PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
MARCH 14, 2006
WORK
SESSION
6:15
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Mr. Blake
opened the Work Session at 6:15 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer.
Mr. Kramer was absent. Others
present were Judy Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, and others.
Ms Gilleland stated the purpose of this work session was to review the Commercial Design Guidelines and answer any questions the Commission members may have. She stated Mr. Schultz would provide an overview of the Guidelines.
Mr. Schultz reviewed the Commercial Design Guidelines. Several Commission members stated they felt another work session would be necessary to complete the review as there were several sections they felt needed to be dealt with in more detail. Further, the Commission thought there were several areas that they would recommend be revised.
Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy to schedule another work session at the convenience of the Commission members.
There being nothing further, the Planning and Zoning Work Session closed at 7:08 P.M., March 14, 2006.
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,
MARCH 14, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:10
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1276.17 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED
ORDINANCES RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson,
Phil Hartmann, Mike Stacy, Carol Carter, Randy Hughes, Pat Reade, and
others.
Mr. Schultz
stated the Property Maintenance Task Force was created in 2004, and they
forwarded recommendations to Safety Committee in February 2005, for Home
Occupation modifications. He stated Safety
Committee reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended the requirement for a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance be removed.
Mr. Schultz stated Safety Committee then forwarded the ordinance before
the Commission this evening be sent to Council and a Public Hearing before
Council is scheduled for April 4, 2006.
Ms Carol
Carter stated she is a member of the Property Maintenance Task Force and she
questioned why the requirement for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance was
deleted. Mr. Hartmann stated Safety
Committee recommended that be deleted as it was not generally being
enforced. Ms Carter stated she felt that
requirement would be a way to keep track of health issues, for example if
someone were selling things out of their homes that could spoil or whatever. Mr. Hartmann stated he would have to check
the Safety Committee minutes to see the reasoning behind that requirement being
deleted.
Mr. Binkley
clarified that a home occupation such as this dealt with, they did not have to
conform to ADA guidelines. Mrs. Hammond
stated the home occupations will not generate increased foot or vehicle
traffic. Mr. Stacy stated these
businesses are not typically a place of public congregation.
Mr. Blake clarified this revision came about due to some people doing car repairs and that type of thing out of their homes.
There being
nothing further, Mr. Blake closed the public hearing at 7:19 P.M., March 14,
2006.
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,
MARCH 14, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING OF 35 WEST CHURCH STREET FROM R4 (RESIDENTIAL) TO PO
(PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT) (READE PROPERTY)
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson,
Phil Hartmann, Mike Stacy, Randy Hughes, Dan Horne, Pat Reade, Gene Hauser, Jim
Van Kinnel, Dan Heitmeier, and others.
Mr. Schultz
stated the owner proposes to convert the existing home from Residential to
Planned Office District for an insurance agency.
Mr. Pat Reade
stated he is the property owner and he has owned the property since 1995 and he
would like to use the home for an insurance agency. Mr. Reade stated he has no plans to change
the structural integrity of the home, and it will not be used as a residence
but as an office only. Mr. Reade stated
he has the support of the neighbors and other business owners in the community
and he will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Randy
Hughes, 27 W. Church Street. Mr. Hughes
stated his home is next door to this property and he is in support of Mr.
Reade’s request for the rezoning. Mr.
Hughes stated as a former Mayor of Pickerington he is aware that in the
original downtown plan that was done several years ago, this area was
identified to be a mix of residential and small businesses. Mr. Hughes stated he felt this would have a
low impact on the neighborhood and being an insurance agency would have a low
amount of traffic.
Mr. Heitmeier
stated he has a business in this area and he is in support of Mr. Reade’s
rezoning request. Mr. Gene Houser stated
he also owns property in this area and he is in support of the request.
There being
nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:27 P.M., March 14, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
MARCH 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: Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Blake were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Joe Henderson, Mike Stacy, Carol Carter, Randy Hughes, Dan Horne, Pat Reade, Gene Houser, Jim VanKannel, Dan Heitmeier, Kevin Kenning, Bill Martin, Greg Butcher, Bruce Bagshaw, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 14, 2006, Public Hearing regarding rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for approximately 11.023 acres at the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Diley Road. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve; 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.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 14, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Nicholas 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.
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.
Mr. Blake stated if there were no objections from the Commission members, as several residents were present regarding Item 3.I. on tonight’s agenda, he would move to that item at this time. There were no objections.
Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for the Violet Township Service Center located on the southeast corner of Pickerington Road and Stemen Road. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report that had been provided to the Commission and stated the setback issue in the report has been addressed and there would be one curb cut from Stemen and Pickerington Road. Mr. Mike Stacy reviewed his report with regard to building materials that had also been provided to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following six conditions:
(1) That the Board of Zoning Appeals shall review and approve the parking variance requests.
(2) That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the city to accept and record the right-of-way along Pickerington Road and Stemen Road per the City Thoroughfare Plan.
(3) That the building elevation, materials, colors, etc., shall comply with the City’s architect consultant’s requirements.
(4) That a 3-foot high undulating mound with the appropriate landscaping shall be installed along Stemen Road.
(5) That a two to three foot high undulating mound with the appropriate landscaping shall be installed along Pickerington road.
(6) That a four-foot high mound, a six-foot high opaque wood fence, and five foot-high pine trees at installation shall be installed along the eastern perimeter of the site (approximately 400 feet in length).
Mr. Kevin Kenning stated he was representing the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bill Martin stated he is the property owner to the east of the project and he is concerned about the noise level, and if they would move the salt barn onto this property, there would be a lot of noise from the facility. Mr. Martin further stated he would like to see the landscaping continuous all the way down the property line to the creek. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission had received the landscape plan in their packets.
Mr. Greg Butcher stated he is the Township engineer, and it is not their intent to relocate the salt barn to this property.
Mr. Martin stated he is not opposed to the facility; his concern was with regard to the salt barn, as it gets pretty noisy where it is located now. Mr. Martin further clarified the storm water would be retained on site. Mr. Butcher inquired if the fence requirement would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to have it deleted. Mr. Butcher stated they are not against the mounding and landscaping going to the southeast corner, however, with regard to the fence requirement it is his experience that fences tend to become difficult to maintain. He stated he would propose that they not only extend the mounding to the corner as Mr. Martin had requested, but they would be willing to increase the tree density in lieu of constructing a fence. Mr. Schultz stated if two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission concur, the fence can be waived. Mr. Schultz clarified our Code requires the fence for a Type A buffering, because it is commercial against residential and it also is a side yard, hence the four foot mound instead of the six foot mound. Mrs. Hammond inquired on which side of the property line the fence would be placed, so the homeowner would see the fence or the Township. Mr. Schultz stated we have had various locations; sometimes it is so the trees are between the homeowner and the fence, and other times the fence toward the homeowner. He stated there has been no real policy on this issue. Mr. Bosch ascertained Mr. Martin would prefer to have more trees or landscaping rather than a fence. Mr. Blake clarified that they may allocate the portion of the property south of the ditch as parkland; however, they do not want to be required to do that at this time since they do not know what the future may hold. Mr. Butcher stated at this time they have no plans to develop that piece of the property. Mr. Schultz stated if they redeveloped it, they would need to come back for a rezoning because this is a planned district and we would need to see the plans. Mr. Bosch clarified the lights would be set on a two foot concrete base with poles 18 feet high for a total of 20 feet in height. Mr. Martin clarified the lights would be on a timer, but they would be on all night. He stated he did not feel the lights would have an impact on his property.
Mr. Schultz stated with regard to the building materials, this is zoned industrial and is a garage. Mr. Nicholas clarified eventually it will house Township offices but that has not been addressed as yet as it will be in a future phase. Mr. Nicholas clarified there will be no wall mounted fixtures for egress lighting other than the emergency lighting. Mr. Nicholas stated further, with regard to the mounding and trees along the eastern property line, he would also be in favor of not seeing a fence there. Mr. Schultz stated we require the trees to be staggered, and if we are going to make it more dense, would we want them planted 10 feet on center, staggered, or 15 feet, or what would be appropriate. He stated if the Commission increases the buffering in lieu of the fence we would need to have that identified. Mr. Blake stated he would like to clarify that as he understood it, the Township would agree to extend the landscaping on the eastern portion following the property line. Mr. Bosch clarified if the Commission put the waiver of the fence requirement in the motion, and it passed by a vote of more than five, that would be sufficient to waive the fence. Mr. Schultz stated our arborist could work with the developer to determine the spacing of the trees. Mr. Bosch clarified the building materials were listed on the drawing and one of staff’s conditions was that the building materials would meet our architect consultant’s requirements. Mr. Schultz stated he would include a copy of the building materials, with the color numbers, etc., attached to the zoning certificate. Mr. Nicholas clarified the building material is a block material with a brick look and a brick color. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials, landscaping and lighting for the Violet Township Service Center with staff’s recommendations, including the listing of the material specifications that was approved by staff and the City’s architect consultant, and waiving the requirement for the six foot opaque fence and to require the additional four foot mound and a higher density of the five foot high pine trees along the complete east property line; 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.
B. Review and request for motion to amend Section 1276.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances relating to Home Occupations. Mr. Schultz stated a public hearing was held on this issue earlier this evening. He stated Safety Committee has recommended the legislation be forwarded to Council and a public hearing is scheduled before Council on April 4, 2006. Mr. Kramer clarified that the legislation does not limit traffic, but states that a home business cannot generate more than a normal residential use. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the legislation amending Section 1276.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances relating to Home Occupations; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-1.
C. 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 PC3 “Planned Community Commercial” at the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Diley Road for a commercial development (JDC Real Estate Development LLC & PB Diley Road LLC) (TABLED) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table at the applicant’s request.
D. Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Plan for StoneCreek Station Commercial Subdivision located just south of Kohl’s for Equity Land Investment, LLC. (TABLED) Mr. Kramer moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the preliminary plan with the following 11 conditions:
(1) That the proposed plan shall be revised to meet the traffic access plan, building/parking setback requirements and buffering requirement.
(2) That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.
(3) That a storm water easement with the adjacent property owner shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City prior to final plat approval.
(4) That the traffic impact study shall be updated per City Engineer requirements prior to preliminary plat approval.
(5) That a cross easement access agreement with Kohl’s for delivery truck access and internal parking lot access shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City.
(6) That an access easement between the northernmost out lot and the Pickerington Beverage Center shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City.
(7) That the eastern most curb cut into the office development shall be eliminated.
(8) That the western most curb cut into the office development shall be located entirely on the subject property.
(9) That the boulevards, multi-use paths, intersection improvements, and engineering details pertaining to roadway width, turn lane locations, stacking space length, etc., would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
(10) That the Board of Zoning appeals shall review and approve requested variances for the western boundary buffer setback and parking spaces for the office development.
(11) That the parking lot shall be in compliance with the interior landscaping requirements.
Mr. Schultz stated the site plan the Commission had before them shows where the buildings will likely be, however, at this time the approval is for the lots. He stated once the lots are approved on the final plat approval, they will then come in for Certificates of Appropriateness for all of the buildings.
(Mr. Binkley requested he be excused from discussion on this item and withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Dan Horne stated he was present representing the applicant. He stated they are proposing a 44,600 square foot strip retail with two out lots that are proposed for a financial institution and a casual dining project. He stated the offices uses are professional offices and they would like to have a mix of professional and medical offices there. He stated additionally there is space for an additional free standing building. He stated generally speaking they do not have any issues with the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz, and he understood the connectivity between this development and the Kohl’s development. Mr. Horne stated they are in contact with Kohl’s to try and work out what can be done there. Mr. Horne further stated they were proposing three different points of ingress/egress for this project, and staff’s recommendation is that the eastern most proposed location be removed. He stated they took exception to that to the extent that they feel a substantial amount of the office area will be at that location. Mr. Horne stated the variances that are suggested on the western most portion would not be needed as they have permission from the Nicodemus’ to provide for the 50 foot buffer easement totally on their property. He further stated for the roadway on the southern part of the office building portion, there is about a five foot encroachment where the road is proposed to straddle the property line, and that is acceptable to Nicodemus as well. Mr. Horne stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Nicholas questioned why it was proposed that the setback for the western portion go back that far, and Mr. Horne stated Nicodemus is agreeable to the buffer. Mr. Schultz stated a variance would be required because the property line is there. Mr. Horne stated the reason they wanted to straddle the property line is because that drive could be used for both uses in case that land develops. Mr. Schultz stated right now the adjacent property is zoned R4 Residential and although it may go commercial in the future, right now it is residential and we need to have the setbacks for a Type A buffer. Mr. Nicholas questioned why we did not get all 50 feet of buffer on this property. Mr. Schultz stated in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan the Nicodemus property was identified as a likely retail development, so a retail buffer would likely be supported. He stated further that per our Thoroughfare Plan, Stone Creek Drive would extend through the Nicodemus property to Fullers’ Way by the Police Station to access this large development. Mr. Nicholas stated questioned why kind of a hardship it would be for this developer to have all 50 feet on their property, and why. Mr. Horne stated if all 50 feet were put on this property, you would lose square footage on the offices. Mr. Horne stated they were not stating the buffer would not be done, they were stating the buffer would be on the Nicodemus property and there will be an easement for that. Mr. Nicholas inquired if we had a letter of commitment from Nicodemus agreeing to that, and Mr. Schultz stated he has a letter but there is not a signed, recorded easement. Mr. Schultz stated this is a three-step process and as we proceed through the steps we will need to see all of these easement agreements they are referring to and ensure they are reviewed by our law director. Mr. Nicholas inquired if there was a chance for this Commission, in future meetings, to deny this and require all 50 feet to be on this developer’s property. Mr. Hartmann stated absolutely, but he felt this issue that came up next is this goes to a preliminary plat stage, and when they put the plat together they will have to have an agreement relating to the buffers with the adjacent landowner based on what they are saying. Mr. Nicholas clarified it would need to be a written, signed agreement to the City. Mr. Hartmann stated if they were going to burden the adjacent property at all, the adjacent property would have to sign off on the plat, and there would have to be some type of recorded agreement. Mr. Nicholas stated that was fine, and he would have no problems as long as he had a document from the Nicodemus entity approving what they want to do as far as the buffer. Mr. Schultz stated at this point all we are approving is the lot splits and the setbacks, any variances would still have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals after the buildings are approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness, so there are several steps. Mr. Bosch clarified the traffic for the Nicodemus property as R4 was modeled for the traffic study. Mr. Bosch further stated with the potential for another signalized intersection that we require the developer make sure it is compatible and interconnected with our current signals. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Preliminary Plan for StoneCreek Station Commercial Subdivision with the 11 staff recommendations; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
(Mr. Binkley returned to the meeting.)
E. Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning for 35 West Church Street from R4 Residential to PO Planned Office District (Reade property). Mr. Schultz reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supported the rezoning with the condition that the property shall be limited to office uses only. Mr. Pat Reade stated he is the property owner and it is his intent for the property to be used as an insurance agency. He stated he would answer any questions. Mr. Blake clarified there will be no residential or retail use of this home. Mr. Nicholas inquired what would be done with the parking in this situation as that area has “Permit Only” parking. Mr. Schultz stated he would have to check into this issue. Mr. Reade stated he has addressed this issue with Mr. Good, the owner of the creamery building, and he supports that people can park in his parking lot across the street. Mr. Schultz requested Mr. Reade provide a letter from Mr. Good to that effect. Mr. Bosch clarified this was the same zoning we did recently on this street so it could be used as office only. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the rezoning of 35 West Church Street from R4 Residential to PO Planned Office District with staff recommendation; Mr. Kramer 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.
F. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a renovation for Kentucky Fried Chicken and Long John Silvers at 1810 Winderly Lane. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the following two conditions:
(1) That the proposed menu board shall match the existing menu board.
(2) That the proposed building shall be constructed per the submitted plans.
Mr. Bruce Bagshaw stated he was present representing Kentucky Fried Chicken and he stated they have no issues with the conditions stated by Mr. Henderson. Mr. Bosch stated it appeared the awning over the drive thru window was metal and then there is existing fabric that is red and white, with blue right next to it. Mr. Nicholas stated his concern was that he did not want it to look hodge podge, and as far as the different usage of materials for awnings, that bothered him as well. Mr. Nicholas stated our concern with the awnings that were open on the sides was with the structure that would hold them out, and the appearance of those. Mr. Bagshaw stated they will look really good and blend in very well. Mr. Kramer moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials with staff recommendations; Mrs. Hammond 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.
G. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for Kentucky Fried Chicken and Long John Silvers at 1810 Winderly Lane. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the following four conditions:
(1) That the ground signs shall be limited to three colors.
(2) That all wall signs shall have channel letters.
(3) That the sign panels, letters, and graphics shall have a matte finish.
(4) That the directional signs shall be limited to three colors.
Mr. Henderson stated proposed signs have four colors; white, blue, red, and beige. Mr. Bruce Bagshaw stated he was present representing Kentucky Fried Chicken. Mr. Bagshaw stated they have been in Pickerington since 1998 and they have had four colors on their signs. Mr. Bagshaw stated there are over 5,000 restaurants in the United States and KFC is a registered trademark. Mr. Bagshaw stated there are seven colors on the Long John Silver’s sign and they did get to three colors on those signs. Mr. Bagshaw stated there are two neutral colors on the Colonel and he did not know what they could take away to make him look as good as he does today. He stated he would request that the KFC signs be grandfathered in because the sign on the front of his building that he gets to keep does have four colors on it. Mr. Bagshaw further stated they have never been asked to remove any colors from the sign at any other location. He stated the only reason they were changing the monument sign and pylon sign was to add another brand, so he would hope that the KFC sign can be grandfathered. Mr. Henderson stated the existing Colonel on the building is grandfathered in as he is not making any alterations to it, however, per our Code when the sign face changes it must meet current Code requirements. Mrs. Hammond stated this Commission does have the power to make exceptions to the Code and the KFC sign has been around for a long time. She stated there are just some things that people expect to see and she felt the four colors on this sign was one of those things. Mrs. Hammond stated she would be in favor of making an exception to the three colors for this sign. Mr. Blake stated he concurred with Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Binkley stated he also agreed with Mr. Blake and Mrs. Hammond. Mr. Sauer stated if you changed the sign you lost a lot and he also agreed with the other Commission members. Mr. Nicholas stated he would also be in favor of allowing the four colors on the KFC sign only because the building sign will not change. Mr. Kramer stated he supported the Commission’s position on the three colors for the sign, however, as Mr. Nicholas stated the building sign is already there and it appears there was a lot of concessions on the applicant’s part to revise the Long John Silver sign. He stated he did agree this is obviously one of the times we did need to make an exception. Mr. Bosch stated he would also like to state that because this is an existing sign for all practical purposes, and the additional signage incorporates the existing colors and a fourth color is not actually being added, he would support this request. Mr. Kramer moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for Kentucky Fried Chicken and Long John Silvers with staff recommendations 2 and 3 only; Mr. Binkley 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. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to clarify that this locked the signage in to the four colors per the plan submitted.
H. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall signage for Kroger Marketplace at 1045 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as provided to the Commission. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the following five conditions:
(1) That the ground sign panels for the SR 256 and Refugee Road shall be limited to three colors; blue and white letters with a tan background.
(2) That the entire ground sign located at the entrance to Windmiller Square (Kroger) off Windmiller Drive shall match the existing two ground signs; blue and white letters with a tan background.
(3) That the wall signs shall be limited to three colors; blue, black, and white.
(4) That the wall sign letters shall be channel type with a matte finish.
(5) That all signs shall have a matte finish.
Mr. Darin Grey stated he was present representing the applicant and stated he would like to distribute a packet of information to the Commission members as they have updated the signs per staff recommendations. Mr. Grey stated the original request had several shades of blue and different trims. He stated what they decided to make all of the signs consistent with the dark blue and black trim, which met all of staff’s conditions. Mr. Schultz stated he would recommend that approval be with staff conditions and then the proposal supplied this evening can be submitted. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for Kroger Marketplace with staff recommendations and that all signs are trimmed in the same color; Mr. Bosch 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.
I. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for the Violet Township Service Center located on the southeast corner of Pickerington Road and Stemen Road. Mr. Blake stated this was dealt with earlier in the meeting.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there two cases last month with the setback for the Embroidery Barn being approved, and the variance at 51 Homestead was tabled. He stated there are three agenda items for March.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Henderson stated he had attended this meeting and one rezoning in Violet Township at Pickerington Road and Refugee Road was not approved. Mr. Blake clarified this was for the “big box” development and the vote by FCRPC was unanimous. Mr. Schultz stated the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission is just an advisory body to Violet Township. Mr. Blake clarified that Violet Township does have this on their agenda for the next zoning meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
B. Commission Discussion. Mr. Binkley stated with regard to the signage issues the Commission has been facing, he has noticed in other communities that monument signs are in two or three colors, but the buildings have their own corporate identity. Mr. Binkley stated he felt we should revisit this and reconsider the issue of trying to make a corporate entity into changing their sign colors. Mr. Schultz stated he did feel we need to have a discussion on this issue.
Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting the issue of the dumpster at Central High School was brought up at the last meeting, and we can only enforce dumpster screening in commercial properties that require Certificates of Appropriateness. He stated dumpsters on residential properties, like the school, cannot be enforced as it is not anywhere in our Code that it has to be screened. Mr. Schultz stated we have spoken to the school about this issue. Mr. Kramer stated his concern was that the dumpster was placed on a grass parking island and it bothers him that we have nothing prohibiting this. Mr. Kramer stated he has personally seen furniture sitting next to that dumpster. Mr. Schultz stated he is continuing to look into this issue.
Mr. Schultz further stated he had looked into the lights at the junior high school and they were put in per our plan. He stated we are considering purchasing a light meter so we can monitor and give us an idea of what the foot-candles are at the property lines. He stated we are researching this issue at this time.
Mr. Nicholas stated he appreciated the work staff does, however, he felt it was the Commission member’s responsibility to read and review the reports prior to the meeting. He stated he felt it would save time if staff would report their recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Nicholas further stated he would like to see adjacent properties or buildings plan in the submittal and questioned if there was a way to get something showing within 750 or 1,000 feet of the property that the applicant can submit. Mr. Schultz stated that can be done and larger firms can do it easily, however, the smaller applicants would not have the capability of doing that. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not know what the solution would be, but this would be helpful so the Commission members can see the big picture.
Mr. Nicholas stated he would also like to address the issue of neon signage because our Code does not allow it, but it is everywhere. Mr. Schultz stated staff has been addressing this issue and he would like to continue staff discussion before he brings it before the Commission.
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:16 P.M., March 14, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning