PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2008
REGULAR MEETING
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. Harmon, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Binkley was absent due to a work commitment. Others present were: Tricia Sanders, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Stacey Bashore, Trent McMurray, Dave Negley, Brian Stoner, Marcia Shanefelt, Michael Coffield and others. Mr. Blake welcomed Mr. Hackworth back to the Commission and thanked him for coming back to the Board.
2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF January 8, 2008, Regular Meeting- Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion
passed, 6-0.
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 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. (TABLED 1/8/08) Mr. Bosch moved to have this item removed from the table; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following seven conditions:
1. That an 8-ft high solid wood fence shall be installed to create a solid wood barrier from the southwest corner of the building to the southern property line.
2. That pine trees, 6-ft tall at installation, shall be planted east of the volleyball courts to create a visual and noise buffer.
3. That the existing tree line along the southern portion of the site shall be preserved.
4. That the patio shall be closed for business at midnight.
5. That the volleyball courts shall not be utilized after dark.
6. That no sound, emanating from loudspeakers or other such sound amplification equipment shall be audible at the property line of the closest residences to the west (which are 903 and 912 Gray Drive respectively).
7. That the Violet Township Fire Department concerns shall be met prior to zoning certificate approval.
Brian Stoner clarified that staff
recommendation number one should be changed from the southwest corner of the
building to the southwest corner of the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Stoner
requested that the word "reasonably" be put in front of the word
audible on condition number six. He stated that other than those changes they
were ready to proceed. Mr. McMurray
stated he lived at 912 Gray Drive and stated that their homeowner's association
came to the decision that they do not want any sound on the patio. He stated that they are not confident that
the sound could be blocked from them hearing it. Mr. Megley stated that he was concerned that
reasonable sound should be defined and that this was a deviation from past
practices for the Commission on patios.
Mr. Blake clarified that the issues on previous patios were for existing
businesses where outdoor seating areas were added. Mr. Blake asked who would enforce any noise
ordinance and he added that when the weather is right he can hear the
Pickerington Band playing so what was reasonable. Mr. Banschefsky stated that the applicant was
instructed to conduct an noise analysis and a copy of that study has been
included in the packet. He further
stated that the problem with that is it is very difficult if not impossible to
enforce without having properly calibrated decibel meters. He suggested that a full blown definition of
noise be decided on or we utilize language in Condition six. Mr. Banschefsky stated that the Planning and
Zoning Department would enforce it through code enforcement or it could come in
through a complaint with Police Department.
Mr. Blake asked for clarification that if anytime any of the residences
from the adjoining properties could hear any noise would the applicant be in
violation. Mr. Schultz clarified that
any noise from loudspeakers or sound amplification devices would be in
violation. Mr. Hackworth asked what the
definition would be for after dark on the volleyball courts and Mr. Stoner
stated his opinion would be 15 minutes after sunset. Mr. Schultz clarified that the applicant
isn't proposing any lights for the volleyball court. Mr. Hackworth asked how the police department
would differentiate between a disturbance of the peace ordinance or a zoning
issue. Mr. Banschefsky stated that the
Mayor indicated at the last meeting that the City was not interested in having
a noise ordinance, so because this is a Conditional Use application the
Commission can put whatever reasonable conditions you want. He stated there could a be a noise ordinance
in place for this particular business, but the downside is they are very
difficult to enforce without calibrated equipment. He stated that if the police are called out
they would be enforcing whatever they feel is applicable. Mr. Hackworth stated that condition six
should say where the sound would be coming from. Mr. Schultz suggested inserting on subject
patio to condition six. Mr. Hackworth
asked what type of music would be played and Mr. Stoner stated it would mostly
be ambient music for the diners and occasional live entertainment along the
lines of jazz and gospel quartets. He
stated they may also put a television out there for Buckeye games. Mr. Harmon asked how the word reasonable in
condition six would change the enforcement and Mr. Banschefsky stated that it
is up to vast amounts of interpretation as opposed to now if it can be heard it
is a violation. Mr. Harmon asked who
conducted the sound study and Mr. Stoner stated he conducted the study and it
was extremely complex to come up with a numeric standard. Mr. Harmon asked if
the volleyball courts would be allowed to have radios and Mr. Stoner stated
there would be no speakers at the volleyball court. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed with the law
director with keeping it as simple as possible.
Mr. Sauer stated that he was satisfied with what staff was recommending
with no sound being audible at the specified residences. Mr. Nicholas stated he was concerned about
the eight foot high fence and wanted to know how tall the dumpster enclosure
would be and Mr. Schultz stated the fence could be as high as the
dumpster. Mr. Nicholas asked that the
condition be modified to be as high as the dumpster and not less than six feet
mainly for the aesthetics. Mr. Nicholas
suggested adding soft landscaping on the patio side of the fence to help buffer
the noise. Mr. Stoner stated they had
planned on soft landscaping that area.
Mr. Nicholas asked if everyone would be off the patio at midnight and
Mr. Stoner agreed to have everyone off at midnight. Mr. Nicholas agreed that the word reasonable
should not be put in condition six and the addition of on subject patio be put
in there to say where the sound would be coming from. Mr. Blake stated that his biggest concern is on
the brief occasion that someone does hear noise coming from the patio the
applicant will be penalized. Mr.
Banschefsky stated there are public and private nuisances and there are actions
that the city can take if everything goes wrong. He further stated that there are also private
nuisances that the homeowner's association could pursue. Mr. Banschefsky stated that the City has
prosecutorial discretion in code enforcement cases. He stated that this errors on the side of
more enforcement authority for the City.
Mr. Blake stated that he wanted to balance between the homeowner's
quality of life and the applicant's ability to have a viable business. Mr. Nicholas stated that the applicant has
worked very hard with the staff to achieve reasonable conditions. Mr. Hackworth stated he was concerned with
how it would be enforced. Mr. Stoner stated he was not trying to be
unreasonable and felt that not having the word reasonable in the condition was
the same thing as saying no. Mr. Blake
asked if there would be another word or terminology that could be added and Mr.
Banschefsky stated there could be additional language that could be put in but
it all comes back to a reasonable standard because a court will say reasonable
standards apply to everything. Mr. Negley
stated the issue is the amplified sound and suggested after the system is set
up have a test to see what a good limit would be. Mr. Stoner stated he was trying to do that
with the sound study and he would be willing to try that but it can get very
complex. Mr. McMurray stated his family
spends a lot of time outdoors on their patio and for the most part will not
care if they hear the music while they are outside, but he will have an issue
with hearing the music inside his house.
Mr. Hackworth asked if the standard could be changed to say the noise
would not be heard inside the house and Mr. Banschefsky stated that it could
be. Mr. Bosch stated he felt the intent
we were looking for is here and if it starts to be a problem they will be
bringing it to our attention. Mr.
Hackworth clarified that if this becomes a problem it would only be the patio
that would be shut down. Mr. Banschefsky
stated there is a practical component and the code enforcement will have to
verify it is a significant problem. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the conditional
use for an outdoor patio and volleyball courts for Strike City with staff
recommendations and with the following modification to condition 1 that a solid
wood fence as tall as the dumpster enclosure shall be installed to create a
solid barrier from the southwest corner of the dumpster enclosure to the
southern property line; Condition 2 be modified to include soft scape buffering
on both sides on the fence; Condition 4 that the patio shall be vacated at
midnight; Condition 6 add at subject patio after equipment; Mr. Nicholas
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and
Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for Pickerington Family Entertainment Center on Winderly Lane for TNT Pursuits LLC. (Tabled 1/08/08) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table.
D. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for Clint Drive Offices located on Clint Drive in the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports the Conditional Use with the following seven conditions:
1. That a cross access agreement shall be prepared and recorded for access at the entrance to the site and for access to the parcel to the north.
2. That the dumpsters shall be screened with stone to match the building and have wood doors.
3. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
4. That the building shall comply with the City's architectural consultant recommendations.
5. That the development shall comply with City Engineering requirements.
6. That the development shall comply with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.
7. That the streetscape and landscape around the building shall be consistent with the existing building to the South (151 Clint Drive).
Marcia Shanefelt introduced
herself as the owners of the facility and stated that they are duplicating the
existing building and have not asked for any variances. She stated that there is a cross easement
because they already own the parcel. Mr.
Schultz stated that this was a private street with a private sidewalk. Mr. Nicholas clarified that there would not
be glass going all the way to grade and wanted that included as a condition. Ms Shanefelt clarified that all of the
materials will be the same as the adjacent building and would be using the
current architectural guidelines. Mr.
Hackworth stated that we need to make sure that the legal access is well
defined and filed wherever it needs to be filed. Ms Shanefelt clarified that would be taken
care of. Mr. Hackworth clarified that
the dumpster enclosure would shield whatever size dumpster was in there. Mr.
Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations including the following
recommendation; that windows shall not extend to grade; Mr. Bosch seconded the
motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Sauer, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting
"Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Clint Drive Offices located on Clint Drive in the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following five conditions:
1. That the sign panel shall have a matte finish.
2. That the sign shall be limited to two colors (background and lettering shall have different colors).
3. That the sign height shall not exceed 9-ft above the parking lot grade.
4. That the sign shall be 5-ft from the property line and outside the site triangle.
5. That a letter from the Fairfield County Utility Department stating that the proposed ground sign can be located in their easement is required.
Ms Shanefelt stated they were
comfortable with staff recommendations.
Mr. Hackworth clarified that the colors will be the same as the other
sign. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the
sign will not be installed until the letter from the utility department is
received. Mr. Bosch clarified that the
sign would be placed on a foundation. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff
recommendations; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Sauer, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion
passed, 6-0.
F. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Storage Building with a Non-Continuous Foundation for Door Security Solutions located at 49 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:
1. That a rear yard and side yard building setback variance would be required to be approved by Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. That the door and garage doors color shall match the existing siding of the building.
3. That the non-continuous foundation building materials shall match the existing building.
4. That pine trees, 6-ft tall at installation, shall be installed along the rear and sides of the non-continuous foundation building.
Mr. Mike Coffield introduced himself as the president of the company and stated they need the extra storage space to store samples and snow removal equipment to maintain their property. Mr. Schultz stated that before a building permit is granted the Fire Department's questions will need to be addressed. Mr. Blake clarified that it was not in the Olde Downtown Village. Mr. Schultz stated that it is a unique situation with the current zoning being C3 and storage buildings are not permitted, but pole buildings with a non-continuous foundation are permitted in a C3 district. He stated that staff supports this request because it fits with the character of the area around it. Mr. Henderson stated they will need to acquire variances on the setbacks and buffering from BZA. Mr. Sauer clarified that the all the doors would be solid without windows. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the asphalt in the area would be pulled up and a concrete floor would be put down for inside of the building. Mr. Nicholas stated he would personally like to see a steeper pitch on the roof. Mr. Schultz stated that because this is going to BZA the height may be an issue.
Mr. Sauer moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and
Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Director
(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated that BZA met in January and there were no agenda items for the February meeting.
(2) FCRPC - Mr. Schultz stated they did not meet because there were no agenda items.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission - No discussion
B. Commission Discussion- No discussion
C. Planning Reports - Mr. Schultz stated there was a meeting on January 30th with representatives from Violet Township and Canal Winchester to discuss the Diley Road Corridor. He stated that the next meeting will be sometime in March to discuss concept plans for the target areas.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Harmon moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Blake voted "Aye." Motion carried 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:37 P.M. on February 12, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz
Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning