PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, JULY 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. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Bosch was absent due to being on vacation. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Steve Smith, Brenda VanCleave, Stacey Bashore, Judy Sheehy, Niki Chalkias, Shane Buerk, Gary Smith, Chad Flowers, Dan Heitmeyer, Tim Spencer and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF June 12, 2007, Regular Meeting- Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Harmon seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer abstaining and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion passed, 4-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for VIP Lounge at 1751 Hill Road North (Tabled 6/12/07) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Landscaping for Feta Greek Kuzina at 1839 Winderly Lane (former Schlotzsky's Deli). Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following seven conditions:

1. That a 4-ft ADA compliant sidewalk shall be installed to connect the site to the public sidewalk.

2. That the dumpster enclosure shall be made of brick and have wooden doors.

3. That the development shall comply with the City's architectural consultant's recommendations.

4. That the development shall comply with the City Engineer's requirements.

5. That the patio furniture shall be non-plastic tables and chairs with a neutral color.

6. That the sight triangle shall be clear of all landscaping.

7. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.

Mr. Schultz stated that we received a memo from the City's architect and he is compliant with the revised drawings that were submitted. Mr. Chalkias stated that their architect was on the way and Mr. Blake stated this item would be considered later in the agenda

Mr. Colosimo introduced himself as the architect for the project and stated he had met with Mr. Stacy and the only issue his client wanted to discuss was the dumpster enclosure. He stated they were fine with all of the other requirements except the brick dumpster. Mr. Schultz clarified that staff included that because it has been a typical requirement for all new developments in the City. Mr. Colosimo stated they would repair the gates on the current enclosure and fix the fence and then paint it white to match the structure. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the metal roofing tiles and Mr. Colosimo presented an example to the Commission. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the blue would be the same on the roof and the awnings. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the ADA route and Mr. Binkley stated that it is already a non compliant site. Ms. VanCleave stated she was looking at anyone coming from the public sidewalk to the building so they wouldn't have to go through the drive aisle to get to the building. Ms. VanCleave stated she didn't look at the handicapped spaces and Mr. Binkley didn't see how it could be brought into compliance. Mr. Schultz stated this would be addressed during the engineering review. Mr. Hackworth asked if the applicant would agree to putting mounding or landscaping around the dumpster enclosure and Mr. Colosimo stated they would be improving the landscaping around it. Mr. Schultz stated that the sites in this area have wooden enclosures. Mr. Hackworth clarified there would be a fence around the front patio. Mr. Nicholas suggested the handicapped parking be placed on the north side of the building toward Winderly Lane and Mr. Colosimo stated he thought they could accommodate that. Mr. Smith stated you could make a condition to make it compliant with all applicable standards. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations with the exception of striking recommendation 2 and with the addition of allowing a wooden dumpster enclosure with arborvitae screening; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion Passed, 6-0.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for Feta Greek Kuzina at 1839 Winderly Lane (former Schlotzsky's Deli). Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

1. That all wall and ground signage shall be limited to three colors.

2. That all signage and graphics shall have a matte finish.

3. That the directional signs shall be no more than four square feet (2-ft by 2-ft).

Mr. Schultz stated that the directional signs are permitted here because all of the uses around this site have directional signage and this is also a drive thru with a dedicated in and out. Ms. Sheehy stated she was with Custom Sign Center and they are requesting approval of their signage package as submitted. She stated they will comply with all of the conditions. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the material for the matte finish was consistent with what had been approved in the past. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the signage lighting and Ms. Sheehy stated that all of the letters would be flush mounted and back lit with neon. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the directional signage would be lit. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the columns of the main menu sign board would be going to ground. He also clarified that the 1/2 " PVC with routed V-grooves would be the full width of the menu sign board. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the brick for the monument sign and Mr. Schultz stated to be consistent with the other signs in the area we felt what they were submitting would be appropriate. He further stated it meets the intent of covering the sides of the sign. Mr. Binkley moved to approve with staff recommendations and including the recommendation that the columns on the menu board will continue down to the ground and the base would be the full width of the menu board; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

D. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Two Drive Thrus for the Diley Towne Center a 50,308 square foot Retail Development located on the northwest corner of SR 256 and Diley Road (DiCesare/Buerk Property) Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

1. That the drive thru shall be striped clearly to separate it from the driving lanes.

2. That the northern and southern drive thru's shall comply with City Engineer's trip generation limits and vehicle queues (stacking space) requirements.

3. That the development shall comply with the Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

Mr. Schultz stated we received a memo from the Violet Township Fire Department requesting that there be no parking in the back of the west side of the building. Mr. Buerk stated they had no objections to staff recommendations and only had two points of clarification. He stated that the pizza chain intended for the south side of the building is a regional chain and the north side user has not been indicated. Mr. Buerk asked the Commission members how they felt about having drive thrus on the out parcels if there are future requests from potential users. He stated he was only trying to get input on it at this point. Ms. VanCleave stated that the out parcels would be treated individually through another Planning and Zoning application and it would be looked at on a case by case basis. Mr. Hackworth asked if there was a potential user for the north side of the building and Mr. Buerk stated they are limited by the Traffic Engineering Manual and they are not high frequency users. Mr. Binkley asked where the pick up window would be located and Mr. Buerk stated it would be somewhat determined by the user. Mr. Binkley asked if there would be an order box on the north end that would affect the queue and Mr. Schultz stated based on the IT Manual the uses are fairly limited. Mr. Nicholas asked if there would two-way traffic on both ends of the building and Mr. Buerk stated it would be two-way traffic on the outside of the medians and one-way on the inside. Mr. Buerk stated it is their intention to put a user that does not require an order box, but the Commission could put a specific restriction on it as well. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations including the addition of restricting a call box at the north end of the building; Mr. Harmon seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

E. A Public Hearing and review and request for a motion to approve Olde Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of the Industrial Building at 90 West Church Street (Good Property) Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That all the debris from the demolition shall be removed from the site one month from the start of demolition.

2. That the truck dock and building foundation at 90 West Church Street shall be enclosed by a 6-ft high chain link fence and the grounds shall be maintained to achieve compliance with the property maintenance and zoning code.

3. That construction access shall not be permitted west of the subject site on Church Street.

4. That any studies and approvals required from the state and/or EPA shall be approved prior to the approval of the building permit for demolition.

Mr. Spencer stated he represented the applicant and they were in agreement with staff recommendations. He stated it is an attempt to take care of an eyesore and there is no plan for redevelopment at this time. Mr. Spencer stated they would like the demolition permit to reflect keeping the current setbacks for Lot 1. He stated they are planning on developing this corridor as office and retail. Mr. Blake asked for clarification on the current setbacks for Lot 1 and Mr. Schultz stated we could have conversation that we would work with them and see what the future plans may be. Mr. Blake clarified that it would be a cement set permanent chain link fence around the property. Mr. Spencer stated this was a gesture of good will to knock the building down and unfortunately there are no resources committed to redevelop the site. He stated that he didn't want to knock it down and then it becomes part of the historic district. Mr. Spencer stated they have some ideas for a loft, conservatory and restaurant, more shops, and cross access to parking. He stated it is a limited field of development and in this case the setbacks could kill the site. Mr. Spencer stated if he agreed to less than those setbacks he doesn't really have anything. He stated he has to be able to build something close to the right of way on Lot 1. Mr. Smith stated that because the current building is located within the setbacks it is a non conforming structure and it would all be governed by the Code. He further stated that this Commission does not have the power to give them the assurances they want. Mr. Smith stated that one of way of handling could be having a Planned Unit District, however in terms of non conforming structures that is all governed by Chapter 1288 of the Code. Mr. Spencer asked how it would be handled if they brought in application to start using it as an office in its current configuration. Mr. Smith stated the structure would be considered a pre-existing non-conforming structure, therefore you would be able to continue the use of the structure as it currently exists. He further stated that it could be repaired, but there couldn't be any major improvements on it without going back through the process. Mr. Smith continued that based on how the Code is written the Commission cannot guarantee that whatever you bring back will be able to be built right up to where the building lines for this building are. He stated that it sounds like staff will work with you on a planned development and address these issues in terms of where to place the buildings. Mr. Schultz stated that his thought was if this discussion was on record and it comes forward later, then hopefully the Commission at that time would understand the discussion and may be lenient in this situation.

Mr. Blake opened the Public Hearing at 8:17. He determined there was no one to address this item and closed the Public Hearing at 8:18.

Mr. Nicholas asked if the chain link fence would have a maintenance type gate and it would not be a solid fence. Mr. Spencer stated they haven't gotten that far yet and he wasn't sure if there would need to be access. Mr. Schultz stated that the fence would be on top of the truck dock according to Mr. Good. Mr. Spencer stated they were not looking to secure the entire property because there is a four foot grade separation. Mr. Nicholas clarified that there would be fencing along the sides of the truck dock. Mr. Hackworth asked what kind of procedure would there be if they come back to develop these sites and Mr. Smith stated when it comes to non conforming it requires the approval of the Boarding of Zoning Appeals. He stated that when it comes to non conforming structures you can put a new roof on it and paint it, but if you do anything that would expand a non conforming use or any structural improvements it would have to go before BZA. Mr. Smith stated that if the building is leveled it would have to come back before BZA. Mr. Schultz stated he talked to the City's Chief Building Official and he indicated there are certain requirements that the State has for demolishing buildings. Mr. Smith stated the other issue with a building that close to the road would be sight lines and whether it complies for a redevelopment. Mr. Smith further clarified that based on the code if the building was taken down to 12 inches and the foundation was left, it wouldn't be sufficient to preserve the rights, because they are making serious structural repairs and the building would come back different than what it is now. He stated that he could look into it, but based on the code as it is now they would probably lose their non conforming structure. He further stated that a rezoning through a planned district would be the best way for the applicant to work with the City and with the planned district you can get more creative in terms of the requirements of the setbacks. Mr. Nicholas asked whether the truck dock would be removed for future use and Mr. Spencer stated it was an expense that didn't make sense because there were no plans for redevelopment at this time. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Blake stated that if there were no objections they would go back and discuss Item B on the agenda.

F. A Public Hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and Final 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. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following 13 conditions:

1. That the front yard parking setback shall be reduced from 18-ft to 12-ft.

2. That the side yard building setbacks shall be reduced from 25-ft to 20-ft with the parking setback shall be reduced from 15-ft to 12-ft.

3. That the rear yard (east) building setback shall be reduced from 50-ft to 20-ft with the exception that proposed building five shall be allowed to have a setback of 5-ft.

4. That the rear yard (east) parking setback shall be reduced from 30-ft to 12-ft.

5. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.

6. That a turn lane shall not be required.

7. That the private roads shall be constructed to public street standards.

8. 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.

9. That the required number of parking spaces shall be reduced from 153 to 147.

10. That the buildings shall be consistent with the elevations included in the final development plan submittal.

11. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance per the tree commission memo.

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

13. That the tree survey shall be updated so that the information on the survey is accurate.

Mr. Smith introduced himself as the land planner and landscape architect for the project and gave a power point presentation to the Commission. (Presentation attached hereto)

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 9:12 p.m. He determined that there was no to address this item and closed the public hearing at 9:13 p.m.

Mr. Hackworth asked for the clarification on the setback and Mr. Smith stated the setback came as a result of donating the additional right-of-way closer to the site. Mr. Smith stated the intention is to renovate the existing house as a potential bed and breakfast and they will determine if the market is there for that. Mr. Smith stated they received a verbal commitment from the school board to allow them to construct a hidden fire access and connect it to the school parking lot, so the fire department would have access to the back of the property should there be some sort of a blockage. Mr. Schultz requested documentation of the easement once that is put together. Mr. Hackworth asked about turn lanes and widening the road and Mr. Schultz stated there are two reasons, one is because the site doesn't generate enough traffic for turn lanes and also it could be ten years out and would be based on the future population increase. Mr. Hackworth asked for clarification on the tree they were trying to save and Mr. Smith stated they didn't want to destroy the bank by pushing out the parking lot to save a couple of trees. Mr. Schultz added that the cost wasn't worth the benefit. Mr. Smith stated they would like to get to the number for the compensation for the trees based on Mr. Malone's memo because it could make a financial impact. Mr. Schultz stated that staff's intent of the tree preservation ordinance was to eliminate the clear cutting that we have had in the past and from staff's perspective we are agreeing with this plan without compensation. He further stated that staff is fine with the plan as presented and his suggestion would be to move this forward based on our conversation and he will contact Mr. Malone. Mr. Nicholas stated his only concern was temporary and permanent erosion control around the pond to maintain the bank. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations and to send this item onto Service Committee; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Binkley voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

G. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Ohio Health and Max Sports Medicine at 1797 Hill Road North in the Shops of Turnberry. Mr. Schultz stated they received a memo indicating that they will comply with the ordinance so the applicant requested this item be withdrawn.

H. Review and request for a motion to approve a Final Plat for approximately 11.62 acres of the Zane Property located just north of Pickerington Medical Complex for Fairfield Realty Investment (TABLED 5/08/07) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director

(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated there were three BZA cases last month that were approved with one being the State Farm sign and there are three items on the agenda for this month.

(2) FCRPC - Mr. Schultz stated that FCRPC did not meet last month.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission - No discussion.

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Binkley stated that ADA is something that he will continue to bring up because they had a City project that did not have ADA accessibility. He stated that as part of his review of the site layout he is compelled to bring it up understanding that everyone has to comply.

C. Planning Reports - Mr. Schultz stated that we have a work session scheduled for August 8th to discuss the Commercial Design Guidelines update with our Consultant and Council and we may discuss the Diley Road Corridor.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Harmon voted "Aye." Motion carried 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:35 P.M. on July 10, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning