PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010

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: Mayor O’Brien, 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, Phil Hartmann, Tricia Sanders, Gavin Blair, Tony Barletta, Jeff Fix, Greg Bachman, Susan Crotty, Karen Risher, Dick Brahm, Trent McMurray, Scott Oliphant, Jim Lipnos, Darin Monhollan, Lisa Monhollan, Tim Shaw, Michael Kolb, Kathy Mendenhaul, Larry Mendenhaul, Sam Collier, Doug Matty, Chad Ostler, Tammy Ostler, Don Smith, Aaron Underhill, Jim Ebright, John Gallagher, and others.

Mayor O’Brien stated his representative, Mr. Hackworth, could not be present this evening so he was sitting in for him.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 12, 2010, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a rezoning for Lot 1 of the Willow Pond Subdivision, an approximate 1.31 acre parcel, from C-3 (Community Commercial) to R-4 (Residential) for Homewood Corporation located just south of the railroad tracks on the west side of Hill Road North. (TABLED, 01/12/10) Mr. Nicholas moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mayor O’Brien, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Henderson reviewed the zoning history that had been provided to the Commission members. He further stated the Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies this site for residential use, and in 2005, the Growth Management Assessment and Strategy was adopted, and while that did not address the downtown area its number one goal was to cultivate economic development opportunities throughout the City. Mr. Henderson stated the trend in the Olde Village area, which has been supported by staff and Council over the years, has been converting residentially zoning properties to commercial properties. Mr. Henderson stated staff does not support the rezoning request for the reasons stated.

Mr. Dick Brahm stated he was an attorney and he was representing Homewood Corporation. Mr. Brahm stated he did agree with the report provided, however, he did not agree with the recommendation. Mr. Brahm stated the property was zoned in 1993 or 1994 as C-3 which under your code calls for an intense commercial use at primarily arterial intersections. He stated Hill Road south of the railroad tracks is, in fact, a neighborhood or local roadway and there is not a four way intersection at this site. He further stated in 1994 when this was zoned, the property behind it was zoned as a residential subdivision as is a majority of the property located south of the site. Mr. Brahm stated some of the property along Hill Road has been zoned for commercial uses, but those are all single family homes converted to a fairly light use. He stated this particular piece of property is vacant and it has no access to Hill Road because of the streetscape that was installed along Hill Road. He stated if you were to have an intense commercial use here, you would have to have the access on to the residential roadway that connects the rest of that single family residential. Mr. Brahm stated there is the concept that because you passed an economic plan in 2005 that it somehow has precedence over your comprehensive plan, and as a matter of law and under your zoning resolution, that is not correct. Mr. Brahm stated the definition of a comprehensive plan in your code, you will find that once the comprehensive plan is adopted by Council it controls the zoning use of the property. He stated he did not believe the economic development plan really is a question that deals with zoning; it is an aspirational goal of the City. Mr. Brahm stated if you look at that plan you see that it really says you ought to be looking at larger tracts to develop that would bring in office, if possible, and retail. He stated the primary focus was to develop a location within the City with an economic plan that would provide you with more flexibility and the ability to create more residential and office in a planned way. Mr. Brahm stated the properties directly to the north of this piece and also on the west side of Hill Road is zoned manufacturing, and in 1994 this property was changed from manufacturing the residential. Mr. Brahm stated they did not believe that an intensive C-3 use would be a good use here. He stated since 1993/1994 there have been no offers to use this property as a commercial use, particularly since there is no access onto Hill Road and that commercial traffic would have to be pushed onto Pruden Drive near the intersection. He continued that there is an entrance to Olde Pickerington sign at the northeast corner of this property and there is the streetscape, there is fencing, and there is the entrance to the subdivision. He stated changing this into two lots would mean that Homewood would be able to establish a greater residential footprint here so people would identify this with the continuing subdivision in the rear. Mr. Brahm stated he did not believe this would in any way change your economic picture, it is essentially the establishment of two single-family residential lots and allows everyone to keep the streetscape that has already been imposed, the screening is already present to screen it from the highway, and Hill Road is a different classification south. Mr. Brahm stated he asked for the Commission’s approval and he would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Brahm stated further that he had reviewed the engineer’s memorandum and they could meet all of his concerns. Mr. Brahm also stated that Homewood had talked to some of the neighbors and they were in support of this going to two residential lots to fit in with the neighborhood more so than a C-3 commercial use.

Mr. Nicholas stated staff does not approve of this and he has come to the same conclusion. Mr. Nicholas stated if he lived on Dovel Court he would not want to see a McDonalds or some high density drive thru situation go in there, but a barber shop or hair salon might not be bad. He stated if it were changed to residential he had a safety concern as it is near the railroad tracks and also coming in off of Hill Road there would be two driveways right there.

Mr. Blake stated as this is a public hearing he would now open the floor to any residents or anyone who had anything to add to Mr. Brahm’s comments.

Chad Ostler stated he lives in the Willow Pond subdivision and he is in support of changing this for a residential use. He stated Mr. Nicholas had voiced a concern about the railroad tracks, however, the tracks run behind all of the other residential lots that are already there, and the railroad tracks are significantly raised from the level of the back yards. Mr. Ostler stated with regard to two driveways right when you come in from Hill Road, if you did put commercial use in there the entrance would be there so you would have the same situation. Mr. Ostler stated as a resident of that neighborhood he would be adamantly opposed to having any kind of commercial development on that lot and he would much prefer to see two houses there because it is really part of the development. Mr. Ostler stated there is also a playground across the street where children play and he did not see where adding more traffic in and out of the entrance of the development would be a good situation.

Tammy Ostler stated she would just like to state that the traffic issue would be a major concern for her. Mrs. Ostler stated she works in the old village and she did not feel a commercial property of any kind with any kind of signage would be appropriate for that location.

There being no further comments, Mr. Blake closed the public hearing.

Mr. Nicholas stated just to be clear he would like to say that when he was talking about safety and the railroad tracks he was not just gearing it toward the proposed two lots, he has always been concerned about safety with homes near railroad tracks.

Mr. Binkley stated he would excuse himself from discussion on this item.

Mayor O’Brien stated he felt the resident’s comments were pretty clear on this issue. Mrs. Evans stated she was not sure what type of business would end up at that particular site. She stated she tended to agree that it would be much more attractive to have two homes on that site and not have the traffic of a business clogging up S.R. 256, especially with the railroad tracks right there. Mrs. Evans stated she would support rezoning this to residential. Mr. Sauer stated he had nothing to add to what has already been stated, and with the access points on Pruden Drive he would prefer to see residential on this site. Mr. Bosch stated he hated to give up any commercial property at all, but with the resident’s concerns about it staying residential and keeping the feel of the neighborhood, and know the traffic would be an issue with it being so close to the intersection of Hill Road and Pruden Drive, that he would have to support the residential zoning. Mr. Blake stated the property to the north is zoned M right now which can be pretty major industrial, so we would be opening two residential lots to the south of property that could be because of its zoning, a gas station, a warehouse facility, etc. Mr. Blake stated he could never see the property that is zoned industrial today ever being zoned residential, so there will be commercial property of some kind directly north of this parcel. Mr. Blake stated the people who purchased these homes will come in and complain when that property gets developed as commercial. He stated he is not against this going residential because of the location, but he would almost guarantee that at some time those two residents will come in who are not happy because of the property that is zoned industrial. Mr. Bosch clarified this property is in the Community Reinvestment Area and by making it residential we are not setting any type of precedent. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the rezoning for Lot 1 of the Willow Pond Subdivision from C-3 (Community Commercial) to R-4 (Residential) for Homewood Corporation located just south of the railroad tracks on the west side of Hill Road North; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Blake voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Evans, Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-2.

B. 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 (TABLED, 01/12/10). Mrs. Evans moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mayor O’Brien, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to amend the Conditional Use Permit in order to allow the volleyball courts, eastern patio, and southeastern patio to be utilized after dark. Mr. Henderson stated with the Conditional Use Permit approved by this Commission on August 11, 2009, there were seven conditions, the fourth of which stated the eastern patio, volleyball courts, and the southeastern patio shall not be utilized after dark. Mr. Henderson stated staff does not support the request to amend the Conditional Use Permit because the Planning and Zoning Commission imposed a condition that the eastern patio, volleyball courts, and southeastern patio shall not be utilized after dark. Mr. Henderson further stated if the Commission did approve this request the lighting should be in compliance with the City’s lighting requirements.

Mr. Don Smith stated he is one of the co-owners of Rule(3) and they would like to be able to use their rear patio after dark. Mr. Smith stated they have a patio that is much closer to the residential area that was approved for use after dark and they have never had a noise complaint. Mr. Smith stated they purposely positioned the building to move the volleyball courts as far away from any residential as possible and use the building to shield against any noise or lights from the residents. He stated the lights would actually be attached to the building and shining down on the volleyball courts. Mr. Smith stated they have had bands and live music on the other patio several times without any complaints and he did not feel using the volleyball courts until 11:00 P.M. would be an added noise or nuisance factor. Mr. Schultz clarified that if the Commission approves the request to utilize the volleyball courts after dark, the next agenda item would be to review the lighting specifications.

Mr. Trent McMurray stated he is the President of the Homeowner’s Association for Windmiller Ponds subdivision. Mr. McMurray stated Mr. Smith is correct that Rule(3) has had live music with no formal complaints, however, on three separate instances he did hear music at his home. Mr. McMurray stated his home is one of the two closest homes to Rule(3) and at 11:00 P.M. on three separate Saturdays he did hear music. Mr. McMurray stated further on three or four different occasions cars have been parked on both sides of Windmiller Drive which literally made it a one-way street; cars had to stop while cars came in the other direction, etc. Mr. McMurray stated on three separate instances he has seen cars parked all the way to the corner of Windmiller and Gray Drive and he personally witnessed two near accidents because the cars sitting on Gray Drive could not see the cars coming down Windmiller. Mr. McMurray stated when this was first proposed, this Commission fortunately put guidelines in place for no lighting of the volleyball courts after dark, and if you approve lighting for after dark he will guarantee cars will be parked all the way down Windmiller and on Gray Drive. Mr. McMurray stated several residents have let him know their concerns about the traffic on Windmiller on Saturday night and he would hate to see something serious happen at the intersection of Windmiller and Gray Drives. Mr. McMurray stated the noise from the patio with that extended patio garage door open, you can hear the music at his home. Mr. McMurray stated he did not want them playing volleyball after dark as that will add to the traffic that is on Windmiller, it will add to the noise that they already hear in the neighborhood, and being one of the two nearest homes he hears it the most. Mr. McMurray stated he did not want to hear that at 11:00 P.M. on a Saturday night.

Mrs. Sanders stated she also lives in the Windmiller Ponds subdivision and several neighbors had planned to come to this meeting last month, but it was cancelled due to the weather. She stated she has heard the opposite from her neighbors, and she would like to commend Mr. Smith and Mr. Stoner. Mrs. Sanders stated she along with several people she has spoken to are grateful that a gas station or a 24-hour store did not go in at that location because that entire area of Windmiller Drive is zoned C-3. Mrs. Sanders stated Mr. Stoner and Mr. Smith have provided the City with a community facility that is completely family-oriented and no-one she has talked to has had a problem with the fact that there would be lights, basically on Diley Road.

Mr. Bosch stated he is glad Pickerington has this facility, however, he does have reservations about approving this amendment because they worked so hard and went through many steps to get to a consensus between the homeowners and Rule(3). Mr. Bosch stated he does not think lights would bother anyone, but he just could not support it based upon the previous steps of this Commission. Mr. Binkley stated he agreed with Mr. Bosch because this Commission had several meetings on this, and there have been some issues with some residents, he felt they had an obligation to those residents. Mr. Binkley stated this Commission worked very hard to come up with a good agreement, so he cannot support this request. Mrs. Evans stated this is very difficult because of how hard everyone worked; the citizens, the owners of the facility, and this Commission. She stated noise has always been an issue for her and she clarified that Mr. McMurray had not made a formal complaint because he was giving them time to see how they did. Mrs. Evans stated she was less concerned with the lighting than the noise issue, however, because this property was already zoned commercial when the residences were built. Mr. Smith stated this was his first awareness of any problems and they have always tried to do what they told the residents they would do. He stated now that he is aware of this if they were able to use the rear patio they would move the bands, and any bands are just acoustical, to that patio. He stated the parking has been an issue and he apologized for that, however, they do have special duty police officers now enforcing parking only on one side and they are also in talks with Barry & Miller to purchase an additional acre of property to get everyone off of Windmiller and he hoped that would happen this summer. Mr. Smith stated once they get the parking lot approved it would only take three or four weeks to get those cars off the street. Mrs. Evans stated she has always been impressed with Rule(3) being good neighbors and taking to heart what is happening with the residents behind them. Mr. Sauer stated his biggest concern was the parking because he has driven there and it is very dark at night when driving down there. He stated he had struggled with this but he feels the relationship with the residents by addressing problems as they came up, he believes they will continue to address any problems as they came up. Mr. Sauer further stated by moving the bands to the other patio he felt that would address the concerns about the music, and the lights would be directed away from the homes. Mr. Sauer stated he has heard nothing but positive comments from around the community on this facility, he would be fully supportive of allowing use of the volleyball courts after dark and he would just encourage them to continue to be good neighbors. Mayor O’Brien stated we do have a process in place for noise complaints and questioned if Mr. Smith had received any feedback from the special duty officers regarding any noise complaints lodged. Mr. Smith stated he has not heard anything from the officers and he felt they would let them know. Mayor O’Brien stated he also felt this facility had done a very good job of being a good neighbor to the subdivision residents, and the City has been talking about adding some sort of volleyball facet to our parks and recreation program and we have been talking to Rule(3) about partnering in that. Mr. Blake clarified that Mr. Smith did not envision seeing volleyball leagues on Saturday nights, and during the week he hoped to put the lights on a timer to go off at 10:30 P.M. Mr. Blake clarified that the nearest resident to the west is approximately 945 feet from the volleyball courts. Mr. Sauer clarified that the resident to the east has been contacted on this issue each time it has been before Planning and Zoning and we have heard no concerns from them. Mayor O’Brien moved to approve the amended Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Service Facilities for Rule(3) located at 650 Windmiller Drive; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz clarified that should this be approved, the conditions originally approved would remain with Condition 4 being revised to allow the eastern patio, volleyball courts, and southeastern patio to be utilized after dark. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting “Nay,” and Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, and Mayor O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-2.

C. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for Rule(3) located at 650 Windmiller Drive (TABLED, 01/12/10). Mr. Bosch moved to remove from the Table; Mayor O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report as presented to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to add lighting to the volleyball courts located on the east side of the building. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting if the Conditional Use Permit is approved that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:

1. That the light fixtures and the mounting bracket shall be compatible in color.

2. That the volleyball courts and surrounding area shall have a maximum illumination of 30 foot-candles.

Mr. Don Smith stated if this is approved they will make sure they comply with the conditions and the zoning code requirements. Mayor O’Brien stated he just wanted to make sure the lights would not outshine the parking lot lights and it did not appear they would. Mr. Binkley stated his only concern would be a glare on Diley Road from these lights and Mr. Smith stated if that did occur they would obviously adjust the lights further down. Mayor O’Brien moved to approve the amended Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for Rule (3) located at 650 Windmiller Drive with staff’s two conditions; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for the Board of Education and District Office for the Pickerington Local School District at 90 East Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report as presented to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing ground signage for the Pickerington Local School District’s Board of Education and District Offices located at Heritage Elementary School. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:

1. That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed 6-feet above the adjacent entrance sidewalk.

Mr. Schultz clarified that to allow what was presented by the applicant this Commission would have to give them a deviation or variance.

Mr. Scott Oliphant stated he was representing the school district and they would like to erect a non-illuminated site identification sign. He stated the brick structure was the only thing they were trying to deviate from and the main purpose of the sign is more of a directional type sign. Mr. Oliphant stated there is a name sign at Heritage that has the brick structure and this is more an identifier for the building entrance. Mayor O’Brien stated this is a large sign that is in front and near the road so he felt it had to look like all the other signs. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mayor O’Brien. Mr. Nicholas stated if this was a true directional sign it would have to be extremely small and he would like to see it be very similar to the one at the other end of the building. Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Bosch stated they agreed. Mr. Blake clarified there were some concerns about open areas underneath the sign in the past when we have had these monument signs. Mr. Binkley stated his concern was to make sure it was not set on top of utilities or a pipe or something that is in the ground. Mr. Schultz stated if the Commission approves this request, their sign certificate will have to show the brick extending a minimum of 75 percent up each side of the sign. Mr. Bosch further clarified that they will have to get approval on a foundation as well. Mr. Nicholas stated if it looked very similar to the one at the other end of the building that would be great as they are on the same site. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for the Board of Education and District Office for the Pickerington Local School District at 90 East Street with staff conditions; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 8:48 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:55 P.M.

E. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and Final 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. Mr. Blake opened the public hearing and Mr. Schultz stated this would be presented this in three phases and he would discuss the land use plan and concept plan and the city engineer would discuss the traffic issues. Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning and the Service Committee approved the preliminary plan and rezoning in October 2009, and if this is approved tonight it will be before the Service Committee next week. Mr. Schultz stated this is a 16-acre site that is currently zoned residential, and the developer is proposing a two-phase development with three sub-areas. He stated Phase I includes an approximate 115,000 square foot sports complex with four indoor soccer courts. Phase II has two components with sub-area B containing approximately 65,000 square feet of office area in seven buildings and sub-area C would contain approximately 28,000 square feet of retail space in two buildings. Mr. Schultz stated the zoning to the north, east, and south is commercial and to the west is residential. He continued the land use plan that was adopted in 2001 identifies this area as a mixed-use development and this proposal is consistent with that plan. He further stated in 2005 the City adopted a growth management plan with the goal of contemplating economic opportunities and this proposal is consistent with that plan. Mr. Greg Bachman stated the existing intersection can handle the traffic from Phase I of the development, the soccer complex, and then as the retail and office go in a southbound to westbound right turn lane will be needed on S.R. 256, and by the year 2015 a second left turn lane will be needed southbound on S.R. 256 to eastbound Refugee Road, and by 2018 assuming a full build out of the development, a second left turn lane eastbound on Refugee Road to northbound S.R. 256 will be needed. Mr. Bachman stated there is obviously traffic from the development itself but there is also the normal growth of traffic in Pickerington which is about 1.5 percent a year. Mr. Bachman stated even without the development improvements will need to be made to S.R. 256 and Refugee Road. Mr. Bachman stated the last time this was before Planning and Zoning, this Commission limited the developer to a right out only on Refugee Road and they have come back requesting again that it be a right-in/right-out. He stated as the City Engineer he did not have a problem with that, and the Police Chief has indicated that he is in favor of the right-in/right-out over just the right out. Mr. Bachman stated that can be designed so there should not be a problem with people turning left into there. Mayor O’Brien stated he understood the property owner of the lots to the south on Refugee Road have requested right-in/right-out access for their properties numerous times that were denied, and Mr. Schultz stated Service Committee had given them a preliminary approval during the process of a land swap with the City, however, they have not come back with a preliminary plan. Mr. Bosch stated to clarify there would be no requirements placed on this development to do any offsite roadway improvements, and Mr. Bachman stated that would be up to this Commission. Mr. Blake stated as he understood it, it was Mr. Bachman’s opinion that the intersection can handle the existing traffic with the addition of Phase I of this development. Mr. Bachman stated that was correct.

Mr. Schultz stated each of the sub-areas of this development should be looked at separately from a Planning and Zoning perspective. He stated the sports complex was requesting four deviations from our Code; a height variance of ten feet, a seven foot parking setback, a ten foot rear yard building setback, and a parking space deviation. Mr. Schultz stated our Code is fairly impractical when it comes to parking for commercial/entertainment facilities. He stated if there were a ball field and not within a structure it would require 20 parking spaces, however, a commercial entertainment center like this requires 2,160 spaces. He stated the developer has indicated that 178 spaces is practical for their needs and he felt that number would be appropriate and would support that number of parking spaces for the sports complex. Mr. Schultz stated in sub-area B they are requesting three deviations from the Code; a ten foot building setback along the extended Windmiller Drive, an eight foot building setback; and, a parking space deviation of between 19 and 84 spaces. Mr. Schultz stated our zoning code allows a shared parking between the sports complex and the office facility of between 10 to 30 percent. He stated staff would support a 30 percent variance because parking for the office space and the sports complex would be at different times. He stated if the Commission gives a 10 percent variance they would be 84 spaces short, if you give a 30 percent variance they would be 19 spaces short, and if you do not give a variance they would be more than 84 spaces short. Mr. Schultz stated in sub-area C staff does not support any variances and this site plan is not in compliance because they need to dedicate additional right-of-way along Refugee Road which would increase the parking setback. He stated this would result in their net developable area shrinking a little on this site. Mr. Schultz continued that we require a 25 foot buffer with landscaping and mounding adjacent to a residential district and staff’s condition is that if the development to the west is not rezoned before occupancy permits for the retail and office are approved, the developer would be required to put the buffering in. He stated if the property is rezoned prior to that time, a buffering would not be required. Mr. Schultz stated we do feel the property to the west will go commercial one day and on the Equity property just north of this site and adjacent to the same property, the BZA did not require any buffering. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports this development rezoning and final development plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and with the following 24 conditions:

1. That a traffic impact study shall be prepared by the applicant and any required traffic improvements shall be incorporated as required 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 per the city Engineer.

3. That the western most curb cut on Refugee Road shall be a right-out only.

4. That the eastern most curb cut on Refugee Road shall be 36-feet wide (three 12-foot lanes) if it is a public street.

5. That a sidewalk shall be extended along both sides of all public streets and per the City Engineer for the private streets.

6. That sub-area A shall have a 25-foot wide unobstructed (no power lines, fire hydrants, etc.) cross-access easement along the entire eastern portion of the property per the City Engineer requirements.

7. That the sanitary reimbursement fee shall be paid prior to construction drawing approval for each lot.

8. That if the parcel to the west is not zoned commercial before any buildings in sub-area B or C receive occupancy permits, the development shall comply with Type A buffer requirements along the western property line.

9. That the emergency access drive in sub-area A shall not be located within the Type A buffer boundary.

10. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.

11. That the maximum building height for the 4 Season Sports complex (sub-area A) shall be increased from 35-feet to 45-feet.

12. That the rear yard building setback for the 4 Season Sports Complex (sub-area A) shall be reduced from 30-feet to 20-feet.

13. That the front yard parking setback for the 4 Season Sports Complex (sub-area A) shall be reduced from 18-feet to 7-feet.

14. That a 30-foot eastern side yard building setback in sub-area A shall be required.

15. That the parking space requirements for the 4 Season Sports Complex (sub-area A) shall be modified to allow 178 parking spaces.

16. That the northern side yard building setback for sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from 15-feet to 8-feet.

17. That the front yard building setback adjacent to the public street in sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from 30-feet to 20-feet.

18. That the eastern building setback for sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from 25-feet to 15-feet.

19. That a parking space deviation for sub-area B (office buildings) shall comply with Section 1282.11(e).

20. That the permitted uses for the development shall be per the Zoning Code to be consistent with Section 1282.11.

21. That the proposed development shall comply with the flexible requirements in commercial districts per Section 1282.14.

22. That the ground signs shall not be approved as part of the application.

23. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

24. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.

Mr. Schultz stated all of these conditions are consistent with what this Commission approved in October with the exception of Numbers 9, 14, and 22, which are new conditions.

Mr. Blake clarified that some changes have been made to the site plan before the Commission this evening from the one that was reviewed in October. Mr. Blake further clarified that from the time of its inception of this project there have been several changes to the site plan so it would comply with our Code. Mr. Sauer stated the retention pond was a concern at the last meeting and clarified that has not been completely resolved. Mr. Bachman stated that should be resolved when we receive detailed plans for the development and they will have to meet all of the City requirements.

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing for comments.

A. Mr. John Shedenhelm stated he is the president of PASA and they represent almost 1,000 families in the soccer community. He stated he is very much in support of this project and will be a great opportunity for the community. Mr. Shedenhelm stated he has received many e-mails stating how much the residents would like to see this in our community.

B. Mr. Darin Monhollen stated he was in support of this facility as well as a number of other people here this evening. Mr. Monhollen asked if everyone in the audience who was in support of the facility would stand. (Approximately 23 individuals stood.) Mr. Monhollen stated many residents of our community travel around the area in order to participate in soccer, and this would be a state-of-the are facility for soccer. He stated he is encouraged to hear that everyone is happy with Rule(3) and what they bring to the community and he feels everyone will feel the same way about this facility when it is given an opportunity. Mr. Monhollen stated he has been involved in athletics in the City since 1980, and he knows there is a lot of support for kids to have opportunities to do things that are positive and productive and he hoped the Commission would support this for that reason.

There being no further comments, Mr. Blake closed the public hearing.

Mr. Aaron Underhill stated he is an attorney with Smith & Hale and he is representing the applicants this evening. Mr. Underhill stated the plan before the Commission is the 19^th version of this plan. He stated the plan originally before the Commission had a road that had some access being provided through an easement over the Hill Road Plaza property from Birchwood Street. He continued that for a number of reasons that did not work out, and from both the developer’s side and the City’s side there has been quite a bit of work to get a product they hoped everyone would be proud of. Mr. Underhill stated as the PASA representative had mentioned there is a great demand for a soccer facility in this community and he believes it is most appropriate here due to the large number of players and participation in the community in soccer. Mr. Underhill stated further they have sited the soccer facility in the rear of the site and the front area is best suited for retail with the offices in the middle. Mr. Underhill stated they anticipated in a very conservative number that at build out this development will generate over $200,000 per year in income taxes and regardless of the TIF issue and things related to traffic, that is also money that will go into the coffers and will be a benefit for other projects. He stated a good number of the conditions Mr. Schultz had listed have been addressed and what they have generally done is try to adjust their setbacks, street widths, the private drive width, provided an access easement, and they have reconfigured their plan to meet as many of those requirements as they can, however, they did have a few they would like to discuss in further detail tonight. He stated the result of this work is that the soccer facility is now 115,000 square feet which is a few thousand square feet larger than was being provided before, and they factored that into their traffic analysis. He stated the office has been reduced by 4,000-5,000 square feet to accommodate the different setbacks and parking issues that are involved as well. Mr. Underhill stated one of the large topics of discussion has been the traffic improvements, and they have undertaken a very extensive traffic analysis and Mr. Bachman has been very cooperative on that, and he felt they agreed that the types and timing of the improvements are agreed upon and what we are essentially dealing with is how to fund those improvements. Mr. Underhill stated last week they went before the Finance Committee to discussion those issues in detail and they would be providing them with more information at their next meeting. He further stated the TIF on this property does represent a great opportunity to generate quite a bit of income to fund improvements that would need to be here anyway and would have to come out of the City’s pocket at some point in time. He stated you would be taking dollars that would be used for other purposes and earmarking them for a specific purpose to serve the community. Mr. Underhill stated this is exactly the type of project and the sorts of issues the statute was meant to address. He stated the first condition he would like to discuss deals with sub-area A where they have provided the 25-foot access easement on the east side of the building and the City would like to have it unobstructed and a 30-foot wide building setback. Mr. Underhill stated they were questioning if they could keep the building at 25-feet from the side yard and agree there would not be any obstructions from the building or utilities or otherwise that would prohibit that from being paved in the future. He stated further this easement has no use to them and they would be hopeful if the properties on that side would participate in terms of giving some easement rights since they will be benefiting from it. Mr. Blake clarified Mr. Underhill was addressing Condition No. 6, and stated he would like to take the conditions in order if possible. Mr. Underhill stated they have no objections to conditions one and two. He stated with condition three, the right out only, the proposed a right-in/right-out and at the last meeting Mr. Bachman had indicated the Chief of Police was not in favor of that. Mr. Underhill stated after a personal meeting with the Chief he has determined that this would be a good thing and it seems Mr. Bachman feels this would alleviate some traffic from the signal there. Mr. Underhill stated he believes the right-in/right-out would accomplish those things and at the same time add to the viability of this retail site and it is in everyone’s best interest to make sure it is successful. He stated they would like the Commission to give this condition some serious consideration this evening. He continued they agreed with conditions four, five, six, and seven. Mr. Underhill stated with regard to condition 8, it is his understanding that the property owner to the west has no desire to develop their parcel anytime soon. He stated they would rather not have to go to the expense of putting in the buffer if, indeed, it is going to develop commercial in the future. He stated they would like to just change the timing on that, not debate the requirement. He stated with condition nine, the emergency access drive due to the way the site needs to lay out and the volume of square footage that goes along with one of these facilities, they would like the ability for the emergency access drive to encroach into the buffer. He stated they would agree to provide the appropriate screening on the other side of that at the appropriate time, but they did not feel this would be a heavily traveled drive and would probably be used at most a couple of times a month. Mr. Sauer inquired if instead of paving this could something be put in that would look like grass but would be solid underneath so it would not be intrusive should something go in next door. Mr. Bachman stated something like what we are going to do on East Church Street could be considered. Mr. Underhill stated they agreed with conditions 10, 11, 12, and 13. He stated condition 14 deals with the eastern side yard building setback that was discussed earlier. Mr. Underhill stated they agreed with condition 14, 16, 17, and 18. Mr. Underhill stated he would like to discuss condition 19 with regard to parking spaces. Mr. Sauer questioned if instead of reducing square footage, that a multi-story building be considered as an alternative, and Mr. Underhill stated that was a possibility. Mr. Underhill stated they did not necessarily with the Code for parking spaces but as a maximum in terms of reducing the amount of parking they were using shared parking and the City’s calculations show they are 18 or 19 spaces short. He stated they were short on the sub-area B spaces, but just above the northern boundary of sub-area B there are 45 spaces and their intent has been to use those because the peak times for these facilities are not going to be the same; office would be during the day and the soccer facility would be generally in the evenings and on weekends. Mr. Schultz stated from staff’s perspective they had counted the parking spaces that are just located in the courtyard at the office buildings, not the ones off site. Mr. Underhill stated they agreed with the remaining conditions 20 through 24. Mayor O’Brien stated with regard to condition 19, since there would be a sidewalk would it be an option to encourage employee’s for all the businesses to park along the south end of the north parking lot and Mr. Underhill stated that was definitely a possibility. Mr. Sauer stated he would like some clarification with regard to condition 14. Mr. Bachman stated the reason he had requested the 25-foot easement is because generally two way traffic calls for 12-foot lanes, and he requested the 30-foot setback because if the setback is only 25 feet you would have a building within one foot of a travel lane, and if there is an eave overhang, a downspout, etc., he would like to have a few extra feet. Mayor O’Brien clarified that when the final construction plans are submitted, the Fire Department will review them and the plan will have to comply with the regulations. Mayor O’Brien ascertained that the Equity Developer has been notified of this development and they have not contacted us, and Mr. Schultz stated he would contact them again on this issue. Mayor O’Brien stated he felt this would be a great development for the community and he was pleased to see the number of residents who had come to this meeting. Mayor O’Brien further clarified that the right-of-way donation, water and sanitary sewer, parking lot interior landscaping, etc., would be reviewed at the appropriate time in the process. Mr. Binkley stated he felt this would be a great asset for the city and he understood there were issues to be worked out regarding financing, etc, but from what is in front of this Commission and by the fact that 24 conditions have been narrowed down to 4 or 5 he thought that showed the developer was working well with the City. Mr. Nicholas stated he does have a problem with the parking. He stated Rule(3) has about 28,000 square feet and they have about 168 parking spaces, and although that is a different use they are spilling out onto the side streets. He stated with four soccer fields, all the parents, other support people, staff, and the kids this has only 178 spaces. He further stated he understood using some of the office parking spaces, but during tournaments there would be a lot of people going in and out of there. Mr. Nicholas stated he did feel this would be a great asset for the City as well, and being able to play soccer indoors in the winter would be great for the kids. Mr. Watson stated they had arrived at the number of parking spaces by taking 4 soccer fields at 20 players per field totaled 80 spaces, and there might be some crossover so that would be about 160, and they were proposing 178 spaces. Mr. Bosch stated he felt the parking would normally be sufficient; however, there would be times when some events were held that there might be a problem. Mr. Nicholas stated his concern was about parking for those every so often events such as multiple tournaments in the winter. Mr. Blake stated his main concern had been with the traffic going in and out of the development, however, if the City Engineer is satisfied that the roads as they are today can handle the traffic going in and out then he trusts his opinion. Mr. Blake stated his other concern was with the buffering to the parcel to the west. He stated typically it is 60 to 75 days build time from when a permit is issued until a single family residential unit is completed and he did not know if that would give the developer enough time to do any buffering so he could not support the permit date and he did not know if there were anything that would be more agreeable. Mr. Blake further stated he agreed with Mr. Nicholas with regard to the 178 parking spaces, but he was worried about the Saturday morning traffic. Mayor O’Brien clarified that staff did not support any variances for sub-area C. Mr. Schultz stated on the site plan before the Commission the setback from Refugee Road and the Windmiller extension does not meet our parking requirements. Mayor O’Brien further clarified that by approving it tonight, it would not be approving it as shown.

Mr. Bosch stated with regard to the right-in/right-out, condition 3, he would agree with Mr. Bachman that a right-in/right-out would not affect traffic if it is designed so it is a drop in right turn lane to go in and then the same way coming out so it would greatly inhibit the ability to make a left hand turn out of the facility. Mr. Nicholas stated he could think of two instances where we have no right-in/right-out and the businesses are thriving, so he would be okay if there was no right-in. Mr. Bosch clarified that traffic-wise Mr. Bachman did not see a big down side to having a right-in, and the upside from the city’s viewpoint would be if we do get that drop lane in there and in the future widen Refugee to five lanes, that lane would already be in. Mr. Bosch questioned if there was any thought to moving that down to the property line between the developers property and the property to the west so if it develops then both of the properties would share that and it would be more of a global benefit when that property develops. Mr. Underhill stated he felt it was possible to accommodate that and if they did receive the right-in/right-out they would make their best efforts to move that as far west as they could. Mr. John Gallagher stated providing a right-in/right-out would take pressure off the Windmiller signal. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to condition 8, he felt that when the property to the west was platted the buffer should be required. Mayor O’Brien clarified if that property owner came in to rezone to something other than residential it would relieve this developer of the buffering responsibilities. Mr. Schultz summarized that if the property to the west is platted, then the buffering would be required. Mr. Schultz stated if the buffering requirement is being waived, then on condition 9, the emergency access can be located in the setback that the buffer was waived for. Mr. Binkley stated he did like the idea of the grass pavers as well. Mr. Nicholas stated he understood for access we could use concrete pavers to allow the grass to grow, but he questioned if we could get a 15 foot landscape easement from the northwest corner of this development to about midway of the soccer complex parking lot in that adjacent property to the west. Mr. Schultz stated if it is ever platted in the future they will probably put a buffer there also. Mr. Underhill stated they were not trying to get out of the responsibility they may have for a buffer, they would just like to fit it in a smaller spot and he thought the Code would permit a fence. He stated they do not need the buffer to be waived, they just wanted an encroachment in there with grass pavers and they would agree subject to the issue of what happens next door to buffer that as the requirement arises. Mr. Schultz stated with regard to condition 14, if the Commission is okay with the western buffer, move the whole thing five feet over and that would give an unobstructed 30 feet and then incorporate the landscaping on the 10 or 15 feet on the western side. Mr. Underhill stated they would not have a problem with that. Mr. Binkley stated with regard to condition 19 he would trust staff’s recommendation on the number of parking spaces, and this could change drastically from what is being proposed now. Mr. Binkley stated he felt it made reasonable sense to give them the flexibility of a reduction and he would recommend we require one parking space for every 300 square feet of office space. Mr. Underhill stated he felt that number would work. Mr. Blake ascertained there were no further comments. Mr. Bosch moved to approve a rezoning and final 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) that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:

1. That a traffic impact study shall be prepared by the applicant and any required traffic improvements shall be incorporated as required 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 per the city Engineer.

3. That the western most curb cut on Refugee Road shall be a right-in/right-out and located as far west as possible on the site and shall not be constructed until the retail portion of the development is constructed.

4. That the eastern most curb cut on Refugee Road shall be 36-feet wide (three 12-foot lanes) if it is a public street.

5. That a sidewalk shall be extended along both sides of all public streets and per the City Engineer for the private streets.

6. That sub-area A shall have a 25-foot wide unobstructed (no power lines, fire hydrants, etc.) cross-access easement along the entire eastern portion of the property per the City Engineer requirements.

7. That the sanitary reimbursement fee shall be paid prior to construction drawing approval for each lot.

8. That if the parcel to the west receives final plat approval for a residential development, then the development shall comply with Type A buffer requirements along the western property line.

9. That the western most emergency access drive in sub-area A shall be constructed of grass pavers and shall be permitted to encroach into the Type A buffer boundary.

10. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.

11. That the maximum building height for the 4 Season Sports complex (sub-area A) shall be increased from 35-feet to 45-feet.

12. That the rear yard building setback for the 4 Season Sports Complex (sub-area A) shall be reduced from 30-feet to 20-feet.

13. That the front yard parking setback for the 4 Season Sports Complex (sub-area A) shall be reduced from 18-feet to 7-feet.

14. That a 30-foot eastern side yard building setback in sub-area A shall be required.

15. That the parking space requirements for the 4 Season Sports Complex (sub-area A) shall be modified to allow 178 parking spaces.

16. That the northern side yard building setback for sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from 15-feet to 8-feet.

17. That the front yard building setback adjacent to the public street in sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from 30-feet to 20-feet.

18. That the eastern building setback for sub-area B (office buildings) shall be reduced from 25-feet to 15-feet.

19. That a parking space requirements for sub-area B (office buildings) shall allow one parking space for every 300 square feet of office development.

20. That the permitted uses for the development shall be per the Zoning Code to be consistent with Section 1282.11.

21. That the proposed development shall comply with the flexible requirements in commercial districts per Section 1282.14.

22. That the ground signs shall not be approved as part of the application.

23. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

24. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.

Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans 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 February and there are no agenda items for March.

(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated there were two items in Violet Township considered at the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission; one was a rezoning from M-3 to a PUD south of 33, and they amended their zoning text to change the definition of agricultural land to match the Ohio Revised Code’s definition.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Commission Discussion. Mr. Nicholas stated he had some concerns on the Romeo’s Pizza sign and Mr. Henderson stated he had contacted them by letter last week letting them know that after checking the comprehensive sign plan it does need to match and he hoped to hear back from them soon. Mr. Nicholas stated further at a future meeting he would like to discuss sustainability zoning and he would like to ask the Commission members to think about this issue.

B. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Mr. Schultz stated he has some working exhibits and he hoped to have a meeting on our existing conditions within the next couple of months.

C. Code Enforcement Discussion. Mr. Blake started this would be continued on the agenda.

D. S.R. 256 Safety Project. Mr. Bachman stated he has an aerial map of S.R. 256 from I-70 down to Diley Road posted on the wall. He stated he proposes to submit a safety project to ODOT and the basic concept is that we would create a third southbound lane from the Marcus Theater all the way down to Refugee Road. He stated he would ask the Commission members to review this proposed project and provide him any suggestions, input, etc. they might have.

7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mayor O’Brien, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 11:10 P.M., March 9, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk