PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2010
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Mr. Bosch called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as
follows: Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Blake was absent. Others present were Bill Vance, Susan Crotty, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Karen Risher, Charles Vansant, Mrs. Vansant, Sandy Hague, Mike Barker, Greg Krobot, Craig Decker and Bob Berman.
2. A. Approval of
minutes of July 13, 2010 meeting: Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 6-0.
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 Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architectural, Landscaping and Lighting for Essie’s Angels Hair Salon located at 108 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission. Mr.
Henderson stated that Planning and Zoning Commission approved the zoning change
for
A rain garden located on the east side of the parking lot will comply with the stormwater requirements. Staff supports a waiver of the type A buffer along the north-northeastern property line. There are letters attached (Attachments A and B) asking that this not be buffered. The applicant is proposing two shoe box lights in the parking lot.
Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for Site Plan, Architectural, Landscaping and Lighting that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements with the following condition:
1. That the existing curb cut along
The following waivers for the Nonresidential Design Standards in Appendix IV would be required:
1. That the awning color shall not be concord (purple) unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That a three-five foot high undulating mound with continuous landscaping (tree, shrubs, flowers) shall be installed along Hill Road North and Borland Street unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. That a type A buffer shall be required along the northern property line that is adjacent to the residential uses unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. That a type A buffer shall be required along the northeastern portion of the site that is adjacent to a residential use unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Bosch clarified that two-thirds would be four of the six votes.
Mr. Mike Barker stated that he is the engineering consultant on the project. The proposed building addition is now at 254 square feet. They also propose a patio and sidewalk improvements. They are aware of a drainage issue in this area and that the rain garden and mounding will rectify that problem.
Mr. Nicholas stated he agrees with the light fixtures. Mr. Nicholas clarified the main entry is from the parking lot to the covered porch that faces south and according to the site plan, there is not direct access to get to the front, west, entry that faces Hill Road North. He suggested that if they intend to use that west entrance they might want to consider placing a walk between the parking lot and that entry. He also suggested placing an additional awning over the window that is at the handicap ramp. Ms. Sandy Hague, owner, stated she would not have a problem with doing that.
Nr. Nicholas stated his concern with the lighting plan is the possibility of spill over onto the adjacent property. Mr. Henderson stated it appears to be within tolerable limits. Mr. Schultz stated there will also be landscaping in that area. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the neighbor to the east, Mr. Vansant is asking that the hook junipers be eliminated. Mr. Nicholas stated he does not have a problem with removing those, unless there are night appointments. If there are night appointments he has a concern with headlights coming into neighboring windows. Mr. Greg Krobot stated he is the landscape architect on the project. He stated they are moving the evergreen hedge to the other side of the rain garden and that will screen the lighting. Mr. Nicholas commended the design team for using a rain garden to handle the stormwater runoff issues.
Mr. Binkley clarified that the existing driveway will be removed. He clarified that the color concord being used in the awning is purple. Mr. Barker stated that was correct and displayed a sample of the awning color. Mr. Binkley clarified that the owner agrees with the staff recommendations on the lighting.
Mr. Vansant inquired if there are plans for the lights to be turned off in the evening, if they will be on timers? Ms. Hague stated the latest appointment would be at 9:00 P.M and she only wants to have them on as long as they are required. If they were not there at all she would be fine with that also. Mr. Schultz stated the Board does have the right to waive the lighting, it is at their discretion and that if there are more than ten parking spaces they are required. Mr. Binkley stated that a single acorn light near the handicap spot would keep the scale down. It is illuminated but not intrusive. Mr. Bosch stated that matching those on the street would be good. Ms. Hague stated their goal is to coexist peacefully with the neighbors.
Mrs. Evans stated she likes the
suggestion of the sidewalk addition that Mr. Nicholas made. Mr. Nicholas clarified his statement that if
they do intend to use the entrance that faces
Mr. Bosch asked that the engineer indicate on the power point display where the additional sidewalk would be. Mr. Barker stated as it is now there is not a sidewalk that is connecting the proposed parking lot to the front, west facing, door. The walk provides access to the covered awning. To get to the front door would require a couple of steps down and then going onto another sidewalk.
Mr. Nicholas clarified he was not suggesting making that a requirement, just a suggestion. Mr. Hackworth clarified the ADA access would not be at the front door, it will be from the parking lot to the closest ingress into the building, which is the way they have it shown.
Mr. Hackworth clarified that the rain garden is an area that will be heavily planted with wetland, water friendly plantings that help to absorb the water run off and it also acts as a detention type of facility. Mr. Bosch clarified that this is the green version of a retention pond. Mr. Schultz stated that our engineers requested the rain garden. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the adjacent neighbors are not interested in the mounding or trees and he thinks that in the downtown area it is more appropriate to cut back on the landscaping. Mr. Hackworth clarified that with four affirmative votes they will get the waivers, and that we will have to add a waiver stating that one light will be acceptable.
Mr. Sauer stated he is fine with one light and as long as the neighbors are happy, he is pleased with the way it looks.
Mr. Bosch clarified that the Board has added a second requirement of an awning over the kitchen window, the sidewalk is a recommendation, not a condition, they want a fifth waiver for lighting that states one light is acceptable.
Ms. Hague clarified that on the light, the Board wants something similar to the lights along the street. Mr. Nicholas clarified that Ms. Hague is all right with this. She stated she is.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that the concord (purple) awning is the one that will be used.
Mr. Sauer moved to approve with the following two conditions:
1. That the existing curb cut on
2. That
an awning shall be installed over the kitchen window.
and the following five waivers:
1. That the awning color shall not be
concord (purple) unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
2. That
the three to five foot high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall
be installed along Hill Road North and Borland Street unless waived by
two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. That
a type A buffer shall be required along the northern property line that is
adjacent to a residential use unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
4. That
a type A buffer shall be required along the northeastern portion of the site
that is adjacent to a residential use unless waived by two-thirds of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. That
the lighting standards shall be required unless waived by two-thirds of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea”.
Motion passed, 6-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signage for Essie’s Angels Hair
Salon located at
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission. The owner is
proposing to add a double faced ground sign located five feet from the property
line along
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signage that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements with the following condition:
1. That the sign shall have wood posts.
Mr. Sauer stated he is fine with
the sign, does not see the need for the brick base in the
Mr. Binkley moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground
signage with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:
1. That the sign shall have wood posts.
Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch,
Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea”.
Motion passed 6-0
D. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for The Wine Guy Wine Shop, Wine Bar and Bistro located at 201 Clint Drive.
Mr. Schultz reviewed the report
provided to the Commission. The applicant is proposing to put a 1200 square
feet patio on the southeastern corner of
Staff supports the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Outdoor Patio for The Wine Guy Shop, Wine Bar and Bistro that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements with the following conditions:
1. That the patio shall close by 10:00 P.M.
2. That no sound from the patio emanating from loudspeakers or other such sound amplification equipment shall be audible at the property line.
Mr. Craig Decker stated The Wine
Guy Shop has been in business here for five years and would like to add the
patio to increase business. There is an
outdoor patio at his
Mr. Nicholas clarified that the pavers will go over the asphalt. His only concern is that he would like to see the fence in a flat black to go with the table and chairs. Mr. Binkley clarified that there will not be lights on the patio. Mr. Decker stated the reasoning is that without lighting the patio will naturally close down at the time they want it to. Mrs. Evans clarified that it could be an issue to have the fence be the same finish as the table and chairs. Mr. Decker stated that doesn’t exist at this point at the manufacturer. Mrs. Evans stated she does not have a problem with it as it is. Mr. Hackworth stated it looks good to him. They have a barrier around it to isolate it from the parking lot. He clarified that the patio is approximately 30 feet from the entrance and does not block that.
Mr. Sauer clarified that rebar will be put around the edge of the patio where the pavers are going to be and that will keep the sand from washing out into the parking lot. Mr. Decker stated they will use the stones, run them along there to try to keep the sand in and then build the fence above that. Mr. Decker stated that rebar would be used to maintain the stability.
Mr. Bosch stated the patio looks nice.
Mrs. Evans moved to approve with the following conditions:
1. That the patio shall close by 10:00
P.M.
2. That no sound from the patio emanating
from loudspeakers or other such sound amplification equipment shall be audible
at the property line.
Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting
“Yea”. Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to approve Olde Downtown Pickerington Village District Design Guidelines Comprehensive Sign Plan for building signage for Karen’s Doggie Day Care located at 24 West Columbus Street.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission. The
applicant is proposing a wall sign at
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for wall signage that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements with the following condition:
1. That the JD Wood Creations sign shall be removed from the building prior to Karen’s Doggie Day Spa sign being installed.
Bob Berman with The Sign Shop stated he was there to represent the applicant.
Mr. Sauer stated the sign looks good. Mr. Hackworth clarified this will be a wood sign. Mrs. Evans clarified that the JD Wood Creations was not originally planned to come down however the applicant has no problem taking that down. Mrs. Evans clarified that the banner sign will come down. Mr. Henderson stated that Code Enforcement has been working on this and they did come in for a temporary sign permit for the banner and it is permitted for 30 days. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the sign holder for the JD Wood Creations sign will come down as well. Mr. Berman stated in order to get that sign down it will be completely disassembled.
Mr. Binkley moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with staff
recommendations and the following condition:
1. That
the JD Wood Creations sign and the structure it is on shall be removed from the
building prior to the Karen’s Doggie Day Spa sign being installed.
Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas,
Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting
“Yea”. Motion passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS
A. Planning and Zoning
1. BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated BZA did not meet in July due to the lack of a quorum. For the August 26th meeting there are two agenda items.
2. FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated at the last meeting there were a couple of text amendments to townships sign code. The Fairfield Country Regional Planning Commission will not need to take furlough time this year.
3. Review
and discussion regarding MORPC Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant
Program. Mr. Schultz stated that MORPC
has applied for a grant through HUD, the Department of Transportation and EPA
for sustainable development. This
includes Franklin County, Delaware County, portions of Licking and
Mr. Vance stated that the letter just maintains the City’s flexibility to potentially partner with MORPC in the future if the City desires to at that point in time, we are not committing to anything.
4. Review and discussion regarding Codified Ordinances, Section 1278.07(a), Residential uses in C-2 Districts. Ms. Crotty stated there is a property owner downtown who wants to sell their two story building. It is currently being used as an office. It was originally residential. They had an interested buyer who wanted to put a shop in the first floor and live on the second floor and this is not permitted in a C-2 district. Our code states that single family residences are only permitted in C-2 districts as an existing nonconforming use. If it is not used as residential for the period of one year, they cannot resume that as residential use later. The property owner who inquired on this has since withdrawn their request to do this. They are trying to sell it for commercial use, however they may revisit this at some point. This may be something we want to look at, just for the C-2 district in the downtown area.
Mr. Banchefsky clarified it would not be difficult to put verbiage in there that in the downtown district it could be a conditional use, as long as the downtown district was well defined. Mr. Hackworth clarified that single family means there is one unit for residential in a building that also has commercial or an office. Mr. Binkley clarified if this is done as conditional use then the individual would have to come before the planning and zoning commission, request the conditional use and pay the fee to go through the process. If we make this part of the zoning then they would not have to do that. Mr. Schultz stated the downside would be if you don’t contain this just to the downtown area as there are C-2 districts in other areas that are not downtown. Mr. Binkley stated he would prefer to see it put into the zoning so that they would not have to come before the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated his guess as to the reason this is in the code is for those districts that are outside of the downtown area. Mr. Binkley clarified that the language could be changed in the ordinance, as long as the district is well defined and it is only in the downtown C-2 district. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if it was residential upstairs and the owner decided to put residential downstairs this would be allowed because it would be multi family use and that is permitted in C-2. Mrs. Evans stated she agrees that it needs to be cleaned up as the downtown area is the perfect place for this. Ms. Crotty stated that we could work with Mr. Banchefsky on this to draft an ordinance, based on a defined area and discuss it at the next meeting. Mr. Bosch agrees that if we can define the area, it would be better to be able to approve this administratively instead of having to get a conditional use and pay the fee.
5. Discussion regarding the potential expansion of the Olde Pickerington
Historic District.
Mr. Vance stated that in this case we technically do not have an area defined as a historic district. He met with Mr. Hackworth and discussed the downtown historic district. Mr. Hackworth indicated that it might be interesting to investigate the potential expansion of that area.
Mr. Schultz stated that he will first identify the three districts that we have in the old village area. The area on the zoning map outlined in orange, or it may appear as red on some maps, is the Olde Downtown Pickerington Village District. This is where we have the old village design guidelines and anything in that area needs a public hearing, all commercial and residential uses need to come in and comply with the guidelines. The area outlined in blue is the Olde Downtown Village Portable Sign District. This is the area where sandwich board signs are allowed. These are the two zoning districts. The area outlined in purple is our Community Reinvestment Area. This is a property tax incentive area. This clarifies the three districts that exist in the old village area.
Mr. Vance stated that it is his
understanding that Ms. Crotty will be the City’s Growth Management Director,
and is serving in that capacity now. One of the initiatives she supports is the
City investigating the
Mr. Sauer stated he would want to know what impact this would have on existing businesses in those districts. An example is Donley Concrete Cutting. If this area becomes a historic district and Donley then wants to expand would there be a lot of hoops to jump through? If so, perhaps it would better to leave this area out. Mr. Vance stated if a property is more industrial in nature or retail commercial and not of a historic nature we have the opportunity to leave it out.
Mr. Hackworth stated we keep referring to this as historic district and over the years there was a study done in 1994/95 and as different consultants did it they called the area different names. It is a nightmare going through the ordinances and studies as they changed the names. His suggestion is we define an area that would be the core. It wouldn’t necessarily be historical, but obviously the core of the city is the historical area. The plan that was done for Joyce Bushman back in 1995/1996 created the area outlined in red. Mr. Schultz stated that was adopted by council and is a specific zoning ordinance, then they did a plan for the entire area and that was never adopted. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the area outlined in red, the Olde Pickerington Village District, was created as a requirement to receive grant money to rehab that area. Mr. Schultz clarified that the property owners had to agree to be in that district. Not everyone agreed to be in this district, this is likely why the area meanders. Mr. Hackworth stated that we might want to expand the area outlined in blue to include other properties that were here at the turn of the last century.
Mr. Vance suggested that staff, the Chairman and anyone interested in this work on coming up with proposed expansions of the boundaries, concurrent to investigating other historic district possibilities. His understanding of a historic district is that the property needs to be in excess of 150 years old and in restorable condition. Mr. Bosch clarified that Mr. Vance is suggesting is coming up with a couple of different areas, one being an area that qualifies as a historic area with restrictions as defined by the Ohio Historical Society or the appropriate governing body. Then another area that would pertain to the zoning and have leniencies to allow development of the core downtown area or whatever we want to call it. Mr. Vance stated we will investigate if there is anything available at the state level for historic districts and if there are any resources. Usually these are in the form of tax abatements.
Mr. Bosch stated that with ODOT
he ran into an area in
Mr. Hackworth stated if we get into a true historical area there are requirements. This would mean that anything property owners want to do would require approval. Mr. Vance stated there are restrictions if we create a historic district. This commission does read what they receive and he knows there will be a close examination of anything that is proposed or is possible. There is a suggestion that we expand the area that we currently understand to be the historic area of the City. He doesn’t think at this point we need to include every property that might be similar to ones in this central area.
Mrs. Evans stated she is thinking
of her property, a mile away on
Mr. Binkley stated he thinks we are talking about two different things. We are talking about a zoning district that we can help relax some of the requirements and then this historical overlay. We don’t know yet what that need is going to be. It is two different things. Mr. Vance stated this is just to protect our old Pickerington section.
Mr. Bosch clarified that with Item four being the start of the relaxed zoning restrictions for the residential in C-2, and as this is ongoing with further discussion, there will be something in with our information next week that defines the area. Mr. Vance stated this is a work in progress and that Ms. Crotty could include that if she has no objection.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Commission Discussion. Mr. Hackworth stated he has a couple of comments regarding the Violet Festival. The band they had Friday night could be heard in his back yard, one and one half mile away. We place restrictions on noise being heard on other properties from patios and require they shut down at 10:00 P.M. and yet the Violet Festival bands go on past that time. Mrs. Evans clarified that the Violet Festival is privately owned, and on school property. Mr. Vance stated that the Violet Festival is not affiliated with the City or with the Chamber of Commerce, there is a festival committee. Mr. Binkley clarified that they did have to get an approved Community Event Permit.
Mr. Bosch stated he received negative comments from people who live downtown. They stated they have been supportive of the festival in the past, but not this year. They vented negatively about the beer garden, portable toilets, noise, basically echoing the article in the newspaper. There was not good communication this year. The residents were told or read one thing as to what would happen during the festival, however when they complained or questioned something with the special duty police officers, the response was no, that they can do what they want. His response to them was that he would bring it up here, voice their opinion and pass it on to the administration of the City. The information does need relayed to the festival committee and also advise them they need to do a much better job of letting some of the local area residents know in advance what will happen, and if it’s supposed to be shut down at 11:00 or 11:30 P.M., that needs to happen.
Mr. Vance stated in the conversations he was involved in, what was proposed to take place this year was consistent with what took place last year. There was a beer garden and bands last year, and that was the same this year. Mr. Bosch stated the people who complained to him stated there were differences, not in the events themselves, but how they were publicized or presented to them, also of concern was the difference in the size of the venue between last year and this. Mr. Vance stated there was fencing and an admission charge this year, historically that has not been the case. That may have had an affect on where the crowd was maintained. Either the City endorses and supports having a festival like we had it or potentially council, in coordination with whatever advisory body is participating, puts limits on it such as no alcohol or whatever the case may be. At that point the people who sponsor the festival would make a decision as to whether or not they wanted to continue to sponsor it. This year did create opinions, pro and con, and if the cons outweigh the pros then the majority position could be to do something different or not have it. We are not there at this point, however it is a fair discussion to have.
Mr. Hackworth stated there are a
number of issues that concern him. They
charged people to park in
Mr. Vance stated some of these issues of loud music and alcohol and the proposal to change the location of the beer garden are not items that were brought to our attention or discussed. The City did have issues and concerns at the close of this festival and obviously those will be addressed before we have another festival. Mr. Bosch stated this is the thing he wanted to bring up, that they are addressed. He does not want to see that every time we can’t give them everything they want, they pack up and move next door. People come to these small communities for these festivals, they bring business and money into the community. At the same time, he does not want to see alcohol in a City park at a family event. He thinks there are ways we can work with this, to make sure we partner with them. Mr. Vance stated he heard noise and alcohol next to residences as being problem. Mr. Bosch stated the comments to him were that they lived with, and enjoyed, the festival for several years. This was the first year they didn’t because there were a lot of surprises. Something fell through this year on the communication side however he feels a lot of this will get straightened out.
Mr. Vance stated if they are
going to have a beer garden we need to make sure it is not right next to
somebody’s house. Probably the best idea to try would be to move it to a
location where it will only interfere with itself. Mr. Bosch stated he was told that two people
had to help someone that was inebriated and needed assistance getting out of
the beer garden and across the festival grounds. He was asked why the City
allows this. Mr. Binkley stated that
goes back to the organizers. Mr. Bosch
stated this is the kind of thing he wants to make the City Manager aware
of. Mr. Vance stated there is no way to
completely avoid this, even if alcohol was not served you could have people who
imbibed in alcohol before they got there.
There are going to be inconvenience and nuisances, situations where the
police need to get involved when you have thousands of people. We have to make a policy decision at the
council level leading up to the next event as to what the specifications and
requirements are going to be. Then the folks that sponsor the festival will
have to make a decision as to if they would like to continue to have it in the
City of
Mr. Hackworth stated when he was on council the City was giving the Violet Festival $20,000.00 a year and the City was very involved. City Council needs to still control the event. The area where the festival is held is not that big and you can’t have 10,000 to 12,000 people there, we are going to have to set an occupancy number. The band selection, obviously the Violet Festival wants to get more and more people in, but at some point you get too many people. We are going to have to figure out a site capable of handling this. We don’t have a big enough area to put on a huge festival.
Mr. Vance stated staff does not set policy. This body has the ability to influence policy if you wish to do so. If you want to make recommendations for City events, feel encouraged to do so. He does not think there were enough law enforcement officers on location. This was his first time to witness the Violet Festival crowds and if we are going to have 25,000 to 30,000 people there we need to have more than ten cops there. That is the first thing that jumped out to him. This is an issue we will be paying attention to as we approach next year.
B. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Mr. Schultz stated we had the work session in June and are still working on the draft land use plan, draft concept plan and draft guidelines.
C. Code Enforcement Discussion. Mr. Schultz stated this has been on the agenda for several months now.
D. Outdoor Patio Enclosure Discussion. Mr. Binkley stated he is not against outdoor patios. To him an outdoor patio should be open, not enclosed. He is not anti- patio. Mr. Bosch stated he has seen nice patios and he has not seen anything he likes as far as a side curtain. They need to be open, not enclosed. Mrs. Evans stated she agrees. Mr. Vance stated that once you enclose a patio it can be considered an extension of the structure. Our Health Department has some topics associated with that as well. The Commission is trying to work with the applicants because when it gets cold they want to give smokers somewhere nearby, but not in the restaurant. This is a work in progress. Mr. Bosch stated that we only have a few months until Happy Endings will be back in and we are going to have to take some formal position on the side curtains. Happy Endings was advised they could have the curtain for one season and then would have to come back in this year. Mr. Schultz stated that if you have a formal position that could be conveyed to people when they submit it would make the process easier.
Mr. Bosch stated that if the consensus of the Commission is that we have had enough discussion on this and are ready to formalize this, it should be put on the agenda for next month. Mr. Sauer stated he thinks we have to make a decision eventually. It doesn’t do the businesses any favor if we keep hedging on this, at some point we have to make a decision. Mr. Binkley stated he thinks it needs to be done. Mr. Hackworth stated he agrees with Mr. Binkley. He does no see any reason to have plastic around these patios. Mr. Binkley stated he is on record that he will never vote for these.
Mr. Bosch clarified that Mr. Schultz will discuss this with the municipal clerk and staff to determine what the appropriate next step is. Mr. Bosch clarified that Mr. Schultz will have an answer by the September meeting. Mr. Schultz stated the positive if you formalize this is that it will be easy for staff to give this to the applicants.
Mr. Nicholas stated, hypothetically speaking, if the Commission issued a conditional use permit for side curtains or enclosure, is that a revocable item? Mr. Banchefsky stated yes it is. Mr. Nicholas clarified that this would leave the City with the possibility of liability. Mr. Banchefsky stated if the conditional use articulates what the conditions are for it to remain ongoing and those conditions are violated, there is very little liability if the Commission or staff revokes it. Mr. Nicholas clarified if we draft language and it is adopted for designs of outdoor patios and it does not permit side curtains, can we then revoke all conditional use permits for side curtains that exist? Mr. Schultz stated we only have one, for Happy Endings, and the Commission put a time period on that. A condition of the conditional use approval was a time period. Mrs. Evans clarified that we made Classics Pizza take theirs down. Mrs. Evans stated she feels there should be language in there, a loop hole, so that if they can show us something we like we can at least discuss and consider it. Mr. Binkley stated that would be opening a can of worms. Mr. Binkley stated he is very pro business and doesn’t like putting a lot of restrictions out there, but these curtains serve one purpose only.
6. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. on August 10, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Karen I. Risher, Administrative clerk
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Planning and
Zoning Director