PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
AUGUST 11, 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. Blake, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were
present. Mr. Binkley and Mr. Nicholas
were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson,
Mitch Banschefsky, Bob Mapes, Seth Dorman, Lloyd Helder, Larry Folk, Sadie
Nicodemus, Carl Smith, Beth Woodruff, Bryan Kessler, Anita Meade, Patsy
Woodruff, Shawn Lanning, Jim Watkins, Doug Moody, Aaron Underhill, Jim Ebright,
Eva Langston, Tracy Langston, Brian Stoner, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 14, 2009 Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. A
public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan for Shear Perfection Loft an approximate
0.269-acre parcel from R-4 (Residential) to PO (Planned Suburban Office)
located at 101 Hill Road North.
Mr. Blake stated he would like to
disclose that the attorney for the applicant has represented a member of his
family in the past, and after speaking with the law director he felt there was
no conflict so he would continue to vote on this item.
Mr. Blake opened the public hearing
on this issue. Mr. Schultz stated in May
this Commission approved a site plan for this location and at that time it was
our understanding, per our zoning map, it was zoned office. Mr. Schultz continued several variances were
requested and were heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals in May where this item
was tabled. Mr. Schultz stated, however,
at that meeting a neighbor stated she had lived at her home for over 40 years
and did not recall her site or this site being rezoned. Mr. Schultz stated after doing some research
he learned that she was correct and this site is zoned residential and in order
to allow a beauty salon on this site it must be rezoned to Planned Office. Mr. Schultz stated sometime between 1996 and
2000 an error was made on the zoning map.
He stated in 1986 the second parcel to the south, 109 Hill Road North,
was rezoned to office and in 1996 when the zoning map was revised it reflected
109 and 103 Hill Road North being zoned office, then in 2000 it reflected 103
and 101 Hill Road North as being zoned office.
Mr. Schulz stated that the research showed no documentation where the
parcel in question had ever been rezoned.
Mr. Schultz stated 109 Hill Road North is zoned Office and the rest is
zoned Residential until you get down to Papa Joe’s and the site below
that. Mr. Blake stated this Commission
did approve the use on this property under the assumption that it was zoned
Commercial. Mr. Blake further clarified
the Board of Zoning Appeals did not move this forward as there were several
variances requested and there were residents who were opposed to this and the
Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variances.
Mr. Banchefsky stated unfortunately these types of issues do crop up
even in the best zoning departments, and a lot of times this occurs when you go
from older maps to digitized and the records just aren’t good. Mr. Banchefsky stated the City acted in good
faith and when this was brought to our attention, it was presented to the City
Manager, and he indicated he wanted to do everything we could to make this
right. Mr. Banchefsky stated he just
wanted the Commission to understand that the City Manager waived the fees for
this rezoning in an effort to assist the applicant in the situation she found
herself in, and the City is refunding the fees they have paid previously. Mr. Banchefsky stated the City proposed this
scenario in coming back to rezone it to a planned district in order to try to
give the property owner some relief in terms of what they thought they had
purchased. He further stated in speaking
with applicant’s attorney, they had done their due diligence and there is
nothing they could have done further by way of checking the background and
property records that could have prevented this. Mr. Banchefsky stated it truly was a mistake
and the City, procedurally, is doing everything they can to correct this.
Mr. Schultz stated the zoning around
this site is residential with single-family residences to the north, south,
east, and west. He stated two parcels to
the north is an office use and four and five parcels to the south are retail
uses. Mr. Schultz reviewed the staff
report that was presented to the Commission members. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the
rezoning with the following eight conditions:
l. That the front yard building setback shall be reduced from
23.38 feet to 14 feet.
2. That the north side yard building setback shall be reduced
from 25 feet to 7 feet and the south side yard parking setback shall be reduced
from 15 feet to 2 feet.
3. That the south side yard building setback shall be reduced
from 25 feet to 7 feet and the south side yard parking setback shall be reduced
from 15 feet to 2 feet.
4. That a six foot tall wooden privacy fence or a six foot tall
continuous screen of landscaping shall be installed on the northern and
southern property lines and the mounding requirements shall be waived.
5. That a six-foot tall continuous screen
of landscaping shall be installed along the western property line and the
mounding requirements shall be waived.
6. That the access drive width shall be reduced from 24 feet to
16 feet for the rear 40 feet of the access drive.
7. That the parking aisle width shall be reduced from 24 feet
to 22 feet.
8. That
the rear yard building and parking setback shall be reduced from 50 feet to 2
feet.
Mr. Blake clarified that with a
Planned Office zoning the uses could include almost any office use or retail
use.
Mr. Bob Mapes stated he was
representing the applicant and she had purchased the property with the intent
of opening her own hair salon rather than renting a space. He stated she purchased the property thinking
it was zoned commercial and has done everything she could. Mr. Mapes stated some of the site features
have been adjusted to address the concerns of the neighbors and the engineers,
and they want to be good neighbors.
Ms Patsy Woodruff stated she lives to
the south at 81 Hill Road North. She
stated she was very pleased that a way had been designed to get the cars in and
out of this property as that was one of her main concerns.
Mr. Brian Kessler, 6366 Busey
Road. Mr. Kessler stated he used to rent
the house north of Papa Joe’s and he would like to state that the traffic is a
big issue. He stated 256 is a five lane
road for commercial and businesses, and trying to zone this as an office on a
two lane road would, he felt, decrease the property values for the other
residents with a business with that much action going in and out. Mr. Kessler further stated it has been
indicated there was a mistake on the zoning map, and sometimes we just have to
fess up to our mistakes. Mr. Kessler
stated that might be an option the City has to do for these people that
purchased this property that we are now talking about rezoning. He stated he just wanted to stress that
traffic would be an issue and this will be a busy business and for the safety
of the people walking on the sidewalks and the people who have lived on that
street for years and years, it will be that much more unsafe.
Ms Anita Meade, 103 Hill Road
North. Ms Meade stated she would also
like to reiterate the traffic problems.
She stated just today it took her ten minutes to make a left turn out of
her driveway onto 256. Ms Meade further
stated there are also a lot kids on bicycles and skateboards on that sidewalk
and kids can come out of nowhere. She
stated she has lived in her home for 43 years and to have a business with this
much traffic on one side and another business on the other side of her, the
traffic will greatly increase. Ms Meade
stated this was not approved at the other meeting and she thought it was put to
rest. She stated the traffic and
people’s safety are her main concerns.
There being nothing further, Mr. Blake closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy
to answer any questions anyone may have on this proposed rezoning. Mr. Mapes stated Ms Langston has tried to
address all of the neighbors’ concerns and he did not feel this business would
have any more impact on the traffic than the doctor’s office that is
nearby. He stated further he does not
know why the Board of Zoning Appeals disapproved their request; they were not
given any reason. He stated he has
requested a reason and they have not received one. Ms Langston stated she wants to have her own
property for her business so she can have more control of her environment. She stated her business would not be any
different than a doctor’s office or an insurance agency, as she serves her
clients one by one. She stated she does
intend to lease out chairs to other operators, but she will be the best
neighbor she can to the other residents.
Mr. Mapes stated he would like to add
that this was submitted as a preliminary development plan; however, this
Commission does have the option of being approved as a final development plan
if it meets all the criteria. He stated
that would shorten the process by one month or more, and he would request this
Commission to consider this as a Final Development Plan if it is approved. Mr. Banchefsky stated that is totally within
the discretion of this Commission if the preliminary plan contains all of the
submission requirements, and he believed that it did, the Commission has the
discretion to treat this as a final development plan. Mr. Schultz stated this has been reviewed at
the planning and zoning level, this plan is very similar to what was submitted
to this Commission in May, and because of the size of the site there are not a
lot of outstanding issues, therefore, staff would be comfortable supporting a
Final Development Plan approval based on what they have submitted if this
Commission should decide to do that. Mr.
Mapes stated he would also like to state they have reviewed all of the
conditions recommended by staff and have no problem with them.
Mr. Bosch clarified that Ms Langston
would be the only employee right now, but she did intend to lease the other
five stations to other hair stylists in the future. Mr. Bosch stated he felt the traffic issues
would not go away, however, if Town Square Drive extension is completed that
will help alleviate some of that problem.
He stated this Commission must weigh if this would be a good fit in the
neighborhood. He stated his concern
would be the size of this facility and if she does get five people in there
working with five people in the chairs, his fear would be that the size of the
facility over capacities the size of the parking facility that is on site and
that the site can handle. Mr. Bosch
stated he also noted in the City Engineer’s comments that we can’t do anything
now but if the next parcel to the north ever goes commercial, especially since
the driveway is adjacent to the driveway of this property, basically create
cross-access agreements, which is a very common access management process. He stated he would like to know if the
applicant would be amenable to when the site to the north developed, if it did
and if it went commercial, that they would utilize each other’s driveways. He stated then there would be a full 12-foot
in, 12-foot out, to fully address that inner circulation. He stated while this wouldn’t do anything
tomorrow, as the area grows that would open it up and he felt that would help
out. He stated if that could be added as
ninth condition he felt he could support this.
Mr. Mapes clarified the condition requested was that if the property to
the north ever develops, there be a cross-access agreement that would allow
both parcels to share that access. Mr.
Banchefsky stated you cannot mandate a cross-access, but the goal is to be
amenable to this. Mr. Mapes stated he
felt they would cooperate in that. Mr.
Blake clarified this meant that if that parcel would ever sell and be rezoned
commercial, this applicant would be open to allowing an agreement between the
possible future owner of that property to be a joint access to make the
driveway wider, to alleviate anyone’s concerns that live in that area. Mr. Blake stated it is not addressing
anything today, and if this were approved today, this would just be putting in
that this applicant would be agreeable to working out an access agreement. He stated it has nothing to do with the
current owner; it has to do with the property of the applicant. Mrs. Evans stated her concern was the same
as Mr. Bosch with regard to how much traffic this business could generate if
the five chairs were leased and the effect it could have on the other
residences. She stated she knew it would
probably take a few years for that to happen, but the possibility is there. Mr. Hackworth clarified that as a rezoning
and development plan this would not be required to go before the Board of
Zoning Appeals for approval of variances.
Mr. Hackworth stated when this was reviewed in May, there were some
issues with the parking lot and it appeared those issues have been
addressed. Mr. Hackworth stated he also
agreed with Mr. Bosch that if the Town Square Drive extension is completed it
will take some of the traffic off of Hill Road going down to Columbus Street. Mr. Sauer questioned if it would make sense
on the ingress and egress to stripe it with arrows going in and out to
delineate the lanes. Mr. Bachman stated
stripping would be helpful in directing the vehicles entering the parking
lot. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the
rezoning and the Final Development Plan for Shear Perfection Loft, and to add
conditions 9 and 10 as follows:
l. That the front yard building setback
shall be reduced from 23.38 feet to 14 feet.
2. That the north side yard building setback shall be reduced
from 25 feet to 7 feet and the south side yard parking setback shall be reduced
from 15 feet to 2 feet.
3. That the south side yard building setback shall be reduced
from 25 feet to 7 feet and the south side yard parking setback shall be reduced
from 15 feet to 2 feet.
4. That a six foot tall wooden privacy
fence or a six foot tall continuous screen of landscaping shall be installed on
the northern and southern property lines and the mounding requirements shall be
waived.
5. That a six-foot tall continuous screen
of landscaping shall be installed along the western property line and the
mounding requirements shall be waived.
6. That the access drive width shall be reduced from 24 feet to
16 feet for the rear 40 feet of the access drive.
7. That the parking aisle width shall be reduced from 24 feet
to 22 feet.
8. That
the rear yard building and parking setback shall be reduced from 50 feet to 2
feet.
9. That the applicant is agreeable to a cross-access easement
with the property to the north upon its redevelopment.
10. That the applicant shall stripe the
ingress/egress to reflect traffic lanes;
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr.
Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion
passed, 5-0.
B. A
public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan for the approximate 16 acre Ebright/Homestead
parcels from R-4 (Residential) to PC-3 (Planned Community Commercial District)
for a retail, office, and 4-seasons sports complex development located at 1010
and 1040 Refugee Road just west of Hill Road Plaza (former Big Bear). Mr. Blake stated as this item may require
lengthy discussion, if there were no objections he would continue with the
remainder of the agenda items and take this as the last item.
C. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Pizza Cottage located at 1000 Old Diley
Road (just south of Fifth-Third Bank).
Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing landscaping for the
approximately 7,325 square foot Pizza Cottage restaurant. Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report as
presented to the Commission members. He
stated he would point out that the applicant did not identify any mounding on
Old Diley Road and the zoning code would require mounding on Old Diley Road
that meets the Nonresidential Design Standards.
He stated Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of
Appropriateness for landscaping that complies with the minimum zoning code
requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the tree located in the parking lot in the southwestern
corner of the site shall be moved to a landscaped area on the site.
2. That street trees shall be installed along Hill Road North
(S.R. 256) at a location to be determined by the City.
3. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public
view.
Mr. Seth Dorman stated he was present
representing Mr. Helder, the owner of Pizza Cottage. He stated they had reviewed staff’s report on
this issue and would answer any questions anyone might have. Mr. Dorman stated his only question on staff
recommendations was that he was not sure where the City wanted the street trees
installed, as there is a significant mound.
Mr. Schultz stated with regard to the street trees, along 256 when it
was widened, there are street trees between the curb and the sidewalk and south
of the Kroger entrance we have not had them.
He stated the City Engineer and arborist are having discussion on if the
best location for the trees is between the curb and the sidewalk or if they
should be located behind the sidewalk.
Mr. Schultz stated in other developments that have been approved south
of Kroger, such as the assisted living, we have had them behind the
sidewalk. Mr. Schultz stated we require
street trees and then the trees that are on the mounding, so there are two sets
of trees. He stated he hoped there would
be a decision on the location of the trees within the next few weeks. Mr. Martin Shebert stated he is the landscape
architect for the development and one of the fears he had on the street trees
was the amount of coverage they would have out front that would create some
strong blockage to the building as they fill in. He stated were they to follow through with
the street trees they would 11 trees out there, and if they put them in between
the sidewalk they would increase the issue you have with a lot of pruning needs
and he would not suggest continuing that problem. He stated if they moved the trees behind the
sidewalk he would request that they at least be allowed to reduce a few of the
trees on the mound for visibility purposes.
He stated they already have more trees than other developments on this
site so he would like the Commission to look at this situation for them. Mr. Schultz stated the street trees are a
zoning requirement and this Commission could waive those. Mr. Hackworth clarified that street trees are
the trees between the curb and the sidewalk and the other trees are a part of
landscaping. Mr. Schultz stated the
discussion is to move the street trees from between the sidewalk and the curb
to behind the sidewalk. Mr. Blake stated
one of his concerns is that we have design standards in place and in his
opinion the mounding and trees take away from the wonderful building we are
requiring the applicant to build. He
stated we are looking at three to four foot high mounding with this application
and then there is shrubbery that at some points increases that height a little
more. Mr. Schultz stated if the decision
is to move the street trees behind the sidewalk that would not reduce the
number of trees on the mounding. Mr.
Hackworth stated he felt that would be overkill with trees because you would
not be able to see the business. Mr.
Blake clarified the applicant felt that five or six trees would be sufficient,
whether it was determined to keep them in a street row or a random selection as
long as they met the street frontage requirement for trees. Mr. Bosch stated he felt if they do mounding
and it looks half like what is shown on the submittal it would be fine. He stated the mounding would come almost to
the sidewalk so it would almost be incorporated into the landscaping. Mrs. Evans stated she felt the visibility of
the building was important and she did not want to see it hidden by excessive
mounding or excessive trees. Mr. Schultz
stated the requirement for mounding was to block views of the parking lot. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with the other
Commission members that given the proximity to the road it was a matter of
picking either the street trees or the sugar maple trees on the mounding. Mr. Blake stated then it is his impression
that the Commission members would like to waive the requirement for the street
trees. Mr. Schultz stated if that is the
Commission’s recommendation, it would require a vote of two-thirds to be
approved. Mr. Hackworth moved to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping with staff conditions
1 and 3 and to waive the requirement for street trees on this development; Mr.
Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch
stated he would like staff to consider changing the silver maple to something
like a red maple to shrink the canopy of the mature trees a little bit. Mr. Schultz stated he would work with the
developer on that. Roll call was taken
with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
D. Review
and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall and Ground
Signage for Pizza Cottage located at 1000 Old Diley Road (just south of
Fifth-Third Bank). Mr. Henderson
reviewed the staff report as presented to the Commission members and stated he
would point out that the building signage is showing four colors, red, white,
black, and blue, and the zoning code limits all signs to three colors, so they
would have to eliminate one color. Mr.
Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with
the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the bricks for the ground signs shall match the
building.
2. That the height of the ground signs shall not exceed nine
feet above the parking lot grade adjacent to the signs.
Mr.
Seth Dorman stated they have reviewed the staff report and he stated they do
intend to comply with the requirement that the signs have only three colors,
and he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Sauer moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall and
Ground Signage for Pizza Cottage located at 1000 Old Diley Road with the two
staff conditions; Mr. Bosch seconded with motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
E. Review
and request for a motion to approve an amended Conditional Use Permit for
Outdoor Service Facilities for RULE(3) located at 650 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the staff report
provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to
amend the Conditional Use permit in order to construct a third patio on the
southeastern corner of the building adjacent to the volleyball courts. He stated staff supports the amended
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Patios and volleyball courts for RULE(3)
that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following seven
conditions:
1. That pine trees, six-feet tall at
installation, shall be planted between the volleyball courts and the residences
to the west; from the building to the southern property line to create an
opaque buffer.
2. That the existing tree line along the
southwestern portion of the site shall be preserved per the tree preservation
ordinance.
3. That the southern patio shall be
vacated at midnight.
4. That the eastern patio, volleyball
courts and southeastern patio shall not be utilized after dark.
5. That no sound from any of the patios,
emanating from loudspeakers or other such sound amplification equipment shall
be audible at the property line of the closest residences to the west (which
are 903 and 912 Gray Drive respectively).
6. That the Violet Township Fire
Department concerns shall be met prior to zoning certificate approval.
7. That the outdoor furniture on the
southeastern patio shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and
constructed of ferrous (iron based) metal, non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal
or wood.
Mr. Brian Stoner stated he was
present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Amended
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Service Facilities for RULE(3) with the
seven staff conditions; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 9:50 P.M., and
reconvened in open session at 9:58 P.M.
B. A
Public Hearing and review and request for motion to approve a Rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan for the approximate 16 acre Ebright/Homestead
parcels from R-4 (Residential) to PC-3 (Planned Community Commercial District)
for a Retail, Office, and 4 Seasons Sports Complex Development located at 1010
and 1040 Refugee Road just west of Hill Road Plaza (former Big Bear).
Mr. Blake opened the public hearing
and Mr. Schultz reviewed staff’s report as presented to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated the proposal is to develop
the site into a mixed-use development that includes an indoor sports complex,
commercial, and an office component. He
stated Phase I would be a 100,000 square foot indoor soccer facility and Phase
II would include about 50,000 square feet of office in eight buildings, and
25,000 square feet of retail. Mr.
Schultz stated access to the site for Phase I would be from the traffic signal
at Birchwood through a private easement through the Hill Road Plaza, and Phase
II access would be at the Windmiller/Refugee Road signal and would be a public
road through the development. There being
no comments, Mr. Blake closed the public hearing.
Mr. Schultz stated he would like to
mention that Mrs. Nicodemus and Mr. Smith were present earlier, however, she
became ill and Mr. Smith took her home.
He stated Mrs. Nicodemus owns approximately 100 acres adjacent to the
proposed development and he would try to contact her to see what her concerns
were. Mr. Schultz stated this is a
preliminary development plan and if approved it would go to Service Committee
and then come back to Planning & Zoning for final development plan
approval, a public hearing, back to Service Committee, and then to Council for
a public hearing and three readings. He
stated this is the first step in the process and this is a very complex
project. Mr. Schultz stated he believed
the applicant would like to get an idea if this complex made sense because
piggybacked on this would be a development agreement that would need Council
approval, and a TIF for the public road portion. He stated there were several items that could
potentially be moving simultaneously with this rezoning and development
plan. Mr. Schultz stated the
Thoroughfare Plan identifies Stonecreek Drive as being extended to Fuller’s
Way, and that would likely be developer driven.
He continued the Thoroughfare Plan also identifies access roads from
Birchwood, through this site, and from the traffic signal at Windmiller to this
site is a proposed road. Mr. Schultz
stated this plan is in substantial compliance with it connecting at Birchwood
and Windmiller. Mr. Schultz stated there
would be access to this site through a private access agreement with Hill Road
Plaza and an access point at the traffic signal at Windmiller. He stated they are also proposing a
right-in/right-out at Refugee Road and, in addition, we are requesting a
44-foot access easement along the eastern portion of their property line that
would provide potential access to the State Farm office site and potentially to
the offices at Stonecreek. Mr. Blake stated
right now Phase I is requesting access off of S.R. 256 by the signal at the
plaza and that would be the only access point at this time. Mr. Schultz continued that the existing
zoning on the site is R-4 and it is surrounded by commercial to the north, the
Big Bear Plaza, Taco Bell, and other commercial uses to the east, the CME
Credit Union and Windmiller commercial offices to the south, and to the west is
the R-4 residential land that is the Nicodemus property. Mr. Schultz reviewed the staff report that
had been provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the rezoning and
preliminary development plan that complies with the minimum zoning code
requirements and the following conditions:
1. The engineering details pertaining to roadway width,
right-of-way width, traffic improvements, etc., shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer.
2. That a dedication plat and legal
description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the
right-of-way as needed along Refugee Road and Hill Road North per the City
Engineer.
3. That sub-area A shall have a 40-foot
wide cross-access easement along the entire eastern portion of the property per
the City Engineer requirements.
4. That the sanitary reimbursement fee
shall be paid prior to construction drawing approval for each lot.
5. That if the lot to the west is not
zoned commercial before sub-area B or C receive occupancy permits, the
development shall have to comply with Type A buffer requirements.
6. That sidewalks shall be extended along
the new public streets.
7. That the proposed development shall
meet all other City development requirements.
8. That the site plan shall be in
compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
9. That the site plan shall be in
compliance with the Violet Township Fire Department requirements.
10. That the rear yard building setback for
the 4 Season Sports Complex shall be reduced from 30-feet to 20-feet.
11. That the maximum building height for the
4 Season Sports Complex shall be increased from 35-feet to 45-feet.
12. That the front yard parking setback for
the 4 Season Sports Complex shall be reduced from 18-feet to 15-feet.
13. That the building setbacks along the
proposed public roads for sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from
30-feet to 25-feet.
14. That the parking setback along the
proposed public roads for sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from
18-feet to 15-feet.
15. That the north/south public streets shall
be completed prior to any office and/or retail occupancy permits in sub-areas B
and C respectively.
Mr. Aaron Underhill stated he was
present on behalf of the applicant, along with Mr. Jim Ebright and Doug Maddy
the property owners, and Jim Watkins their engineer. Mr. Underhill stated in other communities
there is always talk about rec facilities and whether they are privately or
publicly funded, and most communities today feel they are underserved in that
respect. Mr. Underhill stated Mr.
Maddy’s market research has indicated that Pickerington, other than Dublin, has
the most kids that are seeking to play soccer and the largest market in Central
Ohio is in Pickerington other than Dublin.
Mr. Underhill stated they felt this facility would fit in very well here
and be an asset to the community.
Mr. Underhill stated there are a
number of things to be dealt with on this site and by the time they get to the
Final Development Plan those issues should be worked out. He stated the costs of the improvements on the
site that are being proposed are needed, based on your Thoroughfare Plan, and
are very substantial. He stated without
some public participation this project will not be able to get off the ground,
so they have initially discussed placing a TIF on this property. He stated they would phase the improvements
and the reason they need the access off of S.R. 256 and the sort of east/west
public road access is because there is not enough value there, and this would
be the first phase of this development.
Mr. Underhill stated they feel the two southern pieces of the
development will create enough value to allow that TIF to generate some revenue
to help pay for these improvements. Mr.
Underhill stated the off premise sign on Hill Road, they understood they would
need to work with Tuffy and they were willing to do that. He stated they have not approached them as
yet, but they would like to propose that if an agreement is not reached with
them they would like to temporarily have a sign on S.R. 256, and if that would
be made permanent at some point make it a condition they would have to combine
that with Tuffy’s. Mr. Underhill stated
based on how the traffic discussion goes, they would most likely be willing to
move the entire site five feet to the east.
Mr. Underhill stated one of their main concerns with the engineering
comments, there is a request for a public right-of-way and they questioned the
need for 60 feet rather than 50 feet. He
stated based on the uses he did not believe the office uses would be so dense
they would require any left-turn lanes, and also increasing the right-of-way
will increase the pavement that will in turn be contrary to the growth plan as
they felt that would increase speeds. He
further stated the expansion of the pavement on the right-of-way might possibly
include another lane would cost another $150,000, and that money might be used
for other purposes if it is not really needed there.
Mr. Jim Watkins stated with regard to
the road, they are suggesting keeping it at a local classification with a
50-foot right-of-way. He stated this
would be designed for 35 mph and they want to create a pedestrian feel for the
development, they do not want to increase speed in there. He stated with a sports facility located
there, there would be a lot of kids and they want to encourage slow
traffic.
Mr. Sauer stated he was interested to
see if there would be a barrier or anything of that nature on the entrance road
through the Big Bear Plaza because that will basically be a through road. Mr. Underhill stated their intent is to
stripe it and get some type of movement so vehicles have a reasonable path from
point A to point B. Mr. Sauer stated the
building in the back would increase traffic flow and he would like to see a
better solution to this problem. Mr.
Hackworth stated the soccer facility would create a substantial number of
vehicles coming and going at the same time.
Mr. Blake stated his main concern for this facility is the access
issue. Mr. Bachman stated normally there
would be a traffic study for a site of this size, not just for the soccer
complex but the rest of the site have a lot of parking spaces as well. He stated one thing this site has that most
sites do not have, is it already has two existing traffic signals; one on 256
and one on Refugee. Mr. Bachman stated
he would love to require the developer to put in a right-turn lane coming down
256 at Birchwood into the facility, however, that would require getting
right-of-way from the Sonoco station to the north and it would be almost
impossible to compel them to give away part of their site, so he was not sure
what a traffic study would show. Mr.
Bosch questioned if a traffic impact study would help identify the turn lane
length needs for S.R. 256 and Refugee Road to identify if the existing lengths
are adequate to serve the traffic of the development. Mr. Bachman stated he did not feel there was
any room to extend the length of the left turn lanes. Mr. Bosch stated, however, the study would
tell how bad it would be so those signals would most likely have to be
retimed. Mr. Bachman stated Birchwood
cannot be changed too much because it is on that ACS light system. Mr. Bosch stated he loved the concept, he
would just like to see some more detail work that would protect the 256
entrance and define at least some storage length. Mr. Schultz stated he did not feel this is
the ideal situation, however, it would take Hill Road Plaza redeveloping and
allowing us to put a road through there to correct it. He stated right now we are just exploring
whether this is something that is acceptable to the City, and if this access is
not allowed the only access to this site in the future will be at Refugee
Road.
Mr. Blake stated he would like to
clarify if any of the Commission members had an issue with the concept of the
project and the use of the property, not the access. Mrs. Evans stated she felt it would be a
wonderful project. Mr. Blake stated he
would felt the way this was tonight it would not be approved, and at this
point, for everyone’s benefit, if they would work with staff with in regard to
getting from Point A on 256, which would be the main access, back to the soccer
facility, because that seemed to be everyone’s main concern. Mr. Blake stated he would recommend this be
Tabled this evening to allow them to work with staff and the engineer to come
up with something that this Commission could approve. Mr. Blake stated he felt the concept was
wonderful and that there was no issue with the phasing, it was just the access
to the site. Mr. Schultz stated he
thought they could come up with a couple of options to consider before next
month. Mr. Sauer moved to Table; Mr.
Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call
was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mrs. Evans
voting “Yea.” Motion passed,
5-0. (TABLED)
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA met
last month and approved a setback variance for a deck and there is one agenda
item for this month.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the Fairfield Regional
Planning Commission considered two items in Violet Township, an extension
request for Meadowmore and variances for the Tollgate Elementary/Middle
School.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Outdoor
Patio Discussion. Mr. Blake stated he
would like to continue this on the agenda for the next meeting.
B. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Schultz stated he had
forwarded a letter from the owner of the Creekbend Business Park to the
Commission in which he requested that each tenant be allowed to change their
signs to the three colors they want, and he had notified him that could be
approved administratively.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 11:48 P.M., August 11, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk