PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 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:
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas,
Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were present. No members were absent.
Others present were: Susan Crotty, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky,
Karen Risher, Jeffrey Brown, Wayne Moore, Terry McMurray and Alana Kraft.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 9, 2010,
Regular Meeting: Mr. Bosch moved to approve;
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 7-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to
approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Architectural for Huntington Bank located at
1. That the canopy over the main entrance
shall be painted to match the wall.
2. That the bollards and canopy supports
shall remain their original colors.
Mr. Jeffrey Brown stated he was representing the
applicant and when he was here in September he received feedback and the
Commission indicated they did not like the material or the color. Mr. Brown stated he is now here with a sample
of the fabric material and color for the fabric canopies over the windows. The new corporate green color originally
submitted has been muted and he provided a sample for the Commission to review. Mr. Brown stated this application is dealing
with the awning on the front of the building, the two windows there and they
would repaint the canopy over the front door with the muted green. This will not be illuminated, there is no
signage on it and they are no longer dealing with anything else.
Mr. Nicholas clarified the canopy over the door that
is already green will be repainted to the muted green to match the color of the
awning fabric submitted tonight. He further clarified that the bollards and
support columns for the canopy will remain as they are; they are no longer
requesting to paint those. Mr. Henderson
stated that they are only asking for the two fabric awnings over the windows
and the canopy at the main entrance. Mr.
Nicholas clarified that nothing at the drive through will change from what it
is today. Mr. Binkley clarified that the painting on the canopy over the front
door will be the color that matches the canopy fabric provided at this meeting
and stated he had nothing further. Mr.
Bosch stated he also prefers that all three be the same color. Mrs. Evans stated she agrees with this all
being the same color. Mr. Sauer stated
this proposal looks good.
Mr. Bosch
moved to approve with modifying the staff recommendation number one to read as
follows:
1. That the canopy over the main entrance
shall be repainted to match the fabric canopy color.
2. That the bollards and canopy supports
shall remain their original colors.
Mrs. Evans
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer. Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley and Mr.
Blake voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 7-0.
B. A public hearing and review and request
for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Horvath Towers LLC., for a
Cell Tower located at 671 Windmiller Drive. (Tabled 10/12/10).
Mr. Blake stated that the applicant has requested
this remain tabled. Mr. Banchefsky stated he had provided the Commission with a
memo that outlines the Federal Communications Commission requirements as set
for in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and reviewed the memo. Mr. Banchefsky
further stated that
C. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage and Olde
Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of
Appropriateness for signage for Village Crepe located at 21 North Center Street
(Heitmeyer property).
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the
Commission and stated the applicant is proposing two new wall signs. The two existing signs for Park Alley Banquet
Hall on the south side of the building would remain. The wall signs are being requested to provide
better visibility for the business. One
wall sign would be attached to the building perpendicular to the road at the
same location as the former restaurant sign and the other sign would be on the
north side of the building facing the alley. The signs are consistent with
other signs in the
Staff has
determined the Olde Pickerington Village Commercial
Design Guidelines are the governing design standards for the
Mr. Nicholas
moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs.
Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting
“Yea”. Motion passed, 7-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to amend the Nonresidential
Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture for Volunteer
Energy located at 790 Windmiller Drive.
Mr. Henderson stated the applicant left a message
stating that he is ill and may not be able to make it to this meeting. Mr. Henderson stated he then left a message
for the applicant advising him he could request that this be tabled and he has
not heard back on that message. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission and stated the applicant is requesting to amend the Certificate
of Appropriateness for Architecture previously approved by staff and the
Commission. The Commission approved that
there would be a brick wall on the base of the middle section of the
building. During the building process
the brick wall base in the middle section was deleted and was replaced with the
fiber cement boards, or hardy plank.
This was discovered during the final site inspection conducted by zoning
department staff. Mr. Blake clarified they omitted the brick wainscoting below
the windows. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant pointed out that the area where
the brick was omitted has pillars in front of it on both sides and there are
two similar areas that have pillars on both sides near the original
entrance. The areas that are similar do
not have the brick wall base.
Mr. Henderson stated that staff informed the
applicant there are two options to correct this. One would be to install the approved brick
wall as shown on their plans and the second is to request that the Planning and
Zoning Commission amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture.
Staff does not support the amended Certificate of Appropriateness for
Architecture. Staff support the approval
provided previously by the Commission. Mr. Blake clarified they do have a semi
natural material in the hardy plank and that the wall is approximately 35 feet
in length. Mr. Blake also clarified that
staff discovered this in the review inspection that is done by staff that
checks to see if the building was constructed according to the plan approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Sauer stated he does not have a problem with
amending this as it is consistent with the other two areas that have pillars
and it is not an eyesore. Mr. Hackworth
clarified that this was brought to the applicant’s attention before the
building opened. Mr. Hackworth stated
if we are going to have Design Standards he thinks we need to adhere to those
standards. Mr. Hackworth clarified that this is something that did not happen
recently and that the applicant has been aware of this for some time. Mr.
Hackworth stated this doesn’t look bad however he has trouble supporting this
because the applicant did not follow the rules. Mr. Evans clarified that this
was not done as the Commission approved, however, if they came in with this
today, as they built it but before they did so, it probably would have been
approved.
Mr. Bosch stated he has two issues with this. He
does not want to set precedence that when the builder makes an error and omits something
that was approved, all they have to do is come back in and the Board will
approve to modify or amend the Certificate of Appropriateness. Most of the time on buildings of this nature
we have approved doing the brick knee wall where there has not been a
door. Mr. Binkley stated he is torn on this
as he feels the building looks good and meets our Design Standards; however he
also thinks they should have done this as was presented and approved, or that
they should have come in during the building process and requested the change
at that time. He stated he has an issue
with approving this after the fact.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that the area in question
does project outward. Mr. Nicholas
stated if the applicant had come in originally with the plan he probably would
have approved of it. He is not in favor
of approving what is presented tonight as the applicant had already had it approved and then did not
build it to meet with that approval. They built it as they wanted to and are
coming in after the fact. Mr. Nicholas
stated he agrees with staff recommendation of not approving this. Mr. Blake stated this is an area of
approximately 100 square feet of brick he doesn’t think they would
intentionally not put this in and that it was a mistake.
Mr. Binkley clarified that if the Commission does
not agree to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness the next step is that the
applicant would have to change it. Mr. Hackworth clarified we are either voting
to amend and not to amend this. Mr. Blake clarified that if the motion is made
to approve with staff recommendations, they must change the building.
Mr. Bosch
moved to amend the Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of
Appropriateness for Volunteer Energy; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas clarified that a Yea vote will let it
stay as built. Mr. Sauer clarified that staff has spoken with the applicant,
Michael Kolb of
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Director
1. BZA. ZONING APPEALS Report.
Mr. Henderson stated there were four
BZA cases
last month and all were approved. Three
were fences and one was for a deck.
2. FCRPC. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the
Commission and
stated the only item that is nearby to the city is
that
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Commission Discussion.
Mr. Blake clarified that staff has been enforcing the code on banners.
Ms. Crotty stated that staff had held off for a period of time to allow some
outreach to the business community to get their input on our sign code,
particularly regarding temporary signs.
The Commission was provided with the responses to that. It was
determined that the City would go ahead and enforce the code as it stands. Our Chief Building Official has been
contacting some of the businesses with banners up and several issues have been
resolved. Staff has been going out
proactively enforcing the code. Mr.
Blake clarified that this is being enforced proactively on banners and
temporary signs and this is in part due to the non response of feedback from
the business community. Ms. Crotty stated they did not feel that the feedback
received would require changing the procedures. Mr. Binkley stated he thought the sign
regulations survey results were interesting and disheartening. There were over 400 emails sent out, emails
were opened approximately 120 times and there were only six responses. There are
so many complaints regarding our sign regulations however we only received six
responses.
Mr. Binkley stated that last
week the majority of
B. Refugee Road Corridor Study.
Ms. Crotty stated there were no updates at this time.
C. Signage Survey – Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Henderson stated information on the
survey results was provided to the Commission and had been discussed in Item 5
A above.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further. Mr. Bosch moved
to adjourn, Mr. Blake seconded the motion.
Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch and Mrs. Evans voted “Aye”. Motion
carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning
Commission adjourned at 8:17 P.M., November 9, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Karen I. Risher, Administrative Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________
Susan Crotty, Development Director