PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
JUNE 9, 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, Lance Schultz, Lynda
Yartin, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banschefsky, Rob Sweet, Greg Ghirardi, John
Welcome, Stacie Flaisman, Stan Young, Dan Smith, Seth Dorman, Lloyd Holbert,
Steve Fox, Dean Baumgartner, Mark Newhouse, Frank Petruziello, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 12, 2009 Regular Meeting. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Sauer 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.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to
approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Landscaping for Rule (3) located at 650 Windmiller Drive (TABLED,
05/12/09) Mr. Hackworth moved to remove
from the Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake
voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
Mr. Schultz stated he would like to revise the request for a
motion to be for approval of “Commercial” Design Guidelines. Mr. Schultz stated when Rule (3) was approved
two years ago it was under the Commercial Design Guidelines and our standards
have been revised since then. He stated
he felt it was only fair to have it reviewed under the guidelines that were in
effect when the building site plan and lighting were approved. Mr. Blake ascertained the Commission members
concurred with Mr. Schultz’ request.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the staff report provided to the
Commission and stated the applicant is proposing landscaping and fencing for
the 30,011 square foot bowling alley located at 650 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping with the following
conditions:
l. That
Windmiller Drive perimeter (streetscape) buffering shall meet the 50 percent
winter opacity and 70 percent summer opacity between one foot above finished
grade at the top of the required mounding.
2. That
the landscaping and lighting cross-referencing issues shall be addressed prior
to receiving their zoning certificates.
3. That
the landscaping material should be identified on the landscape plan.
4. That
the existing tree line along the southwestern portion of the site shall be
preserved per the tree preservation ordinance.
5. That pine trees, six feet tall at
installation, shall be planted between the volleyball courts and the residents
to the west; from the building to the southern property line to create an
opaque buffer.
6. That
the perimeter (streetscape) buffering along the eastern property line shall be
approved as submitted.
Mr. Don Smith stated he is the owner of Rule (3) and he
would answer any questions anyone might have.
He stated he had no questions or concerns with the conditions staff
recommended. Mr. Sauer stated his
concern was that the chain link fence is a little to open, and perhaps
screening it might be a better option.
Mr. Schultz stated there will be some mounding from Windmiller Drive,
but it would be possible to realign some of the trees so they are screening the
fence rather than being in a cluster.
Mr. Schultz stated that could be done by moving some trees instead of
adding some and also by changing some trees out. Mr. Binkley clarified that our Chief Building
Official requires a connection from Windmiller Drive to the building per ADA,
and Mr. Schultz stated they have not identified that on their site plan as yet,
but that is on the CBO’s checklist.
Mr. Schultz stated the wording on staff’s condition number
3, should read the landscaping material “shall” be identified on the landscape
plan in lieu of “should.”
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Commercial
Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Rule (3)
with the six staff conditions including amending Condition 3 to read “shall” be
identified on the landscape plan; Mrs. Evans 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.
B. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage
for Pickerington Assisted Living Facility (Amber Park) located at 401 Hill Road
North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing ground signage
for a 67,287 square foot assisted living facility located at 401 Hill Road
North as detailed in the staff report.
Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing temporary message
banners that would be installed to the top of the ground sign during different
times of the year. He stated Section
1292.04(b) states that such temporary signs shall not be closer than 40 feet
from the edge of the street or curb unless located on the front wall of a
structure or building or in a window of the same. He further stated staff does not support the
proposed temporary message banners. Mr.
Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Ground Sign Plan for ground
signage for Pickerington Assisted Living Facility (Amber Park) that complies
with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following three conditions:
1. That the height of the ground sign
shall not exceed seven feet above the sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign.
2. That the temporary message banners
shall be removed from the proposed sign plan.
3. That there shall be no overflow light
created by the spotlights for the ground sign.
Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the
Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signage for Pickerington Assisted Living
Facility (Amber Park) with the three staff conditions; Mr. Sauer seconded the
motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs.
Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosh, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
C. Review
and request for a motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for
Building and Ground Signage for Key Bank (former Sky Bank) located at 126
Postage Road. Mr. Henderson stated in
March 2005 a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Sky Bank was approved by this
Commission, and amended in July 2006.
Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and
stated the applicant is proposing to increase the sign area for the building
signs and the ground signs would remain in the same location and would just be
a sign face change. He stated the
applicant also would like to install four directional signs within the
site. Mr. Henderson stated staff
supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the building and ground signage for
Key Bank that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the
following condition:
1. That
the directional signs shall not be permitted.
Mr. Stan Young stated he was with Allied Sign Company and
was present representing the applicant.
Mr. Young stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Blake clarified that when the plan was
originally approved in 2005 and 2006 directional signs were allowed at
Huntington Bank and subsequently at this site.
Mr. Schultz stated later when the Fifth-Third Bank application was
approved, directional signs were not permitted so staff was trying to be
consistent with the last similar approval.
Mr. Schultz stated the concern with directional signs at that time was
they were not appropriate or had insignias that were not appropriate. He stated if directional signs were approved
at this site, staff would request they be monument style similar to Huntington
Bank. Mrs. Evans clarified the applicant
would prefer to have the directional signs as they feel it is an important part
of their customer service process as people come onto the property. He stated if the size or content is a concern,
they could certainly work with the City to come up with an alternative. Mr. Young stated he felt Key Bank would
support the monument style for the directional signs. Mr. Bosch stated he did not have a problem
with allowing the directional signs and Mr. Binkley concurred for safety
reasons as long as they were appropriate.
Mr. Hackworth stated he had no problems with the directional signs as
long as they met staff’s standards. Mr.
Blake stated he would rather have something there to guide the traffic and
requested Mr. Schultz provide guidance on what staff would like. Mr. Schultz stated he would recommend the
condition be amended to read: “That the
directional signs shall be ground mounted and approved by staff.” Mr. Schultz stated he felt the design the
applicant had was appropriate they should just be made monument style. Mr. Blake stated the design of the signs
could be handled administratively. Mr.
Bosch moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for building and
ground signage for Key Bank that complies with the minimum zoning code
requirements and with the following condition:
1. That the design of the
directional signs be approved administratively and that the directional signs
shall be monument style and approved by staff; Mr. Binkley 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.
D. Review
and request for a motion to approve an amended Nonresidential Design Standards
Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture and Lighting for Key Bank
(former Sky Bank) located at 126 Postage Road.
Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and
stated the applicant is proposing to change the color of the canopies on the
building from blue to a dark red, and to change the style of the ground and the
wall mounted light fixtures throughout the parking lot. Mr. Henderson stated staff supported the
Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture and Lighting for Key Bank that
complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following
conditions:
1. That
the light fixtures shall match the fixtures (acorn style) at Fairfield Federal
Bank, Huntington Bank, and the Cross Creeks Development.
2. That
the wall fixtures shall be compatible with the light pole fixtures.
Mr. Schultz stated currently there are acorn style light
fixtures that match the Fairfield Bank to the north and Huntington Bank to the
south. He stated this submission
identifies a gooseneck style and staff did not support the gooseneck style
because it is not consistent with the surrounding properties. Mr. Schultz further stated he did believe the
applicant was now proposing an acorn style light that is similar to Max and
Erma’s that is acceptable to staff, however, they want to add an additional six
light poles to get the foot-candle illumination to their standards. Mr. Schultz stated he felt that could be
handled with a condition that the applicant must meet the minimum requirements
of our lighting standards when the additional poles are added. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant made this
modification today and he felt it was consistent with what is out there. Mr. Rob Sweet stated he was representing the
applicant and he would answer any questions.
Mr. Sweet stated after reading the staff’s report they felt the changes
being proposed today were in line with the overall design of the surrounding
properties and would be appropriate. Mr.
Sweet stated the light fixture they were proposing is the S50-FNC shown in the
packet. He stated the wall fixtures and
the pole lights will all be the S50 style.
Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to clarify only the color of the
awnings would be changed.
Mr. Schultz stated he would recommend staff’s first
condition be revised to reflect the light fixtures shall be the S50 series, and
an additional condition be added that the additional light poles shall comply
with the minimum lighting and illumination standards. Mr. Nicholas moved to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following revised
conditions:
1. That
the light fixtures shall be the S50 Series (acorn style)
2. That
the wall fixtures shall be compatible with the light pole fixtures.
3. That
all additional light poles shall comply with the minimum lighting and
illumination standards;
Mr. Binkley 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.
E. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture and Lighting for Pizza Cottage
located at 1000 Old Diley Road (just south of Fifth Third Bank). Mr. Schultz stated he would like to clarify
that the outdoor patio was not part of this agenda item, but would be discussed
under Item F. on tonight’s agenda. Mr.
Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and stated the
applicant is proposing to build a 7,325 square foot Pizza Cottage
restaurant. He stated there would be a
full movement curb cut along Old Diley Road and the lot would be connected to
Fifth Third Bank and the vacant lot to the south by internal access drive. He stated the applicant was proposing 79
parking spaces while 74 spaces are required.
Mr. Henderson further stated the restaurant would have an outdoor patio
on the north side of the building and a pick up window on the south side that
requires conditional use permit approval.
Mr. Henderson stated there are two doors on the rear of the building
that open into the parking lot and staff is concerned about the safety of these
doors when they opened. He stated when
they open the doors they actually go into the parking area versus being on a
pad. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports
the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture and Lighting
that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following
conditions:
1. That
the curb around the back door (west elevation) shall extend further than the
door extends when opened.
2. That
the curb cut width shall be 36-feet for a three lane entrance.
3. That the dumpster pad shall be moved
outside the water main easement or provide calculations to show that the
loading of the dumpster and garbage truck will not crush the water main.
4. That
the material types and color samples shall be submitted and reviewed by the
City’s Architectural Consultant for compliance.
Mr. Seth Dorman stated he was representing the
applicant. He stated they have reviewed
the staff report and he would like to address some of the conditions staff was
recommending. Mr. Dorman stated after
reviewing the report they have made some revisions to their site plan and they
agree with Conditions 1 through 3, and they had the sample material board with
them this evening. He stated in order to
comply with the requirement for internal landscaping they had eliminated five
parking spaces, so they are now at 74 parking spaces and that is the minimum
requirement so they still meet code on that.
He stated they had added some landscape islands and had changed the
light bulb wattage from 400 to 250 and that now complies with the City’s
requirements. Mr. Dorman stated with
regard to the dumpster location, they had moved the dumpster to the other side
of the property, and they had widened the access point to 36 feet, and they
added an ADA accessible route from the Hill Road sidewalk to their site.
Mr. Schultz stated the approval this evening would be on the
site plan that was submitted with the Commission’s packet. He stated he would recommend the Commission
approve the plan with the conditions as shown and the plan provided this
evening appears to meet those conditions.
Mr. Binkley inquired if we based the parking requirement on the square
footage of patios, and Mr. Schultz stated that was based on the enclosed
building, the total gross square footage of the building. Mr. Schultz stated the building department
will base their occupancy permit based on the patio. Mr. Henderson stated in this case the amount
of parking spaces was calculated with the patio. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant then
factored it in but our Code requires per the square footage of the
building. Mr. Binkley stated he
understood the drive thru would be discussed under the next item on the agenda,
however, in looking at the stripping for the drive thru he thought perhaps the
stripping could be extended to direct traffic back into the two lanes. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed with Mr. Binkley
and that would kind of force the vehicles back into the 24-foot area. Mr. Bosch stated he did not see a problem
with the space for the queuing of traffic at the drive thru. Mr. Hackworth inquired if the old Diley Road
right-of-way had been divided up between the two parties next to it, and Mr.
Schultz stated he was not sure. Mr.
Sauer moved to approve the Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of
Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture and Lighting for Pizza Cottage that
complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and with the four staff
conditions; 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.
F. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor
Patio and Drive Thru for Pizza Cottage located at 1000 Old Diley Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report
provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing a
drive thru (pick up window) on the south side of the building and an outdoor
patio on the north side of the building that would be approximately 984 square
feet. Mr. Henderson stated the patio
would be covered by a low-pitched roof that would match the rest of the
building and the roof would be supported by decorative columns with stone
bases. He further stated between the columns would be a decorative metal fence
enclosing the patio, and staff recommends that the fence should be black and
constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal. Mr. Henderson stated the plans also include
roll-down vision screens (side curtains) that are clear and will allow visibility
into the patio area but would protect patrons from the elements. Mr. Henderson stated staff cannot support the
side curtains because this particular item is not addressed in the
Nonresidential Design Standards and the Planning and Zoning Commission denied
Classic Pizza’s request for side curtains just last month. Mr. Henderson stated the outdoor service
facilities must not involve activities, etc, that will be detrimental to any
persons, property, or the general welfare.
The potential noise created by an outdoor patio in a bar, pub, or
restaurant setting is a concern as the nearest residential dwelling units are
approximately 100 feet to the east across Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson stated there would be no bands
or live music in the outdoor seating area and staff recommends that no music
speakers or any other type of sound devices should be located in the patio and
that the patio should not be utilized after 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday,
and 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Henderson stated with regard to the drive thru window,
it is located on the southern portion of the building and it would be a pick-up
window only. He further stated staff
requires that the drive thru should be clearly striped and include the area
around the west side of the building.
Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor service facility and drive thru that complies with the minimum zoning
code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That
the fence shall be black and constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous
(aluminum, etc.) metal.
2. That
the side curtains shall not be permitted.
3. That
the outdoor furniture shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and
constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal.
4. That
no music speakers or any other type of sound devices shall be located in the
patio and that the patio shall not be utilized after 10:00 P.M. Sunday through
Thursday and 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday.
5. That
the drive thru shall be clearly striped to comply with queue requirements.
Mr. Schultz stated the applicant submitted a packet on
Friday that identified the side curtains and staff has not had time to review
that packet.
Mr. Seth Dorman stated he was representing the applicant and
Mr. Dean Baumgartner was present to address the issue of the side
curtains. He stated the applicant agrees
with staff conditions 1, 3, and 5, and he would like to clarify that the drive
thru is a pick up window only, there will be no menu board and no way to order
at the window. Mr. Dorman further stated
they feel the side curtains should be permitted as they feel they have been
cleverly integrated into the architecture, into the outdoor dining area
structure, which is a significant roofline and columns to support it in
addition to the metal fence that will be around the front of the dining area
itself. Mr. Dorman stated they had
provided a picture of what they believe is a successful application of the
clear vision panels at the Smith and Wollensky at Easton Town Center. Mr. Baumgartner the side curtains would be
inset between the structural columns and the color of the borders would be the
same as the colors used on the building so it would recede into the architecture. Mr. Frank Petruziello stated the picture of
the side curtains presented show the curtains as an accessory to a temporary
structure and this is a way to enclose the opening in a permanent structure
that is virtually enclosed except for the fact that it can be opened to allow
for air to come in and out during nice weather.
He further stated the attempt is to extend its use, if not in terms of
time of year, but in terms of being rained on when eating on the patio. He stated they have tried to be very
sensitive to the fact that they do not want this to look like a shabby
situation and they feel the framing of these openings with permanent structure
allows for them to be looked at more like a blind or a curtain as opposed to a
part of a cheap awning. Mr. Petruziello
stated further when the curtains are down they would remove any concern with
regard to sound from the speakers. He
stated the speakers are about ambiance not about entertaining anyone. He stated the objective was to provide what
is considered white noise, like in any restaurant interior. Mr. Blake clarified that when the curtains
were not in use they would be rolled up and would be behind the soffitt or the
headers. Mrs. Evans stated she
appreciated the fact that the applicant had put a lot of thought into the
outdoor patio area with regard to the screening and the noise. She clarified the material of the curtains is
a clear vinyl and questioned if a plastic is the only way to go with this. Mr. Dorman stated there are various mesh
materials, however, the issue is that it would not keep out rain or wind and is
not fire retardant. Mr. Binkley stated
this Commission spent more than two years developing the Nonresidential Design
Guidelines and now it would be covered up with visqueen. Mr. Schultz stated he understood this would
be constructed by the end of the year and the outdoor patio would not be open
until March or so. He stated later in
the agenda this evening would be a discussion regarding outdoor patios and
their aesthetics, due process, and certain requirements that can be put on from
a legal perspective. He stated he would
suggest if this development could be approved without side curtains, then the
results of the discussion later this evening could be shared with the
applicant. He stated that would give
them some time to submit a plan that would meet any guidelines that may be
decided upon before next March. Mr.
Schultz stated the question would be if the side curtains on the patio were a
deal breaker. Mr. Petruziello stated the
patio was not very usable without the curtains.
Mr. Lloyd Holbert stated the curtains are not a deal breaker, but it is
a great desire because it protects the furnishings that are outside and
protects the patio from the elements through the winter. Mr. Binkley stated the applicant has stated the
outdoor patio will not be heated and clarified there will be no plumbing. Mrs. Evans clarified the only way to enter
the patio would be coming in through the dining room. Mr. Sauer stated in terms of the way the
patio is set up, it is about the best possible application you could have for
these types of side curtains, however, without the discussion later this
evening he would have a hard time approving it because of the discussion last
month and it would be extremely inconsistent with the way they dealt with the
gentleman last month. Mr. Petruziello
stated he would request then that this Commission not disapprove the side
curtains, but that the applicant be allowed to withdraw that portion of their
request. Mr. Schultz stated the
condition regarding side curtains could not be removed because the side
curtains are in the application. Mr.
Bosch stated he would agree with Mr. Sauer that this is the first patio they
have seen where it was designed as part of the structure, as a patio for this
type of use, rather than something just added on. Mr. Blake stated he felt the applicant would
do everything they could to make this an acceptable use. Mr. Hackworth stated he agreed it was a very
nice looking building and he would like to have more time to get more
guidelines before making a decision on the issue of the side curtains. Mr. Blake stated he would also like to state
that with a structure of this type, designed as it is, he did not have a
problem with the background music, and he did had no issues with the outdoor
speakers. Mr. Sauer stated given the
type of establishment it is, he did not have an issue with the speakers on the
patio. Mr. Blake stated he would just
add the condition that the sound did not carry across S.R. 256 to the adjacent
property lines. Mr. Bosch stated he has
been at Mr. Holbert’s other establishments and with the type of music and how
it is played there, he would have no problem with outdoor speakers at this
location with the condition Mr. Blake had suggested. He stated with regard to the side curtains,
he was confident that if anyone could work a satisfactory solution it would be
this applicant with this type of structure.
Mr. Binkley there is no way he could vote on the side curtains tonight,
and with the condition added regarding the sound carrying to the residential
area nearby, he would not have a problem with the outside speakers. Mr. Binkley stated with regard to the drive
thru wrapping around, he did not feel that was a good idea because that is an
extremely tight corner. He stated the
stripping could be extended because wrapping it around could cause more
problems. Mr. Bosch stated Mr. Holbert
has a drive thru at his other locations and he asked if this Commission could
get some numbers on averages over a typical weekend and provide those to staff
it would provide some background information if necessary. Mr. Binkley stated he concurred as he would
like to know an average of how many cars per hour use the drive thru window. Mr. Nicholas stated with the request for approval
of side curtains removed from the application, he moved to approve the
Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Service Facility and Drive Thru that
complies with the minimum zoning requirements and the following amended
conditions:
1. That
the fence shall be black and constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous
(aluminum, etc.) metal.
2. That
the side curtains shall not be included in the application.
3. That
the outdoor furniture shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and constructed
of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal.
4. That
no sound shall be audible at the eastern property line on S.R. 256, and that
the patio shall not be utilized after 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and
11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday.
5. That
the drive thru shall be clearly striped to comply with queue requirements;
Mr. Bosch seconded the motion.
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.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA met
on May 28th to consider the several variances requested at 101 Hill
Road North and tabled it until June because of all the issues to be
considered.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the Commission approved
the final plat in Violet Township for the Commerce Center at Sycamore and they
discussed the open space plan that MORPC did for Fairfield County and moved it
on the County Commissioners.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Outdoor
Patio Discussion. Mr. Schultz stated the
Commission had requested Development Review Requirements and he had provided a
memo from the building department and fire department on how they review
outdoor patios. He stated from the
building department perspective, it depends on the application. He further stated Mr. Banschefsky would
identify the issues of the Health Department and State Liquor Control
Board. Mr. Schultz stated zoning is a
single component in the development review process and any of the these
agencies have the authority to deny projects when compliance with their minimum
standards is not achieved. Mr. Schultz
stated he had also contacted surrounding communities with regard to their design
standards on outdoor patios and he had provided those findings in his memo to
the Commission. He stated the survey of
these communities indicates the city’s regulation of outdoor patios appear to
be in the “high-middle” with only Dublin being more restrictive. He stated at the Commissions request staff
would be willing to review the existing requirements to create more concrete
requirements with the potential tradeoff of having less flexibility based on
circumstances and merits of each individual case. He stated, however, aesthetic issues (side
curtains, etc.) should be inserted in the Nonresidential Design Standards with
input from a consultant specializing in design because staff did not have that
type of expertise. Mr. Hackworth stated
he concurred with Mr. Blake that patios at a bar were different than patios at
a restaurant.
Mr. Banchefsky stated he had provided a memo regarding
Conditional Use Standards, Conditions, and Revocation as requested by the
Commission. He stated he apologized for
not getting it to the members prior to tonight’s meeting. He stated a conditional use is to allow a use
that may only be suitable in specific locations within a certain zoning
district and is different than a permitted use.
A permitted use is specifically defined and once all of the requirements
are met, its use is automatic. Mr.
Banchefsky stated the Commission is authorized to place “reasonable conditions”
on a use that is determined to “appropriate to protect the general health,
safety, or welfare of the Municipality.”
He stated, however, the Commission must be careful to impose conditions
that are reasonably appropriate to protect the general health, safety, or
welfare of the City and must do so in a non-arbitrary manner. Mr. Banchefsky stated an appeal of the
Commission’s denial of a Conditional Use would go directly to the Fairfield
County Common Pleas Court in the form of an Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506
administrative appeal. He stated the
standard for the Court is to review the record and determine if the
Commission’s decision was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, or unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence. He continued the
Commission has to make a complete record as to the basis of its decision, and
that record has to be properly compiled in the event of an appeal and the
transcript of all the proceedings would go to Common Pleas Court. Mr. Banchefsky stated with regard to
revocation, the City’s Code provides for revocation of a conditional use. He stated the way it works here is that the
Planning and Zoning Director makes that decision, then sends out a notice to
the applicant. He stated the applicant
could do nothing or request a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Schultz inquired if his decision could be
appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and Mr. Banchefsky stated it is
probably not well spelled out, and the law is that any administrative decision
would typically go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but this is more specific
because it says that it comes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Banchefsky stated that makes sense, since
this Commission is the one that granted the Conditional Use Permit in the
beginning.
Mr. Banchefsky stated the State smoking ban basically
rescinded all the local ordinances that had been passed. He stated unfortunately it is not written as
well as some local legislation was and there is virtually no enforcement
mechanism with the State Code. Mr.
Binkley inquired if the Commission felt that putting up side curtains or
containing an area where people are smoking would be a nuisance would be part
of the conditional use. Mayor O’Brien
stated in putting up the side curtains he felt they were taking an outside area
and creating an inside area so the smoking ban should apply. Mr. Binkley stated he agreed that when the
curtains were down it would be enclosed probably more than in a regular
building because it is plastic. Mr.
Schultz questioned if that would be a building code issue or a smoking ban
issue. Mr. Banchefsky stated that was
something he would have to look into.
Mr. Banchefsky stated further zoning violations are not going to trigger
the revocation of a liquor permit. Mr.
Banchefsky stated he realized he had provided a great deal of information and
after reviewing it if anyone had any questions he would ask them to give him a
call.
Mr. Schultz clarified the Commission would like to review
the information provided this evening and at the next meeting they could
determine the next step they would like to take.
B. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Nicholas clarified the
Firestone dumpster is not enclosed, but that our code enforcement is working on
that. Mr. Nicholas further clarified
with regard to the dumpsters that collect items for non-profit groups, etc.,
that staff was doing a review of this issue and trying to come up with a policy
for all of these types of dumpsters. Mr.
Nicholas further questioned if the sign at the Embroidery Barn had been resolved
because the brick is about four inches up the side and it was approved at
twelve inches. Mrs. Evans stated that
sign has been up for at least ten years and there have been no renovations to
it. Mr. Schultz stated he would have to
review this and see if there was something that was not completed. Mr. Nicholas further stated a lot of
communities were beginning to insert into zoning codes and local codes to make
buildings be designed toward Lead Certification and wondered if we should start
thinking of that. Mr. Binkley stated he
did not feel we wanted to do that.
Mayor O’Brien stated he would like to thank all the
Commission members for volunteering to serving the community and they do a
terrific job. He stated, however,
development for developments sake is not always healthy. He stated we have some strip malls that start
to get vacant and when they don’t get a tenant then a bar or something goes
in. He stated Pickerington was never
known to be a bar town, but it is starting to be known as one. He stated he would just ask this Commission
to be vigilant and when people come in and want bars you don’t have to make
concessions outside of what the Code and the laws say that you have to. He stated he was just relating to the
Commission what he is hearing from the citizens, they really don’t want to see
more and more bars. Mayor O’Brien stated
with regard to the outdoor patios that are going into strip malls, he felt the
discussion tonight was very healthy about the retrofit versus the incorporation
into the original building. He stated
there is time now to sit down and make a model about building a patio with the
building so when development does kick into a higher gear we will get more and
more of those. He stated when someone
wants to hang a patio off the front or back of a bar or off the end of a strip
mall, he would ask this Commission to be as critical as they can because we
don’t have to make concessions. Mayor
O’Brien stated he would just ask this Commission to continue being vigilant and
not to make concessions if they don’t have to.
Mr. Mark Newhouse stated he was present this evening
representing the Cherry Hill subdivision civic association. He stated their primary concern was that the
buffer be maintained between commercial development and residential. Mr. Schultz stated this would be the Luse
property and the Zane property and he stated we do require a 50-foot buffer
with four to six foot high mounding and trees.
Mr. Schultz stated he had spoken to Mr. Newhouse and his concern was that
our Certificate of Appropriateness process does not require adjacent neighbors
to be notified. Mr. Schultz further
stated he had informed Mr. Newhouse he could call the Planning and Zoning
office bi-monthly or monthly to see if there have been any applications coming
forward for those sites. Mr. Blake
stated this Commission is very concerned with the quality of life for the
residents and wants the commercial development to be good neighbors to the
residential areas.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:20 P.M., June 9, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk