PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 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, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Bosch were present. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Stacey Bashore, William Snider, Jeff Roederer, Ernie Vacca, Deb Chuvalas, Rick Kurnut, Harold Chapman, Jim Harkin and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF March 13, 2007, Regular Meeting- Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and 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 Rezoning for approximately 0.709 acres from R-6 Residential to C3 Community Commercial at 490 Hill Road North (Chapman Property). Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the commission and stated that staff supports with the following condition:

1. That the current owner shall utilize the property as a residential use until it is converted to a commercial use.

Mr. Schultz stated that the owner of the property was present. Mr. Binkley asked how the owner was served with utilities and Mr. Chapman stated he was on a septic and well system. Mr. Binkley asked how these parcels may be served in the future and Mr. Schultz stated it would be in the City and there is a City line that is near there. He further stated that is why staff is concerned that all the parcels come in together. Mr. Hackworth asked about the access for the assisted living facility and Mr. Schultz stated that any access to this site, if it converts to commercial, would have to go through a Certificate of Appropriateness approval and would be reviewed at that time. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Pickerington Pub located at 841 Hill Road North in the Drug Mart Plaza. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated staff supports with the following condition:

1. That the owner of the shopping plaza shall submit a letter approving the bar use.

Mr. Henderson stated there was a letter distributed from the owner of the plaza that gave their approval. Mr. Hartmann stated if the Commission had any issues with the outdoor seating, it should be considered within the Conditional Use perimeters and not during the Certificate of Appropriateness. He clarified that the Commission has the ability to make a condition regarding the use of the patio during the Conditional Use. Mr. Vacca introduced himself as part owner of the pub. Mr. Hackworth stated he had a lot of troubles with an outdoor patio, but that he didn't have a lot of problems with the bar itself. He stated that there may be an issue with behavior and language being so close to the public going up and down the sidewalk. Mr. Henderson clarified that we are talking about three patios one in the rear and then the front patio is combined with one for the pizzeria. Mr. Bosch asked if the rear patio would have tables and Mr. Vacca stated there would be picnic benches. Mr. Bosch clarified that the Beef O'Brady's fence was similar to what was being proposed for the front patio. Mr. Schultz stated that the conditions that were imposed on Beef O'Brady's, such as the patio being closed at Midnight and no audio equipment, would be the same. Mr. Bosch clarified that we are discussing whether we want the bar and patio as a conditional use because after we do this we are only talking about how it looks. Mr. Hackworth asked what would be between the bar and the Drug Mart and Mr. Vacca stated there would be a sidewalk. Mr. Bosch clarified that front door of the bar would come out into the patio area and anyone coming from Drug Mart would have to walk in front of the triangle section of the patio. He further clarified people would not have to walk through the patio to get to Drug Mart. Mr. Schultz clarified that the front patio would be a combined effort with Pizzeria New York and the bar, and the rear patio is only for the bar. Mr. Binkley asked if the access issue with this site had ever been fixed and Mr. Schultz stated we are negotiating with Drug Mart on a revised access plan and the rear patio would comply with that revised access plan. Mr. Binkley asked if additional dumpsters would be needed due to the change in use and Mr. Schultz stated that would be more of a tenant requirement and that area will be revised in the revised access plan. Mr. Binkley asked if the parking ratio was meeting code and Mr. Schultz stated that information hadn't been provided. Mr. Binkley stated he shared Mr. Hackworth's concern, but this sits back in the center and most of the people are parking in front of Drug Mart and he didn't see it as being a huge problem. Mr. Sauer asked if the landscaping that was there would be high enough to conceal the patio area and Mr. Vacca stated they want the landscaping to be a nice buffer and almost to where you can't see the fence. Mr. Sauer stated he has concerns with the environment of the patio in terms of it being a bar, but if the bushes are high enough it would make him feel a lot better. Mr. Vacca stated they are looking at establishing a nice Irish pub and they don't want to raise any concerns. Mr. Blake asked for clarification regarding the staff recommendation on speakers or sound devices in the patio area and whether that would include televisions with speakers and Mr. Schultz stated it would. Mr. Hackworth clarified that there would be no roof over the patio other than over the back sidewalk. Mr. Schultz stated the applicants would have to come back if they wanted the patio to be enclosed. Mr. Blake asked if there were any conditions that could be put on if this becomes a nuisance and how that worked with the City Code and Police enforcement. Mr. Hartmann stated there are already code sections in place to allow code enforcement to monitor the noise levels and we would need to review that. He stated that the conditions that you put on with respect to the noise and speakers are certainly ways to help prevent it. Mr. Schultz stated the Police Department has some noise level enforcement as well. Mr. Hartmann stated that the Police Department would monitor those issues after hours. Mr. Hackworth asked about egress from the building in case of an emergency and Mr. Schultz stated that the interior of the patio would be reviewed by the Building Department and they would ensure that there was appropriate access. Mr. Hackworth asked if there was a possibility that the applicant could enlarge the patio in the back and reduce the patio in the front. Mr. Vacca stated they are in compliance with an electrical box in the back and any larger than that may start infringing on the other areas. Mr. Hackworth asked if there would be any air movement devices for the front patio to pull the smoke away from the sidewalk and Mr. Vacca answered no. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the tables and chairs would be left out year around. Mr. Henderson clarified that the fence would be four feet in height. Mr. Hackworth stated he was having a lot of trouble with the patio out front and didn't know how the Commission could put any restrictions on it if it becomes a problem. Mr. Hartmann clarified that if the Commission was against the bar having outdoor seating and you wanted to pass a Conditional Use, you should prohibit in the Conditional Use outdoor seating at that time and you will still have the opportunity to review landscape issues and hours of operations once you decide to approve it. Mr. Hackworth stated he didn't have a problem with the bar itself, but the outdoor seating bothered him. Mr. Binkley moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake abstaining, Mr. Hackworth voting "Nay" and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed 4-1.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for Pickerington Pub and Pizzeria New York at 841 Hill Road North in the Drug Mart Plaza. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following seven conditions:

1. That the patio furniture shall be black metal tables and chairs.

2. That the black aluminum fence shall be 4-ft high.

3. That the Violet Township Fire Department concerns shall be met prior to zoning certificate approval.

4. That the rear patio shall comply with the revised Drug Mart Access Plan

as approved by the City Engineer.

5. That the owner of the shopping plaza shall submit a letter approving each

patio use and design.

6. That no music speakers or any other type of sound devices shall be located in any outdoor patio area.

7. That the outdoor patios shall be closed for business at midnight.

Mr. Schultz stated that Condition 6 and 7 are similar to Beef O'Brady's conditions. Mr. Vacca requested that the back patio be allowed to be open until close. Mr. Hackworth clarified that closing time was at 2:30 a.m. Mr. Nicholas stated his concern was egress out of the patio and traffic flow on the sidewalks. He stated his concern was people being able to hide in a nook, so he would like to see the fence brought out to the edge of the landscape that is shown. Mr. Schultz clarified that it would restrict access back there. Mr. Nicholas stated if we eliminated the fence that is parallel with the Drug Mart wall, that would give them an additional seven feet to push back away from the public sidewalk out front. He clarified that the fence along the edge of the sidewalk would all move back. Mr. Blake clarified that it wouldn't enlarge the patio area as much as it would give a better buffer to the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicant understood what was being proposed. Mr. Nicholas further clarified that the applicant realized they would have to provide an unlocked outswing gate on the front patio. He stated he was concerned with what would keep people from wandering out from the back patio with open containers. Mr. Nicholas clarified that there would not be any additional or special lighting on either patio. Mr. Nicholas stated with moving the fence back there would be a seven to eight foot landscape buffer between the sidewalks and the four foot fence, so he didn't feel the landscape needed to be taller than four feet there. Mr. Schultz clarified that moving the patio would not affect Pizzeria New York's patio. The Commission agreed to allow Staff review with the applicant the appropriate amount of landscaping and type. Mr. Schultz clarified that it would be a condition. Mr. Nicholas reviewed that the landscaping should not be higher than four feet at maturation close to the fence. Mr. Sauer asked the applicant if they were planning on allowing patrons to smoke out front and Mr. Vacca answered it would be within the realm of the law. Mr. Sauer stated his concern was with smoke blowing out where people will be walking by. Mr. Hartmann stated it wouldn't fall under the Commission's realm of restriction, but it would fall under the current law and he didn't know what the restriction was with how far away from entrances it should be. Mr. Bosch stated it was set at 20 feet. Mr. Binkley stated he liked fact that we are getting new blood in the center and Mr. Bosch agreed. Mr. Bosch stated he supported the suggestion of moving the front back and widening the ingress/egress. Mr. Hackworth asked the applicant if they would be willing to install air movement devices if the cigarette smoke becomes a problem and would we have any power to require it. Mr. Hartmann stated if we are going to do something relating to our power of home rule it should be done as a Code Amendment instead of a patio at a time. He continued that it should be addressed at Council if someone wanted to add restrictions beyond the State Law Smoking ban. Mr. Blake clarified that Mr. Holcomb's comments would be addressed. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if the applicant wanted to put a canopy over the patio they would have to come back for approval. Mr. Vacca asked if the back patio could be open until close and Mr. Nicholas suggested it close at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Hackworth asked how they would know what was going on in the back patio and Mr. Vacca stated there would be a camera and the front would not be covered. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations with the revision to Condition 6 including any audio/visual equipment and the revision to Condition 7 that the front patio would be closed at midnight and the rear patio would be closed at 2:00 a.m.; and with the addition of Condition 8 that the applicant will work with staff to a mutually agreeable landscape plan to include landscaping that will be three to four foot high at maturation at the fence and lower toward the sidewalk; and Condition 9 that no additional lighting will be approved; and Condition 10 that the fence would be extended to the Drug Mart building and the patio would be moved seven feet toward the Drug Mart building and seven feet away from the entry sidewalk as outlined on the attached drawings; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

D. Review and request for a motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for the Shops at Hill Road, a 20,020 square foot Retail Development located on S.R. 256 just south of Cross Creeks Boulevard (Exxon Gas Station Site). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following nine conditions:

1. That all the signage and graphics have a matte finish.

2. That all ground signs should be located 5-ft from property line and

outside the site triangle.

3. That the height of the northern most ground sign shall not exceed 9-ft

above the elevation of the sidewalk adjacent to the sign.

4. That the height of the southern most ground sign shall not exceed 17-ft

above the elevation of the sidewalk adjacent to the sign.

5. That each building shall be limited to three colors.

6. That the channel letter cabinets shall be located behind the wall and

internally illuminated.

7. That the channel letters shall be required to have face, trim and return

uniformity.

Mr. Harkin stated he was with Lusk Harkin Architects and stated they had no issues with Staff Recommendations except for Number 5. He stated we are requesting three colors per tenant for each building. Mr. Blake clarified that we are in the process of changing that and thanked the applicant for clarifying it. Mr. Harkin stated they would also like to request that logos that would be used as part of their signage would have the ability to have unlimited colors. Mr. Schultz stated that the sign code revisions are allowing 10% of the sign area to have a corporate logo. Mr. Henderson clarified that it would only be for the Building Signs and not the ground signs. Mr. Binkley asked for clarification on Condition No. 2 and whether it should be a minimum of 5-ft from property line and it was determined that it should. Mr. Hackworth clarified that colors shown would be the actual colors used. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations and with the modification to Condition No. 2 of adding a minimum of 5 feet and with the revision to Condition No. 5 that includes three colors per tenant with the logo being up to 10% of the sign area; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

E. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping and Lighting for the Diley Towne Center a 50,308 square foot Retail Development located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Diley Road (DiCesare/Buerk Property). Mr. Blake stated this item had been tabled at the applicant's request.

F. Review and request for a motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for the Diley Towne Center a 50,308 square foot Retail Development located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Diley Road (DiCesare/Buerk Property). Mr. Blake stated this item had been tabled at the applicant's request.

G. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for a 48,882 square foot Retail Building at the Shoppes at Stonecreek located just south of Kohl's. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that Staff supports with the following three conditions:

1. That the maximum footcandle for the site shall not exceed 10-fc.

2. That the light pole fixtures shall be Esplanade Luminaire teardrop style.

3. That the light poles shall be a maximum 31 ft-high and bronze in color.

Mr. Krier stated they resubmitted and they have met all of the requirements. Mr. Bosch asked if there needed to be clarification on staff recommendation number three to be from the parking lot grade and Mr. Schultz stated they are putting them in landscape beds and we are fine with that. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed 5-0.

H. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for five 8,000 square foot Office Buildings at the Offices at Stonecreek located just south of Kohls. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

1. That the maximum footcandle (fc) for the site shall not exceed 10-fc.

2. That the light pole fixtures shall be McGraw Edison Generation

series (rural character).

3. That the light poles shall be 16-ft in height.

Mr. Krier stated they had no issues with Staff's recommendations. Mr. Schultz stated we appreciate the developer complying with the requests and signage plans would be coming in next month. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

I. Review and request for a motion to approve an amended Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for a 5,839 square foot Office Building at 790 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That a 1-2 ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping (trees,

shrubs, etc) shall be installed along Windmiller Drive.

2. That the pine trees located along the western property line shall be 7-ft

high at installation and located between 7 and 10 feet on center in a

staggered alignment to create an opaque screen.

3. That the deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches.

4. That enhanced landscaping (shrubs, hedges, etc) adjacent to the nine

western parking spaces shall be installed to screen the illumination of

vehicular headlights.

Mr. Schultz stated he would like to include on Condition One that the undulating mound should be within 10 feet of the sidewalk. He stated there is a 30 foot sanitary easement along the front of the site and the 20 feet closest to the building is approximately where the sanitary line is. Mr. Roush stated he was with Berry Miller Construction and gave a history of the project. He stated we came up with this revised plan to address the issues of focusing heavily on screening any parking area from the residential houses behind it. He stated they wanted to use a seven to nine foot white pine tree and would be installed as close to the parking area as they could to get the maximum screening. He continued that the trees would be touching at the time of installation and would create a screen all year long from any headlights from this area. Mr. Roush stated they also wanted to create the same look but not block visibility out the of rear windows of the building and give it some interest by putting some deciduous trees and a taller canopy. He stated that the materials on the building are all natural painted wood siding with brick and a slate look roof, so they feel it is a good look aesthetically. Mr. Roush stated that their only issue was with Condition Four. Mr. Schultz stated staff reviewed and our determination is that this buffer is very compatible with what was approved in January. Mr. Blake clarified that staff agreed with the applicant's proposal to put the trees up to the parking spaces and that it negates Condition Four. Mr. Schultz stated that was a condition from the January approval and if the Commission is willing to eliminate that condition Staff would support that. He continued with the Columbia Gas easement restrictions this wasn't the typical buffering area, however to maintain these lots to make them developable, we have to restrict the typical buffering requirements in this area. Mr. Bosch asked if the landscaping should be carried over to the property line and Mr. Schultz stated Dr. Martello's didn't have it and it would be up to the applicant. Mr. Bosch asked about the electrical boxes and Mr. Schultz stated it could be a blanket condition of screening all mechanicals from public view. Mr. Roush stated it wouldn't be a problem to screen the mechanicals. Mr. Hackworth asked what the measurement was from the parking lot to the easement and Mr. Roush stated it was about ten feet. Mr. Hackworth stated Columbia Gas is getting more aggressive with keeping vegetation away from their easements and what happens if they come through and clear cut it. Mr. Roush stated they may be able to shear them away from their easement, but they shouldn't be able to remove the trees. Mr. Schultz stated if that would occur it would be a Code Enforcement issue and we would require the trees to be reinstalled. Mr. Nicholas asked if consideration was given to trimming the limbs of the pines away from the parking lot and Mr. Roush stated they had no problem if there was a condition that if the trees become unsightly they will maintain this property. Mr. Nicholas clarified that they were doing away with any other landscaping besides the pines. Mr. Nicholas suggested requiring less pine trees and putting shrubs in between and Mr. Schultz stated we could keep Condition Two and add if an appropriate re-design that is approvable by staff, that meets the intent of the buffer requirements we would consider that. Mr. Roush stated we want to set a precedence and make sure it is maintainable. He stated with the right maintenance the white pines can be maintained and if they become an unsightly issue the owners would replace them. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if the white pines become unsightly they can be addressed as a code enforcement issue. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; including the revision to Recommendation 1 to be within 10 foot of the sidewalk; to delete Recommendation 4; and to add a Recommendation to screen all mechanicals from public view; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director

(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated there were no cases in March and there were two cases in April. He stated one case was for a residential front yard set back variance for a fence and the Shoppes at Hill Road will be coming in for a parking variance.

(2) FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated Violet Township gave an extension to a Final Plat for Winding Creek Section 5, Part 2.

B. Planning Studies- Mr. Schultz stated the consultants are continuing to work on it and we should have some drafts this month and updates on Diley Road Corridor and Commercial Design Guidelines.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission - Mr. Schultz stated staff and a member of the Tree Commission will be going to the Heitmeyer Project site to review the tree issues.

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Nicholas stated he noticed paper signage on the windows for the dance studio on West Church Street. He stated he has seen a lot of miscellaneous street corner signs on the weekends and wanted to know if there was any way to monitor that. Mr. Schultz stated we have a full time Code Enforcement Officer and he will be working weekends for a few hours. Mr. Binkley asked how the search for a new member was going and Mr. Hackworth stated we have two interviews tomorrow evening and hopefully out of the five we can pick one. He stated that Rules Committee will make a recommendation and it would go on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Blake asked where we were on changeable copy signs and Mr. Schultz stated Council made a revision to the changeable copy section to allow the non-profits and churches to come back in front of the Commission to request copy if staff denies it. He stated under the current code they will not be allowed changeable copy. Mr. Blake clarified that they would have to come before the Commission to have changeable copy. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission could put time limits on them. Mr. Blake asked what the grace period was for the changeable copy signs to be cleared out and Mr. Schultz stated if we send them notice they would probably come for a comprehensive sign plan and the signs would be there in the interim until denied.

C. Motion for reconsideration for approval of January 9, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. Mr. Blake stated there was a question on the transcribing of the January 9 meeting and we have three motions in front of us to reconsider the minutes.

Mr. Bosch moved for Reconsideration of Minutes for January 9, 2007; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Hackworth moved to amend with substitution the January 9, 2007 minutes; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the January 9, 2007 minutes as amended; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Binkley voted "Aye." Motion carried 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:32 P.M. on April 10, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning