CITY OF PICKERINGTON

                                        PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

                                               CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

                                                     TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003

 

                                                 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

                                                                      7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Bosch called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows:  Mr. Pruden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Maxey, and Mr. Bosch were present.  Mr. Nicholas and Mr. England were absent.  Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Jason Fenton, Bret and Jeanette Castoe, Dan and Bertie Heitmeyer, Shane Chandler, Joel Mazel, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 8, 2003, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Blake seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Pruden, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Maxey voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 5-0. 

 

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 Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for a fence at 84 West Columbus Street (Castoe property).   Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to install a four foot high wrought iron fence in front of the house and along the western property line to the existing garage.  He stated the fence does meet the requirements of wrought iron or wood picket fences in the olde downtown area, however, a variance would need to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a fence in a required front yard setback.  Mr. Schultz stated staff does support the Certificate of Appropriateness contingent upon the variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and, at the request of the City Engineer for liability and structural reasons, the fence not be anchored to the City sidewalk, and that the installation of the fence be coordinated with the construction schedule of the streetscape project.  Mr. Castoe stated he planned on waiting to put the fence in after the grading on the streetscape project is complete so he had no problems with the conditions listed by Mr. Schultz.  Mr. Maxey moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness contingent on the three conditions stated by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Pruden, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

E.         Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for outdoor patios for Lots 1 and 2 at the Shoppes on the Parkway in Creek Bend Business Park (SR 256 Center LLC).  Mr. Schultz stated this Commission had approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for this site for building materials, lighting, and landscaping in June of this year, and the applicant is now proposing two outdoor patio eating areas which would be located on the south side of building 1 (Lot 1) and on the north side of building 2 (lot 2).  The patio areas would be installed in lieu of parking islands, and a wrought iron fence would separate the patio areas from the parking lots.  He stated the patio area for building 1 will be approximately 40 feet long and 17 feet wide (680 square feet), and for building 2 it would be 18 feet long and 15 feet wide (240 square feet).  He stated a drive thru that generates medium to a low amount of traffic was approved for building 2 and staff, with assistance from the city Engineer, has determined a coffee use drive thru would likely meet this requirement for the following reasons:  A coffee shop use would likely serve people more quickly than a typical fast food establishment; there are eight stacking spaces along the side and rear of the building and because there are no entrances into the retail building in this area the drive thru stacking should not impact patrons or businesses; any overflow traffic from the drive thru would back onto Clint Drive and not S.R. 256; and, peak hour traffic would likely occur for a 2-3 hour period in the mornings and not throughout the day.  He stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness contingent upon the outdoor patio use on lot 2 not generate drive thru traffic comparable to a fast food establishment.  Mr. Smith stated this is the third time this particular drive thru has been addressed by this Commission, and he would like to know if we have, on the record, what the trip number going through there would be.  Mr. Schultz stated there is no specific number for this use, there is a number for a fast food drive thru, but nothing less.  Mr. Smith stated his concern was not necessarily the coffee shop, but if the coffee shop would move and we do not have on our books what the trip limit could be, then any business replacing the coffee shop could have higher traffic and not have to come back before this Commission and that would put us back in the position we have tried to avoid from the beginning.  Mr. Schultz stated because there is a number for a fast food facility, perhaps this Commission could put a condition that this use cannot be above that number.  Mr. Bosch stated in the same book that gives the number of total trips, it also breaks it out for A.M. and P.M. peaks, and he would like to have those numbers included in the conditions, because not only do we have to be concerned with the stacking, but also with the traffic that needs to circulate.   Mr. Schultz stated he would get the number of trips that cannot be exceeded from our engineer. Mr. Bosch further clarified the patio areas did not reduce or hinder the green space as these areas were to be concrete anyway.  Mr. Schultz stated depending on the use of building 1, the patio may not occur.  He stated they were requesting it as it would give them some flexibility.  Mr. Fenton stated he was representing the applicant and they had a potential tenant for that space who had requested the option of having the patio.  He stated that tenant was no longer involved, however, the applicant felt if it was approved now it would allow him some options.  Mr. Pruden clarified there will be a right in/right out non-signalized access at Clint Drive.  Mr. Mapes stated he has noticed there is no pork chop in place yet mandating the right in/right out.  He stated we have a city required, engineered pork chop, and he did not know if there was enough room to put that pork chop in between those existing curbs.  Mr. Schultz stated he had noticed that as well, however, that is on the site plans and our engineers were looking at the plans.  Mr. Mapes stated he had requested our inspector to look at that as well.  Mr. Smith moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness with the number of trips that cannot be exceeded, and the number of trips that cannot be exceeded during A.M. and P.M. peak hours as well; Mr. Pruden seconded the motion.  Mr. Schultz stated he would notify this Commission at their next meeting as to what those numbers were.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Maxey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Pruden, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

F.         Review and request for motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for The Towne Hall Building (17-25 North Center Street) and Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for The Towne Hall (Heitmeyer property).  Mr. Schultz stated this Commission approved signage for Grissini’s Market and Café in December 2002.  He stated the property owner is now proposing a comprehensive sign plan for the three businesses in the building.  Mr. Schultz stated the owner was proposing five building signs including the Grissini’s sign that has already been approved.  Mr. Schultz stated The Town Hall (25 North Center St.) would have an oval sign on the second floor of the building facing West Columbus Street that would be 60”x 30” (approximately 12.5 square feet) and would be constructed of omega board with vinyl graphics.  He stated the letters would be tan and gold with a chocolate background.  Mr. Schultz stated the second Towne Hall sign would be located on the first floor, fronting West Columbus Street, and would hang from the porch ceiling to allow exposure to North Center Street.  He stated this oval sign would be 36”x 20” (approximately 4.1 square feet) and would be identical in color to their larger sign.  Mr. Schultz continued the Corner Gallery (23 North Center Street) would have one oval shaped 12”x15” (approximately 1.25 square feet) located next to the entrance on Center Street, with the sign color and materials being identical to The Towne Hall signs.  Mr. Schultz stated Grissini’s Market and Café (19 North Center Street) has the existing sign located on North Center Street that projects over the sidewalk, and they are proposing another sign to be located on the first floor of the building, fronting West Columbus Street, that would be identical to the existing sign that is made of redwood with sandblasted black lettering.  Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the comprehensive sign plan and certificate of appropriateness for The Towne Hall signs contingent upon the building signs being constructed and located as indicated on the submitted plans, and that all other existing signage be removed from the building and site.  Mr. Schultz further stated sign permits will be required for each of the signs.  Mr. Maxey moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for The Town Hall Building and Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for The Towne Hall contingent upon meeting the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Pruden voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

G.        Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting for Auto Zone and Cottman Transmission at 860-880 Refugee Road.  Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposes to install four new light poles in the parking lot and nine building wall lights.  He stated the light poles would be 20 feet in height and appear to be the standard box cut-off style lights.  He stated the illumination at property lines will meet City standards, and the wall lights are located on the sides and rear of the building.  Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness contingent upon the light poles being full cut-off type and being installed as shown on the submitted plans.  Mr. Shane Chandler stated he was present representing the applicant and he did not see any problems with meeting the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz.  Mr. Smith moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting for Auto Zone and Cottman Transmission; Mr. Blake seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Pruden, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

H.        Review and request for motion to approve amendment to Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for Auto Zone and Cottman Transmission at 860-880 Refugee Road.  Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is requesting two modifications to the plans this Commission approved in March of 2003 on the Cottman Transmission elevation.  Mr. Schultz stated on the south elevation the eastern portion of the front elevation was originally approved with brick veneer along the topmost portion of the elevation.  He stated the owner is proposing dryvit instead of the brick veneer and the dryvit would match the other dryvit on the building.  Mr. Schultz stated on the east elevation, the southern most portion was originally approved with brick veneer along the topmost portion of the elevation, and the owner is proposing using dryvit instead of the brick veneer and it would match the other dryvit on the building.  Mr. Schultz stated staff did not have a recommendation on the proposed modification.  Mr. Shane Chandler stated he was representing the applicant and he would answer any questions.  Mr. Bosch clarified on the south elevation there is still an area of dryvit proposed between the first floor and the upper section that is set back.  Mr. Bosch stated this Commission has gone to great lengths on other buildings not to have whole walls of brick.  He stated his concern was on the east elevation, you would have one whole section that is going to be solid brick and we will have lost any type of segregation other than that one line of brick standing on end to break that large expanse of brick up.  Mr. Bosch stated the south elevation did not seem that bad, but on the east elevation he felt it would just be a large section of all brick.  Mr. Chandler stated if the brick on the east elevation is taken up to the second band that would separate it.  Mr. Bosch stated it would at least break the area up if we could treat the east elevation the same way as the south elevation with the section of dryvit in between, making it brick north of the band and the dryvit section below.  Mr. Bosch moved to approve the amendment to the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for Auto Zone and Cottman Transmission with the condition that the east elevation be amended with dryvit from the existing brick up to the first band, and then brick from that point up on the east elevation only; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Pruden, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

I.          Review and request for motion to approve Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage at 60 West Columbus Street (Mazel property).  Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to replace the existing ground sign with a new ground sign, that would be in the same location.  He stated the proposed sign would be 8 feet high and 4 feet wide with a sign area of 16 square feet.  He stated this sign is larger than most signs in the old downtown area, but it would identify four uses and is the same size as the existing sign.  Mr. Schultz stated the sign would be comprised of wood, wood posts would support the sign and would have decorative caps.  The sign nameplates would be comprised of PVC with routed graphics.  Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for signage.  Mr. Joel Mazel stated he is the applicant and he would answer any questions.  Mr. Bosch stated he noted the sign would be 8 feet tall and questioned if that was too high.  Mr. Mazel stated the proposed sign is the same height as the current sign.  Mr. Mapes stated this property sits up higher from the roadway so that may be why the current sign does not look that tall.  Mr. Bosch stated if this is the same height he had no problem, because the current sign looks fine.  Mr. Pruden clarified the maximum height we allow for office uses is ten feet. Mr. Maxey moved to approve the Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriate for signage; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Pruden, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

4.         REPORTS:

 

A.        Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

 

                        (1)        BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board had approved a variance for a fence in the front yard at the last meeting, and there is one case on the agenda for this month which is the fence for the Castoe property that was discussed this evening.       

 

B.         FCRPC - Lance Schultz.  Mr. Schultz stated the final plat for Winding Creek, Section 5, was approved, and they also approved a plan extension for Spring Creek.

 

C.        Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz.  Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting the consultant had reviewed the existing population and future population projections, demographics in the area, and physical assumptions for the area such as the entire Township being watered and sewered in the next ten years.  He stated they had also reviewed the traffic analysis that was done approximately five years ago.  Mr. Mapes clarified that water and sewer would be available through either the Township or municipalities in the township, not that people would be taken off their wells and septic and required to be on the system.        

 

5.         OTHER BUSINESS: 

 

A.        Tree Commission.  No report. 

 

B.         Olde Downtown Pickerington Sign Code.  Mr. Schultz stated he had done a walk through of the old downtown area and he had provided the Commission a spreadsheet identifying the uses and types of signs.  He stated the result was that we have 17 portable signs in the old downtown area that are not permitted by our Code today, four banner signs that are not permitted, and seven signs that would be nonconforming signs.  Mr. Schultz stated it would be the decision of this Commission if they want to draft regulations to permit these portable signs or what they want to do.  Mr. Bosch stated he would like to know if these signs were not to be allowed, do we actually have the ability to police them since they go up and come down so often.  Mr. Mapes stated for example Reynoldsburg does not allow portable signs at all.  Mr. Mapes stated we have the ability to regulate these signs, and are we saying that because of its quaintness these are appropriate in the downtown.  He stated if they are appropriate how would we limit them, etc.  Mr. Bosch stated he did feel the quaintness of the downtown should allow the portable signs, but on the other hand we have put a lot of work into the downtown and if they are allowed we probably need more regulations as far as size, location, etc.  Mr. Smith stated he agreed and while we wanted the businesses to thrive downtown we do not want it to look trashy or have a handicapped person have to go around signs to get down the street.  Mr. Bosch stated he would be supportive of something because it is the old downtown and we do want it to be pedestrian friendly, but he did feel we want to look at the sizes and locations so they do not hinder anyone.  Mr. Smith ascertained we would be looking at allowing the portable signs in the downtown area only, as the rest of the City is allowed a larger sign.  Mr. Bosch requested Mr. Mapes and Mr. Schultz review other areas such as German Village or Victorian Village and see what types of restrictions they use for these signs.  Mr. Bosch requested Mr. Mapes and Mr. Schultz provide more information to this Commission at the next meeting. 

 

C.        Group Homes (Family Care Homes).  Mr. Schultz stated he and Mr. Mapes had done some research on group homes.  Mr. Mapes stated because of federal regulations there is not a lot that we can do about these facilities.  He stated by their very nature they are designed to be a family unit that teaches family values and the people who live there learn how to function as a family.  He stated he will continue checking with other communities to see what conditions can be required.  Mr. Mapes stated the initial house that was a concern has been sold to an individual that has no intention of using it for this type of facility, so the immediate concern is no longer there.  Mr. Bosch requested Mr. Mapes let the Commission know what he has found in his research at the next meeting. 

 

6.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Pruden seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Pruden, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 5-0.  The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:20 P.M., August 12, 2003.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

___________________________                  ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin                                                Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk                                                Director, Planning and Zoning