PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JUNE 13, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:10
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 6.23 ACRES (3 LOTS) FROM R-2 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (RESIDENTIAL) AT 11460, 11438, AND 11390 MILNOR ROAD
(EBRIGHT PROPERTY)
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Bosch. Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Sauer were absent. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson,
Phil Hartmann, John Ricketts, Rick Ricketts, Rita Ricketts, Jim Ebright, Peggy
Altherr, Eric Altherr, Dave Rossman, and others.
Mr. Schultz
stated this rezoning is essentially to convert Township zoning to City
equivalent zoning per the 362 acre annexation agreement approved by Council in
March 2005. He stated these three
existing properties are zoned residential in the township and they would be converted
to the equivalent residential zoning in the city.
Mr. Blake
determined there were no comments either for or against the proposed
rezoning.
There being
nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:13 P.M., June 13, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________ ___________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk Lance Schultz, Director, Planning & Zoning
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JUNE 13, 2006
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING
REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 2.43 ACRES FROM R-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO
PC-1 (PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL) AT 11360 MILNOR ROAD (EBRIGHT PROPERTY)
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Bosch. Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Sauer were absent. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson,
Phil Hartmann, John Ricketts, Rick Ricketts, Rita Ricketts, Jim Ebright, Peggy
Altherr, Eric Altherr, Dave Rossman, and others.
Mr. Schultz
stated this rezoning is to convert Township zoning to City equivalent zoning
per the 362 acre annexation agreement approved by Council in March 2005. He stated this property is going from R-2 to
PC-1 because the annexation agreement indicated it would go to agricultural
with a C-1 overlay, and PC-1 is the closest one that would match that. He stated further in a PC district we can add
conditions to that district.
Mr. Blake
clarified that surrounding property owners had been notified of this
hearing.
Mr. Richard
Ricketts stated he was representing John and Rita Ricketts, the adjoining
property owners. He stated he had some
clarification issues he would like to discuss this evening. Mr. Ricketts stated he had provided a map
that shows the Ebright property in the lower left and the Spring Creek
subdivision. He stated everything below
the bold line is owned by the Ricketts family, so the property owner to the
east of the Ebright property is the Ricketts family. He stated this property has been platted,
however, there has not been a breaking of ground for that phase of the
subdivision but it should move forward within the next year or two. Mr. Ricketts stated prior to this hearing, he
and Mr. Ebright had met to try and clarify some issues that were left open and
ambiguous by the preannexation agreement.
He stated he has discussed these with Mr. Ebright and Mr. Schultz of the
City and that resulted with an agreement between the Ricketts family and Mr.
Ebright. Mr. Ricketts stated the
Ricketts family were not opposed to the proposed zoning; the issues that were
raising some concern was whether or not the preannexation agreement would
obviate the requirements for buffering and setbacks that are provided for under
the Code. He stated after discussions
with Mr. Schultz and Mr. Ebright clarification is that the zoning being
requested would not obviate any obligations of the zoning code as it currently
stands. He stated further he believed
there was an issue regarding buffering, as this will be commercial with
residential to the east, and there has been discussion with Mr. Ebright about
the buffering. He stated the way he read
the City’s zoning code he believed a Type B buffering would be the appropriate
buffering given the PC-1 adjoining residential.
Mr. Ricketts stated an agreement has been reached between the Ricketts
family and Mr. Ebright which would be that the buffering provided would be of a
Type B nature; it would be a mound that is approximately four feet high and it
will be Type B in the context of the trees that will be on top of the mound and
there would be no fence. He stated there
was also an agreement regarding the timetable for construction; there is an
issue of whether or not the buffering should go on immediately upon effect of
the rezoning. Mr. Ricketts stated Mr.
Ebright had indicated the proposed second building will be no closer to the
property line than the current building is to the Ricketts’ property, and based
upon that, they have agreed they would not request the installation of the
mounding immediately, but rather, if a second building is constructed the
requirement for the buffering would kick in and he would proceed with a Type B
buffer. Mr. Ricketts stated the Ricketts
family has also agreed that when construction begins on the property adjoining
the Ebright site, the excess dirt would be moved to the Ebright property so he
did not have to haul significant amounts of dirt to provide for the buffering. He stated the Ebrights would then be
responsible for the seeding and the trees.
Mr. Ricketts stated he would request that as this Commission moves
forward with the approval of the rezoning, they include a condition that the
Ebrights comply with the agreement that has been reached between the Ebrights
and the Ricketts family. Mr. Ricketts
stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Blake
determined there were no comments either for or against the proposed
rezoning.
There being
nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:28 P.M., June 13, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________ ___________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk Lance Schultz, Director, Planning & Zoning
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
JUNE 13, 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: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr. Sauer was absent. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Phil Hartmann, Joe Henderson, John Ricketts, Rick Ricketts, Rita Ricketts, Peggy Altherr, Eric Altherr, Bill McKinley, Mike Stacy, Dave Rossman, Jim Ebright, Tom Grove, Linda Williams, Anthony Williams, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 9, 2006, Public Hearing regarding rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for Pickerington Assisted Living Facility. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF May 9, 2006, Public Hearing regarding an outdoor patio for
Marroni’s Italian Restaurant. Mr.
Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 9, 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, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve Final Plats for Section 2 – Phases 3 and 4 of the Spring Creek Subdivision (Dominion Homes). (TABLED, 06/14/05). Mr. Blake stated the time limit on this issue has expired and it will be removed from the agenda. Mr. Schultz stated he had contacted the applicant notifying them of this and they have not responded.
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 for approximately 6.23 acres (3 lots) from R-2 (Single Family Residential) to R-1 (Residential) at 11460, 11438, and 11390 Milnor Road (Ebright property). Mr. Schultz reviewed his report with the Commission members and stated this was to convert the township zoning to City equivalent zoning per the annexation agreement approved by Council in March 2005. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the rezoning with the condition that all of the conditions in the annexation agreement shall be adhered to.
Mr. Bosch clarified that this rezoning is for the first two lots and the northern half of the third lot. Mr. Schultz stated the Township required that the bottom lot be consolidated, however, we are treating it as two separate lots. Mr. Schultz stated the zoning line will go where the old property line was. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the rezoning with staff recommendations; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning for approximately 2.43 acres from R-2 Single Family Residential to PC-1 Planned Neighborhood Commercial at 11360 Milnor Road (Ebright property). Mr. Schultz reviewed his report with the Commission and stated this is for the southern portion of the third lot in the previous item. He stated staff supports the rezoning with the four conditions in the preannexation agreement:
(1) That the parcel shall be allowed C1 commercial uses except that restaurants and taverns shall not be permitted.
(2) That the Ebright’s shall have the right to construct an additional building of the same size and standard of construction as exists on such parcel.
(3) That the Ebright’s shall also have the right to add an overhang to the existing building for additional storage.
(4) That the City, by council manic action, shall grant such conditional use or variances as may be necessary for such building and to grandfather in the existing business as permitted use on such parcel.
Mr. Schultz stated as indicated in the public hearing, Mr. Ricketts is requesting the Commission consider the additional condition regarding the buffering. Mr. Schultz stated in his conversations with Mr. Ricketts and Mr. Ebright they seemed to agree that the buffer should be there. Mr. Schultz stated the conditions Mr. Ricketts was proposing had been distributed to the Commission members at the start of this meeting.
Mr. Rick Ricketts stated he would reiterate the comments from the public hearing held earlier this evening. Mr. Ricketts stated the Commission and Mr. Ebright have a copy of the summary of the information he presented to the Commission (Attachment 1 to these minutes) and requested, on behalf of the Ricketts, that the zoning be approved subject to the conditions relating to buffering. Mr. Ebright stated he had no further comments.
Mr. Schultz stated staff with regard to the good faith effort to provide excess dirt from Spring Creek to assist with the buffering effort, because the dirt is off-site and not on Mr. Ebright’s property, it may not be appropriate to include that condition. He stated that could be an agreement between the two property owners, but it should not be applied to this site. Mr. Hartmann stated he concurred, that should be an agreement between the property owners.
Mr. Blake clarified the agreement between Mr. Ebright and the City regarding construction of a building of the same size and standard as the construction that sits on the parcel today will have to meet current building codes. Mr. Bosch stated the way he read it, if it is a pole barn now, he can build a pole barn. Mr. Schultz stated this is how he interpreted it also.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the rezoning with staff recommendations 1 through 4 and a fifth condition being the agreement between the landowners, deleting item III.C.3. regarding provision of dirt for buffering; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for an outdoor patio for Rita’s Ices-Cones-Shakes at 1188 Hill road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the condition that the building materials shall be in compliance with City architectural consultant standards. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Stacy had some issues with some of the standards.
Mr. Tom Grove stated he was the architect for the project and in reviewing the comments Mr. Stacy had regarding the awning, he understood the concern that it might be a little intrusive and stand out a little bit. Mr. Grove stated, however, this is the corporate image for Rita’s Ices and they are pretty adamant about having the stripes. He stated they are willing to work with the size and shape, but they are pretty set with the stripes. Mr. Blake clarified that the awning was part of the building materials being considered tonight. Mr. Stacy stated after he visited the building, it was very evident that the design of the awning was very different than the two awnings currently on the building. He stated one of those awnings will be removed and replaced with this proposed awning. Mr. Stacy stated that in looking at the building, it seemed to him that the red and white striped awning would be out of place on this building and that is why he suggested a single color. Mr. Stacy stated as proposed in the drawings that he reviewed, there was proposed the red and white awning and over the entrance to the store space there was going to be an awning with four different colors on it; green over the top and then the sign within the awning itself consisting of the different colored green, red, and white. Mr. Grove stated they have agreed to make it the three colors, just take the two greens and make it one green and that would make it the three colors they were allowed, and the corporate office had also indicated they could work with the shape of the awning.
Mrs. Hammond stated she has discussed this with a few other council members and we did not want to be turning away business all for the sake of a red and white awning. She stated she felt anything done on this building would be an improvement. Mr. Bosch stated he concurred with Mrs. Hammond that this would be an improvement to the building. Mr. Kramer stated with regard to the awning, while he agreed the development is in need of improvement, his concern is that we could set a precedent so when other store owners come and want to put up awnings that contrast this one, what would we do then. Mr. Grove stated in this center, this store space and the one next to it are the only two that do not have some sort of canopy or covered area in front of it. Mrs. Hammond stated that was a valid point, however, at Hunter’s Run there are awnings that are solid green, green and white striped, and maroon, and the out buildings around them have different colored awnings, so we have it in other places in the city. Mr. Grove stated their concern was that the red and white striped awning is their corporate image. Mr. Bosch stated if the dome were removed, that would help to soften the look of the awning. Mr. Nicholas stated he is not in favor of the striped awning, and the Hunter’s Run center is more earth-toned colors. Mr. Nicholas stated he felt the outside patio area is great and he liked that idea for our community. Mr. Kramer stated he believed with a solid color awning and the outside seating area, people would still come. Mr. Blake clarified that the awning was included in the Commercial Design Guidelines and could not be approved separately. Mrs. Williams stated she and her husband had the franchise for this business and questioned if there would be a problem with the awning at another location. Mr. Hartmann stated you would have to come through this same process for another location. Mr. Schultz stated the concern regarding the awning was in the context that it did not match the existing building. He stated if this was a new building or a building that had appropriate colors and character then it would probably be appropriate. Mr. Nicholas stated the concern tonight was this particular awning on this particular building, and also in setting a precedent for the rest of the business community that this or some variation of this awning could go anywhere in the City. Mr. Williams stated he has discussed some of the issues being discussed this evening with corporate headquarters. He stated in trying to make some adaptations of their awning, while still maintaining the corporate image, he did have a rendition of the awning that has more of an upscale look. He stated this image might be more acceptable to the Commission members. Mr. Blake clarified that the rest of the center has an overhang that shields pedestrians from any weather except for the last two businesses at the end. The Commission members reviewed the rendition distributed by Mr. Williams (Attachment 2 to these minutes). Mr. Binkley stated the shape of this newly presented design fits in with the center more than the originally presented design. Mr. Blake clarified the applicant would not have a problem doing something like the newly submitted design if that was approved by the Commission. Mr. Stacy stated the new design does appear to be less intrusive than the one originally submitted. Mr. Schultz stated this design also appears to have the sign within the awning, so if this Commission moves forward with this we would approve the awning and the sign simultaneously. Mrs. Hammond clarified this was a walk-up store and there would be lighting under the awning for the customers. Mr. Bosch stated having the sign as part of the canopy does remove the dome and softens the look. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness with staff recommendations and with the newly submitted design for the awning, including signage, and requiring a fabric awning; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz clarified the signage would still be limited to the three colors. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-2.
F. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for wall signage for Rita’s Ices-Cones-Shakes at 1188 Hill Road North. Mr. Blake clarified with Mr. Schultz that this item would be removed as the signage was approved in the previous motion.
G. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials for outdoor seating for Camille’s Sidewalk Café at 10503 Blacklick Eastern Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report with the Commission members and stated staff supported the request with the following conditions:
(1) That 36-inch clearance shall be maintained in the outdoor dining areas.
(2) That none of the tables shall block any emergency exits.
Mrs. Hammond clarified that the entire building was approved and when another tenant requested an outdoor patio that was considered separately. Now, as a new tenant, Camille’s was also requesting an outdoor patio. Mr. Binkley clarified there would be no white plastic furniture in the patio. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations and additionally that the furniture not be plastic; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board approved three variances in May, two decks and a lot split variance. He stated the June agenda has a deck, a fence, and a parking setback for Orthopedic Laser Technologies.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Henderson stated the Regional Planning Commission met last week and approved two items in Violet Township. He stated the Woodstream, Sections 5, final plat extension request was granted, and a parcel was rezoned from R-2 single family to C-2 limited commercial district in the Township close to U.S. 33.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
B. Commission Discussion. No items were brought forward.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Blake moved to adjourn; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:37 P.M., June 13, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk Lance Schultz, Director, Planning & Zoning