PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
MAY 12, 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: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe
Henderson, Mitch Banschefsky, Paul Woodruff, Sally Mosca, Antonio Mosca, Peggy
Portier, Paul Ramsay, Larry Folk, Craig VanBreman, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 14, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
Mr. Blake stated there was a request from a resident to address the Commission.
Ms Peggy Portier, Violet Township, stated she was representing the Mingo Estates Civic Association. Ms Portier stated residents of the subdivision have voiced complaints regarding noise from Doolin’s Pub in the Drug Mart shopping center and asking for help in trying to find a remedy for this problem. Ms Portier stated they had collected 48 signatures on a petition requesting help and some of those individuals are residents of the City on Diley Road and in Cherry Hill. Ms Portier stated she had attended the last City Council meeting asking if they could do anything to help. She stated the noise is from the band at the bar, from their playing corn hole in the parking lot, and from motorcycles revving their motors in the parking lot. Ms Portier stated some residents have gone to the bar and complained and they have also come to the City but nothing has been effective. Ms Portier stated their goal was not to close the business, they just wanted some neighborly consideration as the neighborhood was there before the bar came in. Mr. Blake clarified with the law director, Mr. Banschefsky that this appears to be a police matter and the first step would be meeting with the Police Chief to see what can be worked out on this, such as enhanced patrols, etc. Mr. Banschefsky stated the State Code also has a muffler and excessive noise provision in terms of loud motorcycles. Mr. Banschefsky stated in terms of a zoning issue, there are hours of operation issues which, if violated, would trigger a zoning violation but he was not aware of that being a part of this problem. Ms Portier stated they have met with the Police Chief, and Mr. Schultz stated it is also his understanding that the Chief of Police and one of the owner’s of the establishment had a meeting as well. Mrs. Yartin stated this issue is an agenda item at the Safety Committee meeting on May 20,2009.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to
approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Shoppes on
the Parkway at 152-196 Clint Drive.
(TABLED 04/14/09) Mr. Sauer
moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Hackworth 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. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to construct two
ground signs for the Shoppes on the Parkway Shopping Center. He stated the applicant would like to replace
the existing sign with two signs, one for each building, that would allow the
tenants to advertise on the ground sign.
Mr. Henderson stated staff supported the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan
for Ground Signage that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and
the following conditions:
1. That the brick shall match the existing
buildings
2. That the height of the ground signs
shall not exceed 12.33 feet above the adjacent parking lot grade
3. That the existing ground sign shall be
removed upon installation of the proposed ground signs.
Mr. Sauer clarified that the columns on the side of the sign
will be the same width as the sign. Mr.
Nicholas inquired if the conditions should contain language that the copy
material should be of a matte finish and Mr. Schultz stated when we revised our
Nonresidential Design Guidelines and our Sign Code, that requirement was
included. Mr. Schultz stated since it is
a requirement, a condition is not necessary.
He further stated the revision also included the requirement for not
more than three colors. Mr. Binkley
moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Shoppes on
the Parkway with the three staff conditions; Mrs. Evans 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.
B. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Residential
Districts Storage Building/Garage Regulations at 270 Oakview Court. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission and stated the property owner is proposing to build a storage
shed in the rear yard that would be 240-square feet. He stated the purpose of the shed would be
for storage of lawn equipment, wood shop equipment, etc. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
Conditional Use Permit request with two conditions:
1. That the storage building shall not be
used as a dwelling unit or as a home business.
2. That only one shed shall be allowed on
the property.
Mr. Paul Ramsay stated he is the property owner and he would
be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the
Conditional Use Permit with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the
motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr.
Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion
passed, 7-0.
C. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture for Shear Perfection Loft
located at 101 Hill Road North. Mr.
Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated the
applicant was proposing to convert an existing home located at 101 Hill Road
North into a beauty salon. He stated the
applicant is proposing a 780-square foot addition to the front of the building
increasing the total to approximately 1,452-square feet, and a 14-space parking
lot would be located on the rear of the site.
Further they are proposing to expand the existing curb cut from 10-feet
to 16-feet along Hill Road North. Mr.
Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for
Site Plan and Architectural that complies with the minimum zoning code
requirements with the following conditions:
1. That
a front yard building setback variance shall be required through the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
2.
That a side yard (north)
parking setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. That
a side yard (south) building, parking, and buffering setback variance shall be
required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.
4. That
a Type A buffer variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.
5. That
the access drive shall be 24-feet wide or a variance shall be required through
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
6. That
the aisle width shall be 24-feet or a variance shall be required through the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
7. That
color samples shall be submitted and reviewed by the City’s Architectural
Consultant for compliance.
The following waivers for the Nonresidential Design
Standards in Appendix IV would be required:
1. That
ten percent of the vehicular use area shall be designated for landscaping
unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Paul Woodruff, the City’s Architectural Consultant,
stated he had reviewed the architectural compartments on this; however, he had
not received any color or material samples.
He stated he would need either samples or some indication of what the
materials were before he made a final recommendation.
Mr. Schultz stated our Zoning Code was written for sites on
S.R. 256, but this being in the old downtown is a unique situation. He stated there are several businesses in the
old downtown that are within the setbacks and there is parking in the rear of
several businesses that are right on the property line. He stated from staff’s perspective, they
encouraged retail/commercial/office type uses in the old downtown. He stated there are several variances
required and it appears this site plan meets engineering, building, and fire
department requirements. He stated staff
did support this request because it does meet all those minimum
requirements. Mr. Schultz stated at the
time these variances are to be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals all of
the neighbors would be notified, and the Board can determine if the variances
are appropriate based on comments and concerns from the neighbors.
Mr. Larry Folk stated he was the architect representing the
applicant on this issue. Mr. Folk stated
as far as colors, he had not had a chance to delve into the color board, but
they were basically going to reside the house with probably a hardy plank type
of siding, put new shingles on the existing house and the new addition. Mr. Nicholas clarified the second floor of the
existing house would most probably be used for storage purposes. Mr. Bosch stated he just wanted to ensure no
drainage problems would be created by paving this lot and Mr. Schultz stated
the applicant is aware they have to meet our minimum engineering
requirements. Mr. Bosch stated further
he had a concern with the parking because it is narrow and only one lane for
both directions. Mr. Schultz stated he
understood Mr. Bosch’s concern, but the traffic here will be limited so that
will help that situation. Mr. Sauer
moved to approve the Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of
Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture with staff conditions; Mr.
Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr.
Bosch clarified the waiver was included in staff conditions. 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.
D. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Rule (3) located at 650 Windmiller
Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant
had requested this item be tabled this evening.
Mr. Bosch moved to Table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth,
Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
E. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building
Signage for Rule (3) located at 650 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented
to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing building
signage for the north, south, and west elevations of the 30,011 square-foot
bowling alley located at 650 Windmiller Drive.
He stated the applicant is not proposing ground signage at this
time. Mr. Henderson stated staff
supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage with the following
conditions:
1. That
the signage on the south side of the building shall be allowed in place of signage
on the east elevation.
2. That
the building signage shall be internally illuminated by reverse lit
lighting.
Mr. Craig VanBreman stated he was present representing the
applicant and the owner agrees with all of staff’s conditions. He stated in addition to the entire sign
being approved as reverse lit, the owner was hoping it could also be approved
as the R-u-l-e being approved reverse lit, and the parenthesis and 3 being
internally illuminated. Mr. Blake ascertained
that no Commission members had a problem with the owner’s request. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the
Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage with staff conditions and the
modification to allow the applicant’s request for the parenthesis and 3 being
either internally or back lit; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas stated as a point of
clarification you will see the light through the face of the sign on the
parenthesis and the 3 only. Roll call
was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans,
Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion
passed, 7-0.
F. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture for a Building Expansion to
Volunteer Energy located at 790 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented
to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing a 4,673-square
foot expansion to the existing building located at 790 Windmiller Drive. He stated the expansion would bring the total
square footage for the building up to 10,512-square feet, and 53 parking spaces
have been identified. He stated further
they are proposing to relocate the access drive further southeast of the
existing access drive, and the site would be increased from 2.04 acres to 2.31
acres. Mr. Henderson stated staff
supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture that
complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That
the parcels shall be consolidated to allow the development on a single parcel.
2. That
the aisle width and access drive width shall be 24-feet or receive a variance
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. That
the sidewalk shall be extended southeast to the property line.
4. That
the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of brick to match the building and
have wood doors with metal frame.
5. That
the dumpster shall be located outside of the storm sewer easement.
Mr. Craig VanBreman stated he was present representing the
applicant. He stated they do not have a
problem with any of staff’s conditions, and after reviewing them last week he
worked with the architect and felt they had found a way to accommodate all of
those concerns. Mr. Schultz stated Mr.
VanBreman has a site plan that appears to comply with all of the conditions and
when staff reviews it, if it meets all of the conditions, it would be something
we could approve. Mr. Schultz stated the
difference between this site plan and the original one is that instead of
relocating the curb cut they would keep it at the same location, and they have
redesigned the parking lot. Mr.
VanBreman stated when they tried to get the 24-foot aisle ways they found they
were short two parking space. He stated
in playing around with the site they found they could keep the existing
entrance and that would allow the aisles to be opened to at least 24-feet and
move the dumpster and add the additional handicap space. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission, therefore,
would be approving a plan that was not included in the packet, but a revised
plan that appears to meet our conditions and that would be submitted to staff
for Zoning Certificate approval. Mr.
Binkley stated he would like to clarify that the sidewalk will be extended and
connected to the public right-of-way.
Mr. Hackworth stated his only concern was the parking lot was so close
to the Columbia Gas easement, and Mr. Schultz stated it would be tight with the
pine trees and that is why the Commission was hearing these comments now so
they wouldn’t be surprised later. Mr.
Bosch clarified the grade would be flattened out. Mr. Sauer stated he shared Mr. Hackworth’s
concern, and Mr. Schultz stated as we proceed further south the buffer will
likely be more dense than what we have behind this site.
Mr. Sauer moved to approve the
Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan
and Architecture for a building expansion to Volunteer Energy with staff
conditions; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
G. Review
and request for a motion to amend a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio
for Classics Sports Bar and Pizza located at 12981 Stonecreek Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented
to Commission members. He stated the
applicant is proposing to amend the Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor patio
to allow side curtains on the canopy.
Mr. Henderson stated this Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit
for Classics Sports Bar and Pizza on October 14, 2008, with six
conditions. He stated after the patio
was completed, side curtains were installed without approval from this
Commission. He continued the side
curtains would enclose the entire outdoor patio, they are made of fire
retardant polymer fabric with vinyl windows, and the fabric is crimson red to
match the existing awning. Mr. Henderson
further stated the approved plan identifies a 48-inch high black metal railing
and that railing has not been installed as of May 4, 2009. He stated staff recommends the railing be
installed prior to use of the side curtains.
Mr. Henderson stated staff does not support the side curtains on the
existing awning because this particular item is not addressed in the
Nonresidential Design Guidelines.
Mr. Demo Kuzmanouski and Ms Jennifer Little stated they were
present to answer any questions. Mr.
Blake clarified the curtains, when raised, go all the way up to the header and
are to be used only in inclement weather.
Mr. Kuzmanouski stated that was correct.
Mr. Kuzmanouski further stated he thought these were approved when the
awning was approved. Mr. Henderson
stated the original submittal in October had no indication that there would be
any of these curtains. Mrs. Evans
questioned if these type curtains are used anywhere else, and Mr. Schultz
stated we do not have them anywhere else, however, we are going to get a
submission next month that has an outdoor patio and is requesting the same type
of curtains. Mr. Schultz stated the
reason staff does not support this request is because the City has gone to
great lengths over the years to make sure the façade meets our design
requirements and putting curtains up that we do not have certain standards for
may compromise what we have tried to achieve over the years. Mr. Hackworth stated he understood they
wanted to put heat out there as well, and Mr. Kuzmanouski stated that was
correct. Mr. Schultz pointed out that
would have to be submitted to the building department and our Chief Building
Officer would have to approve it, and the fire department would have to review
any outdoor heating equipment. Mr.
Hackworth stated we have our design guidelines and this just seems to cover it
all up. He stated he just did not see
where this fit into our local design at all.
Mrs. Evans stated she does not care for the look and it made her feel like
they were almost building on another permanent structure. She stated she understood the desire for it,
but wasn’t there enough seating inside.
Mr. Kuzmanouski stated it was not for seating; the purpose was to
protect people sitting outside or standing outside smoking. Mr. Bosch stated he concurred with the other
Commission members, and he did not feel this is the look we want for the
commercial corridor, or any location for that matter. Mr. Schultz questioned if one option for the
smokers might be to put up some glass or something that is clear and looks more
appropriate than the look of these curtains.
Mr. Hackworth stated he thought that would be creating a more permanent
building and then the smoking laws would take effect. Mr. Binkley stated he is pro-business and he
loves sports and pizza, but he could not support this. He stated further if this Commission is not
careful all of the efforts that went into the Nonresidential Design Guidelines
and having these requirements were in jeopardy.
Mr. Nicholas stated he has seen these curtains at Smith and Wolensky’s
at Easton, and he thought they were clear vinyl. Mr. Nicholas stated this would definitely set
a precedent when the next requests for these curtains come in. He stated while this building sits back from
S.R. 256, it does stand out. Mr. Schultz
stated if this Commission wants to consider items such as this, his suggestion
would be to have our Design Standards revised to include the minimum standards
you may want. Mr. Banschefsky stated the
Commission was under no obligation to approve this request, and if it is not
approved it becomes an enforcement issue for the City. Mr. Nicholas stated the bottom line is that
if these are not approved, they will have to be removed. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Kuzmanouski stated the purpose of this
enclosure is not to increase occupancy, but to provide a place for
smokers. Mr. Bosch stated as this stands
today, he was not interested in looking at options. He stated further as a Commission member,
since we have patios in almost every business of this type coming in, we will
see more and more of this. He stated he
felt it would behoove this Commission to make the best decision they could if
they could get some information to verify the smoking standpoint from the
Health Department, and to get a little more clarification from a building code
area as to if you do have vinyl curtains all the way around, you identify
egress and ingress, does that count as a semi-permanent structure which would
mean the mechanical code, fire code, etc. would be brought in. He stated he would like to define the animal
we’re dealing with before he wanted to address the issue of allowing this. Mr. Schultz stated he would forward this to
our Chief Building Officer, our attorney to see what the Health Department
issues are, and the Fire Department to get an idea if something like this is
even acceptable. Mr. Blake inquired if
Mr. Bosch felt this item should be tabled, and Mr. Bosch stated he did not want
to table this application, but if this Commission wants to address the issue of
enclosed patios, he would like to table that until he gets enough information
to make an educated decision on. Mr.
Schultz stated it seemed the whole enclosed patio issue was one this Commission
wanted to look into and he would have more information by next month. Mr. Bosch clarified with Mr. Banschefsky that
if this was not approved this evening, and then in six months or so after
investigation, the Commission determines something like this would be allowed
but it must be, say, clear plastic, the City would not incur any
liability. Mr. Kuzmanouski stated if
the curtains are up properly, you cannot even tell they are there. Mr. Schultz stated if the curtains are not
approved, if they are seen down, it is a violation. Mr. Bosch questioned how difficult it was to
remove them rather than just leaving them up, so it wouldn’t put staff in an
enforcement position. Mr. Schultz stated
the problem would be he would get calls from other establishments if they were
seen down. Mr. Nicholas clarified the
curtains could be taken down and stored and then reinstalled if this Commission
determined they could be approved. Mr.
Sauer stated he appreciated the applicant’s intentions were good, but he has
trouble with this because his fear is we would be seeing these all up and down
the corridor. He stated given the work
this Commission has gone through with regard to the style of the buildings and
the look we are trying to attain, he felt this could change that significantly. Mr. Sauer further stated he realized it would
only be a portion of the year when these would be down, but as time goes on
that changes too.
Mr. Hackworth moved to approve an
amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Classics Sports
Bar and Pizza located at 12981 Stonecreek Drive; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake
voting “Nay.” Motion failed, 7-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA met
on April 23rd and approved a fence variance and the setback variance for Violet
Limousine.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the Commission
considered a 180-day final plat extension for Peyton Ridge.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Blake stated when this
Commission addressed outdoor patios several months ago they were very concerned
they would have the issue that was brought up tonight regarding Doolin’s Pub. Mr. Binkley stated, however, it didn’t sound
like the noise was from the patio but was inside. Mr. Blake stated he felt the owner had taken
the intent of the regulations put on the outdoor patios and found a way around
it. Mr. Blake questioned the law
director what authority the City had on a Conditional Use to shut down. Mr. Banschefsky stated to revoke a
Conditional Use, unless it was written in to the Conditional Use, it is very
difficult to do. He stated he had seen
very few instances where a provision was written into the Conditional Use that
if certain criteria were not met it would be cancelled. Mr. Banschefsky stated you are better off
approaching this situation from a police enforcement, noise ordinance,
disorderly conduct perspective. Mr.
Blake stated he is not against outdoor patios, but we have numerous locations
that due to the way our zoning has changed over the years that are in very
close proximity to residential areas and he felt we needed some way to pull a
conditional use if necessary. Mr. Nicholas
asked the law director that if we came upon this in the future, during
discussion and approval, could the Commission as part of the noise condition
state that it would be approved with the right to revoke. Mr. Banschefsky stated you could do that although
it is done rarely. He further stated
this can be approached with a revocation, it can be approached with an hours of
operation that can be revisited if there are issues. He stated conditional uses are designed to
provide you with a lot of flexibility.
Mr. Banschefsky stated the problem you have is that when someone spends
$100,000 on an outdoor patio, and then you have some Board or Commission that
says “No” you would ultimately be in Court for a criminal, civil, or zoning
violation. He stated with more focused
policing and interest by the City in these types of problems, they can be
resolved. Mr. Binkley clarified the
residents have had a discussion with the Police Chief, and the Chief had a
discussion with one of the owners. Mr.
Nicholas clarified that Mr. Banschefsky’s opinion was that this Commission
should act as they have in the past and let it be a police matter
initially. Mr. Banschefsky stated he
could provide the Commission with some draft language the Commission could
consider that would address hours of operation or to put conditions in, and he
felt it was safer to go that way than to tell someone their outdoor patio is
now closed. Mrs. Evans stated that would
be language to use henceforth, you could not go back and address it retroactively. Mr. Bosch stated he would also like to see
what the administration’s read is on this type of an issue because this
Commission could put all kinds of conditions on a permit, but if it is not
enforced then nothing has been accomplished.
He stated he would like to know if this is something the administration,
from the City Manager to the elected officials, is going to support. Mr. Sauer stated the issue of Doolin’s Pub is
on the Safety Committee agenda for the upcoming meeting. Mr. Blake stated the outdoor patios are going
to continue, and we need to come up with some guidelines for them. He stated he felt these could be common sense
guidelines arrived at after consulting with the Chief of Police, the Fire
Chief, someone from Planning and Zoning Commission, staff members, etc. Mr. Schultz stated you need to be careful
getting the other disciplines involved and putting their requirements in
because it must be zoning related. Mr.
Schultz stated he would investigate it further and get everyone’s input, but at
the end of the day there is only so much zoning can do.
Mr. Bosch clarified that Mr. Schultz would get information
on the side curtains to the Commission members.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:55 P.M., May 12, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk