PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 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, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer were present. There were no members absent. Others present were:  Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Steve Smith, Stacey Bashore, Dee Dunlap, Scott Beckert, Debra Rhodes, John Roush, Amanda Roberts, Rodney Thompson, Robert Teal, Richard Lopez, Donna Lopez, Trent McMurray, Pamela Glass, Sue Stacknid, Tricia Sanders, Don Betts, Mara White, Jeff Coffee, Brian Stoner, Nathan Spear, Herman Counts, Ed Starr, Dave Megley, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF September 11, 2007, Regular Meeting- Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 7-0.

 

 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 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. Nicholas moved to remove this item off of the table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 7-0.

 

Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following 19 conditions:

 

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

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

            3.         That Rutherford's Auto Body Shop curb cut shall be eliminated prior to allowing the public road curb cut on SR 256.

            4.         That the developer shall provide access to Rutherford Auto Body property through City sponsored eminent domain action.

            5.         That the developer shall provide access to Luse Office development per City sponsored traffic study for the corridor and Access Management Plan.

            6.         That the cost of the traffic signal and appurtenances such as mast arm for widened road section, video detection, GPS Opticom priority control device, UPS battery backup, pedestrian countdown timer, etc., per the City Engineer shall be the responsibility of the developer.

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

            8.         That the intersection improvements and engineering details pertaining to roadway width, turn lane locations, stacking space length, etc., would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

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

            10.       That 5-ft sidewalks shall be required along SR 256 and on both sides of the proposed public road.

            11.       That 4-ft sidewalks shall be required along one side of the private road.

            12.       That the retention pond shall be located a minimum 25-ft from a public right-of-way.

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

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

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

            16.       That the construction/engineering drawings shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval.

            17.       That the sanitary sewer reimbursement fee shall be paid to the City prior to engineering/construction drawing approval for each specific lot as they develop.

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

            19.       That the plan shall be in compliance with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

 

Mr. Craig Vandervoort introduced himself as the attorney and clarified that Fairfield Realty transferred ownership to Hill and Commerce Drive, LLC, a secondary group that will be doing the actual construction.  He stated that staff went above and beyond to work through the issues and they were in full agreement with all of the conditions.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that the reimbursement fee was part of the fair share as each lot develops.  Mr. Nicholas asked where things stood with the McAuliffe strip and Mr. Schultz stated that we are working on a development agreement to outline all of the issues and go through the eminent domain process which will go before Council within the next month.  Mr. Nicholas clarified that the pond would be by the drainage easement.  Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 7-0.

 

           

            C.        Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Volunteer Energy at 790 Windmiller Drive (TABLED 9/11/07) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table.

           

            D.        Review and request for a motion to approve Old Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage for D'Nail Salon at 8 Lockville Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following two conditions:

 

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

            2.         That the sign shall have a matte finish.

 

Dee Dunlap introduced herself with D'Nail Salon and stated that she will be locating her nail salon at 8 Lockville Road.  She stated she had no comments on staff's recommendations.  Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 7-0.

 

            E.         Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a storage shed at 473 Sheryl Drive in the Manor House Estates Subdivision.  Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

 

            1.         That the building materials and color shall match the existing house and/or be of natural wood color.

            2.         That the shed shall have a minimum of a 5-ft setback from the property line.

            3.         That the height of the shed shall not exceed 15-ft.

 

Debra Rhoades introduced herself as the applicant and stated that she had no concerns with staff recommendations.  Mr. Blake clarified that the color would be just natural wood.  Mr. Harmon clarified that the property was not governed by a Homeowner's Association.  Mr. Nicholas clarified that the shingle colors would match the house.  Mr. Binkley moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 7-0.

 

 

           

 

            F.         Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for Strike City located on the South side of Windmiller Drive between Diley Road and Gray Drive.   

 

Mr. Blake stated he spoke with the Law Director and the applicant because the company he works for has done business in the past with the potential builder.  He stated that the Law Director does not think there is a conflict of interest and the builder does not have a problem with him remaining to chair the meeting. 

 

Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following seven conditions:

 

            1.         That there shall be one curb cut on Windmiller Drive that is a minimum 250-ft (per the developer required access study) west of Old Diley Road.

            2.         That a second curb cut shall be permitted on the proposed access drive just west of the site.  The curb cut shall be a minimum 250-ft from the Windmiller Drive Centerline.

            3.         That a 4-ft sidewalk shall be installed along Windmiller Drive.

            4.         That the plans shall comply with the City's architectural consultant's recommendations.

            5.         That the fence shall be made of black metal and the furniture shall be cast aluminum.

            6.         That the development shall comply with City Engineering requirements.

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

 

John Roush introduced himself with Barry and Miller construction as the proposed General Contractor.  He clarified that the site would be all the way to the right and would be the closest parcel to the new Diley Road intersection.  Mr. Blake asked how far from the residential subdivision is the proposed building and Mr. Schultz stated it would be approximately 600 feet from it.  Mr. Roush stated the buildings will sit at an angular view toward the Diley Road and Windmiller intersection.  He stated that the proposed volleyball courts would be as close to the new Diley Road on the southeastern corner portion of the parcel.  Mr. Roush stated the business would be a family entertainment center with a bowling base.  He stated the inside of the building would have different elements and would be designed to look like a city street. Mr. Roush stated it would be a very bright, energetic and upscale operation and is the new trend coming across the United States.  He stated they are proposing summer volleyball leagues on three outdoor courts and a medium size patio area for outdoor dining.  Mr. Roush stated there would be no music outside per City code.  He stated because this would be a pre-engineered metal building, they would need to use standing seam roof and showed samples and color boards of it.  Mr. Roush reviewed the colors with the Commission.  Mr. Blake asked where the outdoor heating and cooling equipment would be located and Mr. Roush stated they were proposing to put it at the back of the unit with ground mounted roof top units and would be screened with landscape material.  Mr. Schultz clarified this item would be to discuss building materials and site plan and Item G would be conditional uses for the outdoor patio per our recently adopted guidelines.  Mr. Blake opened it up to public comments.  Mr. Robert Teal stated his biggest concern would be the noise because it is a very quiet subdivision.  He stated that no one in the subdivision knew there would be commercial real estate up front, however most were under the impression it would be more of a 9 to 5 type of development.  Mr. Teal stated the area is not designed for the traffic it would bring and he is also concerned about the noise from the volleyball courts.  He stated this will draw unsupervised teenagers and they will congregate to the wooded area back there.  Mr. Teal stated he would agree with the idea of the facility, but somewhere else on S.R. 256.  He stated we bought our homes because it is a quiet area that is set back from S.R. 256.  Mr. Richard Lopez stated his home was next to the pond and he will not be able to sell his home and he didn't know how they even considered the neighbors when this was proposed.    Mr. Trent McMurray introduced himself as the president of the Windmiller Pond Homeowner's Association and stated he lived on Gray Drive and all that they would hear would be the noise.  He asked if a liquor license had been permitted and our subdivision is fairly new with a new homeowner's association.  He stated the design was great with a wrong location.  Mr. McMurray stated the sound couldn't be muffled and it would be hard to sleep at night.  He asked if there had been a traffic study and how the two lane road would support the traffic.  Pamela Glass introduced herself and stated that her number one concern was traffic because they moved there because it was a quiet area and they have small children.  She stated that we have had issues with teenagers vandalizing the neighborhood and this would increase that.  Ms Glass stated there are other places to go to develop this and it is a great looking building, but not in anybody's neighborhood.  Sue Stadnicar introduced herself asked if this parcel was zoned for this kind of development. Mr. Schultz stated in 1995 Council approved that this area be commercially zoned and in 1999 they rezoned approximately 40 acres to residential which is the Windmiller Pond Subdivision.  He stated the remaining property remained C3 Commercial.  Mr. Schultz stated this area allows such use and the portion that we can control would be the outdoor patio and volleyball court, and we can place conditions on it.  Ms Stadnicar stated she would like the commission to be sensitive to their safety and welfare because of the points already brought up.  She stated in her experience with planning something like this would be in a more remote area.  Tricia Sanders introduced herself and stated that Pickerington needs something like this, but her biggest concern is safety of the kids living in this neighborhood.  She stated the liquor license and all of the safety issues need to be addressed.  Mr. Don Betts stated he echoed what everyone has said and thought it was a great design, but it needs to be in a different location.  He stated it would disrupt a lot of the homeowners well being and the ability to sell their properties.  Mr. Betts stated we are still trying to get issues worked out with the builder so we can be a respectable development.  Ms Mara White introduced herself and asked for clarification on what and where everything would be put on the site.  Mr. Roush stated it is a tricky area and the City has some good guidelines to help buffer between commercial and residential. He stated that they are proposing to push it as far off to the east of this site and they want to buffer and screen it.  Mr. Schultz stated C3 zoning allows any type of commercial use that you would see along S.R. 256, such as retail and restaurants.  Ms White asked how would this be voted on and Mr. Schultz stated that we are addressing the building and site plan.  He stated that the zoning is already in place and it was rezoned in 1995, so the use that they are proposing is allowed in that district.  He stated we can address the buffering and how the building looks.  Mr. Schultz stated that when the property is zoned commercial like this is we require a certificate of appropriateness for building materials, site plan, landscaping, lighting and signage.  He stated that it doesn't go any further than the Planning and Zoning Commission and this is a one step process.  Mr. Teal clarified that this could be built.  Mr. Smith clarified that the use that they are proposing is okay.  Mr. Teal clarified that when zoning was determined it made sense, but it needs to be looked at because it is going to affect hundreds of people.  Mr. Smith stated that all of the communities develop a community plan which basically is a blue print of how they forsee the city developing at some point.  He stated that pursuant to that plan different properties at different times would be rezoned.  Mr. Smith stated that once the property is zoned, usually at the owner's request, the owner has rights because they have the zoning that they need.  He stated that at this point you are long past the deadline to file a referendum, so the zoning is what it is.  Mr. Smith stated that the only power this Commission has is under the commercial design guidelines on how the buildings looks, but in terms of the use it was determined this use was appropriate 12 years ago.  He stated that rezoning is generally done at the request of the owner.  Mr. Smith stated that the property is already zoned and anything commercial will go on this property.  Mr. Lopez stated that no one here is arguing the fact that commercial zoning is inadequate, but we are arguing the types of activities and the type of zoning.  He stated that we are arguing about the type of business.  Mr. Lopez asked about the appraisal value of this area and this is extremely serious.  Mr. Blake stated that we take every decision seriously and we are all residents of the City.  He stated that we don't want to hurt anyone's property value and we use common sense and are fair to every applicant. Carl Langlaw introduced himself and stated that they all have families and the alcohol permit is very troublesome.  He stated this is going to increase traffic and put children at risk due to drunk driving.  Mr. Langlaw stated that the pond needs to be looked at and asked if there would be an environmental impact study done due to the wetlands in this area.  Mr. Schultz stated that the engineer reviews that to see if it is in that area.  Mr. Jeff Coffee introduced himself and stated his concern if it is family concept with an alcohol permit it could close by 2:00 a.m. and most families go to bed at 10:00 p.m.  He stated at 2:00 a.m we will hear yelling and burn outs and the speed will be increasing.  Mr. Coffee asked if police presence could be made mandatory for this area.  Mr. Brian Stoner introduced himself as one of the managing members of the project.  He gave a background on the idea for the project and he got the idea when his son got invited to a bowling party. Mr. Stoner stated this is all family driven because they have families as well and live in Pickerington.  He stated that unlike other bowling alleys there would be a dress code and very strict codes of conduct that will be enforced.  He stated that they will hire Pickerington police and Sheriffs on special duty on the weekends to keep that element out.   Mr. Stoner stated that the whole point of the project is to bring a family environment to Pickerington.  He stated he felt that the project would improve Pickerington as a whole and there would be statewide publications to market it.  Mr. Thompson stated if it could be built without the liquor license and a time frame when it would open and close, he could agree with it and he felt that was the biggest concern of ninety percent of the people.  Mr. Stoner stated that a liquor license doesn't draw that crowd, basically pricing does, and this is not a traditional bowling alley.  He stated there would not be traditional bowling leagues, but there would be entertainment leagues.  Mr. Stoner stated they would invite the schools to be a part of an entertainment league and then donate money back to them.  He stated that Pickerington land prices will not support something like this without a liquor license and they have looked at many sites in the City.  Mrs. Lopez introduced herself and stated she lived in Windmiller Ponds and wanted to ask if Mr. Stoner would support something this that close to his home.  Mr. Stoner stated that he probably wouldn't, but there would be considerations made for the neighbors.  Mr. Nathan Speer introduced himself and stated that a family environment doesn't mesh with a place that serves alcohol.  He stated that as far as a code of conduct if someone gets thrown out they are going to come into our neighborhood.  Mr. Herman Counts introduced himself as the secretary for the Homeowner's Association and stated that the concept is terrific, but the location is the issue. He stated that this homeowner's association is a passionate group that won't let this lie and they will hold any business that moves in there accountable.  Mr. Ed Starr introduced himself and asked how the facility would be lit at night and he was also concerned about the traffic coming into Windmiller Drive.  Mr. Teal asked what were the elements that were still within the Commission's control.  He stated that the biggest problems are the liquor permits and the volleyball courts.  Mr. Smith stated there are two separate applications before the commission.  He stated that under the commercial design guidelines the use is not an issue the commission can address, but the Commission has more flexibility with the conditional use for the patio and the volleyball courts.  Mr. Smith stated that anything with the conditional use that could impact the surrounding areas can be discussed.  Mr. Dave Megley introduced himself and stated that he didn't feel that a steel roof building was appropriate for that neighborhood and most of the commercial property along that area is shingle roofs.  Ms. White asked if this could be postponed so they could look further into it and Mr. Smith stated that if the applicant requests that it is tabled the Commission can consider that.  Mr. Rick Cale introduced himself and stated that the buffering would be very important.  He stated there would be parking lot lights and a lot of noise coming from the site.  Mr. Lopez asked for clarification on whether Mr. Blake had a conflict of interest and Mr. Blake clarified that he did not.  He clarified that in the past the company he works for has done business with the potential builder, but not the developer.  Mr. Blake asked the law director if it was a conflict of interest and he stated it was not, so at that point he continued to chair the meeting.  Mr. Smith clarified that Mr. Blake is not involved in this project and has not been involved in a project with the potential builder in this, so he does not have any direct benefit to this project.   Mr. Schultz clarified that we are currently reviewing the site plan and building materials and the landscaping and lighting application will be coming later.  Mr. Sauer stated he was curious to see what the other member's opinions were on the steel roofing because historically that was something that was done a very limited basis. Mr. Hackworth stated we have comments regarding a metal roof versus a standing seam and Mr. Roush stated it would all be standing seam and there would be no metal roof.  Mr. Roush stated there is a 25 year warranty on fading and a lifetime warranty for discoloration.  He clarified that because of the type of the building it is there would be no other options for roofing.  Mr. Blake asked if the mechanicals would be on the roof with parapets and Mr. Roush clarified that it wouldn't be on the roof because these kind of buildings can't take the load of those units.  Mr. Schultz stated that the City's access management plan identifies a traffic signal at Diley Road and Windmiller Drive and will be installed based on the CIP timeline.  Ms Amanda Roberts introduced herself and asked how much of an angle the building would be at and what the future plans were for the road.  Mr. Roush stated that the back end of the building would face the houses and the architectural elements would be the same all the way around.  He stated that the patio will face Diley Road.  Mr. Schultz clarified that the patio is at the south of the building, but the volleyball courts would be exposed.  Mr. Roush reviewed the site plan with the Commission and attendees.  Ms Glass asked how they could find out about what is coming in the future and Mr. Smith clarified that everything is a public record and generally you would have access to it. Mr. Thompson asked what the timeframe was for this project and Mr. Roush stated they are looking to be open sometime late summer of next year.  Mr. Lopez asked what would happen if someone was intoxicated and hit a child in their neighborhood would the bowling alley be responsible and Mr. Smith stated that generally the answer is no, because they are generally protected from accidents caused by patrons that leave their establishment.

 

The commission recessed at 9:17 p.m. and reconvened in open session at 9:28 p.m.

 

Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicant was abiding by the current commercial design guidelines by presenting standing seam metal. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the materials that would be used and Mr. Roush reviewed the materials with the Commission. Mr. Nicholas asked that the applicant work with staff to determine the color of the window film to make it blend in with the building.  Mr. Nicholas clarified that the service doors would blend in with the building colors.  Mr. Nicholas clarified that the hood vent would come out of the wall and Mr. Roush stated they are still designing the kitchen and if it goes through the roof it would be painted.  Mr. Binkley asked about the accessibility to the site and Mr. Schultz stated it was a private agreement between BGM and the property owner to the south.  He stated that we would prefer that access road going in with limited curb cut from Diley Road.  Mr. Bosch clarified that the traffic will be looked at and quantified.  Mr. Harmon stated that he would be concerned with how the building might impact the area if it is determined to have wetlands on it.  Mr. Hackworth stated in 1999 he was a part of two referendums to try to reverse the residential zoning and he understood the problem, but that it would be a continuing problem.  He stated that we need to address this in our Diley Road study and we want to encourage that the traffic goes out on Diley Road and not Windmiller Drive.  Mr. Schultz stated that the traffic study would determine where the curb cut would go and it would be a minimum of 250 feet from Diley Road. Mr. Nicholas requested that the applicant supply the staff with samples of the actual colors of the materials to be maintained at City Hall.  Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations including the addition of the following: that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view; and that the exterior colors would be as follows: Ohio Rubble-320 for the stone; Buckskin-449 for the Dryvit; Burgundy-4631 for the Sunbrella; Desert Sand for the standing seam roof color and Dark Anodized for the storefront; Nicholas seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake abstaining and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 6-0.

 

            G.        Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor patio and volleyball courts for Strike City located on the south side of Windmiller Drive between Diley Road and Gray Drive.  The applicant requested that this item be tabled.  Mr. Sauer moved to table this item; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake abstaining and Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea."  Motion passed, 6-0.

 

An attendee asked how they could go about starting a rezoning process and Mr. Smith stated that the most common would be when the landowner requests a change to the zoning.  He stated there are instances where the City would sponsor a rezoning application, however the problem is the property owner may already have vested rights under the zoning as it exists currently. Mr. Smith stated there could also be an initiative petition that could force Council to rezone, but it is very difficult and theoretically the landowner could still have vested rights. 

 

4.         REPORTS:

 

            A.        Planning and Zoning Director

 

                        (1)        BZA Report-  Mr. Schultz reported that there was no meeting in September and there are no agenda items for October.

 

                        (2)        FCRPC -   Mr. Henderson stated there was one item that was discussed regarding a rezoning of 88 acres.

 

5.         OTHER BUSINESS:

 

            A.        Tree Commission - Mr. Blake asked about ash trees and Mr. Schultz stated that the Tree Commission addresses those issues.

 

            B.         Commission Discussion-  Mr. Nicholas asked if there had been any follow up on the paper recycling dumpsters and Mr. Schultz stated he would check with Code Enforcement.  Mr. Nicholas clarified we were at a standstill with the post office signage.  Mr. Smith clarified that if signs are placed on someone's property without permission they can remove them.  Mr. Sauer asked if the City had any oversight on entrance signs to subdivision that are falling apart.  Mr. Schultz stated it can be addressed if there is a homeowner's association and Mr. Smith stated that the Code does not give the right to the City for private residential property, but if it is on City property we can fix it.  

 

            C.        Planning Reports -  No discussion

 

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, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Harmon voted "Aye." Motion carried 7-0.  The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:35 P.M. on October 9, 2007.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Stacey L. Bashore                                                        Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk                                                Director, Planning & Zoning