PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 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: Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr.
Sauer was on vacation and Mr. Nicholas had a family emergency. Others present were
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 11, 2010 Work Session: Mr. Binkley moved to approve; Mr. Bosch requested the minutes be amended to show that he arrived at 6:45 P.M.; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth abstaining; Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 4-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 11, 2010 Regular Meeting: Mr. Binkley moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth abstaining;
Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake
and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 4-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of Athletic Fields and a new Community Center for PYAA’s Sports Complex located within the Wellington Park Subdivision (TABLED 4/13/10).
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for PYAA located just north of Seton Parish Church on Hill Road North.
Mrs. Evans stated she will abstain from this due to a business relationship with the applicant. At this point Mrs. Evans did leave the room. Mr. Blake clarified that three out of four votes are required to pass this tonight.
Mr. Henderson reviews staff’s report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing a ground sign that is approximately 98 square feet, seven feet high and 14 feet wide. Sign area will be 50 square feet, five feet high and ten feet wide. The ground sign would say PYAA Sports Complex sponsored by Lindsay Honda and Lindsay Acura. Below the names of the sponsors would be each car dealership’s contact information. Lindsay Honda and Lindsay Acura sponsored text on the sign would be interpreted as off premise signage by staff. The sign would also have a changeable message board along the bottom of the sign that would encompass 12.5 square foot. This appears to be approximately 25% of the total sign area. Section 1292.03(3)C states that 30% of sign area is allowed to be changeable letters. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the height of the ground sign shall not
exceed nine feet above the adjacent access drive.
2. That the off-premise sponsorship text shall
be eliminated from the sign.
Mr. Blake clarified that if this
is passed with staff recommendations it will be with the deletions of the
advertisement for Lindsay Acura.
Mr. Richard Krigbaum stated he is with Signs by Tomorrow and is the applicant. Mr. Krigbaum stated he does not have any concerns with staff’s recommendations, his client wanted to proceed with this however. Lindsay is paying for the sign and would like to have their name on it. Mr. Henderson clarified the sign is not illuminated.
Mr. Bosch clarified that the dimensions of the columns are two foot by two foot brick and the posts are two foot by twelve foot treated wood. Mr. Blake clarified that this is on a concrete foundation. Mr. Blake stated he is concerned with setting a precedent with an off premise sign with free advertising for a structure that is not on the applicants actual property.
Mr. Binkley moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground
Signage for PYAA Located just north of Seton Parish on
1. That the height of the ground sign shall not
exceed nine feet above the adjacent access drive.
2. That the off-premise sponsorship text shall
be eliminated from the sign.
Mr. Bosch seconded he motion.
Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans abstaining. Mr. Blake, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 4-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for School Regulations for renovations and additions to Pickerington Central High School Football Stadium located at 130 Hill Road South.
Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to renovate the existing men’s and women’s restroom facilities at the Pickerington Central High School Football Stadium. They are also proposing to build a new women’s restroom on the southwest side of the field. Depending on the amount of funding, there are two additional alternatives that they are proposing to construct. Alternative one includes building a new concession stand directly adjacent to the new women’s restroom facility and alternative two would build the new concession on the east side of the field (visitor’s side). It appears that alternative two would place the new concession stand within the floodway. Pickerington Central Football Stadium is located within the 100-year floodplain. The Board of Education will choose only one of the alternatives to build once the bid prices are submitted and reviewed.
Staff supports the Conditional Use Permit for school regulations for renovations and additions to Pickerington Central High School Football Stadium that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements. Mr. Schulz clarified that the architect spoke with the City Engineer, Greg Bachman, and with alternative two, building C, the building is located in the floodway and the City indicated that we would not approve anything in the floodway. Mr. Schultz clarified with the applicant that for this item and the next agenda item alternative two, building C is now off the board. Mr. Schultz stated we would not be dealing with alternative two, building C, which is the eastern most concession stand, and this is different from what is in the report. Mr. Bosch clarified that all we are dealing with in both items would be buildings A and B, with or without alternative one. Mr. Schultz stated this is because the buildings A and B, with or without alternative 1 are in the floodplain and building C, with or without alternative two is in the floodway and you can’t build in the floodway. The reason we don’t allow a structure in the floodway is that if we did, the City wouldn’t be eligible for flood insurance. Mr. Scott Diesler with SHP Leading Design stated he is the applicant and had no comments or questions with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Bosch stated more restrooms will be a nice improvement.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use request for renovations
of the existing men’s and women’s restrooms and a new women’s restroom on the
southwest side of the stadium, with building a new concession stand adjacent to
the new women’s restroom with minimum zoning code requirements and the
following condition:
1. That alternative one is building a new
concession stand directly adjacent to the new women’s restroom on the southwest
side of the football field.
Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 5-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Architectural and Site Plan for renovations and additions to Pickerington Central High School Football Stadium located at 130 Hill Road South.
Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s
report and indicated that A on the plan is the location of the existing
concession stand and B would be the women’s restrooms. Alternative 1 is the
concession stand and building C has now been deleted. The existing concession
stand, building A, would be renovated with thin brick. Thin brick is proposed
because the foundation for the existing concession stand and restrooms will not
support brick. The women’s restroom in alternative 1 would be designed with
brick on all four sides of the building.
The roofing material on the women’s restroom in alternative 1 would
match the existing roof of the concession stand. Staff recommends that the size and color of
the brick to be used on the concession stand and restrooms match the approved
size and color of those used at
Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for renovations and additions to Pickerington Central High School Football Stadium that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the renovated concession stand, building
A, shall be constructed of a permitted exterior building material.
2. That the size and color of the bricks used
for the concession stands and restrooms shall match the approved size and color
of the bricks used at
Mr. Scott Diesler stated he is with SHP Leading Design and is the applicant. Mr. Blake stated that this will be a huge improvement.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
1. That the renovated concession shall be
constructed of a permitted exterior building material.
2. That the size an color of the bricks used for
the concession stands and restrooms shall match the approved size and color of
the bricks used at Ridgeview Junior High School.
Mrs. Evans seconded the motion; Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake,
Mr. Bosch, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 5-0.
E. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve text amendments to Chapter 1292.09 Olde Pickerington Village Area Portable Sign Regulations.
Mr. Schultz stated per the
Commission’s request last month the City made revisions to the sign regulations
so that they will be approved administratively rather than in front of Planning
and Zoning Commission. The text revisions reflect that. Mr. Blake clarified that this will be to
approve the text amendment which would give staff the authority to
administratively handle the sandwich board signs. Mr. Schultz clarified the
area that will be included. Mr. Blake
clarified that the area included is very clear in the code, it is on the zoning
map and in the text where the guidelines were adopted six years ago. Mr. Blake
clarified that there was no response from the business owners in the Olde
Village Association other than when Mr. Bob Berman of the Sign Guy Shop spoke
with Mr. Schultz today. Mrs. Crotty
stated she had responded to them by email letting them know what the City
intended to do, sent them the draft, explained the concept and she did not hear
any response back. Mr. Blake stated we have been discussing this for over 60
days and he feels they have had more than enough time to get back with
City. Mr. Hackworth clarified this will
be a recommendation to Service Committee, then to City
There being nothing further Mr. Blake closed the public hearing.
Mr. Binkley moved to approve text amendments to Chapter 1292.09
F. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve text amendments to Chapter 1276.10 Accessory and Conditional Uses, Chapter 1286.15 Day Care Center Regulations and Table 1 Permitted Uses (P), Accessory Uses (A) and Conditional Uses (C).
Mr. Schultz stated that Total
Deliverance Ministries purchased the church at
Mr. Blake clarified with Mr. Banchefsky that it does appear to be an oversight and rather than have the applicant come through requesting a variance thought it would be more practical to fix the perceived oversight. There be nothing further Mr. Blake closed the public hearing.
Mr. Binkley clarified that we are adding day care centers as a conditional use in R-6 and cleaning up the code for R-10 as one portion states they are allowed and the other doesn’t, so that portion is being cleaned up.
Mr. Hackworth moved to approve text amendments to Chapter 1276.10,
Chapter 1286.15 and Table 1 permitted uses; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 5-0.
4. REPORTS
A. Planning and Zoning Director
BZA report. Mr. Schultz stated there were three BZA cases last month, they were approved. One was the variance to parking spaces for Premier Day Care. There are three more on the June agenda.
B. FCRPC report. Mr. Henderson stated
4. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Commission Discussion. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Tom Lewis with Glavin-Fleur Architects is here to discuss outdoor patio enclosures. There is information in the Commission’s packet that outlines some of his research. Mr. Blake clarified that he was asked to do this by the City.
Mr. Schultz stated in the past the Commission did not like the Classic Pizza’s outdoor patio enclosure. Pizza Cottage came in last November or December and we told them to come back when we have some guidelines. We do not yet have the guidelines. We then approved Happy Endings patio enclosure with the contingency that we allow it this year, last winter, however next years approval would be based on the guidelines we come up with. Mr. Schultz stated he discussed this with Mr. Lewis a few times. Our budget is limited with him. The goal is for the architect to give us some graphic guidelines, then staff and the attorney can make the code, then move forward with adopting it.
Mr. Bosch stated that some of the examples we have had in the past are not what we want. We want to end up with something because the restaurants and bars are trying to provide enclosed space for smokers. Then there is the issue if the patio is enclosed, does it then become a building and now you can’t smoke there because it’s an enclosed space. Mr. Shultz stated that becomes a question for the building department and not our decision. When the application comes in it is sent to the building department for their input. At that point they should tell us if it will be an enclosed building or an outdoor patio. There are also concerns regarding the differences between new buildings and older buildings that are being retrofitted. With the new buildings such as Pizza Cottage it’s easy to incorporate that in the design, it’s the old strip centers where they add on that are difficult at times. The law director advised that we can’t discriminate against either, they both are allowed to have it, and the question is how to incorporate strip centers compared to a new build.
Mr. Blake stated we do not want
to prohibit any business from enhancing their outdoor area. One thing he saw at
a trade show was infrared electric heaters. Mr. Hackworth stated he has a
problem with taking sidewalk space for an enclosed patio. Mr. Lewis stated there some good examples of
that in the report. Mr. Hackworth stated that we need to determine when the
building department considers it a room and when it’s not. He does not like the idea of heat in an
outdoor patio. Smokers will still go out in 20 degree weather if it’s not
heated. Mr. Blake stated his thought on it that when he looks at Pizza Cottage
the design is not for someone to go out and smoke. Mr. Hackworth stated Pizza
Cottage does not have heat. Mr. Blake stated
we can’t tell someone they can’t have a heater there. Mr. Shultz stated that is
a building department question, not a zoning question. Mr. Bosch stated we need to have
Mr. Bosch stated that there are a few places that might be asking for side curtains in the future. Mr. Schultz stated we don’t like Classic Pizza and asked if Happy Endings is acceptable. Mr. Bosch stated no, Mr. Hackworth stated he does not like it. Mr. Bosch stated it is going in the right direction but not where we want to be. Mr. Schultz stated that our budget is about $3000.00 and that is approximately 30 hours of Mr. Lewis’s time and he wants to give him clear direction. Mr. Lewis stated that there is not that much regulation out there and asked if they are allowed to smoke in the patio enclosure at Happy Endings and Classic Pizza. Mr. Bosch clarified that they do. Mr. Blake stated that was our dilemma, we knew why they coming in for this, as soon as the smoking ban went into effect we started see a lot of this. Mr. Shultz stated it would be nice to have a graphic in the code that this is what we are looking for. Mr. Bosch stated we need to come up with standards for something that is said to be for one thing, yet we know it will be used for smoking. Mr. Hackworth stated with the smoking ban the servers are still in that smoking environment. Mr. Schultz stated he agreed with that, however we don’t enforce that. Mr. Hackworth stated he hears things deferred to the Building Department and the Board of Health, then how can the Commission approve the zoning or use of this when it violates two or three other things. Mr. Schultz stated that the Commission is approving the aesthetics. The Building Department’s function is based on the Ohio Building Code, and the state enforces the smoking ban. Mr. Blake stated we have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are using it for what they say there are. They come in and present it as an outdoor area to eat and drink. Mr. Bosch stated that we need to have a set of standards that we feel comfortable with. Mr. Schultz clarified that just because they come in and ask the Commission does not have to approve it. We can approve it based on the standards and not on the use. Mr. Binkley stated he would like to be able to disallow patio enclosures and side curtains. Mrs. Evans stated that Pizza Cottage wanted some kind of covering to extend the season for use of the facility. Mr. Bosch stated that is what they are all doing. Mr. Schultz clarified the issue is not as much with detached buildings, it is with strip centers. If we have a standard and say no, it would make his job easier and that of the Commission. Mrs. Evans stated that she is thinking of Tarantos Pizza where there is plexiglas sandwiched in between a layer of lattice on each side. Mrs. Evans and Mr. Hackworth stated this was done within the past year.
Mr. Bosch stated as we have made these commitments to Happy Endings and Pizza Cottage we know we need to do our due diligence and be ahead of the curve. He doesn’t want to put staff in a bad spot for spending the $3000.00 for this and then the Commission says no. Mr. Schultz clarified that this Commission gave him a direction so it is easy to justify. Mr. Schultz clarified that what he is hearing from the Commission is that it’s mostly the outside material and the mechanism for attaching that we have issues with. Mr. Schultz clarified that Mr. Lewis could come back to the next meeting or the one after with various options and material so there would be menu to pick and choose from.
Mr. Binkley went on record to say he feels it should just be a flat no. He is a supporter of business, however if they needed more space, they should do so. Mr. Schultz clarified that those that are here now would be grandfathered. Mr. Blake clarified that if it has been done illegally they are not grandfathered in, only those who came in legally are grandfathered in. Mr. Banchefsky stated that Happy Endings is there conditionally and as long as they comply with the conditions going forward they are fine. Mr. Schultz clarified it would be allowed next year under those conditions. Mr. Schultz stated that he had a conversation with our Chief Building Official and if something is built illegally and it is there for two years, the Ohio Building Code says it is legal. Mr. Banchefsky stated he would want to verify that as correct as it doesn’t sound right. Municipalities are not held to that type of a standard.
Mr. Schultz clarified the direction for Mr. Lewis for the next meeting is examples of materials, colors, graphic examples of different styles for enclosures. Mr. Schultz stated that if anyone has examples if they get it to him he will pass it on to Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Blake clarified that we do not want to be business negative, however we also know what is really going on with a lot of businesses, what their true reason is. We want to maintain the aesthetic value of the properties as much as we can, and this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Mr. Hackworth stated he thought the Commission should start taking the position of no enclosures period. Mr. Bosch clarified that Classic Pizza was not considered by the Building Department as being enclosed. Happy Endings was not considered a permanent room. The Building Department and the Fire Department review the plans and they were all right. Mr. Schultz stated that planning and zoning has biweekly meetings with the building department, fire department and development and discusses these cases.
B. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Mr. Blake
stated that Mr. Schultz and Mr. Henderson did a great job on the Refugee Road
Corridor Study, he knows they put a lot of time and effort went into and he
appreciates that. He is surprised to see
that there are 800 developable acres that are not developed. Mr. Schultz
clarified that 300 acres on
C. Code Enforcement Discussion. Mr. Blake
stated we will let this go until the
5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Blake moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mrs. Evans voted “Aye”. Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:51 P.M., June 8, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Administrative Clerk
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Planning and Zoning Director