PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007
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: Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr. Binkley was absent due to a work related assignment. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Brenda VanCleave, Craig Gunther, David Donley, Dan Heitmeyer, Gary Smith, Chad Flowers, Steve Fox, Phil Hartmann, Stacey Bashore, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF February 22, 2007, Regular Meeting-
Mr. Nicholas requested that the discussion on Page 10 regarding appointing a
vice-chair be labeled 3A. Mr. Nicholas
moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with
Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nicholas voting
"Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage for Donley Concrete Company located at 150 West Borland Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:
1. That the sign shall have a matte finish.
2. That the sign area shall not exceed 30 square feet (2-ft tall by 15-ft wide).
3. That the lot split with the City (for the land fronting SR 256) shall be approved and recorded at the Fairfield County recorders office prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate for signage.
Mr. Donley stated the only
comment he had was regarding condition three, because they have a sign company
ready to go and they are trying to get it resolved. He continued that two years ago they had
given paperwork to the City that had been lost and they didn't realize it never
got filed, so we have filed the paperwork again. He further stated everything is in motion to,
but he didn't want it to hold them up.
Mr. Schultz stated that Mr. Donley was correct and the information that
was previously submitted got misplaced.
He continued that Council accepted the property about six to eight
months ago, but the County Engineer will not approve the survey they provided,
so right now it is between the surveyor and the County Engineer. Mr. Blake asked why the County didn't accept
the survey and Mr. Schultz stated there was a list of items the County Engineer
had and they forwarded it to the surveyor and they didn't comply with what the
County requires. Mr. Blake clarified
that this went back to the original rezoning of the building. Mr. Schultz stated the condition of the
rezoning was that this property be dedicated to the City because the neighbors
opposed the rezoning until we negotiated that condition, because they wanted
that property to be parkland and not industrial or commercial. Mr. Blake asked if the City and Mr. Donley
were on the same page at this point and Mr. Schultz stated we agree that it
needs to be done, however we accepted parkland a few months ago and it can't be
recorded to the City until their surveyor prepares the appropriate
documentation. He continued that it is
in the applicant's hands to make sure that the right information is given to
the County. Mr. Donley agreed with Mr.
Schultz and the surveyor has told them
that he will finish the job, so it is in process. Mr. Blake asked what the City's stance was on
going ahead with the signage and Mr. Schultz stated we discussed this at staff
level and Condition Three is what staff's recommendation is before the sign is
installed. Mr. Blake asked if there was
any wording that would allow Mr. Donley to go ahead with the plan and still
cover the City in the event it doesn't happen.
Mr. Hartmann stated the Commission has the option of passing with or without
that condition, but if you pass without it you are trusting that Mr. Donley
will take care of the problem. He
further stated he had some calls from Mr. Donley trying to track down the
information, so it has been a frustrating process for all of staff and for
them, but there is no way to protect making sure it gets done without that
condition. Mr. Hackworth asked how
Council accepted it and Mr. Schultz stated the legal description and the survey
has to be accepted by the City before the County can record it. Mr. Hartmann added this wasn't uncommon and
when it was taken to be recorded, the recorder's office wouldn't accept it,
because there are some strict issues that they have. He further stated they will not record it
without the City's acceptance of the property. Mr. Bosch stated we need to hold up staff's
recommendation and help get this to an end by making that a condition. Mr. Sauer stated he would side with
staff. Mr. Nicholas stated he would be
supportive of a motion that would go ahead and let Mr. Donley install the sign
with a time limit of the recording being 90 days, so they can take care of the
recording. Mr. Hartmann stated that was
fine, but the only problem would be who would take down the sign in 90 days if
it wasn't recorded. Mr. Blake asked if
there should be a fourth condition added and Mr. Hartman stated you would just
need to revise the third condition and suggested "shall be approved and
recorded in the Fairfield County Recorder's Office within 90 days of the
issuance of the zoning certificate."
Mr. Blake clarified that there was no question over whose responsibility
it was to have it recorded. Mr. Blake
asked if the developer felt comfortable with taking care of this within 90 days
at their expense and Mr. Donley stated he didn't see any issue with that. Mr. Hartmann stated it could be recorded as
soon as the surveyor corrects the issues. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff
recommendations and with the revision of Condition No. 3 that states
"shall be approved and recorded in the Fairfield County Recorder's office
within 90 days of the issuance of the zoning certificate"; Mr. Sauer
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake
voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage for Advanced Auto Parts at 1320 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated at this time staff does not support the plan. Mr. Schultz stated this sign is similar to a sign that was denied by the Commission a few years ago. The Commission determined there was no one there to speak to the application. Mr. Hackworth asked if the signs were already up and Mr. Schultz stated they have been up for a few months, so our Code Enforcement Officer wrote them a letter stating they had to come down or come back to Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. Mr. Hartmann clarified by approving the staff recommendations you are disapproving the sign. Mr. Sauer moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for approximately 8.76 acres from AG Rural District to PC2 Planned Central Business/Mixed Use District for a Spa, Bed and Breakfast and Office Development at 376 Hill Road South located just west of Pickerington Central High School (Heitmeyer). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following conditions:
1. That the side yard building setbacks shall be reduced from 25-ft to 20-ft with the parking setback being reduced from 15-ft to 12-ft.
2. That the rear yard (east) buildings setback shall be reduced from 50-ft to 20-ft with the parking setback being reduced from 30-ft to 12-ft.
3. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.
4. That a traffic impact study shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City Engineer.
5. That the private roads shall be constructed to public street standards.
6. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way along Hill Road South per the City Thoroughfare Plan.
7. That the required number of parking spaces shall be reduced from 153 to 147.
8. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
9. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the fire department requirements.
10. That a grading plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to final development submittal.
Gary Smith stated he was there on behalf of Bird Houk Collaborative and introduced Dan Heitmeyer, Chad Flowers, and Steve Fox, who could answer any questions as well. Mr. Smith thanked the Commission for allowing them to present and gave an overview of the project with a power point presentation. Mr. Smith stated they were basically there to ask for a rezoning of the property from AG-Agricultural to PC2 Planned Central Business/Mixed Use District. Mr. Smith reviewed the project goals with the Commission and stated that if the Bed & Breakfast isn't economically feasible they could still potentially renovate the existing house into an office. He stated they integrated into this zoning a high level of architectural standard and they are committed to developing a quality project and showed examples of detailing that could be used on the buildings. He further stated they hoped to break up the mass of the buildings and give it more of a residential feel. He continued that they have committed to a high quality of materials and one of the things they would like to discuss is whether or not they could back away from their commitment of 40 percent brick, because when they submitted the plans they hadn't looked at any specific architecture. Mr. Blake asked if the Commission was addressing that issue and Mr. Schultz clarified that each building would come back for Certificate of Appropriateness, however in the Planned District we can address it and make that a condition. Mr. Smith clarified that they could amend that percentage requirement on the Final Development Plan approval. He stated they don't anticipate any of the buildings being two-story, there is an option for that, but given the requirements it really isn't economically feasible. Mr. Smith stated the signage would be designed to be compatible with the architecture and will be similar materials. Mr. Smith stated one of their concerns is the tree replacement issue, because this is a heavily wooded site, and wanted to get the Commission's feedback on that. He further stated they do not have any issues with the other conditions.
Mr. Blake determined there were no comments either for or against the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Schultz stated we received a memo from the Chairman of the Tree Commission, Steve Malone regarding his concerns with the trees. Mr. Schultz recommended that the City and the developer meet with Mr. Malone to discuss the issues. He further stated our tree preservation ordinance allows the City Manager or designee to waive some of the requirements, particularly if they are being environmentally sensitive to the area. Mr. VanCleave stated the developer has worked very well with us to make sure that we protect that stream buffer area, including preserving the trees. Mr. Hartmann commented with regard to the Tree Preservation Ordinance it is somewhat odd that it puts all the right to create exemptions under the City Manager and working with Ms. Gilleland in the past, she would definitely like to hear other input before she makes those decisions. Mr. Hackworth stated he has driven by that property for a long time and he suspected that many of those trees were not quality trees. He asked if any attempt was made to break down these 345 trees into actual useful trees. Mr. Schultz stated the suggestion would be that Mr. Malone, City staff, and the developer walk the site to get a better feel for it. Mr. Hackworth stated the trees that are along the creek bank are safety issues and he feels like there are a lot of trees there that should come out. Ms. VanCleave stated it is a very steep bank and if some of the roots remain it will help stabilize that bank. She further stated the Commission has the ability to waive our Stream Protection requirements through Council, but it is not needed with their site plan, because they have made the changes with their site plan to protect that stream zone. Mr. Hackworth stated he has not seen where those trees protect erosion, and he thinks some of the trees are not worth keeping. He further stated from an engineering standpoint he didn't know if the proper drainage would be there without taking those trees out. Mr. Schultz stated we agree with that and we will work with the developer, so there is some middle ground here. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the pond runoff issue from the high school's blacktop had been taken care of. Mr. Hackworth asked if there would have to be traffic study for the drive thru coffee shop and Mr. Schultz stated the impact study would take into account all of the proposed uses. Mr. Blake asked if the access concern on the Fire Department issues were looked into and Ms. VanCleave stated she had discussions with Jim Holcomb and the second access may be tricky because the sight distance becomes an issue. Mr. Schultz stated one potential alternative would be a secondary access point from the school parking lot and it would have to be negotiated with the school. Ms. VanCleave stated it would also be a part of the traffic study. Mr. Fox stated they are willing to investigate the options and see if they could get a possible temporary access from the school for emergencies. Mr. Bosch stated his main concerns were traffic issues, especially with being in close proximity of new drivers at the school. He further stated the site distance issue was another concern, but looking at the grading plan, the drive is at the optimal position. He continued that a lot of those issues will be addressed with the traffic impact study and he was assuming it would be based upon full build out at the optimal use. Mr. Sauer stated the development looks like it goes very well with the area and his concern was that he preferred to see as many of the trees kept as possible to preserve the character of the area. Mr. Sauer commended the developer on preserving the pond. He further stated he would be interested to see the numbers regarding the wood, stone and brick based on upon the buildings that would be developed. Mr. Smith stated that he felt like the 40 percent may have been jumping the gun and it relates more the actual architecture and the kind of product they would be developing. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the eastern end of the pond would be reconfigured to accept the roadway. He further stated he trusted Staff working with the applicant to get the stream and tree issues taken care of. Mr. Nicholas stated he was sure that the applicant would work very hard at trying to come to some conclusion with respect to their budget and the City's requirements and needs. He suggested he would be agreeable to having the applicant purchase seedlings for the elementary schools to plant in parks as a community improvement. Mr. Hackworth asked what size line would be supplying the water and Mr. Flowers stated it would be about an eight inch line. Mr. Schultz stated the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance was not to restrict development, but to create environmentally sensitive development and he felt like we were on that path. Mr. Schultz clarified that the developer be prepared at the Final Development Plan to determine whether there would be a bed and breakfast or an office at the existing business. Mr. Nicholas stated that he agreed with the suggestion on the usage of the percentage of materials, but when it comes back it may be a different percentage. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations and that the applicant would work through the tree preservation concerns with staff; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to approve an amended Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Landscaping for a 48,882 square foot retail building at the Shoppes at Stonecreek located just south of Kohl's. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following nine conditions:
1. That the dumpsters shall be screened with brick that matches the building and have wooden doors.
2. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
3. That the materials, design, colors, etc of the building shall match the submitted plans and shall be compliant with the City architectural consultant's recommendations.
4. That a brick water table shall extend the length of the front elevation and side returns.
5. That a 3-foot high undulating mound shall be installed with continuous landscaping along proposed Stonecreek Drive South to the rear of the south elevation of the building.
6. That pines trees 5-ft tall at installation on a 2-3-ft high mound shall be planted between the rear of the south elevation of the building and the western most access drive that extends north along the rear access drive approximately 60-ft.
7. That the site plan shall be in accordance with BZA conditions approved on November 30, 2006.
8. That the development shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
9. That the development shall comply with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.
Mr. Ford stated he was with Ford and Associates Architects and stated the change was primarily initiated by the anchor tenant which is Lifestyle Fitness. He further stated they have worked with Lifestyle in terms of the overall parapet design and store front layout and we tried to incorporate some of that detailing along the face of the building. Mr. Ford presented and reviewed examples of the building materials to the Commission that would be on the west side of the building. He stated that the north side of the building would be the same color of materials and would approximate the same size and coloration of our brick units. Mr. Ford stated they didn't have any issues with Staff Conditions, but wanted to discuss the panel along the bottom of the store front which would be a raised aluminum panel for easier relocation of tenants. Mr. Schultz stated initially the entire development was brick and we met several times with the developer and Mr. Stacy is comfortable with the combination of brick and block material that looks like brick. Mr. Schultz clarified that the developer proposed 8x16 units on the rear of the building at their last meeting. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the footprint of building had not changed and asked if the site plan where the driveway from Stonecreek had changed. Mr. Ford stated that the site plan had not changed other than in the rear where we extended an island and wrapped it further around that allows more landscaping. Mr. Schultz stated that the amount of brick that was initially approved in November and what is on the front and sides was not the same. Mr. Blake asked what the difference was between the proposed product and split face block and Mr. Nicholas stated the last building we approved had a product that was not as jagged and was more rounded. Mr. Ford stated the reason why they like this product over the split face is they can get a range of color, so when you get them in a large field you see a color range within. He further stated we would use a colored grout in the same family of colors. Mr. Schultz stated from staff's perspective the difference between this and the buildings last month was those buildings had road frontage on all four sides and this is for the back of this building. Mr. Bosch stated he always asks for consistency, because to him it doesn't look any different from an 8x16 concrete block that is painted. Mr. Bosch stated the colors look fine, but it is more the feel of the building and consistency was his issue. Mr. Sauer stated the first thing he circled was the water table and would prefer it to be brick or masonry to tie in with the character of the community. He further stated he like the look of the previous building and would prefer to see the roofs. Mr. Blake clarified that this proposal was designed around the anchor tenant. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicant was okay with the staff recommendations including the water table. He further stated we have really tried as a Commission to remain consistent with all applicants, however, he concurred with the favorability of the previously approved building. He continued that we have approved previous buildings to tie in with the character of area. Mr. Nicholas asked if we kept our approval from November would Lifestyle be alright with that. Mr. Gunther stated he would have to review that with them, but that is not something they had considered. Mr. Schultz stated Staff's architectural consultant approved this design and staff supports it. Mr. Nicholas stated his personal preference would be to go to the 4x16 units on the west elevation, but staff does not have a problem with the 8x16. Mr. Ford stated the rear elevation is a larger scale. Mr. Nicholas suggested putting a vertical element to break up the taller part of the west elevation and keeping the front façade as they proposed. Mr. Bosch stated he never had a problem with using the 8x16 and he felt like it would solve a lot of our problems with future applicants. Mr. Blake stated his biggest issue is consistency. Mr. Ford stated they could address the west elevation and do some detailing on the corners. Mr. Sauer stated he didn't have any problems with the materials being used on the back and the visual appeal on S.R. 256 is very important. Mr. Ford stated maybe the option is to keep the Lifestyle section similar to meet their desires, but then you extend the shingled dimensional roof back to it and eliminate more of the horizontal. He stated it would be more of getting a pitched roof as opposed to the horizontal parapet. Mr. Bosch stated some of it is the square nature of that versus when you look at the previously approved building that breaks the straight line up. Mr. Ford stated we are on a critical path as far as time goes and they would like to come to an agreement with the City. Mr. Ford stated we could do pilasters wrapping around on the west side of the northwester corner and southwest corner of the Lifestyle building like the southwest corner. Mr. Hartmann stated it sounds like there are two changes to the current structure that have been presented that could be created as conditions with staff's approval. Mr. Bosch asked if it would be possible that at the far left of the front to go with some type of hip roof so we can tie it in with the other buildings over there, so it blends in with the shingles. Mr. Ford stated it would not be his preference to do that. Mr. Nicholas summarized if we are leaning toward approving this with moving the two bay unit over and flanking the shingles and then wrapping the two back corners of Lifestyle with the tower type elements, he felt that the far left end of the east elevation should stay as it is. He further stated he didn't feel it would be too distant from what staff was recommending. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicant was okay with the conversations they have had. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the new design with staff recommendations and with the addition of moving the two bay element on the east elevation to the south flanking it with shingles, and on the backside of the Lifestyle section on the west elevation that those two corners receive tower type elements similar to what is shown on the north building elevation; Mr. Bosch seconded. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Director
(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated that BZA approved a house addition in the Melrose subdivision and there are no agenda items for March.
(2) FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated their zoning issue near Pickerington was renaming a subdivision from Spring Creek to Peyton's Ridge because they were worried about calls for fires. Mr. Schultz stated that subdivision does not connect to Spring Creek.
B. Planning Studies- Mr. Schultz stated that we will be having our work session tomorrow night with the consultants to discuss Commercial Design Guidelines and the Diley Road Corridor Study.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. - No Report.
B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Blake stated we have went five months without another member and whoever is responsible for not getting us a member needs to come talk to the Commission. He further stated they are short sighting us and it is not fair to any applicant that comes before this Commission. Mr. Nicholas stated it is more for the applicants sakes. Mr. Schultz stated he would forward the comments. Mr. Nicholas requested the Code Enforcement Officer look at the sign by Villas at Milnor Crossing, to see whether it was approved that way or not approved at all.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Binkley voted "Aye." Motion carried 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:40 P.M. on March 13, 2007.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz
Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning