PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006

PUBLIC HEARING

7:10 P.M.

OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING A CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO DAYCARE STANDARDS

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M., with the following Commission members present: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch. Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer. Others present were: Stacey Bashore, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Jim VanKannel, George Lenhart, David Cross, Dale Cross, Wanda Tang, Robert Tang, Shane Buerk and others.

Mr. Schultz stated we have researched this and discovered that the State law supersedes the City law and the State law allows six children in a house, so we are going to modify our City code to reflect what the State Code allows.

Mr. Blake determined there were no comments either for or against the proposed code amendment.

There being nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:12 P.M., October 10, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore, Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006

PUBLIC HEARING

7:20 P.M.

OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REZONING AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.023 ACRES FROM R4 RESIDENTIAL AND C3 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO PC3 PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SR 256 AND DILEY ROAD FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (JDC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC & PB DILEY ROAD LLC)

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following Commission members present: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch. Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer. Others present were: Stacey Bashore, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Jim VanKannel, George Lenhart, David Cross, Dale Cross, Wanda Tang, Robert Tang, Shane Burke and others.

Mr. Schultz stated that the northern eight acres is already zoned C3 and the southern three acres is zoned R4 and they are planning on combining the acreage into a planned commercial development. He further stated it would be divided out into four outlots fronting S.R. 256 and one large out parcel with an approximately 38,000 square foot strip center and a 12,500 square foot strip center.

Shane Burke stated he was a partner with JDC and we are proposing rezoning for a proposed development of a strip center on the 11 acres of ground at the corner of new Diley Road and S.R. 256.

There being nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:22 P.M., October 10, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore, Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 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, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer were present. There were no members absent. Others present were: Stacey Bashore, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Jim VanKannel, George Lenhart, David Cross, Dale Cross, Wanda Tang, Robert Tang, Shane Buerk, Conor O'Keefe, Anthony Williams, Dan Horn, Craig Vandervoort, Doug McFarland, Kevin Strait, David Ludwig and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF September 12, 2006 Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch abstaining and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed 6-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for a motion to approve a code amendment pertaining to Daycare Standards. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report presented to the Commission and stated we have discovered that State Law supersedes City Law regarding daycares and we have a draft ordinance revising the definition of daycares to correspond with the Ohio Revised Code definition. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the draft ordinance and forward it to Council, Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer abstaining and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for Mr. Tire at 899 Refugee Road (former ProCare). Mr. Schultz stated we received a letter from the applicant requesting this item be tabled until the November 14th meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to table this matter; 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.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Choice Mortgage Funding at 60 East Columbus Street (Willard Property). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the following condition:

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

Mr. O'Keefe stated he did not know what a matte finish meant. Mr. Henderson stated it is a non gloss finish. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the blue color for the sign and requested a color sample be given to staff. Mr. Henderson stated we did receive a color sample and it is an appropriate blue for this sign. Mr. Kramer moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Sauer 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.

D. Review and request for a 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 as presented to the Commission and stated they are looking to modify the sign that the Commission approved in July and move it from the canopy to the existing sign panel. He further stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That the sign shall be limited to three colors.

2. The sign shall have a matte finish.

3. That the awning shall be made of fabric with no backlighting.

4. That the horizontal trim on the canopy shall remain white.

Mr. Williams stated he was the owner of the store and he did not have any concerns with the staff recommendations. Mr. Blake asked what staff's feeling was with a sign being replaced on an existing building. Mr. Schultz stated based on our code they can do a face change without coming in front of the commission, but they would have to keep it the three colors. He further stated that coming up in our revised sign standards we would like to see channel letters in a new commercial establishment, but because this is an existing building with similar signs, we think this is appropriate. Mr. Kramer asked what is prompting the change. Mr. Williams stated it was for better visibility and better presentation. Mr. Kramer stated when we approved this in June he thought it was to hurry it along so the store could open. Mr. Williams answered it didn't happen fast enough, we are now past our peak season and most of the stores are closing. Mr. Blake asked for clarification on the lighting for the awning. Mr. Henderson stated the new proposal is showing gooseneck lights above the canopy which is why we are recommending that it not be backlit. Mr. Kramer asked what the purpose of lights on the canopy was. Mr. Schultz stated it is because there will be patrons there after dark and from a safety perspective the area should be lit. Mr. Kramer asked about how bright the lighting would be. Mr. Schultz stated typically these gooseneck lights are not that bright compared to a light pole, but if we find it is brighter we can go out and do a light reading. Mr. Blake suggested the applicant bring in literature on the lights before they are purchased. Mr. Nicholas stated he agreed that staff needs to approve the lights if they are similar to what we have been approving. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations including addition of applicant getting prior approval from staff for lights on the canopy, Mr. Nicholas 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.

E. Review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and Final Development Plan for approximately 11.023 acres from R4 Residential and C3 Community Commercial to PC3 Planned Community Commercial at the northwest corner of SR 256 and Diley Road for a commercial development (JDC Real Estate Development LLC & PB Diley Road LLC) Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated Planning and Zoning Commission and Service Committee approved this with the following 15 conditions and I will go over the three conditions that have been revised since our last meeting, those being Conditions No. 3, 5 and 9.

1. That the proposed plan shall be revised to meet the above 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 access point along Windmiller Drive shall be a right-in curb cut only or a right-in/right-out with a median in the center of Windmiller Drive per the City Engineer.

4. That out lots 1, 2 and 3 shall have access from the internal access road only.

5. That the developer shall widen Old Diley Road from the terminus of the Kroger access road (T&M Pickerington LLC property) to the main entrance of the subject retail development. If the subject construction cost is less than one-third of the estimated cost to widen old Diley Road (roadway widening costs need to be approved by City Engineer), then the remainder of the money shall be set aside for an escrow fund for the widening of the remainder of Old Diley Road.

6. That the construction drawings for the Old Diley Road widening shall address all storm water engineering issues and details.

7. That 30-foot of right-of-way from the centerline of Old Diley Road shall be dedicated.

8. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way as needed along SR 256, Diley Road, Windmiller Drive and Old Diley Road per the City Engineer.

9. That the parking setback along Old Diley Road shall be reduced from 18-ft to 12-ft with enhanced buffering.

10. That a six-foot wide sidewalk shall be extended along SR 256, constructed along the south side of Old Diley Road to connect to SR 256 sidewalk and a four-foot sidewalk extended along Diley Road.

11. That all retail buildings and out lots shall be connected by sidewalk to the City public sidewalks.

12. The engineering details pertaining to roadway width, right-of-way, turn lane locations, deceleration lanes, etc., would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

13. That the parking spaces for the two retail strip centers shall be reduced from 321 to 273.

14. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.

15. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the fire department requirements.

Mr. Buerk stated there are few points that need to be clarified. He stated the point of access and egress has been a concern for us because the original plan had only one point of egress for the property, so the proposal submitted to the Planning and Zoning subcommittee was right-in and right-out access and egress on Windmiller Road. He stated we have traffic studies that indicate that and we want to confirm, because that is the option we would like to pursue. Mr. Bosch clarified that the right-in and right-out is with the caveat that there is a median barrier. Mr. Buerk stated there is and that is showing on a diagram as a permanent barrier to restrict the left-in and left-out. Mr. Bosch stated as long as they have the physical barrier in the median and as long as it is designed appropriately it should be fine. Mr. Schultz stated we have discussed these issues with our Staff Engineer and our City Engineer and they have agreed with these conditions. Mr. Bosch asked for a point of clarification on this possibility being allowed based on a traffic impact study. Mr. Schultz answered there was a traffic study prepared, I don't want to say it was an impact study. Mr. Buerk stated the second point is on Condition No. 5 on the development of Old Diley Road. He stated we have proposed ways to finance and develop Old Diley Road. He further stated we will set aside costs and take on the responsibility for the development of as much as 1/3 of the developing costs of Old Diley Road, so that it be improved 1/3 of the way to allow access to our previously only egress point and we are in agreement with that. He further stated the only exception in the staff report it indicates that dollars are to be used at Windmiller Drive and Old Diley Road for its improvement and that was not our understanding, but rather we were responsible for 1/3 of the development of the property and if those dollars are unused in our development those dollars could be used for that purpose. Mr. Schultz stated he would suggest that we move this forward and between now and the Service Committee we can get into the details of what that may be. Mr. Bosch clarified that it is the City's desire since it is not possible to come up with the other 2/3 that you want them to approve 1/3 of that road. Mr. Schultz stated that is correct. Mr. Bosch asked if Staff was okay with what they are proposing. Mr. Schultz stated we have discussed this at length and it is acceptable. Mr. Bosch stated the only concern he has is whether it will be able to handle the traffic. Mr. Schultz stated that hopefully this will start to develop and we can get it widened quicker. Mr. Buerk stated the only other concern that is indicated in the staff report is that Diley Road and Windmiller Drive would be upgraded with a deceleration lane and two left hand lanes and that would be our responsibility to develop. He stated we understand there is traffic that will be coming into the center from this way, but the two reasons we would object to that is partially because of costs but more importantly our impact study did not indicate the need for a double lane. Mr. Schultz stated that when this recommendation was made we were looking at different access points and our engineer is in the process of reviewing their updated traffic report. He added that by moving access points it could change. Mr. Bosch stated the best thing we could do is add in a recommendation that we would support whatever staff recommendation would be. Mr. Bosch asked if the storm water reserve is to become the City's property or is that still your property. Mr. Buerk stated it is not our intention to deed it to the City. Mr. Bosch stated my point of comment is that 12 foot section of land needs to be carried through that storm water reserve area so that you have right-of-way. Mr. Schultz stated that will be identified at the construction drawing level, and when this occurs they are going to build a turn lane and dedicate additional land for a future turn lane if needed. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with revised staff recommendations and with the understanding that the Commission supports any additions or changes to the improved roadway portions based upon staff recommendations from the traffic study; 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.

F. Review and request for a motion to approve a Final Plat for StoneCreek Station Commercial Subdivision located just south of Kohl's for Equity Land Investments, LLC. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated the City is working with the developer on a TIF in this area that was approved by Council a few months ago. He stated Service Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission approved this with the following 12 conditions and these conditions remain the same.

1. That the proposed plan shall be revised to meet the above traffic access plan, building/parking setback requirements and buffering requirements.

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.

4. That the traffic impact study shall comply with City Engineer requirements.

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 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 if the western most curb cut into the office development were located on the adjacent property, the adjacent property owner shall have to sign the record plat and have an easement agreement recorded.

9. That the boulevards, multi-use paths, intersection improvements and engineering details pertaining to roadway width, turn lane locations, stacking space length, street light poles, 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, parking spaces for the office development, building and parking setback variances east of the first curb on Stone Creek Drive and any other required variances.

11. That the parking lot shall be in compliance with the interior landscaping requirements.

12. That the buffer between the proposed detention pond and condominium units shall consist of six-foot high pine trees at installation staggered 15-ft on center.

Mr. Horn stated he was there on behalf of Equity, Inc. He stated this is a multi-step process that reviews the final plat and the engineering work for the TIF improvements that is before the engineering staff. He stated that two out lot users want to get further into our engineering before they start spending money to add on to what they are doing, but the process is all starting to come together. Mr. Horn stated we were agreeable to the conditions at the preliminary plat level and nothing has really changed. He further stated that we do anticipate some minor variance requests with respect to some of the setbacks in the right-of-way and we have worked out the easements with Kohl's. Mr. Schultz stated this is a unique project because we are in partnership with them to do a TIF. He stated this is very atypical of our process, but to get the tax payer's money back this is the best way to proceed. Mr. Bosch asked if staff is comfortable with all of the easement issues. Mr. Schultz stated they are very close to getting those worked out and before Council approves the final plat we are going to require that they be on the final plat. He added this will not be before Council until December or January, so we have a few months to work that out and we do not anticipate any problems. Mr. Bosch asked about checking on the access coming from the existing doctors' offices with the right-in/right-out. Mr. Schultz stated that will be eliminated and there will not be an access point there. Mr. Kramer asked if we know what the impact will be to the existing businesses. Mr. Schultz stated that access off of Hill Road and the drive into Kohl's will remain at this point. Mrs. Hammond stated that as long as the current businesses are there we will make no changes to their access points. Mr. Schultz added Condition 5 does state when Kohl's was constructed that the southern most access point to Kohl's would be eliminated when Stonecreek Drive is extended. Mr. Kramer moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Kramer voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

G. Review and request for a motion to approve a Preliminary Plat 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. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated staff recommends approval with the following 16 conditions and Condition Nos. 4 and 6 have been modified since this was approved in May. He stated they read as follows:

1. That the proposed plan shall be revised to meet the above 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 SR 256.

4. That the developer shall provide access to Rutherford Auto Body property by land acquisition or through City sponsored eminent domain.

5. That the cost of the traffic signal and appurtenances shall be the responsibility of the developer.

6. That the public road extending west through the development shall be a three-lane road (36-ft wide) per the Transportation Improvement Plan.

7. 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.

8. That a 4-ft high undulating mound with the appropriate landscaping shall be installed along SR 256 and a 2-3 ft high undulating mound with the appropriate landscaping shall be installed along the proposed public road.

9. That 6-ft wide sidewalks shall be required along SR 256 and on both sides of the proposed public road.

10. That 6-ft wide sidewalks shall be required along one side of the private road.

11. That each out lot shall have a sidewalk connecting to the public sidewalk system to promote a pedestrian friendly environment.

12. That the developer shall be responsible for preparing the street and sanitary easements vacation plats.

13. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way along SR 256 per the City Thoroughfare Plan.

14. That a Type A buffer is required adjacent to Cherry Hill Subdivision.

15. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.

16. That the plan shall be in compliance with Fire Department requirements.

Mr. Vandervoort stated he was one of the managers with Fairfield Realty Investment and gave a presentation to the Commission (Attachment 1 to these minutes). He stated we would like to move forward to the next step. Mr. Blake asked about conditions 3 and 4. Mr. Schultz stated apparently they cannot purchase the property to provide access to Rutherford, so the City would be willing to facilitate the eminent domain proceedings through Council. Mr. Vandervoort stated the predicament that we find ourselves in is on the drawing there is an estimation of the location of old S.R. 256. He further stated we will be paving and dedicating the right-of-way to the property line that we own and in this zone the City's Thoroughfare Plan suggests that the City is going to modify the access point and begin to modify how they allow the other properties to use Old S.R. 256 and we don't know what the City wants to do with that. Mr. Schultz stated we would want that to be connected with the same width of the current road and we would just own that strip of land. Mr. Vandervoort stated we have gotten the feeling from the City that the procedure and cost of how the City wants to manage this strip is something that we should be giving the City. He further stated that our responsibilities end with us bringing the road to this point and that the City should decide what it wishes to do. Mr. Schultz stated in our discussions it has been incumbent on the developer to make that connection whether through the eminent domain proceedings or to acquire that strip of land. Mr. Vandervoort stated it is our position that we own and control these 10.7 acres and we made a very good faith offer to purchase this property and we have not heard back from Mr. McAuliffe. He further stated that our responsibility to solve this access issue of improving Old S.R. 256 and improving Rutherford is within our property boundaries and how the City chooses to manage this strip is the City's business. Mr. Schultz stated from a zoning perspective Condition No. 3 states that we won't allow another curb cut until the Rutherford curb cut is eliminated because it is too close and creates a dangerous situation. He stated for that to occur access has to be provided to Rutherford and I can't support a plan that eliminates the access for Rutherford. He further stated that apparently City Council will allow the eminent domain proceedings to occur to make that connection. Mr. Bosch asked if the City is willing to go against the Supreme Court's decision. Mr. Hartmann stated that it doesn't go against the Supreme Court decision and I think we are basically getting what we already wanted to happen in our Thoroughfare Plan by them developing it and we are actually benefiting by them putting it in. He further stated what we are doing is moving up what we want to have happen in our plan and what we have to acquire is an access point instead of an entire area. Mr. Hartmann stated there is no economic development going on and it is for the health safety and welfare of the City. Mr. Bosch clarified that the developer is asking the City to do the eminent domain to acquire that access to Rutherford and the City is asking the developer to build that access once the City acquires and has the control of it. He further clarified that we have a private ownership of land between the developer property and the publicly owned Old S.R. 256 property and the City has to take that eminent domain and that is why the developer made the good faith offer and that is the end of their ability to acquire that. Mr. Hartmann added as a benefit, the developer is building that road for us and there certainly isn't any problem with the City using their power of eminent domain. Mr. Bosch clarified that the contention is for a 12 foot wide strip of asphalt and whatever they need to tie it in. Mr. Vandervoort stated they are concerned with whatever that might be, because we do not know how the City wishes to tie it in. He stated if we knew that it was a matter of a certain square footage of asphalt, we would feel more comfortable. He further stated please keep in mind what we have agreed to do, we are paying for the light and interconnecting it to all the other lights and we are putting in your third lane that isn't really necessary. Mr. Schultz stated in the short term we just want a 12 foot connection. Mrs. Hammond clarified that we basically need a driveway. Mr. Schultz stated that we need a driveway to get to Rutherford that is comparable to the existing drive. Mr. Bosch suggested if through the City Engineer we can get the developer what the City will accept as the access, we can put a square footage to that and then whatever that square footage is we take that off the end of their three lane road. Mr. Schultz stated we can discuss various options and we would have to review it. Mr. Vandervoort stated we are very uneasy about the suggestion of being asked to pay for construction, acquisition costs and counsel time and we believe that we have done our part and we are almost being gouged at this point.

Clerk's Note: Mr. Kramer left the meeting at 8:45 due to a prior work commitment

At the request of the Developer, the Commission took a recess at 8:47 P.M. and

reconvened at 8:50 P.M.

Mr. Vandervoort stated we understand the suggestion to be that the additional construction materials and costs can be utilized by tapering our road down so that the asphalt that we have narrowed down would be enough to cover the lane to S.R. 256. Mr. Bosch stated that is my recommendation and obviously the City would have to be amenable to that. Mr. Vandervoort stated they would wholeheartedly support that. Mr. Schultz stated he would have the City Engineer review that to see if it is appropriate. Mr. Schultz stated that we would have to add a condition because that is independent of conditions 3 and 4. Mr. Bosch stated he would propose to add a condition. Mr. Hartmann clarified that we are adding a condition to allow staff to continue the negotiation on these issues. Mr. Bosch stated he would further define that by saying that staff engineer comes up with the requirements of the developer to attach to this, i.e. the width and length of this proposed access connection to Rutherford from the end of their proposed road. He further stated that whatever quantity of materials that is required for that then be deducted from their three lane section and they can work out the details. Mr. Vandervoort stated the concern they have on condition no 3 is that it seems to indicate to us is that we could be ready to open our development and the City could say they are not ready to close the road and that is not within our control. Mr. Bosch asked can we put something in there to address putting the burden of this issue onto the City to have the eminent domain process. Mr. Schultz stated that it ultimately City Council's decision and hopefully this all occurs. Mr. Hartmann asked if there is a timeframe that the project is projected for. Mr. Schultz stated it will March or April before this plat is approved. Mr. Bosch asked now that we are at the preliminary level we have this condition that the City needs to take up with the eminent domain is it possible to have Council do something at this point to give the developer an indication are we going to do that. Mrs. Hammond stated that we would have to wait another month. Mr. Bosch stated he wants to be able to give the developer an answer before they are gearing up for construction. Mr. Schultz stated that is our intent. Mr. Hartmann stated that we probably need to leave the conditions as they are tonight, but this needs to be addressed in the future. He stated he would have a problem with adding anything in there tonight without support for the eminent domain and this issue could be raised at a Service Committee and it is a reasonable thing that the City should try to accommodate. Mr. Vandervoort stated the discussion tonight gives us plenty of comfort that you wish to move us on as they are written and we accept that and thank you for the discussion. Mr. Bosch moved to approve this matter with staff recommendations with an additional Condition No. 17 that the staff engineer defines the requirements to the developer for the access from the end of their three lane section to the Rutherford access and works with their engineers to come up with the quantities to construct it; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passes, 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated BZA approved a deck in George's Creek and the Wine Guy Shop had an outdoor cooler approved in September. He stated there are two cases scheduled for October.

B. FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated there were two cases that dealt with Violet Township. He said one of the cases dealt with Winding Creek Section 5 for a Final Plat extension and there was an applicant for an R1 to be rezoned to C3 that was approved. He further stated there was a hearing on subdivision regulation revisions on Titles 1, 2 and 3 for the incorporated county/township land that was approved.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission. No Report.

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Blake stated in his travels in the construction business he hears a lot of positive things about this board and I think as a City we are facing one of the toughest issues with the Economic Development with Violet Township. He further stated I feel everyone's voice in here needs to be heard and the way you feel about it. He stated that we can agree to disagree and I feel Council is moving back to where they can't agree because it is getting personal and I am going to ask please stop that.

Mr. Bosch stated he had reference material on highway lighting and if anyone needed

the information he would make it available.

C. Discuss Revised Sign Standards- Mr. Schultz stated he will forward the information in next months packets.

D. Discuss Revised Sidewalk Standards- Mr. Blake stated the issue is going from four foot to six foot. Mr. Schultz asked if the issue is with residential and commercial. Mr. Blake stated he questioned the need for residential. Mr. Binkley stated his issue is promoting a shared use path. Mr. Bosch stated if you are wanting to use a sidewalk as a shared use path it is undesirable. Mr. Blake asked about safety issues with bikes and people walking. Mr. Schultz stated ten feet is preferred according to the park master plan and Diley Road is going to be ten feet wide on the west portion and a sidewalk on the other side. He further stated if you can't get ten feet they suggest six feet. Mr. Bosch clarified six foot is the minimum in one direction for multiuse and ten foot is the minimum for two directions, so it's not ten foot with a six foot minimum. Mr. Schultz stated unfortunately we don't have a plan for the City to determine what side we want the bike path on and in lieu of that we are hoping six feet on each side would be better than four feet. Mr. Binkley stated there needs to be a distinction between what you would typically consider a pedestrian sidewalk versus where a bike path is going to be. He further stated we are putting a burden on the developer by doing a blanket six foot sidewalk. Mr. Schultz stated we are not going to go back and make the existing sidewalks six feet, this is for new developments. He further stated we are trying to have some kind of interconnection for the bike paths and this is not a perfect solution. Mr. Binkley stated that is where you need the clarification. Mr. Schultz stated we are working with existing and new developments and we are trying to plan the best we can for the future. Mr. Bosch stated he remembered some of the older developments where we had a dedicated bike path separately from the sidewalk issues. He further stated he had a problem with going from four foot to six foot just because it may turn into a bike path. Mr. Schultz stated this is for the next generation of subdivisions and hopefully by that time we will have a better idea of where these bike paths should be. Mr. Bosch stated it makes more sense to identify the areas and then we will look at specific areas. Mr. Schultz stated we are trying to clean up the code and regardless of whether it is four to six feet we need to make these changes. He stated that we will be having a public hearing on this matter. Mr. Blake clarified that the consensus of Commission was four foot instead of six foot sidewalks. Mr. Schultz asked if the Commission would be willing to support ten foot shared use path on both sides. Mr. Bosch stated we have to talk apples to apples because a sidewalk is a sidewalk and a shared use path is a shared use path. Mr. Schultz asked the Commission if across the board they didn't like six feet or is just for residential or commercial. Mr. Bosch stated passing it across the board because we are not sure what we are going to do is just as bad as not planning for anything. He further stated that we need to plan for what is desirable and if we need to slow to do that we need to. Mr. Blake stated to rush something through is not the answer. Mr. Binkley asked does this pertain only to walks in the public right of way or would this be of walks that a development has. Mr. Schultz stated private developments still have the same conditions today and it becomes whatever is appropriate. Mr. Binkley stated that is a point of clarification that needs to be in the code, because when a developer tries to plan they need to know this up front. Mr. Schultz stated that right now we differentiate for private developments in the code. Mr. Nicholas stated personally he wants to take more time to put some thought into this, and long term we would be helping the community if we think through the actual use. Mr. Schultz stated we will leave this item on the agenda.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Binkley voted "Aye." Motion carried 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:30 P.M., October 10, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning