PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
JANUARY 13, 2009
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, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Mayor O’Brien, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banschefsky, Craig VanBreman, Shad Phipps, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 9, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Don Patron’s Restaurant located at 1282 Hill Road North (TABLED 04/08/08).
B. A Public Hearing and review and request for motion to approve the rezoning of an approximate 5.82-acre parcel from C-2 (Limited Commercial–Violet Township) to C-3 (Community Commercial) for the Gillilan property located on the northeast corner of the Refugee Road and Milnor Road intersection. Mr. Blake opened the public hearing for comment. Mr. Schultz stated this item was before this Commission in November, however, it was discovered that the adjacent property owners were not properly notified and therefore it is back before the Commission this evening. Mr. Blake ascertained there were no public comments and closed the public hearing. Mr. Henderson stated the owner was requesting the rezoning in accordance with the annexation agreement with the City. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the rezoning request with the condition that the requirements of the annexation agreement would have to be fulfilled by the City and the property owner. Mr. Nicholas clarified that an intended use for this property has not been established. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the requested rezoning with the condition that the requirements of the annexation agreement would have to be fulfilled by the City and the property owner; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
C. Review and request for motion to approve Non-Residential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for MooMoo’s Car Wash located on the southeastern corner of Hill Road North and Cross Creeks Boulevard (former Exxon Gas Station) for Berry and Miller Construction, Inc. Mr. Henderson stated this Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/architectural for Moo Moo’s Car Wash as well as a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru on July 8, 2008. He further stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 2,867 square foot car wash located just south of Cross Creeks Boulevard on S.R. 256 (the former Exxon Gas Station), and they would like to incorporate a modification and addition to the existing car wash. He further stated the applicant is identifying five pole lights throughout the parking lot and 18 wall mounted fixtures on the building. Mr. Henderson stated two light poles would be located on the proposed subject parcel and three light poles would be located on the proposed adjacent parcel to the south. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request with the following conditions:
1. That the three light poles located on the proposed adjacent parcel shall be deleted from the light plans or have a recorded light pole easement agreement with the adjacent property owner.
2. That the wall mounted fixtures shall be compatible to Creek Bend Center and Primrose Day Care and comply with the maximum spill over illumination requirements.
Mr. Craig VanBreman stated he was present this evening representing Berry and Miller Construction Company. Mr. VanBreman stated they did not feel the light poles that encroached on the property next door would require an easement agreement because anything that will be developed there in the future, this lighting plan will incorporate the proposed future development. He stated they would like to not have to go through adding another easement to this property. He further clarified the proposed wall mounted fixtures would be compatible to Creek Bend Center and Primrose Day Care.
Mr.
Schultz stated he would like to address staff’s recommendation on the easement
for the light poles. He stated currently
this developer does not own the adjacent property and they were allowed to move
forward with their project with the understanding that they would own that site
via a lot split. He stated as of today
it is his understanding that the lot split has not occurred. Mr. Schultz stated because that has not
occurred and they do not own the site, the property to the south could be owned
by someone else who may not want the lights and it is hard to allow development
on someone else’s property. He stated
that is why staff was recommending an easement agreement. Mr. VanBreman stated they do have that land
in contract and they plan to move forward, and anything that does happen with
those lots will be incorporated into this lighting plan. Mr. Schultz stated he did understand that,
however, it is owned by someone else right now.
Mr. Bosch inquired if the light poles can be moved a couple of feet and
incorporated into his lot and Mr. VanBreman responded that because of the
operation of the car wash there is really no latitude to put the lights
there. He stated if the three lights
were removed he did not know what the light levels would go down to. Mr. Blake further clarified that Mr.
VanBreman did not know if the property would be closed upon before final
construction of the car wash was started.
Mr. Schultz stated if the developer does not own the site, the owner of
the site must allow the City to approve the construction drawings, the building
plans, and the lights. He stated the
City would need a letter from the current owner that the project can move
forward. Mr. Binkley questioned if the
Board had the right to approve something like this. Mr. Banschefsky stated the Board would not be
mandating a trespass per se; it is the applicant’s concern that the lights be
there and he is proposing to put them on property he does not own. Mr. Banschefsky stated this is out of the
ordinary and he might suggest the developer obtain a license agreement, which
is basically a right to be there so it is not a trespass. He stated this is typically revocable at will
which meant the owner of the property could revoke that license at any time,
but at least there would be something so it did not appear the City was
requiring there be a trespass in this case, because that is what it is. Mr. Nicholas stated he had some questions
regarding the wall mounted fixtures and the color of the trim, and with respect
to the lighting of the parking lot he would defer to the engineers on the Board. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not feel
comfortable making a decision with the information the Board had before
them. Mr. Hackworth inquired if language
could be added to the conditions with regard to a license agreement that Mr.
Banschefsky had referred to. Mr. Schultz
stated the reason staff was recommending an easement was because when this was
approved initially, the dumpster was going to be in an easement and staff had
recommended an easement for the lights instead of having a second
mechanism. Mr. Banschefsky stated he had
mentioned a license agreement, but an easement would be preferable. Mr. Bosch inquired if this were tabled this
evening to enable them to get some of these questions answered and to get this
easement, would it hold up the project, and Mr. Schultz stated it may not. Mr. Schultz stated the next step would be to
get a zoning certificate approval and site plan approval before they can start
construction. Mr. Bosch moved to
Table; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch,
Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. (TABLED)
D. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for five proposed 8,000 square foot office buildings and the three existing office buildings at the Offices at Stonecreek located just south of Stonecreek Drive South. Mr. Henderson stated the developer is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground and wall signage for the Offices at Stonecreek development to provide more exposure for the current and future tenants. He stated the original approval proposed a ground sign on Hill Road North and Stonecreek Drive South. It also provide for directional and wall signage in the development to assist patrons in the location of the tenants. Mr. Henderson stated the amended sign plan is proposing to modify these signs and add three more ground signs that would have tenant information on them for the adjacent buildings along Stonecreek Drive South and a ground sign for a future building along Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson stated the existing Shoppes at Stonecreek sign would remain at its current location at the corner of Stonecreek Drive and Hill Road North and the applicant is proposing two ground signs that would identify the Offices at Stonecreek one of which would be located on Hill Road North and one would be located on Stonecreek Drive South. He stated these signs were previously approved, however, the locations, materials, and size of the signs have changed. Mr. Henderson further stated there would be three multi-tenant ground signs located along Stonecreek Drive South that would advertise the offices located in the adjacent buildings and would have space for eight tenants. Mr. Henderson continued there would be 12 internal directional signs located throughout the development. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building signage with the following conditions:
1. That the brick columns shall extend up at 75 percent of the sign face area for all monument signs (signs identified as “B,” “B2,” and “C”).
2. That the monument sign (“B2”) shall not be installed until construction of the future building commences.
3. That there shall be one wall sign per tenant with a maximum two signs per main entrance door.
4. That the ground signs shall be located a minimum of five feet from the right-of-way and outside the sight triangle.
5. That the height of the ground signs shall not exceed eight feet above the elevation of the parking lot or sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign.
6. That the ground and wall signs shall be limited to two colors and have a matte finish (white/cream and maroon).
Mr. Shad Phipps stated he was the Development Officer for Equity and was representing them this evening. Mr. Phipps stated he would like some clarification on the requirement that the brick columns extend up at least 75 percent of the sign face area. He stated he did not have a problem increasing the brick up the side; he just did not want the bricks to go over where the sign curves in. Mr. Schultz stated this Commission does have the authority to allow that 75 percent requirement to be increased or decreased according to the sign. Mr. Phipps stated the signs would reflect the names of the tenants and the signage would be very cohesive but would allow you to distinguish which tenant you were going to.
Mr. Schultz stated over the past year there have been some issues with the current tenants on signage and the City decided to be a little more flexible to accommodate the needs of the existing tenants and future tenants to be consistent.
Mr. Phipps stated he did not have a problem with waiting to install the one sign until construction of the building commences, they just wanted to have a standard set so if it is outparceled and sold to someone, the sign would have to look like the others.
Mr. Bosch stated the signage on the buildings does not appear to be the signs that were previously approved. Mr. Phipps stated they are looking at changing the building signage, but they have not brought that to the City as yet. He stated it is their plan to change to more of a one-door entry and have a foyer as you go into the building to go in the direction of the suites. Mr. Schultz stated staff had suggested that if they were going to come in with the ground signs, because those are what they want to construct first, to come in with the building signs knowing that in the future they were going to change the building design to what you have been provided.
Mr. Bosch stated it appears to him that there are to many signs along S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated because of several complaints from existing tenants, the City decided to make some concessions and allow a little more flexibility because with the mounding and the like out there and some of the construction traffic they have had to deal with, we thought it would be appropriate to allow some additional signage on this site for the inconvenience they went through. Mr. Bosch stated it seems like a huge amount of signage to him and he would think the tenants would be glad to have access to a signal because you could never get in and out of the current office buildings. Mr. Phipps stated they have lost tenants because of the signage. Mr. Schultz stated another issue in this area is that we had to modify the addresses for the three existing offices and that caused some hardship. He stated that is why we wanted the appropriate signage in the interior for the tenants so their patients and clients will be able to locate the site. Mr. Binkley stated he had no problem with the signage along Stonecreek Drive South. He the three signs approximately 100 feet apart seems like a lot of signage in a very small area. He stated he felt the signs along Stonecreek made sense and are warranted to help direct people. Mr. Phipps stated the size of the signs have been reduced from almost 80 square feet to 44 square feet so they did not seem overbearing. He stated this is good quality signage that people can see and read, but is not oversized. Mr. Blake stated he trusted staff’s recommendation and due to the economic climate he felt whatever we can do to enhance any of the businesses in our community is a good thing. Mrs. Evans stated signage is critical to getting your business recognized, especially if you have offices off of S.R. 256. She stated if she were the property owner, she would want tenants in there so she could generate income that would come back to the City. She stated she agreed with Mr. Blake, and the fact that the signage has been reduced almost in half is a consideration for the City. She stated without the visibility no-one would utilize those businesses. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mr. Blake and Mrs. Evans, and the last thing he wanted to see was the City drive away economic development. He stated it is a lot of signs, but we need to do what we can to encourage the development to stay here. Mr. Schultz stated he and Mr. Henderson had questioned the amount of signage, but due to the fact of the address issues out there and the fact that there were issues with tenants leaving, they felt it was appropriate to allow the additional signage. Mr. Hackworth stated he agreed that whatever we can do to bring business in was good and he did not see that the signs were that much out of the realm this Commission normally approves. Mayor O’Brien clarified that the signs shall not exceed eight feet above the elevation of the parking lot or sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign. Mr. Schultz stated the condition is also that the signs shall be outside the site triangle. Mr. Schultz further stated if the mounding is going to be revised where the signs are installed, he would request Mr. Phipps bring that in for him to review before the signs are installed. Mr. Nicholas stated he would request that Sign “E” be pending or contingent upon the future approval or submission of the architectural change of the building itself. He stated with that condition he was comfortable with everything except the quantities of signs “B” and “B2”. He stated he felt we could lose sign “B” on Stonecreek and either sign “B” or “B2” on S.R. 256. He stated once people got into the park they would start looking for addresses. Mr. Schultz stated the future building has not been approved, so this is a future sign for a future building. Mr. Phipps stated he is just trying to ensure that it looks the same as his signs. Mr. Schultz stated they could split that “B2” lot out, they could do a lot split and that would become a new lot. He continued that person could then come in for a sign and we are trying to make sure that if that is sold as a new lot that we have a sign approved for it that is consistent with the rest of the park. Mayor O’Brien stated with regard to the signs on S.R. 256, if a lot split occurred could there be access off of that drive. Mr. Schultz stated the City is trying to work with the State Farm office and the orthopedic office to connect into this site to get them out at the light. Mayor O’Brien inquired if they would then give up their curb cut and Mr. Schultz stated that is in the negotiations. Mayor O’Brien stated, however, as it exists today we would be putting up two large elevated signs and it seems like we would be putting up a large wall for anyone coming out of the insurance company trying to turn onto S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated it would be a tough turn to make and that was why we were trying to encourage them to come out at the light before the traffic becomes detrimental to their business. Mr. Schultz stated the intent of the Comprehensive Sign Plan is being met because there are nine potential buildings out there and there are seven signs and they could potentially ask for nine signs. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to the Mayor’s comment about the potential of blocking the view that may or may not be compounded by the mounding that is going in, what if instead of “B” and “B2” on S.R. 256, those signs were traded for a sign “C” then if that lot gets split off and someone comes in we could have them put their sign right on sign “C”. Mr. Sauer stated his concern with Mr. Nicholas’ suggestion is the possibility of it creating more confusion than the three signs being considered. Mr. Phipps stated he agreed he was asking for a lot, but this signage is good, and he needs these marketing tools when he is trying to bring offices into this development. He stated surprisingly one of the first questions potential tenants ask is what the signage is like and how easy is it to give directions to this location. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the six conditions recommended by staff and with the addition that Sign “E” shall be contingent upon approval of future proposed building architectural changes and that Condition 1 be amended to require the brick columns shall extend up at least 75 percent of the sign face area or up to the radial point for all monument signs (signs identified as “B”, “B2,” and “C”); Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Binkley voting “Nay,” and Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-3.
E. Review and request for motion to approve the Diley Road Corridor Study and Plan. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission had received the final draft of the Diley Road Corridor Study and Plan. He stated three public meetings were conducted with officials from Violet Township, Canal Winchester, this Commission, and Council members. Mr. Schultz stated this plan will allow us to be proactive rather than reactive to likely future rezonings the five lane road will attract and also maintain the high quality of life for the subdivisions in the area that abut the roadway. Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy to answer any questions anyone may have. Mr. Binkley stated he would like to clarify that this a guide and Mr. Schultz stated that was correct, it was a guide for future development and will allow us to plan for Diley Road. Mr. Schultz stated when someone comes in and requests a rezoning, staff would follow this plan unless the request makes more sense or is a better development that what is proposed in the plan. Mrs. Evans stated she still felt there was a missing vital element. She stated if our number one goal is economic development, we should have some kind of study done to show what income professional offices bring in to the City. She stated she felt this would give us some kind of guideline even though we know we would not have the entire area developed into these professional offices. She stated she felt this information was available and would not be that difficult to put together. Mr. Schultz stated this is a land use plan only, it is not a fiscal plan. He stated further, zoning decisions cannot be based on the revenue the use will bring in. Mr. Banschefsky stated if someone came in with something that did not comply with the Plan you could say no because it did not comply with the Plan. He stated further if someone came in with something that did not comply, but that you liked, you could amend the Plan or not follow it because it is a flexible planning document. He stated he felt the type of study Mrs. Evans was referring to would be a good tool to have and could enhance this Plan. Mr. Schultz stated further some of this land is located in the Township and when someone wants to annex we could put stipulations on some of the types of uses based on this Plan, and we will have those discussions. Mr. Schultz stated this is something to consider and he will look into it. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to Service Committee and Council; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA met on December 18th, and approved the three variances for the oversized garage on Long Road.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the final plat for the Tollgate Elementary and Middle Schools were approved with a couple of stipulations of land being acquired.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Commission Discussion. Mrs. Evans clarified that the parking lots for LifeStyle and Kohl’s were not connected because there are two different owners and they are working toward this. Mr. Schultz stated because there are two different owners the City cannot require this connection.
B. Planning Report. No report.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:35 P.M., January 13, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk