bosch clarified on the realignment of the access drive to Sandpiper Lane, there will be a perpendicular section so it will be similar to the way it is designed now. Mr. Bosch further clarified the length of the left hand turn lane is 225 feet, including the taper. Mr. Bosch stated his concern would be creating an hourglass design, and Mr. Ricketts stated he did not believe it would be an hourglass design.
Mr. Nicholas stated with respect to the easement on the pathway, he supported the decision to work with the City, the Church, and the developer to get it into the right place with respect to future development. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz stated he would suggest Condition No. 6 included that the Church will finance the bike path and it will be constructed at the time the church property develops. Mr. Hartmann stated it might be easier just to state that the Sycamore Creek Community Church shall build and dedicate a bike path easement across their property to the City at the time of the development of the Church property. Mr. Binkley ascertained there has been substantial discussion with the County about exactly to line up the intersection of Sandpiper, and where to put it, because there is in fact some adjoining property owners that could be affected when trying to work around providing any more problems to anyone than they have to. Mr. Binkley further clarified the Church does not control the Whitehead property, and they dedicated 50 feet of right-of-way from centerline onto their property per the City’s Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Nicholas stated he would amend his motion to include the language provided by the law director; Mr. Bosch amended his second to the motion. Mr. Phillips stated he was a representative for the Church, and in his meeting with Mr. Schultz it was his understanding that if the Church granted the easement, then the City would pay for the construction and maintenance of the bike path. Further, if they did not grant the easement, then they would have to bear the cost. Mr. Schultz stated he did not recall discussing financing the bike path, just that the easement would be a requirement of this approval in lieu of putting the bike path through this condo project. Mr. Phillips stated he may have to go in front of the Church with this, as far as bearing the cost, because they have no idea what kind of cost they are dealing with. He stated the Church constitution requires any expenditure over $5,000 would take a vote of the Church. He stated, while they agree with this in principle, and maybe even agree with the recommendation in principle, he cannot stand here and say they will do that. It will take a vote of the Church. Mr. Phillips stated the odds are the Church would approve it, as they have always been very community minded, but he wanted to stated that they agree with it in principle, but at some point in time if the City comes and says to build the bike path, and they have to vote on it, where would that leave them. Mr. Phillips stated again they agree with it in principle and it is the intent of the Church to be community minded and to do that. Mr. Ricketts stated as a suggestion to try and move this along, this bike path could cost $10,000-$20,000, he would ask for the Commission to consider having this issue not affect approval of this final development plan, but that if the Church wants to come back in with a development plan for the balance of the property, it be addressed in connection with that development plan. He stated his client would certainly commit, in writing, at this point to the easement, but it would seem the expense may be appropriately dealt with in connection with a further development of the property. He stated if there is a further development of the point, obviously they will be back to get approval from the City, then it would be the logical time when they will have funds available they would be able to expend. He stated he would ask the Commission to consider this suggestion, and Mr. Phillips stated the Church would agree to that. Mr. Schultz stated the finance issue just came up today. Mr. Hartmann stated this could be passed as it is currently before the Commission and the Church could then go to their Board for approval, then it would be fine because this would be a condition. He stated if they did not get approval they would have to come back in and amend this final development plan. Mr. Hartmann stated other options include tabling this item or this could be an issue that would be dealt with in the future if there is future development on the rest of that property. Mr. Hartmann stated, however, that is up in the air if that will happen. Mr. Blake stated his concern would be if there was no development in the future, then what would happen to the bike path issue. Mr. Blake stated there is a motion on the floor to pass it as it is, and if it does not go like this they will come back to amend the final development plan. Mr. Bosch stated this is a final development plan for the 20 acres, and this path actually does not cover any of that land. Mr. Schultz stated a small portion of it may go through the southern portion of this development. Mr. Schultz stated the development plan is for 20 acres, but the Church still owns the whole site. He stated in lieu of putting the bike path through the condo project, he wanted to make sure that we have some kind of connection with the school. Mr. Bosch stated that made sense to take advantage of the natural setting to locate the path, he was just having a hard time as it made sense to put it on with the future development because that is where the path is, it is not actually on the condo property per se, and just building a portion across would not get us anything at this time. Mr. Schultz stated we just wanted to make sure we could secure an easement. Mr. Bosch stated getting the land is the hardest thing, and in the worst case scenario there are grants out there to put the blacktop on the path. He stated he did not see that as a hold up to this project. Mr. Schultz stated this will need to go through three readings at Council and it is possible that we may have an answer to this and that condition could be modified at Council. Mr. Ricketts stated, as he understood it, Mr. Schultz was suggesting that Council could revisit this issue if the Church is having a problem when it gets to the three readings at Council. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Nicholas stated prior to the vote, he would restate his motion to approve the Final Development Plan with the 11 conditions set forth by staff, and with the expense of the bike path construction within the easement borne by the Church or developer; Mr. Bosch stated his second to the motion stood. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning of 194 West Church Street from R-4 Residential District to C-2 Central Business/Mixed Use District for an office building. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report that had been provided to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated if Planning and Zoning and Council are inclined to consider this rezoning, then the entire block should be examined since this could be the first of many properties to request such commercial or office uses that would transform the character of Church Street. Mr. Schultz stated staff struggled with this request as there are compelling reasons both for and against the rezoning, however staff did not support this rezoning request. Mr. Blake clarified the 1993 Olde Pickerington Village Plan was not adopted by Council, however, it has been used as a guide for other rezonings on Columbus Street and Hill Road. Ms Weaver stated she is the property owner and she was requesting this rezoning so she could locate her insurance office at this location. Mr. O’Brien stated one of the issues he questioned was the suggestion in the 1993 Plan that the intersection of Church Street and Hill Road be closed. He stated in his time on Service Committee this has never been discussed, and it is not in the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. O’Brien stated Safety Committee is also dealing with issues in this area, and after frequent contact with Safety Committee he understood this has not been discussed there either. Mr. O’Brien further stated his main concern was if C-2 was the only zoning option available for this space or is there a zoning that would allow office space, but prohibit retail. Mr. Schultz stated office use would likely prohibit most retail at that location. Mr. Blake inquired what “most” consisted of. Mr. Schultz stated he would have to review the zoning text, but there are some retail uses allowed in an office district. Mr. Blake stated he felt there were different uses that can be mixed use that will not inhibit the quality of life of the residents in the area, and there are uses that will impact that quality of life. He stated he needed clarification on the different uses that could go in with a C-2 zoning. Mr. Schultz stated C-2 districts allow people to live there and also have an office or retail business, and that has been the most common rezoning request along Columbus Street and Hill Road. Mr. Schultz stated, for example, the Drug Mart area is zoned C-2 so that is an example of the retail uses that can go in there as well as housing. Mr. Binkley inquired if there were more restrictive zonings that would prohibit different kinds of commercial uses for each individual structure in that area. Mr. Hartmann stated there would be more restrictive zonings. Mr. Bosch stated since this area was in the old historic district, did that give this Commission any more latitude to restrict what went in there. Mr. Hartmann stated in a general sense when this Commission is considering rezoning, you have a broad discretion, however, there is no additional legislation that would require anything differently. Mr. Hartmann stated this is a straight rezoning, going from one use to another. He stated if you want to change what the zoning category is, not approve a C-2 zoning, they would have to come back, it would have to be readvertised, etc., if you wanted to do a little more restrictive zoning to prevent some of the retail that has been discussed. Mr. Schultz stated, for example, an office district would allow a family restaurant or a full service restaurant as a conditional use. He stated other examples as conditional uses would be animal clinics and bars. Mr. Schultz stated upon review of the code, business/retail is permitted in an office district. Mr. Hartmann stated if this rezoning is approved as C-2, they can do anything they want that is within the C-2 category. He stated if this is passed tonight, and the property next door came in and wanted to change their zoning, this Commission would still have full discretion as to approving that request. Mr. O’Brien stated this property is owner occupied, the hours are normal business hours, and they are not open on weekends. He stated he did not see a dramatic impact on the quality of life for the other residents. Mr. O’Brien stated if this property were zoned planned office the zoning can be restricted further to prohibit it becoming some sort of retail later on. Mr. O’Brien stated he would prefer to see the zoning more restricted with a planned office zoning. Mr. Blake clarified if the request of this Commission was to zone the property as planned office, it would have to be advertised again, another public hearing would be scheduled, more restrictions can be placed on the property, and it provides more flexibility for the staff. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant would have to reapply for the planned office district zoning and he would put it on the next agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Hartmann stated he would suggest this issue be voted on tonight so it is clear it is not tabled, vote it down, and have the applicant reapply and waive the fee. Mr. Schultz stated that would be fine. Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to ensure this would be on the agenda for the next meeting. Ms Weaver stated she would concur with that. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the rezoning of 194 West Church Street from R-4 Residential to C-2 Central Business/Mixed Use District for an office building. Motion died for lack of a second.
D. Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning of 100 Lockville Road (City Hall) from AG Rural District to O Suburban Office District. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report provided to the Commission. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the rezoning of 100 Lockville Road from AG Rural District to O Suburban Office District; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Lighting, and Landscaping for an 18,677 square foot retail building which includes Factory Card and Party Outlet Center located just north of Kohl’s on Postage Drive. Mr. Binkley stated he would request he be excused from deliberating and voting on this item and the next item on the agenda. Mr. Blake excused Mr. Binkley until these issues were completed. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report provided to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated at the rear of the building, in the delivery truck loading area, there appears to be a sea of asphalt that he felt could have a more creative design that would lessen the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials with the following 14 conditions:
(1) That the dumpster shall not be located adjacent to any condominium buildings.
(2) That the dumpster shall be screened with brick veneer with a wood door.
(3) That the brick veneer on the building shall be Continental #450 or similar color.
(4) That the roof shingles shall be dimensional and Valley Forge Green in color.
(5) That the aluminum storefront windows shall only extend to the water table.
(6) That the awning color shall be identified.
(7) That the brick veneer shall replace the split face block on the south and west building elevations.
(8) That the flat roofs on the south and west elevation shall have a parapet wall or an appropriate fence to screen any mechanical equipment.
(9) That a 1-2 foot high mound with additional shrubs shall be installed east of the main entrance drive along Postage Drive.
(10) That a 2-3 foot high mound with additional shrubs shall be installed west of the main entrance drive along Postage Drive.
(11) That trees and shrubs shall be installed north of the parking lot adjacent to Fairfield Federal Bank.
(12) That the rear delivery truck loading area shall be redesigned to reduce the amount of impervious surface or parking islands shall be installed.
(13) That the light poles shall be a maximum of 20-feet in height.
(14) That the light fixtures shall be GranVille Series Luminaire with three-inch decorative finial, leaf style lighting to match the lamps at Huntington Bank, Sky Bank, and Fairfield Federal Bank.
Mr. Jim Dreiss and Mr. Lou Visco stated they were present representing the applicant this evening. Mr. Dreiss stated the proposed dumpster location has been moved to the south corner of the Factory Card Outlet and would be integrated into the back corner of the building, and it will have the same material as the building with a wooden fence. He further stated they propose to use the brick veneer and roof shingles Mr. Schultz had requested, and the storefront windows shall not extend below the water table. Mr. Dreiss stated with regard to the awning color, they were proposing green with a white accent that is complimentary to the green shingles. Mr. Dreiss stated with regard to Condition No. 7, they are proposing to use a quick brick material that is a very similar color to the continental brick. He stated from an economic point of view, it will have a very similar look but is a material that you lay on a concrete block. He stated in scale it is very similar looking to a brick and the color is complimentary to a brick, and they would like the Commission to consider this in lieu of requiring the brick on the back side. He continued they are proposing a 40-inch parapet wall along the back and when actually doing the drawings they can provide site line drawings. Mr. Schultz stated it would be required to be identified on the drawings that they have the 40-inch parapet. With regard to Condition Nos. 9 and 10, requiring mounding along the building, they would request putting trees only. He stated the problem with doing the mound against the building is that the water would be trapped against the building. Mr. Bosch stated he felt that would be acceptable, especially if they did a mound planting of the trees so it gives the mounding effect without the dirt. Mr. Schultz clarified in lieu of the mounding they would put more landscaping. Mr. Dreiss stated with regard to Condition No. 12, they have issues with truck access on this site and how to avoid blocking Postage Drive. He stated with this type layout they have been able to move the building up, keep it off the City’s water main easement, and get the radius needed for trucks to turn around. He stated the issue is the lack of landscaping in the rear, and the problem with putting in islands with landscaping is that when the trucks come around they will hit it and the curb will start cracking. He stated what they would like to do on the mounding in that area is put more evergreens to block the view corridor. Mr. Schultz stated on the north part of the building the parking lot is extended all the way to the north, and the loading dock is about half-way. Mr. Schultz questioned if there was a way to take some of the impervious surface on the northern part of the parking lot out, and Mr. Dreiss stated to get the 135 foot radius, the only thing they can do is take out 18 feet of asphalt all the way at the back. Mr. Schultz stated the dumpster is not located there anymore, and Mr. Dreiss stated they would rather screen it from visibility rather than take away asphalt. Mr. Bosch clarified Mr. Schultz was trying to reduce the square footage of asphalt and make it softer. Mr. Bosch stated we are basically stuck with having the 135 foot radius so if we did anything it would be just to cut off the two corners. Mr. Dreiss stated that was correct so they would rather put in additional evergreens and screen it.
Mr. Dreiss stated he would address Conditions No. 13 and 14 together. He stated what the staff has recommended is kind of a streetscape lamp post. He stated the two issues they were looking at is the lighting in the parking lot is intended to illuminate and to get the light levels they would need to run them over 60 feet on a square pattern. That meant to get the light levels they need it would require 12 fixtures in the front parking lot. He stated further, it would mean putting them all along the perimeter, including along Postage Drive, to get the light levels to shine in the area. Further, you cannot put an outside shield on these lights. Mr. Dreiss stated what they proposed was the Kohl’s fixture, reduced down to 28 feet, took it from a 1,000 watt bulb and switched out to 400 watt, put outside shields against the property line and in the back. Mr. Bosch stated he understood we were trying to match the pole look, not the exact pole. Mr. Schultz stated the concern is we have condos to the north and west of this property who have these type of lights, the bank has this type of lights, and we don’t want to have 28-foot lights that the condo residents would look out and see. He stated if we reduce the size of them, it creates a transition that is more appropriate. Mr. Bosch stated if they can do that style of pole, but put the arm so it is not a single fixture that has a constant bulb, then you had the look, but it allowed you to put on the cut-off screen. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was the size of the poles and the lights, they can put the poles at a location where they meet our illumination standards, they can be in areas where it does not spill over onto the residences. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to know if the applicant can prepare something on the light fixtures so the Commission can see the difference between the proposed 28 foot and what this Commission is talking about. Mr. Dreiss stated they could prepare that. Mr. Kramer stated perhaps it would be beneficial to move ahead without approving the Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting. Mr. Dreiss clarified they would need to resubmit for the Lighting and submit the site line studies, etc. Mr. Blake stated with regard to Condition No. 6, the awning will be green with a white accent, and on No. 7, brick is being requested instead of the split face block and the applicant is proposing a four inch tall by 26 inch wide block that is in brick color and texture. Mr. Nicholas clarified the service door in the back will be something complimentary to the building, something along a cream color that would be complimentary with the building. Mr. Bosch clarified the front access closest to S.R. 256 was still a shared access with the front lot. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, and Landscaping with staff recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11; and with regard to recommendation 6, the awning will be green with white accents, recommendation 10 that no mound will be required, however, more shrubs/trees will be required in that area within the building limits, that recommendation 12 be as designed, and that recommendations 13 and 14 be tabled; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, Mr. Bosch voting “Nay,” and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-1.
F. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground and building signage for an 18,677 square foot retail building which includes Factory Card and Party Outlet Center located just north of Kohl’s on Postage Drive. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report provided to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated per the Zoning Code revision that became effective last month, only three colors for all signs on the entire building. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed ground sign would be larger than any other monument sign in the City, and appears to be massive and out of scale. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for building and ground signage with the following four conditions:
(1) That the building signs shall be limited to three colors.
(2) That the ground sign shall not be enlarged.
(3) That the Factory Card and Party Outlet ground sign panel shall be limited to three colors.
(4) That all the signs shall have a matte finish.
Mr. Dreiss stated the applicant has agreed not to enlarge the ground sign, and requested a clarification on matte finish. Mr. Schultz stated we do not want a glossy finish, and Mr. Dreiss stated it could be illuminated, but not having a glassy finish. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Dreiss stated they might have some problem with future tenants with the building signs being limited to these three colors. Mr. Visco stated it will be difficult to dictate to tenants who have their own logos, signs, and colors they are known by, that they will have to use the colors of the first tenant, in this case vibrant blue, yellow, and red. Mr. Blake stated he felt this was a valid point, and Mr. Kramer clarified our code revision did state that all of the tenants of a building must use the same three colors. Mr. Blake stated he understood the applicant’s concern that any tenant that came into this building would be limited to the first occupant’s colors. Mr. Schultz stated that if other tenants want to come back before this Commission and request a change to the Comprehensive Sign Plan that is their right. Mr. Kramer stated the rationale behind putting the sign standards in place is to ensure we don’t have the main corridor in our City look like a circus of sign colors, however, this is a valid point, why should all tenants be limited to the same colors. Mr. Schultz stated with regard to the three colors, however, if circumstances are different, we can require them to come back before this Commission for the hardship and we can address it at that time. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with staff recommendations as presented; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
Mr. Binkley returned to the meeting at this time.
G. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru at 57 Hill road North for PaPa Joe’s Pizza (former Texas Jim’s Bar-B-Que). Mr. Schultz reviewed his report presented to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated there are seven conditions that are required to be met for a drive thru and this site meets all seven. Mr. Schultz stated the City’s concern is the number of vehicles that may use this drive thru and our engineer has prepared a letter that will limit that to a certain number of cars per day in peak hours. He stated this is consistent with what we have done for Swan’s Cleaners and Cup ‘O Joe’s. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the conditional use request with the following three conditions:
(1) That the drive thru shall be a pick-up window only with no menu ordering devices, etc. permitted.
(2) That the drive thru shall have a restriction on the number of vehicles allowed per hour/day as determined by the City Engineer.
(3) The northern landscape buffer shall remain as currently planted or a six-foot high wood opaque fence shall be installed.
Mr. Tracy Beckman stated he is the applicant and he would answer any questions anyone might have. Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to clarify the hedgerow is on Mr. Beckman’s property, and Mr. Schultz stated he believed it was. Mr. Beckman stated he believed it was on the adjacent property. Mr. Schultz stated if it is on the adjacent property, we cannot hold him accountable, he thought it was on Mr. Beckman’s property. Mr. Beckman stated he would have to find out if it is on his property. Mr. Blake stated he would recommend condition 3 be amended to state “If the northern landscape buffer is on this property, it shall remain as currently planted…” Mr. Beckman stated he felt the conditions set forth by staff were reasonable and he did not have a problem with them, and if the hedgerow is on his property he would have no problem maintaining it. Mr. Beckman stated he understood the concern about traffic backing up on S.R. 256, and if that would ever happen he would hire an off-duty police officer to tell people they had to circle the block or whatever to prevent that from occurring. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with staff’s recommendations and with the condition that the drive thru shall have a restriction on the number of vehicles allowed per hour/day as set forth in the City Engineer’s letter dated November 4, 2005, and also that if the northern landscape buffer is on this property, it shall remain as currently planted or a six-foot high wood opaque fence shall be installed; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were three cases last month with two being approved and one denied. He stated the denial dealt with a home builder who wanted to build a house ten feet in the setback.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated there were two agenda items for subdivision plat extensions in Violet Township, and those were approved.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
Mr. Binkley stated he would like to clarify that when someone comes in for a conditional use permit for a drive thru, or we are looking at building materials, or whatever, and there are site issues, is there anyway we can tack that on? He stated if we have the opportunity to make a property or a parcel compliant can we do that? He stated his concern was in this last property considered, there is no accessible space for this space and if someone came in with a van they are required, by law, to have an eight foot accessible space. He stated he realized this Commission was not approving the site plan, they were just reviewing for a conditional use permit or whatever, but he questioned if there is anyway we can attach these types of things to get these properties compliant? He stated another instance was the BP station where we just approved the signage. He stated this property does not meet parking requirements. Mr. Blake stated he agreed with Mr. Binkley, there is no parking stripped at that BP station. Mr. Binkley stated again he questioned if even though this Commission was not reviewing or approving that particular thing, is there any way we can put attachments or conditions on some of these things to bring these properties and parcels up to Code? Mr. Schultz stated in the case of the PaPa Joe’s Pizza, the Building Department reviews the plans and makes sure they have enough handicapped spaces, that is one of their jobs, so our plans examiner does that for all our sites. Mr. Schultz stated handicapped parking is really not a zoning issue. Mr. Binkley stated he felt compelled to at least bring this up, however, he realized this Commission was not voting on it and it has no bearing on what is being done. Mr. Schultz stated we have to be practical in some senses because if they have to bring it all the way up to Code it would require curbs, etc. Mr. Nicholas stated Mr. Binkley was correct and if someone brought up a motion and there has not been discussion or a condition stating that, and you know it is Code, it could be a recommendation for approval. Mr. Hartmann stated if the applicant agrees to it you can always make it a condition. Mr. Schultz stated we cannot put a condition on a sign approval that the site plan has to comply. Mr. Binkley stated he understood that, but he still felt it should be brought up. Mr. Hartmann stated he would like to look into this issue a little further and he would provide a memorandum for the Commission for their review.
Mr. Blake stated the ReMax building has not been addressed with the lighting and he felt this has been stretched out long enough. Mr. Schultz stated they have a temporary occupancy permit and the Building Department has had discussions with them in the last two weeks concerning those lights. Mr. Schultz stated we will either not renew their temporary occupancy permit or we will take them to Mayors Court.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Binkley voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:30 P.M., November 8, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning