CITY OF PICKERINGTON

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. England called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows Mr. Smith, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, Mr. Bosch, were present. Mr. Pruden and Mr. Maxey were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Jason Fenton, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 8, 2003, Public Hearing regarding zone change at 150 Hill Road. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. England voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 8, 2003, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. England voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve the rezoning of 28.548+/- acres from AG (Rural District) to R-4 (Residential District) for a single-family development located north of Long Road and south of the railroad tracks and just west of the proposed Long Estates Subdivision for Rockford Homes (Woodward property). (TABLED, 11-12-02)

B. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Pickerington Heating and Cooling at 22 North Center Street. (TABLED, 11-12-02)

C. Review and request for motion to approve a final development plan for Long Estates Phase II a single-family development on approximately 79.89 acres for William Lane located north of Long Road and south of the railroad tracks (Lane property). (TABLED, 11-12-02)

D. Review and request for motion to approve Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru facility for Lot 2 of the Creek Bend Business Park for SR 256 Center, LLC. Mr. Schultz stated this Commission approved the final development plan in August of 2002, and the annexation and final development plan was approved by Council on September 3, 2002. He stated the owner is proposing to construct an 8,034 square foot retail building, and the northern most tenant space would have a drive thru facility. Mr. Schultz stated access to this site from S.R. 256 would be a single curb cut from Clint Drive and that would also provide access for other future uses in the business park. Mr. Schultz stated to allow a drive thru, certain conditions must be met. He stated these conditions are a direct access to a primary arterial, which this would have to S.R. 256; the queue space for stacking cars must be 154 feet, and they are showing approximately 175 feet; the segregation of parking, there is enough room for people to back out of these spaces and not impact the drive thru, however, some of the entrances into the building may be impacted if there are more than two or three cars stacked at one time. Mr. Schultz stated staff recommended the drive thru be stripped to keep people from parking there in the future. He stated fencing and screening is not required, and exterior lighting will be taken care of with the Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting. Mr. Schultz stated a drive thru that does not have a high frequency of use, where three vehicles or more are not stacked at one time, would be the preferred use at this location. He continued fast foods and the like would not be preferred. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the drive thru request with the condition that the drive thru stack area be stripped for identification for patrons. Mr. Bosch inquired if we had the ability to restrict the use of that drive thru since we prefer fast food or the like not go in there. Mr. Schultz stated as it is a commercial use, he was not aware if we could restrict it. Mr. Schultz stated we could put a restriction on the amount of trips that use could have, and that is based on an engineering manual. Mr. Bosch inquired if the City had an ITE Trip Generation Book, and Mr. Schultz stated our engineer probably does, but he has not reviewed it with him. Mr. Bosch stated he would support something like that if our intent is not to have a high use in that drive thru, then that would be one method of restricting that. Mr. Smith stated he concurred with Mr. Bosch. Mr. Schultz stated he could get with the engineer and see if there was a number that coordinated with fast food. He further stated the applicant was thinking of something like a film processing window or a dry cleaning operation which would typically not have a frequent use. Mr. Smith stated if we approved it and there were no restrictions in place, then we would have no control. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct unless we put a condition in the approval that based on the engineering manual that whatever number that happens to be, that it is less than that. Mr. Bosch stated that was correct. Mr. Nicholas inquired if we could restrict hours of operation, and Mr. Bosch stated he felt if we restricted the number of trips that would cut out fast food establishments and a high traffic volume. Mr. Bosch stated as tight as this space is, and there is one entrance and one exit, you don’t want a high traffic drive thru. Mr. Smith inquired if the applicant would agree in this forum to only have that limited use, then could we have that restriction. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant could agree, but if the property changed hands he was not sure we could enforce that. Mr. Smith clarified that even though this is a planned district, if there is a change in tenants, they do not have to come before this Commission, but if they change the site plan or building materials they would have to come back before this Commission. Mr. Fenton stated he was representing the applicant and primarily what they were proposing was a retail drive thru, something that is not along the lines of a restaurant. Mr. Bosch inquired if the applicant would have any objection to a restriction through the ITE trip Generation Book, that provides standard numbers for trip ins. He stated as the City does desire a lower volume use, they could approve it conditioned upon a maximum number of trip ins to keep out the fast food. Mr. Fenton stated again the intent is to have a retail drive thru like a dry cleaner or a photo shop drive thru and their intention is not to have a fast food establishment. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use for the Drive Thru facility with the caveat of having the City Engineer come up with the correct maximum number of trip ins based upon the ITE Trip Generation Book; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. England, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

E. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of appropriateness for building materials for Lots 1 and 2 of the Creek Bend Business Park for SR 256 Center, LLC. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct two 8,034 square foot spec retail use buildings. He stated the primary access would be from a single curb cut from S.R. 256 to Cross Creeks Boulevard, and a full movement cut east of the buildings on Clint Drive would provide the primary access to the subject site. He stated a right-in/right-out curb cut would be located on Cross Creeks Boulevard adjacent to the Exon Station. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan identifies 135 parking spaces which would be sufficient depending on specific tenants, and parking calculations would be required when each tenant space is leased. He further stated storm water would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet all of the zoning requirements and has sufficient area to accommodate interior and perimeter landscaping requirements. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing a full movement curb cut on Cross Creeks Boulevard, and after 18 months a right-in/right-out curb cut would be installed. He stated a bond would be posted to ensure construction. Mr. Schultz stated the City Engineer and staff has reviewed the plan and determined the right-in/right-out curb cut should be constructed immediately and would be the preferred alternative. Mr. Schultz stated a full movement curb cut is not feasible because it would not meet the distance requirement of 300 feet between curb cuts and it is not adjacent to the Exon gas station curb cut. Mr. Schultz stated because the streets are private, the City cannot accept a bond and construct the right-in/right-out, and there could also be some liability issues because the street would not be constructed to city standards. Mr. Schultz stated further the tenants would likely be against such a curb cut restriction in 18 months. Mr. Schultz stated this would also create a dangerous situation because the curb cut at the Exon station would be off set from this curb cut. Mr. Schultz stated with regard to building materials, the front elevation would have two primary entrance features with the potential of four other entrance doors in a combination of red brick, white limestone, and beige fiber-cement siding and trim. He stated the large bay windows would comprise the front elevation. Mr. Schultz stated this Commission needs to determine if the windows should be divided into smaller grids. Mr. Schultz continued the east elevation would be comprised of the same materials, and there would be six metal doors along this elevation. The north and south elevations would also be comprised of the same materials, but there would be three windows on each side of those elevations. The roof would be pitched with weather redwood shingles, a beige fiber-cement siding and trim fence would screen the mechanical equipment on the east rear portion of the roof. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions that the right-in/right-out curb cut on Cross Creeks Boulevard shall be constructed prior to the occupancy of the buildings, and that the site and buildings shall be constructed per the site plan and building materials as submitted. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant would have to come back to this Commission for landscaping, lighting, and signage certificates as this project progresses.

Mr. Bosch stated he has another access issue dealing with the curb cuts on S.R. 256. He stated on all of the right-in/right-out, he does not see anything that restricts that. He stated he would request that we have a right-in/right-out island that is as restrictive as possible. Mr. Schultz stated he agreed and he felt we needed to have our engineering standards upgraded, and perhaps more signage. Mr. Bosch stated his preference would be to see just a right out at this location, rather than a right-in/right out. Mr. Schultz stated he felt part of the pre-annexation agreement contained a right-in/right-out at the north, so we may be forced to have that. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to have that verified, but at the very least for this specific development he would like to see a concrete island put in. Mr. Schultz stated he agreed with Mr. Bosch, and he would like to speak with our engineer to see if we can get some kind of detail or spec that would make it harder for people to turn left into these right-in/right-out curb cuts. Mr. Smith stated if there are pre-annexation agreements the City is bound by, he would like to have copies of that provided to this Commission when they are reviewing the developments.

Mr. Nicholas clarified the screening on the rear elevation was made of a vinyl fence that would match the hardy plank. Mr. Nicholas stated further he had looked at the Barnes and Noble cent was made of a vinyl fence that would match the hardy plank. Mr. Nicholas stated further he had looked at the Barnes and Noble center and they have a brick knee wall approximately two feet high. Mr. Nicholas stated what bothered him about this plan was all the glass without breaking it up. He stated further he understood that to put in store front mullions could be difficult to work out and be cost effective. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not know if he could support this development with all of that glass and questioned if they could do something architecturally with the store front or using the same cultured stone and create a knee wall underneath the glass at the same height as the water table. Mr. Fenton stated they are set back quite a bit from the road and there will be mounding and screening along S.R. 256 and the various landscaping in the parking area. He stated this is the design the architect came up with and is very typical with their retail centers. He stated in terms of breaking up the face of the building, he would have to speak to the architect. Mr. Bosch stated what he had noticed was the building looked very tall because they didn’t have that water table along the bottom to break it up and give it some scale. Mr. Bosch stated he had also looked at the Cross Creeks center where they have the windows set up and nice landscaping along the front of the businesses there. Mr. Nicholas stated if this Commission made the recommendation that they put the stone water table, the only thing that would interrupt the water table would be doors, and architecturally that would make sense. Mr. Fenton stated he could not give a full answer, but this is the design they felt comfortable with and was their preference. Mr. Bosch stated he felt it would be easier to table this and allow Mr. Fenton to communicate with the developer to see how he felt about this issue. Mr. Nicholas stated the two things he saw were a water table of stone or do something to break up all the glass with additional mullions. He stated his preference would be to see the stone continuing underneath the windows, and on the side elevations as well. Mr. Nicholas moved to Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0. (TABLED)

F. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of appropriateness for the Fairfield Oral Surgery at 1575 CrossCreeks Boulevard (former Manor House). Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is renovating the former Manor House to accommodate professional offices and the site plan meets zoning requirements. He stated the north elevation would have new wood siding installed where necessary and painted to match the existing siding. He stated the south elevation would have a new main entrance comprised of stone veneer, new glass block, new wood siding, a new window replacing the old window, and the remainder of the elevation would be comprised of the existing stone veneer and existing wood repainted. The east elevation would have new aluminum storefront windows, new wood siding, new glass block, and a new dormer along with the existing stone veneer, and the west elevation would be similar to the east elevation. Mr. Schultz stated the clay roof would be repaired or replaced as necessary, and again the Commission will have to determine if the windows need to be divided into smaller grids. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the certificate of appropriateness for building materials with the condition that the building be constructed per the submitted plans. Mr. Bosch stated what he had noticed on this was the glass block because this is a colonial type development and the glass block just seems out of place. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not see the balance of the north elevation on the plans they had received to show what the back of the building would look like. He stated his concern was what the neighbors view from the north, on the other side of the creek, would look like. He stated he would need to see the balance of the creek side elevation before he could make a recommendation on this. He stated he was also concerned about the amount of glass block as this is a colonial type development and this is introducing a more contemporary architecture. Mr. Nicholas stated further he further noticed on the south elevation, they were missing another four inch sill under the existing three windows, and did this Commission want to let the glass go all the way to grade, but he felt something needed to be done with the expanse of glass. Mr. Nicholas further stated at a previous meeting a submission was made and the applicant was not present, so it was tabled. Mr. Nicholas continued Mr. Schultz has asked him to contact the architect and explain in architectural terms what the Commission was thinking about, and he would be glad to do that if the Commission wanted to table this item. Mr. Nicholas moved to table; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0. (TABLED)

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board had two cases on their agenda last month that were approved. He stated they have one item on their agenda this month that is for the building setback and parking variance for Donley Concrete and Cutting.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated they had approved a minor roadway variance for the Violet Meadows subdivision.

5. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Nicholas stated directional signage for the CrossCreeks development had been approved by this Commission. He stated he could not recall exactly, but he felt what they approved was approximately 2-1/2 to 3 feet tall, and he has noticed that the directional sign for Edward Warren is approximately 6 feet tall. He stated he would like to have staff check into that and advise the developer to lower that sign as soon as possible. Mr. Nicholas further stated he would like to request that the Commission receive site plans that show surrounding buildings, in schematic not in detail, so they can see what is happening around the area. Mr. Bosch stated he concurred and where he saw it being beneficial would be in cases like this evening so they could see where curb cuts line up, etc. Mr. Nicholas stated he would suggest that all adjacent streets and properties be shown, in schematic only, in a plan so they could see for planning purposes what the overall scheme of the development is, specifically when it comes to commercial developments. Mr. Schultz stated he would look into that and make it a requirement when appropriate.

A. Tree Commission. No report.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Smith, Mr. England, and Mr. Nicholas voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:13 P.M., May 13, 2003.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ______________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning