PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY
11.023 ACRES FROM R-4 (RESIDENTIAL) AND C-3 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO PC-3
(PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SR 256 AND DILEY ROAD
FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (JDC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC & PB DILEY
ROAD LLC)
Mr. Blake
stated the subject public hearing had been cancelled at the request of the
applicant and would be rescheduled at a later date.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Bosch were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Jennifer Readler, Joe Henderson, Richard Ricketts, Lou Visco, Steve Angannis, Steve Moore, Mike Sabatino, Alice Sabatino, David Dorfman, Paula Evans, Dave Evans, Brenda Hunt, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 13, 2005, Public Hearing regarding rezoning of 194 West Church Street. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 13, 2005, Public Hearing regarding Comprehensive Sign Plan for Lanfair Credit Union. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 13, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 10, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
Mr. Blake stated he would like to welcome a new member to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Mr. Brian Sauer, who will be replacing Mr. Mitch O’Brien. Mr. Blake stated he understood Mr. Kramer would like to make a statement at this time. Mr. Kramer read a statement into the record that is Attachment 1 to these minutes.
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 Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Fifth Third Bank located on SR 256 just south of Windmiller Square (Kroger) entrance road (proposed Old Diley Road) (TABLED, 01/10/06) Mr. Bosch moved to remove from the table; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission requested this item be tabled at the last meeting to determine if sidewalks along the proposed Old Diley Road would be more appropriate than landscaping. He stated after staff’s review, it was determined that because the sidewalk would terminate in a parking lot that landscaping would be more appropriate at this time. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following four conditions:
(1) That a four-foot high undulating mound shall be installed along the streetscape of S.R. 256.
(2) That additional trees and shrubs shall be installed along the southern portion of the S.R. 256 streetscape buffer.
(3) That a two-foot high undulating mound shall be installed along the streetscape of proposed Old Diley Road.
(4) That additional trees and shrubs shall be installed adjacent to proposed Old Diley Road along the eastern and central portions of the streetscape buffer.
Mr. Schultz stated he had spoken with the applicant earlier in the week and as these are the same conditions recommended at the last meeting they do not have any issues with them. Mr. Blake clarified the applicant was not present this evening.
Mr. Kramer moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Fifth Third Bank with staff’s conditions; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
C. Review
and request for motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground
Signage for StoneCreek Diner, 12995 StoneCreek Drive. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report provided to
the Commission members and stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan
with the following five conditions:
(1) That the sign panel lettering shall have a matte finish.
(2) That the ground sign shall be located outside the site triangle and five-feet from the right-of-way.
(3) That the ground sign shall be located approximately 56-feet south of the northern most telephone pole on the site along SR 256.
(4) That no part of the sign shall extend horizontally further than the stone foundation.
(5) That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed ten-feet above the elevation of the parking lot grade adjacent to the sign.
Mr. Schultz stated the reason he was recommending the sign be located further south because the location they are requesting is fairly close to the two signs there today that advertise the business behind them and the office park for Violet Township. He stated if it stays where they are proposing it could block views of those signs coming north on SR 256. Mr. Steve Angannis stated he is the owner of the Stone Creek Diner. Mr. Angannis stated the problem he had with moving the sign south was that people already have a problem knowing where he is located, and they will see the sign to late to turn. He stated there is a small driveway that leads down to some utilities, and people would turn into that drive. Mr. Steve Moore, of Moore Signs, stated he had some photographs showing how the sign would be viewed from northbound traffic for the Commission members to review. He stated the sign was moved back considerably due to a 20-foot utility easement that runs across the front of the property, and it is in line with the taller of the signs that are already there. Mr. Moore stated their parking lot drops about four feet from the grade of the street, so if they can get a height of ten or eleven feet from the parking lot, they could live with that. Mr. Binkley clarified that a retaining wall would have to be put behind the sign because they will build the grade up over to the sidewalk. Mr. Blake clarified Mr. Moore was proposing locating the sign approximately 60-70 feet from the taller of the two signs that is there. Mr. Schultz stated if they were going to put up a retaining wall, the City would want to know what the materials of that retaining wall would be to make sure it matches the stone material on the sign. Mr. Bosch stated he did not see a problem with where the applicant was proposing to put the sign, and he agreed with the applicant because he has seen some people turn into that utility drive by mistake. Mrs. Hammond clarified that coming from the north you could see the sign where it is proposed. Mr. Kramer stated it made sense to have the sign as close to the intersection as possible, however, he did not feel that a foot in height difference would matter all that much. He stated he wanted to make sure that they got the patronage from their sign out front as that is the purpose of the sign. Mr. Blake stated in looking at the side elevation of the sign, it appeared that it is about seven or eight inches on the pillars of the monument. Mr. Blake stated the pillars on each side are typically the same width as the sign itself. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Moore stated he did not feel there would be a problem with that. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was with regard to the retaining wall that was mentioned. He stated it was not on the elevation and he would like to see what that would look like. Mr. Moore stated it may not be a retaining wall, it may just require one row of block. Mr. Schultz stated if they do determine they are going to do a retaining wall, he would like to see it as we prefer the stone would match the sign. Mr. Blake stated perhaps another condition should be added that if a retaining wall is needed, it must match the cultured stone product on the sign. Mr. Schultz stated that would be fine. Mr. Binkley stated he agreed with Mr. Bosch and he did not see a problem with the proposed location of the sign. Mr. Nicholas stated on the GIS map the Commission was provided, it appears that the access drive for service vehicles referenced earlier is in the City and he would recommend that signage be put up to indicate it is for service vehicles only. He stated we may have to work with the Township or County if it is not in the City, however, putting up signage may help people to know it is not an access. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for StoneCreek Diner with staff conditions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and with the additional recommendation of widening the ends of the sign in a column form to match the width of the base of 18-inches and keeping the current height, and the condition that if a retaining wall is needed, it must match the cultured stone product on the sign; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
D. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a building addition to City Hall at 100 Lockville Road. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report provided to the Commission members. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition that the building site plan and materials addition shall match the existing building. Mr. David Dorfman stated he was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with staff recommendations; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
E. Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for approximately 11.023 acres from R4 Residential and C3 Community Commercial to PC-3 Planned Community Commercial at the northwest corner of SR 256 and Diley Road for a commercial development (JDC Real Estate Development LLC & PB Diley Road LLC). Mr. Schultz stated he had distributed a letter from the applicant requesting this item be tabled this evening. Mr. Bosch moved to Table; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. (TABLED)
F. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a building expansion for Embroidery Barn at 591 Hill Road North (TABLED, 01-10-06) Mr. Nicholas moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report as presented to the Commission members. Mr. Schultz stated the rear yard set back in a C-3 district is 50 feet and the applicant is proposing a 30-foot setback, therefore, a 20-foot setback would have to be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Schultz stated if this is approved tonight, this issue will be on the Board of Zoning Appeals agenda later this month. Mr. Schultz stated further signs are required to be five feet from the property line with the dedication of 50-feet of right-of-way and the existing would have to be relocated five feet from proposed right-of-way and outside the site triangle. He further stated the existing house and barn are located in the proposed setback, but is grandfathered because of the existing conditions, and the existing commercial building is located within the 50-foot rear yard setback but is grandfathered because of the existing conditions. Mr. Schultz stated the site currently has three curb cuts on Hill Road, one for the commercial use and two for the residential use. He stated staff would recommend the northernmost curb cut access to the proposed development, and a letter from our engineer details this recommendation. Mr. Schultz continued that the access management plan identifies a single curb cut and the widening of Hill Road to three lanes is in the five year CIP, and it would cause a very dangerous situation if there were three curb cuts in close proximity to the traffic light. Mr. Schultz stated the width of the northernmost curb cut should be 26 feet and accommodate only two lanes, and staff encourages an internal parking lot connection between the subject site and the property to the south. He stated the subject property owner and the property owner to the south would have to agree on the exact location and establish an easement agreement. Mr. Schultz stated the fire department has some concerns about the turning radius for emergency vehicles and a letter from them was provided in your packet. Mr. Schultz stated he had spoken with the fire department and staff would recommend that instead of having the full internal parking island, just have the easternmost parking island. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant was proposing a pitched roof of green standing seam with the proposed pitch of 4:12. He stated staff would recommend a roof pitch of 6:12 to be more consistent with other commercial sites in the City, and further recommends asphalt dimensional shingles instead of a standing seam roof. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for site plan/building materials with the following nine conditions:
(1) That a 50-foot right-of-way from centerline of Hill Road North shall be dedicated to the City per the Thoroughfare Plan.
(2) That the existing ground sign shall be relocated to be a minimum of five feet from proposed right-of-way and outside the site triangle.
(3) That the Board of Zoning Appeals shall review and approve a rear yard setback variance request.
(4) That the northern most curb cut shall be the only access location into the site and the width of the curb cut shall be two lanes as approved by the City Engineer.
(5) That the wood columns supporting the entrance feature and porch shall be a minimum six-inch by six-inch.
(6) That the pitched roof shall be constructed of asphalt dimensional shingles that match Dairy Queen.
(7) That the roof pitch shall be 6:12.
(8) That the proposed building shall have a continuous foundation.
(9) That development plan shall comply with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.
Mr. Richard Ricketts stated he is counsel for the applicant, Paula and Dave Evans. Mr. Ricketts stated this property is one of the last semblances of a farm that actually exits within the City and Mr. and Mrs. Evans are trying to work within the guidelines of maintaining some of the rural character associated with that farmstead. Mr. Ricketts stated the property contains the old barn and the old farm residence. He stated there are two residential curb cuts, a small semi-circular drive that is not readily used for anything but parking in front of the house. Mr. Ricketts stated if there is a dedication of the right-of-way, it will eat into the house and the barn, as the placement of the old barn and the house are in fact relatively proximate to S.R. 256. He stated the proposed addition would be to the existing metal building behind the house. Mr. Ricketts stated this addition is part of a phased redevelopment of the site which will ultimately include the redevelopment of the old barn for actual use as a commercial site, and as this project grows it is currently planned that the area with the swimming pool will be eliminated and the parking will continue to move on to the south. Mr. Ricketts stated with regard to staff’s recommendations Mr. and Mrs. Evans have no problem requesting the variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, the wood columns on the front being a minimum of six-inches by six-inches, and having a continuous foundation. Mr. Ricketts continued it was requested the roof pitch be changed from a 4:12 to a 6:12 pitch and the applicant are willing to do that, but they would like to make sure it is understood that it is their option as to whether or not the old part of the building will be changed to a 6:12 pitch. He stated the improvements that are going to be made by the new building are going to be continued, so there will be a new roof, a new face, and everything as it relates to the currently existing building is going to blend and match the new part. Mr. Ricketts stated they were just asking for clarification regarding if the applicant is going to be required to make the roof pitch 6:12 on the old part of the building. Mr. Schultz stated the intent is for the new addition only. Mr. Ricketts stated he understood there would be one curb cut for all commercial ingress and egress, and that would be the northern most curb cut. He stated further he would like to clarify that if the western part of the parking island were removed it would satisfy staff’s concerns and also the Violet Township Fire Department. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct, as long as it remained stripped as a no parking area. Mr. Ricketts stated the applicants desire to put a solid green standing seam roof on this project as they believe this is in character of the buildings on this property, and matches what they want to do with the old barn in the future. He further stated a standing seam roof is a better product than asphalt shingles when it is an appropriate architectural use. He stated while staff would rather see shingles, as a practical matter the Code clearly states roofing materials of slate, standing seam metal or dimensional asphalt shingles are required. Therefore, they are not requesting anything that outside the scope of what is allowed in the zoning code. He stated he hoped a standing seam roof on not only the new part, but the old part as well, would be an acceptable way for this Commission to approve this project. Mr. Ricketts stated with regard to staff’s condition that the Evans’ give up 50 additional feet, more or less, of S.R. 256 frontage for no compensation, eat into their old barn potentially requiring it some day to be torn down, potentially eating into their house and requiring it to be torn down, are concerns he would like to address. Mr. Ricketts stated no-one will deny that S.R. 256 needs to be widened in this area, but this is more than simply a request to take a grassy strip for no consideration, this is an invasion upon a corner of the old barn and virtually putting the right-of-way on the front porch of the house. Mr. Schultz stated the right-of-way does not go to the barn or the house. Mr. Schultz stated he was talking about 50-feet from centerline and there is an existing 20 or 30 now. Mr. Bosch clarified this would be an additional 20 or 30 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Ricketts stated as we sit here today, we do not know where the road is going to go. He stated it would be more logical for the road to be expanded on the other side of the road, but right now we do not know when that road is going to be widened, we do not know where it is going to be widened, we do not know how the road is going to be widened, and we do not know the least intrusive and best way to widen the road. Mr. Ricketts stated he found nothing in the City’s Commercial Design Guidelines for a Certificate of Appropriateness that would allow the City to require this as a part of a simple approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He stated if you were doing a subdivision, some kind of rezoning or planned development, that would be different. Mr. Ricketts further questioned if you wanted to do an addition on your property, and the City required that you give up some of your front yard, just for the benefit of being able to put an addition on, is that what we are about? He stated he did not feel this is the right time or place to request the Evans’ to give up their ground for nothing in return for agreeing to allow them to put up a new addition on their commercial structure. Mr. Ricketts stated they were requesting the request be approved with the clarifications that the standing seam roof be allowed, and the elimination of Conditions 1 and 4 set forth by the staff. Mr. Ricketts stated he would answer any questions of the Commission. Mr. Blake clarified the City is requesting 50-feet of right-of-way, and the sign would then be in the City’s right-of-way so it would need to be relocated outside the right-of-way when the project is constructed. Mr. Blake requested Ms Readler clarify the 50-foot right-of-way issue. Ms Readler stated the legal department did review the staff report and they disagreed with Mr. Ricketts in that they felt right-of-way acquisition may be discussed at the Certificate of Appropriateness level, and redevelopment of a site is an impetus for requesting more right-of-way. Ms Readler further stated in this particular situation, with this particular parcel, they have concerns about the amount of right-of-way that is being requested. She stated this was requiring 50-feet to comply with a more regional plan and after reviewing the limited documents they had, they felt it is going to cause certain damage to the remaining property. Mr. Bosch clarified the right-of-way shown on the site plan shows the 50 feet from centerline the City is requesting, and Mr. Schultz stated the request is for an additional 20 or 30 feet.
Mr. Michael Sabatino stated he is a member of Pickerington City Council and he was asked by Mayor Shaver to serve as the liaison between the business community and the City. Mr. Sabatino stated he spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Evans today about this project, and he is concerned about the process of taking additional footage from their S.R. 256 frontage without compensating them and making it a condition of this approval. Mr. Blake inquired if this needed to be a part of either the approval or denial of this. He stated if this were a development, vacant property, he could understand doing this without compensation, however, he has an issue with requiring someone to give up property they have paid for. Ms Readler stated there are situations where developers are required to dedicate right-of-way without compensation, but in this particular situation when so much potential damage could result to the owner as a result of requiring a 50-foot right-of-way, she would recommend that condition be eliminated. Mr. Bosch questioned with regard to the access, if there is precedence for the taking of the additional access. Ms Readler stated it is required that you have reasonable access to and from a site, and in this situation you have a professional engineer recommending that certain access points be cut off while leaving a suitable access alternative, she felt that was defensible. Mr. Binkley clarified the widening of Hill Road is in the five year capital improvements plan, and no funds are set aside for that project at this time. Mr. Binkley stated he felt the right-of-way and access are issues that should be addressed at such time as the road is actually being widened. He stated it would be his preference to leave the right-of-way, the signage, and the existing access drive that at this point, to eliminate that from the conditions, and allow these folks to move forward. Mr. Schultz stated if that is the way the Commission is leaning, his concern that this is residential access only and in the future they do not make it commercial access. Mr. Binkley stated he agreed with that. Mr. Kramer stated the two residential access points are currently a loop, and the only thing that has been parked there for quite some time is an RV that is for sale. He stated he would question what the point of having these two accesses are. Mrs. Paula Evans stated they do not have any issue with removing the residential access down the road, but while they are still residing in the house they do appreciate having that access. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt since the widening of S.R. 256 is a few years down the road, she felt the residential access could remain with the stipulation that it be marked for use by the residence only. Mr. Bosch stated he does have safety concerns with the number of access points, however, with the stipulations the Evans have agreed to make that it is for the residence only and at the point that the residence becomes commercial the access would be removed, he did not have a problem with leaving it the way it is. Mr. Bosch stated he would also like to address the standing seam roof issue, and he feels there are applications when that is more appropriate than dimensional shingles, and he would like to see this stay as a metal seam roof. Mr. Kramer clarified the City’s Code does state that slate, standing seam roofs, or shingles are required. Mr. Schultz stated the buildings approved around this development in the past are asphalt shingles. Mr. Kramer stated he understood that, his question was if this Commission could not allow a standing seam roof and have the Code back them up. Ms Readler stated the way the Code is written a standing seam roof would be permitted in this area, and if dimensional shingles are the look we are going for then requiring it of all applications is not necessarily unreasonable. She stated by looking at the Code, on its face, standing seam and asphalt shingles are on the same level. Mr. Kramer stated the bottom line is, it is a preference that we request dimensional shingles versus standing seam. Mr. Kramer stated if we do not want the standing seam metal roofs, then we need to get it in the Code that it is not allowed. Mr. Blake stated he has asked for a clarification and an update on our Commercial Design Guidelines. Mrs. Hammond stated there are some buildings where this type of roof is appropriate, and she concurred that this was one of those buildings. Mr. Bosch stated in this case where you have a barn and a house, and you are trying to maintain the rural look, he felt the metal seam roof is appropriate. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to the columns on the porch, the recommendation is to have the appearance of 6x6, they do not have to be solid. He further stated with regard to the roof pitch, if the existing roof were to remain at 4 and the new roof go to 6, as staff recommended, you would not be able to notice the difference. Mr. Nicholas further stated if the standing seam roof is a true standing seam roof and not a corrugated, the color is baked on at the factory and it is a good product. Mr. Nicholas stated further he is not in favor of restricting materials in our design guidelines to one or two items, and if standing seam is in there, it needs to be on buildings that are architecturally appropriate, and he has no problems with it being on this particular building. Mr. Ricketts stated that even though he and his client did not necessarily agree on all aspects of this, he would like the Commission to know that throughout Mr. Schultz has been professional, respectful, and most importantly, responsive. Mr. Blake stated to summarize the discussion he would like to review each of staff’s conditions. He stated condition (1) was being eliminated, condition (2) is eliminated, condition (3) will remain as written, condition (4) will stipulate the southern two accesses to the property are residential access only and will be marked accordingly, condition (5) will stipulate the columns will be a minimum 6x6 inch in appearance, condition (6) will be eliminated, condition (7) will reflect the existing roof pitch will remain at 4:12 and the new addition will have a roof pitch of 6:12, condition (8) will remain as written, and condition (9) will reflect that the western portion of the parking island will be removed. Mr. Blake moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials for a building expansion for Embroidery Barn with staff’s nine conditions as just reviewed; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
G. Review and request for motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for Giant Eagle and National City Bank in the Pickerington Square Shopping Center. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report as presented to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the following conditions:
(1) That the ground sign shall be located outside the site triangle and five feet from the property line.
(2) That the Pickerington Square ground sign shall be limited to three colors.
(3) That the Pickerington Square ground sign shall be 17 feet tall by 13.5 feet wide.
(4) That the GetGo gas station sign panel shall not be located on the Pickerington Square ground sign.
(5) That the brick columns on the Pickerington Square sign shall be 20 inches wide with a stone cap.
(6) That the wall signs shall be limited to three colors.
(7) That the Drive-Thru pharmacy sign on the western portion of the north façade of the building shall be removed.
(8) That the GetGo gas station ground sign shall be 5.16 feet tall by 11.5 feet wide.
(9) That the sign area for the GetGo ground sign shall be 3.5 feet tall by 8.5 feet wide.
(10) That the brick on the GetGo sign shall match the Giant Eagle building.
(11) That no part of the GetGo ground sign shall extend horizontally further than the brick columns.
(12) That the ground sign for the GetGo shall be limited to three colors.
(13) That the height of the GetGo ground sign should not exceed 7.5 feet above the elevation of the parking lot grade adjacent to the sign.
(14) That all signs shall have a matte finish.
(15) That the GetGo building signs shall be limited to three colors.
(16) That the GetGo gas station shall be limited to 40 square feet of sign area on either the north of west elevation.
(17) That no ad panels shall be permitted above the gas pumps on the GetGo gas station.
Mr. Lou Visco stated on behalf of Casto and Giant Eagle he would like to thank the Commission because even though they have not always agreed they have been able to get through issues professionally and civilly, and Mr. Schultz has been a great help in getting through these issues. Mr. Casto stated he met with Giant Eagle today and they have been able to come to agreement on about 14 of the conditions Mr. Schultz just stated. Mr. Visco stated Giant Eagle’s concern regarding the limitation of three colors on signage is that they are negotiating with another bank and they may request colors other than the three that are used by Giant Eagle and National City Bank. He stated they would like to be able to allow them possibly a fourth color just in the area designated for the bank. Mr. Blake stated they were requesting one additional color from the white, red, and teal that has been approve. Mr. Visco stated that was correct and it would only be on the façade of the building, not on the monument sign. Mr. Visco stated the second issue dealt with the dimensions of the ground sign, and came up with a design where they incorporated an LED display. Mr. Visco stated Mr. Schultz had indicated that LED was not something the City was interested in doing. Mr. Visco stated they would also like a panel on the Refugee Road sign indicating there is a GetGo at this facility. Mr. Visco stated in their initial application they had a pharmacy drive thru sign on the building as well as on the canopy, and Mr. Schultz was recommending the sign be removed from the building façade. Mr. Visco stated they would request leaving the sign on the building and removing it from the drive thru canopy. Mr. Visco stated he would like a clarification regarding the GetGo sign area in staff recommendation 16. Mr. Schultz stated staff would prefer the sign not be on the south elevation where it faces the residences, but would prefer it to be out towards S.R. 256, facing north. Mr. Schultz stated if the signs were 18 square feet each, that is appropriate because we allow 40 square feet on one side. Mr. Nicholas clarified the signage as reflected on sheet 3 handed out this evening was the one the Commission would be approving. Mr. Kramer clarified that Giant Eagle was negotiating with an additional bank, and they were requesting an additional color should they want something other than the white, red, and teal for their sign. Mr. Kramer stated he felt that should be considered at the time a bank is actually going in. Mr. Schultz stated next month the Commission will be reviewing the Kroger’s Market Place sign plan and they are identifying Donato’s and Starbuck’s and they have agreed to do it in colors that are requested. He stated to be consistent with what Kroger’s is going to request, he would recommend to make it red and white to be consistent or they come back before the Commission for a future color. Mr. Bosch stated if the bank can make it work with red and white, it is already approved, and they can install it, but if it is something different than that they will have to come back in and ask for another color. Mr. Schultz stated that is correct. Mr. Nicholas requested Mr. Visco clarify what they were requesting for the pharmacy signage. Mr. Visco stated they had requested drive thru pharmacy signage on the main building, and a drive thru pharmacy on the canopy. He stated as he had indicated Giant Eagle considers the drive thru pharmacy on the canopy directional in nature. Mr. Visco stated staff recommendation is to remove the sign from the building and leave it on the canopy and Giant Eagle would prefer that the drive thru pharmacy stay on the building solely because of visibility issues. Mr. Schultz clarified that directional signs are allowed to get you around the parking lot, but they cannot be advertising signs. Mr. Schultz stated they were requesting to take the canopy sign off, but keep the sign on the main façade. Mr. Nicholas clarified that staff would be okay with that. Mr. Nicholas further stated he could not support a fourth color for the signage. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall signage with staff recommendations, excepting Item 6 which should read “That all signs are limited to three colors;” Item 7, which should read “That the drive thru pharmacy sign on the canopy shall be removed;” Item 8, which should read “That the GetGo gas station ground sign dimensions shall be as shown on Sheet 4 of 7 that was handed out tonight;” that the GetGo panel sign is allowed on the Refugee Road sign, and that the locations are what is shown on Sheet 3; and that LED signage is not approved; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to clarify that everyone understood that as part of the motion only three colors on all signage is approved.
H. Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Plan for StoneCreek Station Commercial Subdivision located just south of Kohl’s Equity Land Investments, LLC. Mr. Nicholas moved to Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. (TABLED)
5. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were no agenda items in January, and there are two agenda items in February.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission approved a final plat for Sagamore Ponds located on Stemen Road.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
B. Commission Discussion. Mr. Blake stated he felt there were some misunderstandings of the Commercial Design Guidelines and he would request a work session be scheduled to allow the Commission to go over these guidelines as a group.
Mr. Kramer stated at the last meeting he had questioned the dumpster at Central High School and Mr. Schultz stated he would speak to our Code Enforcement Officer on this issue and get back with Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Bosch stated when the parking lot lighting at Ridgeview Junior High was redone, there is no way that it meets the one footcandle at the property line. Mr. Schultz stated they submitted plans that indicated it does meet our footcandle requirements, so he would check into this. Mr. Bosch stated he was speaking about the parking lot proper, and Mr. Schultz stated he would check into it.
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. Binkley, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:05 P.M., February 14, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning