PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 8, 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, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
Sauer were present. Mr. Nicholas was
absent. Others present were:
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 11, 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, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review
and request for a motion to approve an amended Nonresidential Design Standards
Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture and Landscaping for C3 Church
located at 200 Hill Road South. Mr.
Schultz stated this should read “Architecture and Lighting” instead of
Architecture and Landscaping. Mr.
Henderson reviewed staff’s report as presented to the Commission and stated the
applicant is proposing to construct a dumpster enclosure of DesignBRIK
with a chain link fence gate instead of the approved brick with wood
doors. Also, the applicant is proposing
two pole lights (shoebox style) four wall pack lights (shoebox style), and two
flood lights to light the parking lot.
He stated the approved Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting has
nine pole lights (gooseneck style) and five wall pack lights (gooseneck
style). Mr. Henderson stated staff does
not support the amended Certificate of Appropriateness request for
Architectural and Lighting. Pastor Conan
Stephens stated he is the Senior Pastor at C3 Church and he would like to point
out that the City Code would require them to pay $96,000 for exterior lights,
and when building a new building for just over $600,000 that is a huge amount. Pastor Stephens stated they are a young
church and this would be a significant hardship on them. He stated he felt the questions the
Commission might have would be if it looked nice and fit in Pickerington, is
there adequate lighting for the parking lot, and does the light bleed over and
affect any other lots. Pastor Stephens
stated what they are asking to put in match the properties next to them, the
junior high school and the high school have the exact same lights they are
requesting. He stated he would propose
this would be adequate lighting for the entire parking lot, however, there are
a couple of small remote areas where the lighting is below city requirements,
but the average foot candle meets the city’s requirements. He stated this proposal would increase the
parking lot lighting by 700 percent of what they have now. He stated the church is located down in a
valley and the lighting would not bleed over to any other properties. Pastor Stephens stated with regard to the
dumpster surround, as of now the dumpster sits in the middle of the parking lot
and is an eyesore, and they were aware they needed to build a dumpster
surround. He stated to meet the city’s
requirements it would cost them about $10,000.
Pastor Stephens stated you cannot see the dumpster from the road and
they would like to use a product called DesignBRIK
and would reduce the cost of the surround by about $6,000. He stated it is a block that looks like brick
and is a new product that has just come out.
He stated they were proposing a chain link fence gate, but if the
Commission determined it should be a wooden gate, they would do their best to
make that happen.
Mr. Sauer stated with regard to the dumpster enclosure he
did not see a problem with using the DesignBRIK,
however, he would prefer to see wooden gates.
He further clarified with regard to the lighting that what was being
proposed would cost them $16,000 as opposed to $96,000 for the other lighting. Mr. Sauer stated because of the location and
the fact that the schools have the other type lighting, he would not see a big
problem with this but he would like to know how the other Commission members
felt. Mr. Hackworth stated due to the
location of the dumpster enclosure he would not have a problem with the DesignBRIK product, but he also would like to have the
wooden gate on it. Mrs. Evans stated she
did not have a problem with the DesignBRIK and
clarified that in the areas where the lighting was below the .5 foot candles
required by the city it was at .3 foot candles.
Mrs. Evans further clarified the reason staff did not support the
request was because it was below the city requirements. Mr. Schultz stated it would be difficult for
the layperson to tell the difference between the illumination of .5 and .3 foot
candles. Mr. Blake stated his biggest
concern was the floodlights going toward S.R. 256. Mr. Binkley stated he has seen the DesignBRIK and it is a good product so he would have no
problem with that, however, he would like to see the wooden gate. He stated with regard to the lighting he is
fine with the shoebox style, but he also has concern regarding the
floodlights. He stated even though they
are located down in a valley, he would like to see some kind of shoebox fixture
in there to match. Mr. Bosch stated he
also would have no problem with the DesignBRIK but
would also require a wooden gate on it.
He further stated he did not see a problem with the shoebox style
fixture in lieu of the gooseneck; however, he has the same concerns on the
floodlights because it will cause a glare.
He stated if another shoebox fixture could be put in that may address
some of the low lighting as well. Mr.
Jack Berry stated if that area can be lit coming from the existing building
that would be their attempt. Mr. Blake
clarified that Mr. Schultz would feel comfortable dealing with this
administratively as long as the Commission gave him the parameters. Mr. Binkley stated he felt it would be
difficult to light it from the building and in order to get the distribution a
pole would be needed out by the handicapped parking spaces, but that would
still make them putting in three poles as opposed to the original nine. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed with Mr. Binkley
that a third pole would have to be installed.
He stated he felt the parameters should be included to the effect that
the rest of the facility, the rear and the side with the two existing poles,
would be acceptable as presented tonight, with the addition of removing the
existing and proposed floodlights with the placement of two more of the wall
packs and placing of another shoebox type light at a location to be named by
the photogramic engineer to at least accommodate to
the same level that is proposed tonight.
Mr. Schultz stated he felt comfortable with that and Mr. Banschefsky stated that would be sufficient. Mr.
Bosch moved to approve the amended Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Architecture and Lighting for C3 Church located at 200
Hill Road South with the condition that the rear and the side with the two
existing poles, would be acceptable as presented tonight, and the addition of
replacing the existing and proposed floodlights with the placement of two more
of the wall packs and placing of another shoebox type light at a location to be
named by the photogramic engineer to at least
accommodate to the same level that is proposed tonight and to approve the DesignBRIK for the dumpster enclosure with a wooden gate;
Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, Mr.
Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. A
public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Preliminary
Development Plan and Rezoning of the existing PM-1 District (Planned Restricted
Industrial District) to permit a dog park on the 8.874 acre Violet Township
Administration and Road Maintenance Facility property at 490 North Center
Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the staff
report provided to the Commission members.
He stated the owner is proposing to develop the southern portion of the
8.87 acre site into a 2.3 acre dog park.
The park would be enclosed by a four to six foot tall PVC coated dark
green chain link fence, and a walking path would span the small creek that
would connect the Violet Township Maintenance Facility to the dog park. He stated the parcel is currently zoned
Planned Restricted Industrial (PM1) and does not allow for a park use. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
rezoning and the Preliminary Development Plan with the minimum zoning code
requirements and the following conditions:
1. That
the site shall be used for Township offices, maintenance, and storage uses and
operations and a dog park only, and any other uses are prohibited without a
rezoning.
2. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the City Engineer’s requirements.
3. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the Building Department requirements.
4. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the Violet Township Fire Department
requirements.
5. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
6. That
any outdoor storage shall be identified and screened with fencing and/or
landscaping.
Mr. Blake opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant
would like to make a brief summary. Mr.
Bill Yaple stated this has been discussed for about
two and a half years and this will be a green space that will not be built
upon. He stated the Township has been
approached by community members and asked if it could be used for a dog
park. He stated this will be a
public/private partnership with donations of about 50 percent of the funds for
the operation. He stated the major costs
will be the land preparation and the crossing on the creek and they intend to
lay a 36-inch culvert in the ditch for drainage. Mr. Yaple stated he
would request this be considered a Final Development Plan if at all
possible.
Mrs. Carolyn Adams stated she is the President of the
Friends of Violet Township Dog Park. She
stated they are a nonprofit organization that was formed in October 2008, and
they have been working very closely with the Township on this project. She stated they have had excellent community
involvement and have received hundreds of donations from citizens as well as
donations from businesses and a local veterinarian. Ms Adams stated she has visited the dog parks
that are closest to us and they are actually places where people come to
socialize and they bring their dogs. Ms
Adams stated this is a great asset to a community and she felt it was a plum
for
Mr. Blake ascertained there were no further comments and
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blake clarified that Mr. Yaple had no concerns with the six conditions listed by
staff. Mr. Schultz stated staff does not
have any problem with this item being moved forward as a Final Development Plan
should the Commission desire to do so this evening.
Mr. Bosch questioned if there were any
plans to separate the park into sections for large dogs and small dogs, and Ms
Adams stated there will be an area for small dogs. Mr. Bosch stated he supported this project
one hundred percent. Mr. Hackworth
questioned why this was a rezoning and Mr. Schultz clarified that when the City
approved the rezoning for the service center specific conditions were put on
that it could only be used for the reasons cited at that time. Mr. Schultz further stated that was the
reason they had to come back this evening for the rezoning to add the dog park
usage. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Final Development Plan and Rezoning of
the existing PM-1 District (Planned Restricted Industrial District) to permit a
dog park on the 8.874 acre Violet Township Administration and Road Maintenance
Facility property at 490 North Center Street with the six conditions listed by
staff; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr.
Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion
passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board of
Zoning Appeals did not meet in November and there are no agenda items for
December.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the Fairfield Regional
Planning Commission met and two items were approved, neither of which were
located in
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Blake stated the
Commission will reorganize at the January meeting and he would like to thank
all the members of the Commission for their work this past year. Mr. Blake stated he had met with Mr. Schultz,
Mayor O’Brien, Chief Taylor, Mr. Mahaffey, and Mr. Hartmann last month
regarding some gray areas in the zoning code.
Mr. Blake stated it appears there are some gray areas in the
interpretation of issues such as what is an approved surface versus
non-approved surface. Mr. Blake further
stated in the past there has been an interpretation of the zoning code to where
boats were not considered a motor vehicle or recreational vehicle and there
were questions on an approved surface or a non-approved surface. Mr. Blake asked Mr. Schultz to provide a
summary of what staff felt was in contradiction to what our zoning code
was. Mr. Schultz stated our attorney has
interpreted the code that boats are not a motor vehicle, the trailer and a boat
is not a motor vehicle. Mr. Blake stated
the way the attorney interprets our code is that you can park a boat on the
side of your house, and as long as it meets the setbacks that is legal. He further stated that does not apply to a
commercial trailer, but it does apply to a camper. Mr. Blake stated he would like to have Mr.
Schultz include some examples of these issues in the next Planning and Zoning
packet so the members can review them and see what the problems are. Mr. Blake further stated the way the code is
written today you can have a boat in your driveway for 48-hours in a one-week timeframe,
however, if that boat is moved, the time starts all over again. Mr. Bosch stated a motor vehicle is defined
under the Ohio Revised Code, and you
cannot amend that. Mr. Hackworth
questioned why this Commission would be reviewing ordinances because the
Commission cannot create an ordinance.
Mr. Binkley stated the Commission can make recommendations and Mr.
Schultz stated those recommendations would be forwarded to Service Committee
who would forward them to
B. Refugee
Road Corridor Study. Mr. Schultz stated
Service Committee has requested staff prepare a Refugee Road Corridor Study and
they have indicated they would like it to be done in the same manner the Diley Road Corridor Study was done. He stated his intent is to have meetings with
this Commission at strategic times to discuss his findings and ultimate goals
and the final report. Mr. Schultz stated
depending on his department’s work load this should take approximately 12
months and he hoped to provide a schedule to the Commission in the next month
or so. Mr. Schultz stated doing this
study in-house should save the City approximately $20,000 to $30,000. He stated, however, should his department’s
work load increase the study may be delayed.
Mr. Bosch clarified that Mr. Schultz could get some background
information from MORPC and they could be used for data collection as well. Mr. Schultz stated the study area is the
section from Giant Eagle to just west of the police station.
Mr. Blake clarified the developers of the Ebright property have submitted their development proposal
to our TIF attorney for review and he has not heard the status on that as
yet.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:25 P.M., December 8, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk