PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006

 

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

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. Sauer were present.  Mr. Bosch was absent.  Others present were:  Stacey Bashore, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Joel Siegler, Kim Moore, Cheri Friedman, Melinda Dodds, Scott Noll, Paul McKnight, Mike Sabatino and others.

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF August 8, 2006, Public Hearing regarding a Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for 11.023 acres located at the Northwest Corner of SR 256 and Diley Road (JDC Real Estate Development & PB Diley Road LLC). Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

            B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 8, 2006, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake “Yea.”  Motion passed 5-0.

 

3.         SCHEDULED MATTERS:

 

            A.        Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Dr. Noll's Professional Office Building at 151 Clint Drive.  Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented to the Commission and stated that the owner is proposing to install landscaping along Clint Drive as well as buffering to the rear of the parcel. He stated that staff supports the request with the following four conditions:

 

                        1.         That a 2-3-ft high undulating mound with landscaping to provide a continuous buffer shall be installed along Clint Drive.

                        2.         That a 3-ft high undulating mound with pine trees 10-ft on center in a staggered alignment shall be installed along the northeastern (rear) property line from at least the second window on the rear of the building to the northern property line.

                        3.         That the Type A buffering requirements shall not include a fence.

                        4.         That pine trees and shrubs shall be installed along the southern portion of the rear property line.

 

            Mr. McKnight stated he had no objections to staff recommendations. Mr. Nicholas asked if staff checked for any prohibitive plant material.  Mr. Henderson answered yes.  Mr. Nicholas asked how you are planning on screening any of the gas and electric meters. Mr. McKnight stated they would be screening the meters and explained how they would be screened. Mr. Schultz stated Condition No. 3 will require 3/4 majority vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the fence to be waived. He further stated that there is a 50 foot setback from the houses and there are several large trees in the area that provide a good high buffer and with the mounding they are providing will create a pretty continuous buffer.  Mr. Nicholas made a point of clarification that one of houses directly behind this building has a three season room and when everything is in full bloom you cannot see anything out there, but obviously in the winter time is why we are asking for the evergreens to help screen it.  Mr. Schultz added that this was annexed into the city three years ago and was zoned commercial in the township.  Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations including clarification that all the utility meters be screened, Mr. Kramer seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

 

            B.         Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Dr. Noll's Professional Office Building at 151 Clint Drive. Mr. Henderson stated that the owner is proposing to install a ground sign for greater visibility for the new office building on Clint Drive.  He stated staff supports the request with the following five conditions:

 

                        1.         That the sign panel shall have a matte finish.

                        2.         That the base of the sign shall be constructed of stone to match the columns.

                        3.         That the sign shall be limited to two colors (background and lettering shall have different colors).

                        4.         That the sign shall be 5-ft from the property line and outside the site triangle.

                        5.         That the sign height shall not exceed 8-ft above the parking lot grade.

 

Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicant understood that there will be stone on the bottom base of the sign.  Mr. Nicholas also clarified that the stone will be the same material to match the exterior of the building.  Mr. Nicholas asked if the sign location should be closer to the driveway.  Mr. Schultz stated that is something we didn't take into consideration.  Mr. Binkley asked for point of clarification on condition No. 5 for the sign to be 5-ft from the property line, except when looking at it, it may need to be more to clear the sanitary and water easement.  Mr. Schultz stated it will have to be located outside the easement. Mr. Blake asked if this location was proper.  Mr. Schultz stated because we never took this into consideration, we didn't have a concern.   Mr. Nicholas stated I am not saying this is the wrong location; I just wanted to make sure it was the right location.  Mr. Schultz stated it is a unique parcel with the alignment of the entrance road.   Mr. Blake stated this sounds like something that needs to have some research done on it.  Mr. Schultz stated if we approve the alignment like this, it is up to them to be outside the easement.  Mr. Blake asked the Board if they cannot locate the sign here, is this something Staff can handle internally.   Mr. Schultz stated our concern with the sign location is that it is outside of the site triangle and 5 feet from the property line.  Mr. Nicholas stated that he would be in favor that if this location doesn't work that the applicants would work with staff on finding an alternative and letting us know what that is.  Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations including addition of applicants working with staff to find an appropriate sign location; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion.  Roll Call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Blake voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 6-0.

 

            C.        Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping and Lighting for Sunoco at 1225 Hill Road North.  Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the following eight conditions:

 

                        1.         That the foot candle reading for the canopy zone shall average 10-fc or less.

                        2.         That the light fixtures shall be Monterey Series light fixtures (APA-05-S1) or similar style.

                        3.         That the light poles shall be located in grass or mulched areas and be painted black.

                        4.         That the average light pole foot candle reading shall be 3-fc, with a maximum reading of 15-fc.

                        5.         That an accurate site plan shall be submitted depicting the lighting and landscaping requirements.

                        6.         That the trees at installation shall have a minimum 2-inch caliper.

                        7.         That landscaping shall not be located in City right-of-way.

                        8.         That the right-of-way issues with the City shall be resolved prior to zoning certificate approval.

 

Mr. Schultz stated since site plans have been submitted we have discovered that four or five feet of their parking lot is within City right-of-way.  Mr. Schultz further stated the City is requesting that we allow their parking lot to remain in the right-of-way if they will sign a waiver that the City is not liable and if we need to recover the property we can.  Mr. Schultz added we met with the applicant last week and the documents you have in front of you do not match these conditions, however they indicated they would comply with them.  Mr. Siegler stated that the applicant is willing to meet staff requirements.  Mr. Blake asked if they were willing to change the light style to Monterey from what is in the packet.  Mr. Henderson stated they submitted a plan today that is a similar style to the Monterey recommendation.  Mr. Nicholas asked about canopy lighting and the results of the investigation.  Mr. Henderson stated he did foot candle readings on all of the major gas stations in the area. He further stated what they are proposing is what we are looking for.  Mr. Blake asked if we had foot candle readings in our present code.  Mr. Schultz stated that we don't, but we do have a requirement in our code where you can't go ten times higher than your average.  Mr. Nicholas asked once this is rectified will they be in tolerable levels.  Mr. Schultz answered that is correct. Mr. Sauer moved to approve with staff recommendations including applicant working with staff on acceptable foot candle readings; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Binkley and Mrs. Hammond voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

 

           

4.         REPORTS:

 

            A.        Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

 

                        (1)        BZA Report.  Mr. Schultz stated we had two cases in August with one being approved and one being denied and we have two cases scheduled for September.

 

            B.         FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated there are a few issues in Violet Township. He stated Meadowmore had a preliminary plan extension approved with another year to review and a preliminary plan extension for the Springcreek subdivision was approved.  He further stated there was a zoning change from an R2 to a light manufacturing district that was approved.

 

5.         OTHER BUSINESS:

 

            A.        Tree Commission.  No Report.

 

            B.         Daycare Regulations-  Mr. Schultz stated he received a call last week indicating a complaint about a daycare.  He stated our code allows four or less children in a house and anything over five requires a conditional use approval.  He added the State allows six children before it is considered a daycare.  Mr. Blake clarified that the City's code is contradictory to the State and asked how long the City's had been in affect.  Mr. Schultz answered since 1989.   Ms. Moore and Ms. Dodds stated they were concerned about finding another place to take their children and that it is very hard to find someone you can trust.   Ms. Friedman stated she received the letter and feels like someone is trying to get her in trouble.   Mr. Hartmann stated this sounds like a home occupation and would have to comply with that statute and then there is a daycare center regulation that covers other areas besides residential.   Mrs. Hammond stated that because there was a complaint she assumed that the children were outside as well.  Ms. Friedman answered no because it is very hard to watch six children outside, they are inside most of the time.  Mr. Blake asked what happens in the interim.  Mr. Hartmann answered in the interim you would have to have a daily average of five or less children.   Mr. Schultz stated that we have to do some research on this and the problem with this is it is complaint driven.  Mr. Blake stated we need to find a solution for the interim. Mr. Hartmann stated the solution is to stay below an average of five or less children a day.  Mr. Hartmann further stated he wants to look at whether we have home rule authority before this section is enforced and will provide a memo on whether we have the authority to enforce it under the current law as the state provides.  Mr. Blake asked in the meantime what is the process of investigation.  Mr. Schultz stated we would have to prove they have more than five children.  Mr. Binkley asked until there is a ruling here are they fine to continue to operate.  Mr. Hartmann stated we will not make a decision until I can review this and there will not be charges filed until there is a determination. Mr. Schultz asked if the City code supersedes the State code, do you want us to modify our code to six children. The Commission agreed with that. Mr. Hartmann clarified that the City's code would follow the State code.  Ms. Friedman asked if there would be charges filed against her.  Mr. Kramer answered we are going to get you into compliance before that would start to happen.  Mr. Blake clarified that until this is investigated they are okay.  Mr. Hartmann stated that is correct.  Mr. Nicholas moved to allow the Law Director to investigate this matter and bring back this issue next month; Mr. Binkley seconded.  Roll Call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Binkley voting "Yea".  Motion passed, 6-0.

 

            C.        Discuss Revised Sign Standards-  Mr. Schultz stated he wanted to get this in the process and get feedback to make sure we have all the items we discussed.  Mr. Blake requested that this be brought back next month.  Mr. Schultz stated we can do a brief overview next month and move it forward in the process. 

 

            D.        Discuss Revised Sidewalk Standards-  Mr. Schultz stated we want to require our sidewalks to be six feet in width instead of four.  Mr. Binkley stated he was looking at the cost because it would be an additional cost for the developer.  Mr. Schultz stated it would be required on all new commercial developments and any newly platted residential lots from September 1st of this year on.  Mr. Binkley asked how this came about.  Mr. Schultz stated our City Manager requested it.  Mr. Sauer asked if the City had taken into consideration the cost that would be associated with this for the resident.  Mr. Schultz stated we are not going to see six foot sidewalks until a new subdivision comes in.  Mr. Blake asked for the reason of the six foot sidewalks.   Mr. Schultz stated he thinks it is in lieu of a 10-ft wide bike path and 4-ft sidewalk, a 6-ft sidewalk on both sides of the road would be a compromise. Mr. Nicholas stated he would get copies of this discussion from trade magazines.  Mr. Nicholas further stated the thought is to have one path to meet both of those needs.  Mr. Schultz stated as a caveat, it can be waived by Planning & Zoning, Service Committee or staff.  Mr. Binkley asked if the City Manager could come and address this issue.  Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see a cost differential on installation and repair of six foot vs. four foot sidewalks.  Mr. Schultz stated he could get a memo and will have more answers for next month. 

 

6.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.  Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Binkley voted "Aye." Motion carried 6-0.  The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:51 P.M., September 12, 2006.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Stacey Bashore                                                            Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk                                                Director, Planning & Zoning