PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
REGULAR MEETING
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, Mayor O’Brien, John Ricketts, Rick Ricketts,
Craig Vandervoort, Randall Hoskinson,
John Price, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 13, 2009 Regular
Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve;
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.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a detached
garage at 130
North Center Street. Mr. Henderson
reviewed staff’s report presented to the Commission and stated the applicant is
proposing to build a detached garage along the rear on the property that would
encompass 720 square feet. He stated the
garage would have tan colored vinyl siding and black shingles to match the
house, and there would be a 16’x 9’ overhead garage door on the front elevation
of he garage. Mr. Henderson stated
Chapter 1286.281e states there should be no overhead doors, however, staff
believes the intent of this was to restrict storage buildings in residential
subdivisions and small lots from becoming garages where there was no approved
driveway accessing the building. He
stated the applicant is proposing a gravel driveway that would be extended back
to the proposed garage with a gravel turn around in front of the garage and, therefore,
staff supports the overhead garage door.
Mr. Henderson further stated this residence has a single carport along
the north side of the site. Mr.
Henderson stated staff supported the Conditional Use Permit for a detached
garage that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the
following conditions:
1. That
the appearance, design, architectural character, color, and building materials
shall match the house.
2. That
an overhead door on the west elevation shall be permitted.
Mr. Randall Hoskinson stated he is
the applicant and he would answer any questions anyone might have. Mr. Hoskinson
stated he had read staff’s conditions and he did not have any concerns on
them. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a detached
garage at 130 North Center Street
with staff conditions; Mr. Binkley 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.
B. Review
and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage
for Rutherford Auto Body Shop located at 685 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and
stated the owners of the Zane tract are proposing to purchase the McAuliffe
property and incorporate it with lots one and seven of their development. He stated currently Rutherford Auto Body has
an easement agreement with Mr. McAuliffe to allow a sign on that property. Mr. Henderson further stated the applicant is
proposing to temporarily relocate the existing off-premise ground sign for
Rutherford Auto Body Shop slightly north on the McAuliffe property to increase
the developable area of lot one on the Zane tract. He continued they are also proposing to add a
temporary off-premises directional sign at the end of the first phase of Commerce Drive in order to direct patrons to Rutherford
Auto Body. Mr. Henderson stated these
signs would be removed when Commerce Drive connects Hill Road North to Diley Road, and the Rutherford signage would be relocated to front Commerce Drive.
Mr. Henderson stated the style, type, and size of the proposed
off-premise directional sign has not been identified and, staff cannot support
the second off-premise directional sign on the site. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signage for Rutherford Auto Body Shop that
complies with the minimum zoning requirements and the following conditions:
1. That
the existing ground sign shall be relocated slightly north of the existing
location along Hill
Road North.
2. That
the existing off-premises sign shall be removed when Commerce Drive is extended
to Diley Road that creates road frontage on Commerce
Drive for Rutherford Auto Body Shop.
3. That
there shall be no overflow light created by the spot lights on the ground sign.
4. That
the proposed off-premises directional sign shall not be permitted.
Mr. Richard Ricketts stated he was present representing
Rutherford Auto Body Shop and Mr. Vandervoort,
representing the developers of the Zane tract is also present. Mr. Ricketts stated he would like to state
that even though he does not fully agree with staff’s recommendations, they
have been completely and above reproach in terms of their professionalism and
their willingness to communicate with him, and appreciated that. Mr. Ricketts stated that Rutherford Auto Body
is happy with its current signage and access, although as of today traveling
down Old State Route 256 was effectively cut off today. He stated, however, they strongly support the
vision of the City in terms of its Master Thoroughfare Plan which includes
extending Commerce Drive all the way through to Diley
Road. He stated at that point in time
the Rutherford Auto Body site would be provided road frontage. Mr. Ricketts continued that Rutherford Auto
Body fully supports the efforts of the Zane tract developers in terms of what
they have been trying to do. He stated
he felt this was an example of a substantial amount of cooperation by both
government and business in trying to reach both a short, mid-term, and long
term objective in being able to enhance everything for the City of Pickerington and all of the businesses in the
area. Mr. Ricketts further stated he
felt it would be fair and appropriate for there to be some consideration of Mr.
Rutherford’s request in terms of cutting off his current access and realigning
it down Commerce Drive that is not familiar to people as of yet and is
currently a dead end road. Mr. Ricketts
stated there is a concern by Mr. Rutherford that everyone be aware of exactly
how to get to his site. Mr. Ricketts
stated the request that has been presented to the Commission is the minor
relocation of the existing sign slightly to the north. He stated the business purpose of that is to
get it into the rear setback of what would be lot one in the development of the
Zane tract, so it is not encroaching on any of the developable area and would
allow that property to be marketed without any impediment upon that
property. He stated further these signs
would all be temporary because at the point in time Commerce Drive is extended
on to Diley Road there would be no need for the
existence the sign because there would be frontage to the Rutherford property
right on Commerce Drive and the sign would then be moved back as an on-premises
sign. Mr. Ricketts stated with the
relocation of that sign there would be a minor modification to add, basically,
an arrow and saying go to Commerce Drive and make a right. Mr. Ricketts stated Mr. Rutherford also
believed it would be appropriate to have an additional directional sign at the
current terminus of Commerce Drive as when you get to the end of Commerce Drive where it hits what is Old State Route
256 it narrows down and is obviously terminating as a road. He stated it is really unclear as to what you
are supposed to do from that point forward or even if you are allowed to go
down that way. Mr. Ricketts stated the
request of Mr. Rutherford is, in essence, just allow a small sign that says
Rutherford Auto Body, arrow this direction.
Just a basically tell people how you get to Rutherford Auto Body. Mr. Ricketts stated another clarification he
felt was important both to Mr. Rutherford and also to the developers of the
Zane tract, is they want a clarification that this request would not adversely
impair their ability to have signage on the lots that are going to be a part of
the Zane development. He stated he did
not feel this would be off-premises sign because it is a temporary sign that
would be eliminated when Commerce Drive is extended, and your Code defines
off-premise signs as a sign that advertises, promotes or inform regarding
products or services available. He
stated this is not such a sign; it is to help people understand where to go at
the end of a dead end road. He stated
further the Code also states that signs that are not specifically listed in the
Chapter are subject to this Commission’s control or discretion, and he felt
this was a classic example of where the Commission should look at this sign as
something that falls into that area. Mr.
Ricketts stated he would stipulate that the recommendations of staff in
relation to the large sign are completely acceptable to Mr. Rutherford with the
exception of the small directional sign and he would request the Commission’s
consideration of approving that small directional sign until the point in time
in which Commerce Drive is extended along through to Diley
Road and there is road frontage at the Rutherford site. Mr. Blake clarified that in referring to a
small directional sign, was that something like two feet by three feet, and Mr.
Ricketts stated that was correct and he would stipulate the sign would be no more
than 2’ by 3’. Mr. Blake further inquired
if language should be included to show these signs would be temporary and would
be removed upon a certain phase of the road going through to Diley Road that would be acceptable to the City and
to Mr. Ricketts. Mr. Banchefsky
stated as much detail that could be put in to make that time period a date
certain or on a specific clearly defined event would be very helpful. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see
language included stipulating what “temporary” means, did it mean when the road
was completed and connected to Diley or something
else. Mr. Ricketts stated the request
specifically said when the road was dedicated on through to Diley Road and is a through road, then that was
purely the point in time Mr. Rutherford was willing to abandon both of these
signs and put the sign on the premises in front of his site. Mr. Schultz stated staff’s condition 2
addresses the existing off-premise sign and any additional directional sign
would have to be included in the condition.
Mr. Hackworth clarified the small directional sign would be located
where Commerce
Drive
curves back onto the Old State Route 256.
Mr. Sauer further clarified the directional sign would not be lit and
the colors would be consistent with the colors of the current sign. Mrs. Evans stated she did feel the City
should allow the temporary sign and she felt the additional directional sign
would actually help people and lessen confusion for people looking for
Rutherford Auto Body. Mr. Bosch stated
he felt this was a unique situation and with limiting the size of the
additional directional sign, relocating the sign, and making them temporary, he
did not have a problem with this request.
Mr. Binkley stated he would like to limit the size of the directional
sign to no more than four square feet, and he would not have a problem with
that. Mr. Nicholas stated he also felt a
maximum height of 48-inches should be included on the directional sign. He further stated he thought a timeframe
around the connection of Commerce Drive to Diley Road should be included so Rutherford would have time to react, and he felt 30
days would be fair. Mr. Ricketts stated
he felt Mr. Rutherford would be fine with the sign being no more than four
square feet and 48-inches in height if that is what the Commission determines. He further stated he would suggest the time
allowed to remove the temporary signs be longer than 30-days because the
on-premises sign would need to go through the process of being approved. Mr. Blake suggested that the application for
the new sign be submitted within 30 days of the road being connected. Mr. Schultz clarified the connection of Commerce Drive to Diley Road would be development driven. Mr. Blake summarized that language would be
added to add a maximum size of four square feet and a height of 48-inches for
the additional directional sign, and submittal for new on-site signage to be
submitted to the City of Pickerington within 30 days of the connection of
Commerce Drive to Diley Road. Mr. Sauer stated he would also like to have
the language that the directional sign would not be lit and the colors would be
consistent with the current off-premises sign.
Mrs. Yartin verified that the new language would replace staff’s current
condition 4.
Mr. Nicholas moved to
approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signage for Rutherford Auto Body
Shop located at 685 Hill Road North
with the following conditions:
1. That the existing ground sign shall be
relocated slightly north of the existing location along Hill
Road North.
2. That the existing off-premises sign and
the additional off-premises directional sign shall be removed when Commerce
Drive is extended to Diley Road
that creates road frontage on Commerce
Drive for Rutherford Auto Body
Shop, and that Rutherford Auto Body Shop shall submit application for new
on-site signage within 30-days of the completion of this connection.
3. That there shall be no overflow light
created by the spot lights for the ground sign.
4. That the off-premises directional sign
shall not exceed four square feet in size with a height of 48-inches, shall not
be lit, and the colors shall be consistent with the current off-premises sign;
Mr.
Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer
voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
C. Review and request for motion to approve
Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping
(Memorial) for Violet Grange located at 36 Lockville
Road
(TABLED, 10-13-09). Mr. Hackworth moved to remove from the Table;
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.
Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report
provided to the Commission and stated the applicant was proposing a granite
bench style memorial located in the southwestern corner of the site to honor
the Violet Grange. He stated since the
memorial is not advertising any existing business or sale and the main function
would be a bench, staff maintains it should be reviewed as a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Landscaping. Mr.
Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for
Landscaping (memorial) that complies with the minimum zoning code
requirements. Mr. John Ricketts stated
he was present representing Violet Grange.
Mr. Ricketts stated he felt this would be a very appropriate monument to
the Grange and in years past the Grange was the third most important
organization in the community, following the churches and schools. Mr. Ricketts stated the building at 36 Lockville
Road
has been sold to the Township, with the agreement that for the next five years
the Grange would be allowed to meet at some other location owned by the
Township should they desire to do so.
Mr. Ricketts stated however that membership in the Grange is declining
and the organization will probably eventually just die. Mr. Ricketts stated he did have a revised
sketch to provide the Commission and Mr. Blake clarified that Mr. Schultz did
not see a problem with this revision. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the revised
memorial for a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness
for Landscaping (memorial) for Violet Grange located at 36
Lockville Road
that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements; Mrs. Evans seconded
the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Hackworth voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board of
Zoning Appeals did not meet in October and there are no agenda items for
November.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the Fairfield Regional
Planning Commission met and approved a replat of the
Pickerington Tollgate Elementary and Middle School and also a revised condition
approval for the preliminary plan for Sycamore Crossing.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Blake requested a
clarification on the process of revising our Code concerning zoning
regulations. Mr. Schultz stated if it is
within the zoning code it goes through a text amendment at this Commission and
is forwarded to Service Committee and Council.
He stated there would be public hearings at this Commission and at Council.
Mr. Blake stated he has received some clarifications from the law
director on some items in our zoning code concerning trailers, boats,
recreation vehicles on unimproved surfaces at residences. He stated he believed the clarification from
the law firm contradicts the meaning of the code and he has requested a meeting
with Mr. Schulz, Mr. Mahaffey, Mr. Hartmann, and himself for Friday. Mr. Blake stated he feels we have been seeing
discrepancies or what he felt were gray areas in the interpretation of the
zoning code concerning an improved surface, unimproved surface, what is and is
not a motorized vehicle, etc. He stated
once he gets more information he will bring it to the Commission for review and
possible revision.
Mayor O’Brien stated he agreed we should have a review of
the code to find conflicts, inconsistencies, and things like that, and this
Commission is certainly capable of doing that.
Mayor O’Brien stated he knows how this Commission feels about
consistency and he has heard comments from people that have dealt with this
Commission about their consistency and they appreciate that. They know what they are going to get when
they get here. Mayor O’Brien stated
another way to approach code enforcement issues is to empower the Code
Enforcement Officer to use their judgment to administratively make the call,
and if the person cited does not like the call this Commission is their appeal
process. He stated he would urge the Commission
to look at all of their options.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There
being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the
motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans,
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned
at 8:20 P.M., November 10, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk