PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 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. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Binkley and Mr. Harmon were absent due to work assignments. Others present were: Phil Hartmann, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Stacey Bashore, Brian Stoner, John Roush, Don Smith, Trent McMurray and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF April 3, 2008, Work Session- Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth abstaining and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting "Yea." Motion passed, 4-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 8, 2008, - Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0

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 per applicant's request.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Landscaping for Quick Shine Car Wash located on the east side of SR 256 just south of proposed Commerce Drive on Lot 3 of the Zane Tract Commercial Subdivision (TABLED 4/08/08) Mr. Hackworth moved to remove this item from the table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0. Mr. Schultz stated that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash Drive Thru for Quick Shine Car Wash located on the east side of SR 256 just south of proposed Commerce Drive on Lot 3 of the Zane Tract Commercial Subdivision. (TABLED 4/08/08) Mr. Bosch moved to remove this item from the table; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0. Mr. Blake stated that the applicant requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda.

D. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Don Patron's Restaurant located at 1282 Hill Road North (TABLED 4/08/08) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table per applicant's request.

E. A Public Hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning for 430 (0.68 acres), 450 (1.0 acre) and 460 (0.908 acres) Hill Road North from R-6 Residential to C3 Community Commercial (Phillips, Blaine and Carl properties). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the commission and stated that staff supports with the following condition:

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

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. and after hearing no discussion closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the current owners can live at their properties until they are converted to commercial use. Mr. Blake asked what happens once the properties are sold and Mr. Hartmann stated that the intention is that once the current owners decide to move that it would be changed to commercial. Mr. Schultz stated that is how our Code reads. Mr. Blake clarified that the owners were aware of the limitations. Mr. Bosch clarified that this met the Land Use Plans of the City. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

F. A Public Hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Final Development Plan for approximately 8.55 acres for Anchor 204 Business Park located on the North Side of SR 204 between Freedom Way and Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Schultz stated that staff requested that this item be tabled because the applicant did not submit the appropriate information for the Final Development Plan. Mr. Nicholas moved to table this item; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

G. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Lighting for Strike City located on the south side of Windmiller Drive between Diley Road and Gray Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that that staff supports with the following seventeen conditions:

1. That the interior parking lot landscaping shall encompass 10% of the pavement area.

2. That a second curb cut shall be permitted on the proposed access drive just west of the site and shall be a minimum 250-ft from the Windmiller Drive centerline or per the City Engineer.

3. That a sidewalk shall be installed along Windmiller Drive.

4. That the dumpster enclosure shall be located near the southwestern corner of the building.

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

6. That pine trees, 6-ft tall at installation, shall be planted from the southwestern corner of the building to the southern property line to create an opaque buffer.

7. That the patio shall have a black metal fence between the columns and the furniture shall be cast aluminum or similar.

8. That the canopies shall be canvas and burgundy in color.

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

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

11. That the proposed parking lot light fixtures shall be Monterey Series or similar with a gooseneck.

12. That the light poles for the volleyball courts shall be approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit.

13. That the light poles and fixtures shall be black.

14. That the lights shall comply with the maximum illumination requirements at 10-ft beyond the property line.

15. That the mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and not located within an easement.

16. That the bricks shall be extended to grade on the columns.

17. That a water table shall cover the sidelights at the entrance of the building.

Mr. Schultz stated that the architectural consultant was concerned that some of the items that he addressed were not included in last month's approval, so it would be up to the Commission if whether to include them. Mr. John Roush introduced himself on behalf of Berry Miller Construction. Mr. Schultz clarified that the conditions that changed from the last meeting were one, four, six, and eleven through fourteen. He stated that eleven through fourteen deal with the lighting plan which was not requested at the April meeting. Mr. Roush stated he hadn't had a chance to read all of the architectural consultant's comments, but he believed they were agreeable to them. He stated that they didn't make a couple changes to the elevations which will be made in the construction document phase that they are going into now. Mr. Roush stated that they made the major change of flipping the site to basically fix the egress problem off of Windmiller Drive. Mr. Roush asked for clarification on the dumpster enclosure location and Mr. Schultz stated that the concern was that where the dumpster is shown on the plan is close to the residents and it would be more beneficial to move it closer to the building. Mr. Roush stated that there will be another commercial site to the left of their property and there will be another dumpster and the reason why their dumpster is where it is on this site plan is so that it doesn't affect the patio area. He further stated that the owners are very adamant about keeping the dumpster where it is and would like to keep the site plan as it shows the dumpster where it is. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the only lighting being approved was for the parking lot and building. Mr. Roush asked about Condition Six and where the buffer would be located and Mr. Schultz stated that the reason for that was originally we had a fence requirement and after we reviewed the elevation we felt that landscaping with six foot pine trees would be more appropriate than a fence. Mr. Bosch asked about the lights and whether they were halide or high pressure sodium and Mr. Roush stated they would all be a 400 watt metal halide. Mr. Bosch stated he would be concerned about the dumpster being emptied late at night and we need to look at putting some kind of restriction and wasn't sure if there was any way to address it. Mr. Harmon stated that if the Commission wanted to make it specific to this certificate it could be added as a condition and the times it could be done or the other way would be to pass an ordinance that would be general throughout the City that would have specific times of when they can pick up trash. Mr. Bosch stated that since the site has been flipped what would the back look like from Diley Road and Mr. Schultz stated there will be a parcel between them and Diley Road. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the front doors and sidelights and Mr. Roush stated there would be one center piece of doors such as a Stanley access door that are motion activated. He stated that to the left of the doors are fixed panes. Mr. Schultz stated that Condition 17 requires that there would be a water table on the sides of the main doors. Mr. Roush suggested extending the EIFS down to omit the two side panes. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the dumpster location was due to the smell drifting to the patio. Mr. Roush stated that there is an easement and a set back on the northeast corner. He further stated that if Diley Road is vacated it would potentially fix a lot of side yard setback issues on that side. Mr. Schultz clarified that the City owns that and we are discussing access to these sites and it is in the preliminary stages of discussion. He stated we have not recorded the vacation yet because we want to leave that option open. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the dumpster enclosure and Mr. Roush stated it was their intention to match the same wainscote look that is on the building. Mr. Hackworth asked if there would be any other access to the property and Mr. Schultz stated that there could be another access if there is a connecting road and right now there is a private access agreement between the owners. He further stated that there are two potential options. Mr. Hackworth clarified that it depends on what develops south of this property. Mr. Schultz stated that each of the roads would be developer driven and financed. Mr. Bosch clarified that all of the sidewalks and curbs would be ADA compliant. Mr. Hackworth asked about the sidewalks and Mr. Henderson stated that the building department requires that the buildings be connected by a sidewalk from the street so our engineer will make sure that happens. Mr. Roush stated there will be a lot more green space on the northeast corner for this plan to make it look nicer. Mr. Nicholas asked if there would be a raised berm where the top soil currently sits and Mr. Roush stated it would not be because they are fixing a problem near the transformer and they are building up the site. He further stated that the parking lot levels on the low level would be two foot and the high part would be a foot and half below curb. Mr. Schultz clarified that the storm water retention goes into the retention pond that is west to this site. Mr. Nicholas stated he spent time out there listening to the road noise and he was concerned about the noise levels. He stated that he was not convinced that the parking lot noise would exceed what he heard from the surrounding traffic noise. Mr. Roush added that the landscape buffering would help the noise levels as well. Mr. Nicholas asked if the overhead power lines would affect the volleyball courts and Mr. Schultz stated that would be something to be looked at. Mr. Roush stated that the volleyball courts would be netted to keep the balls in play and Mr. Schultz stated they would have to comply with whatever the power company requires. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the EIFS would be ran down the sidelights and combined into the water table. Mr. Schultz stated there was an issue with the HVAC units because it is close to the water line easement, so they will need to be moved outside of the water easement. Mr. Roush clarified that they would all be screened with plant material. Mr. Bosch stated that if the units have to be moved from the east wall he would like to see pylasters to break up the long expanse of the building. Mr. Roush stated they could also put them on the roof and screen them from visibility. Mr. Schultz stated that wherever the units are placed they need to be screened from public view which is a standard requirement. Mr. Bosch stated that we could leave the location up to them and make the requirement that they be screened. Mr. Nicholas asked about the architectural consultants comments about what was approved last month and Mr. Schultz stated it would be up to the Commission on whether to include them. Mr. Bosch stated he felt it was more that the drawings were not updated with the changes. Mr. Blake clarified that staff was satisfied with what was approved last month. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations including the addition of that the applicant shall work with staff to determine the most appropriate location and screening of all mechanical equipment; and the amendment of Condition 17 to say that the EIFS shall be extended down to the water table to cover the sidelights at the entrance of the building; and with the addition should the HVAC units be moved from the east elevation that two pylasters be placed there to break up the expanse of the building; and with the removal of Condition 4 and 5; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea.' Motion passed, 5-0.

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

1. That pine trees, 6-ft tall at installation, shall be planted from the southwestern corner of the building to the southern property line to create an opaque buffer.

2. That the existing tree line along the southern portion of the site shall be preserved.

3. That the patio shall be vacated at midnight.

4. That the volleyball courts shall not be utilized after dark.

5. 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).

6. That the Violet Township Fire Departments concerns shall be met prior to zoning certificate approval.

Mr. Roush stated that the volleyball courts have been moved farther away from the residences and the only difference now is lighting the volleyball courts for night play. He stated that the other issue would be the existing tree line along the southern portion. Mr. Schultz stated that we are going to need to identify the existing trees and look at the grading plan and determine whether they will remain or not. He stated that our arborist will determine whether they are appropriate trees to replace and it will need to be identified on the landscape plan. Mr. Stoner stated they decided they wanted to light the volleyball courts because they started looking at sunset times to help generate more revenue streams. He stated they will have to be brighter than the parking lot to play and would be similar to a PYAA baseball field in a smaller area. Mr. Roush stated that the light emanates directly down and the bulbs cannot be seen. Mr. McMurray stated he had received a lot of phone calls from the neighbors who are not taking this lightly and he keeps getting different stories on the development. He stated he couldn't understand how in the original process it was agreed that there would be no volleyball after dark and now it is being reconsidered. Mr. McMurray stated that he has children and does not want to hear people out there and see a light going on until midnight. He further stated that he cannot emphasize the number of phone calls he has had to field on this issue. Mr. Hackworth stated he didn't think there would be any televisions on the patio and Mr. Schultz stated that the Commission approved that there would be no sound that would be audible at the property line. Mr. Blake clarified that they are not limited to any video devices. Mr. Hackworth stated he understood the revenue aspect but he couldn’t support having the activity at the volleyball court going on until midnight. Mr. Bosch stated he felt that the screening for the patio would be sufficient to block the view. Mr. Stoner stated that nothing from the last approval had been changed except for the lighting on the volleyball courts. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the lighting and Mr. Henderson stated that in the original lighting submittal they had a different kind of lighting and there was a miscommunication, so it was later submitted with the correct fixtures. Mr. Schultz clarified that when we addressed the lighting on the Certificate of Appropriateness for everything except the volleyball court and for the conditional use approval staff is not supporting any lights for the volleyball courts. He further stated that if the Commission approves lights there are some additional conditions we would like to impose to be consistent with our lighting standards. Mr. Bosch stated that what he is looking at doesn't look compatible and even though it would be directional there will be quite a glow based on the candle wattage. He stated he had large reservations about the lighting of the volleyball courts and felt more comfortable with the existing conditions. Mr. Sauer stated the original request was to close the courts at dusk out of respect for the residents that live close by and the hours give him a problem. He stated he could not find a way to support the lights. Mr. Stoner stated that it gets to the point where the City has to decide whether they want a $5 million project and that is what is going to come down to. He further stated that if you are going to zone commercial you have to let commercial in and if this goes down it will be well known for others not to bother with Pickerington. Mr. Stoner stated that he could have put in a gas station that would have been lit up at night. Mr. Bosch asked if the applicant could live with the parking lot lighting footcandles and Mr. Stoner stated he didn't know what the footcandles would look like but he was confident they could get the volleyball court lighting at a comfortable level. Mr. Stoner stated there would be no bleed over from the volley ball court lighting to the residence but there would be parking lot bleed over. Mr. Bosch asked if the applicant could live with the courts closing at 11:00 p.m. and Mr. Stoner stated they could. Mr. Bosch stated he was trying to reach a consensus and could the leagues be defined to summer leagues only. Mr. Stoner stated he couldn't compete financially if he would do that. Mr. Bosch asked if it was acceptable to table the item to work out the lighting issue and Mr. Stoner stated he needed a comfort level on the lighting for the volleyball court because frankly they were at a maximum level on their budget. He stated he could work on the parking lot lighting. Mr. Roush stated that they could get with other leagues in the area to see what their actual lighting levels are. Mr. Stoner stated they could get a photometric map if they know they are going forward with this. Mr. Hackworth stated the issue is the intent to keep the courts open until midnight and originally we were told they would shut the courts down at dusk. Mr. Sauer stated that the other issue is the noise and the alcohol on the patio and around the courts and will have an impact on the surrounding homes. Mr. Nicholas stated that with respect to lighting the courts he could not support them because of the noise. He stated that with respect to school hours he also doesn't know what other people's work schedules are that could be affected. Mr. Nicholas asked with respect to the fencing that was mentioned earlier around the courts how tall would the fencing be and Mr. Roush stated it was simply a net to keep balls in play. Mr. Stoner stated that if at some point they decide to enclose it so alcohol can be served at the courts then it has to be enclosed with a fence also. Mr. Schultz stated we would need to see that and would need the height and size addressed at the landscaping review. Mr. Nicholas stated that as a resident we appreciate the fact that you are considering bringing your business to Pickerington, however during discussions I have perceived alleged threats to take your business elsewhere if we don't approve the lighting. He further stated that he couldn’t believe that they would pull their business out of here because of that. Mr. Nicholas stated he could not support the lighting at the volleyball court not in spite of that, but because of the noise issue. Mr. Stoner stated that it was not a threat and the budget is running over and they were looking for revenue source. Mr. Blake stated that from his standpoint it was a tough decision because we have to look at the current zoning and a residential area being close to it. Mr. Hartmann stated that there is no prohibition on whether they can come back and request lighting if it is approved without it tonight. Mr. Roush stated that they could get more information. Mr. Hartmann stated that if the next property develops and blocks this area it might give them an opportunity to come back in to request lighting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations and with the revision to condition 2 to be at the existing tree line along the southern portion of the site shall be preserved per the tree preservation ordinance; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director

(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz reported that BZA met in April and approved a side yard variance for the Express Car Wash on Refugee Road and also approved two variances for Pickerington Entertainment Center.

(2) FCRPC - Mr. Schultz reported that there were no township agenda items so we did not attend.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission - No discussion

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Nicholas asked about signage on the interior of windows and Mr. Schultz stated that our Code Enforcement officer is working on those issues. Mr. Bosch asked about rules for soliciting in the City and Mr. Schultz stated that we recently passed a new ordinance that makes it fairly restrictive. He stated that they have to apply and then the Police Department completes a background check and until we allow a solicitor to work in the City they have to comply with our Code.

C. Planning Reports - Mr. Schultz stated that McBride Dale Clarion is preparing the draft report for the target areas of Diley Road and we hope to have a complete report in a month.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Hackworth moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blake voted "Aye." Motion carried 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:00 P.M. on May 13, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning