PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
MAY 9, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:10
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING REZONING AND PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.22 ACRES FROM C3 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO
PO (PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT) FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FOR HOLIDAY
RETIREMENT CORP., LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF S.R. 256 JUST SOUTH OF THE
PICKERINGTON HEALTH CENTER
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.
Sauer, and Mr. Bosch. No members were
absent. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann,
Mike Stacy, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, William Snider, Harold Chapman,
Steve Maroni, Wendy Maroni, Michael Fuller, Mark Glenn, Marcia Andreason, Dan
Heitmeier, and others.
Mr. Michael
Fuller stated he was present representing Holiday Retirement and they were
proposing an assisted living project that is a health-oriented project for
seniors. Mr. Harold Chapman clarified
the project consisted of approximately 86 units that were for seniors with
medical needs. Mr. Chapman further
clarified the project would be approximately 100 feet back from the road, and
there is a 50 foot right-of-way should the road be widened in the future. Mr. Fuller stated there is approximately
eight acres that will remain zoned the way it is now for commercial and it will
be developed at a later date. Mr. Fuller
clarified this project would be on the four acres toward the Good
property. Mr. Fuller stated the
resident’s would be in the age range of 75 to 80 and only about five percent
would be driving, so very little traffic would result from this
development.
There being
nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:18 P.M., May 9, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal
Clerk
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
MAY 9, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING OLD PICKERINGTON VILLAGE
DESIGN GUIDELINES CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR AN OUTDOOR PATIO AT 19
NORTH CENTER STREET FOR MARRONI’S ITALIAN RESTAURANT
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer. No members
were absent. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann,
Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Mike Stacy, Steven Marroni, Wendy Marroni,
Michael Fuller, Marcia Andreason, Dan Heitmeier, and others.
Mr. Steven
Marroni stated he was the applicant and they were proposing to build an outdoor
dining patio that would look like the downtown streetscape with the paver
bricks, etc., and would match the gazebo.
He stated the patio would have sixteen tables and would accommodate up
to 64 patrons. Mr. Marroni stated he
would be happy to answer any questions.
There being
nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:23 P.M., May 9, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal
Clerk
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006
7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30
P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr.
Blake were present. No members were
absent. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Joe Henderson,
Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Jeff Johnston, Steve Marroni, Wendy
Marroni, Mark Glenn, Michael Fuller, Marcia Andreason, Jeff Moneybrake, Michael
Maistros, Craig Vandervoort, Doug McFarland, Kevin Straight, Mark Mills, Jeff
Mathes, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 11, 2006,
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.
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 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, 02/14/06) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table at the applicant’s request.
C. Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for approximately 4.22 acres from C3 (Community Commercial) to PO (Planned Office District) for an assisted living center facility for Holiday Retirement Corp., located on the west side of SR 256 just south of the Pickerington Health Center.
(Mr. Binkley stated he would abstain from discussion on this issue.)
Mr. Henderson stated the applicant was proposing a two-story 67,287 square foot, 86 suite, assisted living facility with a single entrance drive located on the northern portion of the site, while there is the potential for a secondary access point from Courtland Lane through the Pickerington Health Care Center. Mr. Henderson further reviewed the report as provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the rezoning and the preliminary development 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 requirements.
(2) That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.
(3) That the 4.0-acre parcel to the north shall share the same curb cut as the subject property.
(4) That when the 4.0-acre parcel to the north develops traffic volumes of the future use(s) shall be analyzed by the City Engineer to determine if turn lanes would be required.
(5) That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way along S.R. 256 per the City Thoroughfare Plan.
(6) That a wood guardrail shall be installed adjacent to the detention basin along S.R. 256.
(7) That six-foot wide sidewalks shall be installed along S.R. 256.
(8) That the front yard parking setback adjacent to the entrance turnaround area shall be reduced to 10-feet with additional buffering if the developer dedicates 50-feet of right-of-way.
(9) That a four-foot high undulating mound with appropriate landscaping shall be installed along S.R. 256.
(10) That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
(11) That the site plan shall be in compliance with the fire department requirements.
Mr. Michael Fuller stated he was present representing the applicant. Mr. Fuller stated the proposal was to develop 4.22 acres along S.R. 256, and he felt they would have no problems meeting the conditions stated by staff. Mr. Blake clarified the proposed garage at the back of the development did not require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Kramer moved to approve the rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan with staff recommendations as stated; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Village Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for an outdoor patio at 19 North Center Street for Marroni’s Italian Restaurant. Mr. Henderson stated the proposal was for an outdoor patio on the south side of the building, facing the Gazebo Park. He stated the patio would have 16 tables and could accommodate up to 64 patrons. Mr. Henderson stated staff supported the request with two conditions:
(1) That the building materials shall comply with the plan submitted and be in character with the downtown streetscape.
(2) That the property owner and the Parks and Recreation Director shall review and discuss the landscape relocation plan.
Mr. Steve Marroni stated he felt this outdoor patio would be a nice addition to the downtown. Mr. Dan Heitmeyer stated he is the property owner and he supported this request and agreed it would be a nice addition to the downtown area. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Olde Pickerington Village Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness with staff recommendations; Mr. Sauer 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.
E. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Landscaping for a 2,200 square foot office building for Orthopedics Laser Technologies at 1241 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson stated the owners were proposing to build a new office building. He stated staff supported the request with four conditions:
(1) That one parking space shall be eliminated and converted to landscaping.
(2) That the building elevation, materials, colors, etc., shall comply with the City’s architectural consultant requirements.
(3) That additional trees and shrubs shall be installed along the northern portion of the property and parking lot.
(4) That the Board of Zoning Appeals shall review and approve the northern parking setback variance.
Mr. Michael Maistros stated he is the architect for this project and was present this evening to answer any questions. Mr. Maistros stated all of staff recommendations can be worked into this project and he did not feel there would be any problems with that. Mr. Maistros stated with regard to the variance for the setback line, they could shift the building a little bit and end up on the five-foot parking setback rather than what is shown on the drawing the Commission has, and that would eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Binkley clarified shifting the building to eliminate the variance requirement was not a problem for the applicant. Mr. Blake clarified that staff engineer’s concerns have been addressed and resolved. Mrs. Hammond clarified the building materials would be similar to the building that is to the south, the Coldwell Banker building. Mr. Blake further clarified the developer was working with staff to address the concerns of Mr. Stacy, the architectural consultant. Mr. Blake stated typically this Commission approves colors, types of building materials, etc., and if it is left to be approved with Mr. Stacy’s review would that cover it. Mr. Henderson stated he felt it should be approved with staff’s review, as the Commission would want Mr. Schultz to review it also. Mr. Kramer clarified the handicap access is not indicated on the information provided to the Commission, however, instead of a front porch that goes all the way across the building, from the front door the handicap ramp will go along the front of the building and then turn out. Mr. Kramer stated if this Commission was approving what was in front of them, that would have to be added as a condition as it is not included in their packet. Mr. Kramer stated staff’s recommendations do not include the items identified by the Fire Department. Mr. Henderson stated those are more just concerns from the Fire Department. Mr. Blake stated normally this Commission makes sure these items are covered before they vote on the application. Mr. Hartmann stated this is some of the detail that is dealt with by the Building Department. Mr. Hartmann stated Mr. Stacy would have the opportunity to review this and make sure it complies with the Building Code and all of those requirements. Mr. Hartmann further stated this Commission can require that staff review the Fire Department issues, or if they are not comfortable with staff review it can be tabled and brought back to the Commission. Mr. Blake stated it was not that he was uncomfortable with staff reviewing it; he just felt it was an important part of the documentation. Mr. Stacy stated the location of fire hydrants falls under his review and he will consult with the Fire Department during his review. Mr. Kramer moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness with staff conditions and to also ensure that staff or Mr. Stacy approve the handicap access and the requests of the Fire Marshall, and that staff work with the architect or the owner on the exact building materials; 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.
F. Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Development Plan for approximately 11.62 acres of the Zane Property located just north of the Pickerington Medical Complex and the Luse Office Building for Fairfield Realty Investment. Mr. Henderson stated the developer is proposing to develop the 11.628-acre site into seven lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 1.8 acres (0.93 acres would be converted to right-of-way). He stated three parcels would front on S.R. 256, and the remaining four lots would front on the proposed extended road per the City Thoroughfare Plan. Further, a public road and private road would bisect the parcel to form the seven lots and a traffic signal is proposed on S.R. 256 at the intersection of the proposed public road. He further stated a retention pond is being proposed in the southeastern corner of Lot 4, which is one of the interior lots. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the request with 14 conditions:
(1) That the proposed plan shall be revised to meet the traffic access plan, building/parking setback requirements, and buffering requirements.
(2) That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.
(3) That Rutherford’s Auto Body Shop curb cut shall be eliminated prior to allowing the public road curb cut on S.R. 256.
(4) That the cost of the traffic signal and appurtenances shall be the responsibility of the developer.
(5) That the public road extending west through the development shall be a three-lane road.
(6) That the 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.
(7) That a four-foot high undulating mound with the appropriate landscaping shall be installed along S.R. 256 and a two to three foot high undulating mound with the appropriate landscaping shall be installed along the proposed public road.
(8) That six-foot wide sidewalks shall be required along S.R. 256 and on both sides of the proposed public road.
(9) That six-foot wide sidewalks shall be required along one side of the private road.
(10) That the developer shall be responsible for preparing the street and sanitary easement vacation plats.
(11) That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way along S.R. 256 per the City Thoroughfare Plan.
(12) That a Type A buffer is required adjacent to Cherry Hill subdivision.
(13) That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
(14) That the plan shall be in compliance with Fire Department requirements.
Mr. Craig Vandervoort stated he was present on behalf of the applicant as well as Doug McFarland, Kevin Straight, Dave Ludwig, and Jeff Moneybrake, who is serving as their project manager. Mr. Vandervoort stated the property is already zoned C3, and this project will bring commercial activity into the City. Mr. Vandervoort stated to the north of their property is a narrow strip that has a drive that runs from S.R. 256 back to Rutherford Auto Body. He stated that strip is presently County road although Rutherford has been maintaining a private access out to S.R. 256. Mr. Vandervoort stated the Humbert and Luse project has been requesting additional access into their office project, based on a 1992 agreement with the City that Black Cherry Drive would be extended. He stated it is his understanding that the development of the additional office buildings in the back of that project are contingent upon access issues back into their property. Mr. Vandervoort stated in meeting with the staff it has been established that the traffic study indicates the best location of the traffic signal is next to his parcel. Further, it is his understanding that the extension of Black Cherry Drive is against the wishes of the Cherry Hill subdivision residents. He continued the placement of the traffic signal and intersection at the northern corner of his property, in the short term, will sufficiently provide access not only to the Rutherford site, will allow them to bring commercial development into the City on their site, and will also be designed to solve the access problem back into the Humbert/Luse property. He stated in addition to the short term solution, this property is being planned to also provide, in the long term, a potential resolution to the congestion problems that result in front of the PYAA center and potentially provide an access that would provide a connector through over to Diley Road.
Mr. Vandervoort stated the plan calls for a 60-foot right-of-way to extend into their property opening up back in the westerly direction to provide for the potential connector off to the west, and has provided for a private drive that breaks through their property to provide the access into the Luse office projects down in that direction. He stated they are beginning to negotiate the details with Humbert/Luse of a plan to share access of the private drive, share the maintenance, and coordinate the construction of that. Mr. Vandervoort stated they do not have any final users identified for the property at this time, so their interior lines are soft lines and are not set for any potential user at the moment. He stated their main focus this evening was to secure the City’s approval for the location of the traffic signal and the basic structure of the road layout. Mr. Vandervoort stated with regard to staff’s recommendation 3, the Rutherford access, when Old Route 256 was abandoned by the State it became a County road from 256 all the way back to the front of the Rutherford site, so they actually do have access on a public road right-of-way at that point. He stated Rutherford has been permitted to maintain a private lane across that public right-of-way. He continued the parcel located just to the north of theirs is presently owned by Don McAuliffe and it is wider than the County road right-of-way, so there is a distance between the edge of the road right-of-way and the northern line of the property the applicant’s are purchasing. He stated they will be bringing the public road right-of-way off of 256 all the way back to the northerly edge of their property line, so there is a gap about 15 feet wide where the City will need to help them bridge the gap between their property line and the County road right-of-way. He stated they will work with the City through this process. Mr. Vandervoort stated with regard to staff’s recommendation 5, they will be bringing a 60-foot road right-of-way all the way back to the property line as requested by the City to provide for their long range plans. He stated, however, instead of installing a three-lane road all the way back to the dead end, their initial plan is that they will be installing a 29-foot roadway that is appropriate size wise, and traffic flow wise, to this site. He stated they respected and supported the City’s desire to require them to dedicate more than is necessary and they are willing to dedicate the 60-feet. He stated in addition to paying for the traffic signal, they will be paying for it to be an interconnected traffic signal, and they will also pay for the signals to be made pre-emptive for the safety of emergency services. Mr. Vandervoort stated they disagreed with staff’s recommendation that they should put in an entire three-lane road in that would dead end, for the purpose of a potential future development that is not planned. He further stated they have done their part by dedicating the right-of-way, and if it needs to be improved from the two lanes they install to three lanes, they believe that is the reason for impact fees, and if there is future development that causes a need for three lanes, the impact fees from the future development will allow the westerly users to share the cost of improving the road. Mr. Vandervoort stated with regard to staff’s recommendations 8 and 9, they were surprised to see the request that the sidewalks be six feet as it is their understanding that Pickerington’s Code requires sidewalks to be four feet. He stated they were not disagreeing with the request, they just wanted to understand where the transition between six feet and four feet came from, but he believed that detail could be worked out before the final plat comes before this Commission. Mr. Vandervoort stated they were in agreement with all of the other recommendations. He further stated the sessions they have had with staff has resulted in a plan that not only allows them to develop their property, but also greatly advances the long range planning of the City of Pickerington, and they looked forward to working out the last small details so they can proceed cooperatively on the project. Mr. Vandervoort stated he would like to add one small correction, as their property is 10.7 acres and it is reflected as 11.62 acres on the agenda.
Ms Frommer stated the plan she received reflects 1.34 acres owned by Don McAuliffe to the north of the site, and she understood Mr. Vandervoort to state there is County right-of-way that is not reflected on the plan, but exists. Mr. Vandervoort stated he checked with the County Engineer’s office to get some clarification on this point, and was provided the information that when Old Route 256 was improved, Route 256 was re-routed up to the north, and the State of Ohio abandoned Old Route 256 and it became County road right-of-way. He stated when the State abandoned it, they abandoned it to the County Commissioners, and he would be glad to share all of the information the County Engineer gave him. Mr. Vandervoort stated Rutherford is simply being allowed to maintain a private road across the County road right-of-way, but the McAuliffe parcel is wider than the County road right-of-way so there is private property that rests between his northern property line and what would be the south line of County Road, Old Route 256. He stated it is that distance that must be bridged by the City per agreement with the property owner to allow Rutherford’s private drive to break off from the County Road right-of-way and connect into the new road right-of-way they will be dedicating. Ms Frommer stated in reviewing this project, Mr. Schultz had always assumed, not being aware of the issue of the County Road right-of-way that is not reflected on the drawings, that in order to bridge that access gap we would be dealing with Mr. McAuliffe’s representatives anyway. She stated it will take negotiation to get Rutherford’s access completely dissolved and come via the service road to the site. She stated it is an important issue because unless that gap is bridged it would remain at 256 and we cannot build a light and have the access right there. Ms Frommer stated then nothing changes from how it is represented on the drawing; there is just a sliver on the other side that isn’t showing who the owner is, it is County Road right-of-way, and that is where the access road is. Mr. Hartmann stated he understood then Mr. Vandervoort was saying it was a County Road easement. Mr. Hartmann stated then at one point the State owned it, and at some point there is some piece of legislation where it was abandoned by the State. Mr. Vandervoort stated that was correct and he has a copy of the eminent domain proceedings whereby ODOT abandoned the road to the County Commissioners for Old Route 256. Mr. Hartmann stated he would have to review that as he has run into situations where we needed to find out if it was appropriately done by the state and whether it reverted back or was given to private landowners. Mr. Hartmann stated he would just like to review the documents on this issue. Ms Frommer stated essentially this does not change much of anything that has been discussed, we would want to make sure that this issue of Rutherford being able to access, connect to the service road, and cross the McAuliffe property to do so would be resolved essentially before the traffic light is activated. She stated at worse case if it took a matter of time to resolve, the traffic signal could remain bagged until such time as it is resolved. Mr. Binkley inquired if the City had been looking into acquiring the McAuliffe piece, and Ms Frommer stated she understood Mr. Schultz had a plan of action, but she was not sure of what has been done. Ms Frommer stated until tonight she was not aware that there was a County right-of-way there at all so it has always been anticipated that the City would be working with representatives of Mr. McAuliffe to bridge the gap for the access. Ms Frommer stated Mr. Schultz is planning to get the service road to connect to Diley, but it will obviously need to be done piecemeal with development unless the City determines to make it a Capital Improvements Project, and that has not been discussed. Mr. Binkley inquired if we could be looking at this remaining a private road, and Ms Frommer stated we could however she might have some concerns regarding the signal location if that were the case. Mr. Hartmann stated these issues need to be resolved before the preliminary plat, the issue of whether that is a County right-of-way and negotiations should begin with McAuliffe. Mr. Blake clarified this is something that can be left to staff, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Henderson, and the engineers. Ms Frommer stated she felt comfortable with that. Ms Frommer stated with regard to the road being public versus private, Mr. Schultz has expressed his desire to her to see the road access from the light over to Diley Road be public.
Mr. Blake asked Ms Frommer’s position on staff recommendation 5, that the public road be a three-lane road. Ms Frommer stated you need to do what you can as far as planning to support your Thoroughfare Plan and your Access Management Plan, that is what they are there for. She stated the three lane roadway is important for planning purposes, and the existence of that third lane at present with the uses not known, but contemplated under the zoning classification, may not necessarily be supported from an engineering perspective, it would be from a planning perspective that they would do so. She further stated her recommendation was that in light of what the developer is proposing, you review your mechanism for eventually having that third lane constructed, but for planning purposes Mr. Schultz wanted you to forward this with the three lanes as part of the development. Mr. Bosch stated Ms Frommer’s position is clarified in the letter the Commission received with their packets. Mr. Vandervoort stated they supported the City’s long-range plan, and they were dedicating the 60 feet to provide for the three lanes, but it was their position that the impact fees were designed for this situation. He stated this would be a road that was excessive for it’s present uses, but to open it up to future development, and that westerly development would provide the funds to improve it from two lanes to three lanes. He stated they were asking the Commission this evening to approve it with two lanes, and if they did not feel the developer was carrying their share of laying this roadway out for the future, they would ask the Commission to approve it preliminarily and allow them to try and resolve this last detail with the City.
Mrs. Hammond stated one of the problems we have in the City is that with people turning into a shopping area or an office area, there is a tendency to create a back up of traffic. She stated we have no idea at this point what will be going in this location, but should it turn into retail or restaurants with a high volume, it might very quickly necessitate the need for turn lanes. Mr. Vandervoort stated they were not discussing the traffic flow on S.R. 256, they were discussing the interior of the property, whether two lanes is sufficient or whether three lanes is necessary at this point in time. He stated he understood Mrs. Hammond’s issue but he felt that was more an issue of the design of S.R. 256. Mr. Sauer stated he understood Mrs. Hammond’s concern, and if you have traffic going off of 256 onto that public road, what would happen when they can’t make that left turn to get into the development. Mrs. Hammond stated she saw this as a potential problem that could happen very quickly. Mr. Vandervoort stated they do not have any end users, but they do know that the users of the Humbert/Luse project is not excessive traffic as it is office space. He stated if their project would develop into a big box or whatever, their impact fees would provide significant capital for the improvement. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to clarify the concern about the sidewalks. She stated we are attempting to become more pedestrian friendly with walkways and bike paths, and in areas where we cannot put multi-use paths we are trying for the wider sidewalks so more people can use their bikes, etc. Mr. Vandervoort stated he appreciated that explanation and they were very interested in continuing their cooperation with the City in this.
Mr. Bosch stated without knowing the uses, lots 2 and 3 would be served off of that first 400 foot stub coming in off of S.R. 256 since that is the only point of access off of 256 now and in the future, especially when it becomes a signalized intersection. He stated with the private road coming down and serving the other businesses in there, obviously, for the egress or the left turns in and out of that, that road could pick up a lot of potential traffic as well. He stated his suggestion would be to have this developer build a three lane road from S.R. 256 to the private drive where it could go back to back, you would have dedicated left turn and probably a through and right out of their facility onto S.R. 256. He stated then, depending on the uses that come in, either a back to back with a left turn into the private road or a two way left turn lane to gain access into lots 2 and 3. He stated, again, this depended on if it was a high use or a doctor’s office. Mr. Bosch stated from their point on back, if they want to build two lanes to service the four lots and Rutherford’s, he didn’t see any need to extend the three lanes, especially if they are willing to donate all of the right-of-way as that is the key component both now and in the future. He stated perhaps this would be a happy medium the City and the developer could reach. Mr. Bosch clarified Service Committee has not yet approved the signal, and, as he understood it the signal cannot be activated until it meets warrants. Ms Frommer stated it has not been the City’s policy in the past to do a warrant study on each signal and base the activation of the signal on those warrants. Mr. Bosch stated he would direct the City to the Ohio Revised Code that states signals should be in place either for the progression of traffic and have some justification to cover themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Bosch stated from his experience, and he is the District 5 Traffic Engineer for ODOT, there are two methods when there is a piece of property like this. He stated typically when a road is realigned, you cannot land lock a parcel, so you have to vacate a portion of the road. He stated you vacate down to the next highest level, so the State would vacate down to the County, and the County can vacate down to the Township. He stated there is no eminent domain, they have no choice. He further stated vacate meant they just gave up their rights and turned it over to County right-of-way. He stated if it is abandoned, however, that is when it reverts back to the underlying property owners. Mr. Bosch stated both of these terms have been used tonight, and we need to know which one is correct. He stated he felt staff’s recommendation that Rutherford’s curb cut be eliminated would have to be put on hold until this is resolved. He stated the City does have the right to limit access, you cannot restrict it, but you could turn it into a right-in/right-out until such time as they gain access across the strip to the new public road. Mr. Bosch stated if this is County right-of-way, the City will have to petition the County to physically close that and abandon the right-of-way either back to the underlying fee owner or whatever. Mr. Bosch clarified it was being evaluated right now to reduce the speed from 50 to 35 mph in this section. Mr. Binkley questioned if the City had thought about the traffic going into and out of the athletic facility in this area and how it would be affected by this signal, and Ms Frommer stated she and Mr. Schultz have met with PYAA and PYSA in an ongoing attempt to have their access to S.R. 256 closed and routed to its planned location on Courtright Drive. She stated the traffic would then have a signalized intersection at Courtright and S.R. 256. Mr. Bosch stated a comment was made earlier about the residents in Cherry Hill not wanting the extension of Black Cherry Drive, and he questioned if anyone in Cherry Hill has been contacted regarding this. Ms Frommer stated she felt Mr. Schultz was handling that and his last contact was quite some time ago when the Luse property developed with the offices. She stated at that time residents expressed their opposition at those public hearings. Mr. Bosch stated he had spoken to residents and they were totally unaware of this project.
Ms Frommer stated she did not have a problem with Mr. Bosch’s suggestion of building a three-lane road and having it taper down to two lanes. She stated she would like to ensure the Commission is clear that an engineering analysis is done to determine whether or not that center lane is necessary. She stated because the uses are not known, they would use a mix of traffic volumes for this analysis. Ms Frommer stated Mr. Bosch’s suggestion is a compromise she could endorse, and the developer can also be asked to provide some data or endorse what the City engineers would put forward as data to look at what the level of service would be in. She stated there are a number of paths that can be taken and those that have been discussed are reasonable.
Mr. Kramer stated with all of the discussion this evening, and with Mr. Schultz not present this evening, even though we are close to getting something accomplished that is very good, if we do not do it correctly we could end up with some major problems. Mr. Kramer stated he would recommend this be tabled until next month to allow for a lot of these questions answered. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mr. Kramer. Mr. Kramer moved to Table; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea,” and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Bosch voting “Nay.” Motion to Table failed, 4-3. Mr. Blake clarified that this was a preliminary plan and it would be coming back to this Commission on two more occasions. Mr. Blake stated one of his major concerns is the stacking of traffic on S.R. 256 and how it would affect the traffic flow. Mr. Kramer stated his concern is that we move ahead to fast in the early stages and then we get behind the eight ball further down the road. He stated he would like to have as many of these issues resolved now so that we are not struggling later on. Mr. Henderson stated if approved tonight, this preliminary development plan will go before Service Committee at their next meeting. Mr. Nicholas stated as he understood it, the developer will be back before this Commission in two months with a Preliminary Plat, and in that time the developer and staff can work through these issues and come back with some solution that is agreeable to all parties. Mr. Hartmann stated when the final development plat comes in; it should be compared to the preliminary development plat to ensure it complies. Mr. Hartmann stated traffic issues should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity and resolved prior to the time the preliminary development plat is brought in for approval. Mr. Hartmann stated if the Commission approves this preliminary development plan, he would recommend an additional condition relating to the issue of whether that is a County road be reviewed by Pickerington’s staff and law director to determine if that exists or not. Also, additionally, that there must be staff approval relating to whether the road would be two or three lanes. He stated we could then work through whether there needs to be a traffic study or whether the developer decides they would do a three lane and not go through a traffic study, and things like that which can be worked through at the staff level. He stated he would leave it open to allow staff to work through these issues in the next couple of months. Mr. Hartmann stated he did feel the ownership or easement issue on that property was a huge issue because there are a lot of problems that can exist if it is not a public right-of-way. Ms Frommer stated that issue does not actually affect the development itself; it did affect Rutherford’s access to the proposed service road. Mr. Hartmann stated another problem that exists is there are possible takings issues if it is not a public road, so he would like to review this. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to move this forward as a plan, and have a clear understanding between this Commission and staff that the right-of-way issue needs to be addressed by the time it comes back to this body, that the traffic, whether it is a study or an agreement, do the three lanes and also the traffic as it pertains to S.R. 256, what does the intersection of 256 and this intersection look like. He stated he felt these items need to be addressed in that two-month time frame, or he did not see that this Commission could move it forward. Mr. Vandervoort stated he would support that as he felt these issues could be resolved before it comes back to this Commission. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the preliminary development plan with staff recommendations and with the clarification that they will address the right-of-way issues associated with Recommendation 3, with the issue associated with Recommendation 5, that the road be a two or a three lane road, and that, in addition, Service Committee approves the location of the traffic signal as it pertains to this development and that there is a clear understanding of the requirements of the S.R. 256 intersection and have that information in this Commission’s packets prior to the next meeting; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-1.
G. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a shed at 379 Swallow court (Pickerington Meadows subdivision). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the condition the shed be no larger than 14 x 14 feet instead of the proposed 16 x 20 feet in addition to the following conditions:
(1) That the shed shall comply with the City’s architectural consultant requirements.
(2) That the building materials and color shall match the existing house.
(3) That the shed shall not be built within any easements.
(4) That the height of the shed shall not be taller than 15-feet.
(5) That the shed shall be for storage only.
(6) That any lighting on or around the shed shall have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Mark Mills stated he is the applicant and he does not have a problem in agreeing to the size limitation of 14 x 14 feet as well as the other recommendations of staff. Mr. Kramer clarified that any structure larger than 10 x 12 must come before this Commission for a Conditional Use Permit rather than through the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Mr. Binkley clarified there will no exterior lighting on the structure. Mr. Nicholas stated his property abuts this property and he has no problem with the proposed shed. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with staff recommendations and the condition that the structure shall be no larger than 14 x 14 feet; 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.
H. Review and request for motion to approve a conditional use permit for a gazebo for Pickerington Central High School at 300 Opportunity Way. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the condition that the roof of the gazebo shall have dimensional shingles. Mr. Jeff Johnson stated he is the construction engineering teacher at Pickerington Central High School and this is a senior project that the students designed. He stated the band had requested it be this large to allow for outdoor concerts and the location was chosen for accessibility from the school parking lot. Mr. Johnson stated the students would construct the gazebo. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendation; Mr. Kramer 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.
I. Review and request for motion to approve a conditional use permit for a modular classroom for Diley Middle School at 750 Preston Trails Drive in the Preston Trails subdivision. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the condition that the City’s engineering staff shall approve the modular unit being built over an existing storm line. Mr. Jeff Mathes stated he was present representing the school and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bosch clarified that anything built at a school site is a conditional use and should come before this Commission. Mr. Mathes stated this is a six-classroom unit and does have restrooms. Mr. Blake further clarified a building permit is required for this unit. Mr. Kramer moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Blake 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.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Henderson stated there would be three cases for the next agenda.
B. FCRPC
- Lance Schultz. Mr. Henderson stated a
Spring Creek cul de sac variance in Violet Township was approved, and the
Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission will be sending a letter to ODOT
to let them know of their concerns with regard to the proposed closure of
median on U.S. 33 at Pickerington Road.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree
Commission. No report.
B. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Nicholas stated there is
a shed on the property at the southwest corner Center and Meadows Blvd. that
has been unfinished for over a year. Mr. Nicholas stated this shed has tarpaper
on it and sits up on stilts between the houses.
Mr. Henderson stated he would have our Code Enforcement Officer look
into this.
Mr.
Blake stated we have had items that are very simple that get put at the end of
the agenda. He stated he would like to
request that staff review the items and put these types of requests at the
beginning of the agenda so those people do not have to wait through an entire
meeting for an issue that will take just a few minutes. Mrs. Yartin stated she had made a note to
bring this to Mr. Schultz’ attention.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas
moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned
at 9:40 P.M., May 9, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda
D. Yartin
Municipal
Clerk