CITY
OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JULY 8, 2003
REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. England called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows Mr. Pruden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr. Maxey was absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Chris DiCarlo, Manraj Bath, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 13, 2003, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Pruden, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. England voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 10, 2003, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Pruden seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Pruden, Mr. England, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve the rezoning of 28.548+/- acres from AG (Rural District) to R-4 (Residential District) for a single-family development located north of Long Road and south of the railroad tracks and just west of the proposed Long Estates Subdivision for Rockford Homes (Woodward property). (TABLED, 11-12-02)
B. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Pickerington Heating and Cooling at 22 North Center Street. (TABLED, 11-12-02)
C. Review and request for motion to approve a final development plan for Long Estates Phase II a single-family development on approximately 79.89 acres for William Lane located north of Long Road and south of the railroad tracks (Lane property). (TABLED, 11-12-02)
D. Review and request for motion to approve amendment to Comprehensive Sign Plan for Cross Creeks Office Buildings and Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Pickerington Eye Care. Mr. Schultz stated this Commission approved the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the office buildings at Cross Creeks last July. He stated Pickerington Eye Care is a tenant of the Health First Chiropractic building and is proposing an additional ground sign and window signage. He continued the proposed sign would be located in front of the main entrance, in a flower bed, and would be similar to the other ground signs on Cross Creeks Boulevard. He stated further the sign would be 3 feet wide and 4 feet high for a total of 10.5 square feet, would be mounted on 4’x 4’ posts and constructed of sandblasted redwood, and would have a green background with beige lettering to match the existing signs in the development. Mr. Schultz stated the window signage would have the tenant’s name and hours of operation and they would be white vinyl graphics. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the application with the conditions that the ground sign and window signage shall be constructed as shown on the submitted plan, and that the sign located at the cul de sac that is higher than 4 feet be lowered to 4 feet. Mr. Schultz stated that had been requested by this Commission in May and it has not been done as yet. Mr. Schultz further clarified the sign that needed to be lowered was for another tenant. Mr. Mapes questioned what was happening with the entrance sign to that complex. He stated that was supposed to list every one in there and now they all have ground signs and there is a monument sign with just a green background. Mr. Bath stated he had spoken to Mr. Berry regarding that and a lot of the people who are going to be in the manor house are hoping to get on that sign. He stated the developer just hasn’t gotten around to getting that done. Mr. Mapes clarified that sign was part of the initial comprehensive sign plan. Mr. Schultz stated he would speak to Mr. Berry and see about getting that done. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with the two conditions stated by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. England, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Pruden, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Creek Bend Business Park, Lots 6 and 7 (The Shoppes on the Parkway). Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting this Commission approved building materials, lighting, and landscaping for these two buildings and now they want to install a ground sign. He stated the sign would be approximately 10 feet wide and 9 feet high, with a sign area of approximately 50 square feet. He stated the sign would be made of fabricated aluminum with a stone base that would match the stone of the buildings. He stated the sign would have a green background with white lettering and a red stripe would border the sign. Mr. Schultz stated the sign would be located between the two buildings, approximately 35 feet from the right-of-way on S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated the Creek Bend Business Park encompasses up to 11 lots and it was suggested to the owner that he apply for a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire development, and he indicated he would but he has not done so at this time. He continued that the owner did submit a rendering of how the main entrance sign would likely look and the proposed sign for these two buildings is similar to what the proposed large sign for the 11 lots would be. Mr. Bosch clarified that the conceptual sign the Commission received is the one that will be placed at the entrance to the Creek Bend Business Park and they will come back to the Commission for the Comprehensive Sign Plan on that, the one before the Commission tonight is for the Shoppes on the Parkway. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Bosch stated he did not have a problem approving this sign as long as the owner was aware that this Commission will require that all of the signs look the same, just has they have done in the Cross Creeks development. Mr. Schultz stated staff would support the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions that the stone base of the sign be reduced from four feet to two feet to limit the height of the sign and be consistent with other recently approved ground signs, and that the sign be located and constructed as submitted on the plan. Mr. Bosch clarified the mounding in that area will be one to three feet, and will be a rolling type mound. Mr. DiCarlo stated the mounding was three feet from the top of S.R. 256 and the sign would sit on the mound. Mr. Bosch stated the drawings the Commission received show the contours of where this sign would be located were on the back side of the mound. Mr. DiCarlo stated the drawings appeared correct, and the sign would be on the back side of the three foot mound. Mr. Bosch stated if that is correct, then he felt they should leave the four feet of stone knowing that three-fourths of the stone would be buried and that would leave them the opportunity to landscape around it on the back side. He stated that would, as you are looking from S.R. 256, basically put the sign one or two feet above the top of the mound. Mr. Smith stated he concurred, he just did not want it to sit on top of the mound and be four feet above that. Mr. Bosch stated if it is built according to the plan the Commission received, he felt that would be appropriate. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Creek Bend Business Park, Lots 6 and 7, conditioned that it be built as per the plan before this Commission (site plan, sheet A01.1, dated 18 June 2003) and with the stipulation that this does set the precedence for the other signs along S.R. 256 in this development to maintain the uniform look; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Blake clarified the maximum height for a sign from the road grade is 15 feet. Mr. Smith stated it is this Commission’s goal to be consistent from meeting to meeting on what they approve so that everyone is on a level playing field and they have references to go back to. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Pruden voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board had approved the setback variances for condos that are proposed behind the police station. He stated the Board had one case on the agenda for this month and that is for a variance on a fence in the front yard set back.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated there were no agenda items that were in Violet Township or adjacent to the City at the last meeting.
C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated the consultant had reviewed the existing conditions with the steering committee and will provide more information at the next meeting.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Bath from Fairfield Oral Surgery is present this evening and he has color samples for the Commission to review on the building that was approved last month. Mr. Bath stated he would like to maintain some of the character of the building and he would like to have the Commission’s input on the colors. Mr. Bath stated the original color of the building was the dark brown and he would propose having the building be as close to that color as possible with a beige color trim. Mr. Nicholas clarified the beige would be used for the window trim, the gable trim, fascia boards, etc. The Commission concurred with the proposed dark brown with beige trim.
Mr. Schultz stated he had provided a memorandum to the Commission concerning sign issues in the old downtown. He stated there have been some issues recently about the use of portable signs and while our Code states portable signs are not allowed, they have been used for quite some time. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to have the Commission provide input on this issue. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was if these signs were allowed, with no conditions, then the downtown area can look cluttered. Mr. England stated he would like to have this added to the agenda for the next meeting.
Mr. Schultz further stated he received a call that a boarding house, a group home, or a family care home is trying to locate in the city. He stated our Code does not have anything that addresses this issue. Mr. Schultz stated our Code states that up to five people who are non-related can live in a house. He stated the concern is that someone could buy a house in any subdivision and have these types of uses. Mr. Bosch stated if we do not have anything that addresses this issue, he felt we should look at what we can do. Mr. Mapes stated there are some zoning restrictions that can be considered. Mr. England stated he would like to have Mr. Mapes see what other communities are doing and have this on the agenda for the next meeting.
Mr. Schultz stated the final item he would like to bring up regards the Creek Bend building that was approved last month. He stated the developer would like to put in an outdoor eating area, and he questioned if he would need a Certificate of Appropriateness for this. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was if this was done administratively, would there be several uses coming in and putting benches outside that did not look appropriate and would compromise our guidelines. Mr. Bosch clarified this was the drive thru area this Commission approved last month. Mr. Smith stated this is a definite change from what the developer had proposed. Mr. Bosch questioned if the engineer had provided the information on the number of trips at a drive thru, and Mr. Schultz stated he had not received that information. Mr. Bosch stated he would put something together and bring it back to this Commission. Mr. Schultz stated initially it was said this would be a film developing or dry cleaning facility, and now it might be a coffee shop. Mr. Bosch stated he felt we needed to be very careful because this facility could mess up that whole intersection. Mr. Smith stated his concern was that this is not in conformance with what the Commission discussed for the facility. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to have the developer come to the next meeting and let them know what was planned now. Mr. Smith stated further he felt that anything like this should come before the Commission so everyone has an understanding of what is expected.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Pruden, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. England voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:18 P.M., July 8, 2003.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning