PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER: 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. Blair were present. Mr. Blake arrived at 7:40 P.M. Others present were Bill Vance, Susan Crotty, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Karen Risher, Richard Bigham, Brian Lutz, Linda Monerey, Shawn Goodwin and David Conwill.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 25, 2011, Regular
Meeting. Mr. Henderson stated that the
minutes were not ready for distribution and requested this be tabled. Mr.
Blair moved to table; Mrs. Evans
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas and
Mrs. Evans voting “Yes”. Motion passed 6-0.
3. SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS. Mr. Banchefsky asked that anyone planning to testify before the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening stand to be sworn. Mr. Richard Bigham, Mr. Brian Lutz, Ms. Linda Monerey, Mr. Shawn Goodwin and Mr. David Conwill stood. Mr. Banchefsky asked that they raise their right hand and repeat the following: “I solemnly swear that the testimony I am about to give for the Planning Commission will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
4. SCHEUDLED MATTERS.
A. 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).
B. Review and request for a motion to
amend a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Happy Endings Pub
located at
Mr. Vance stated in regard to item 4 B, the Chief Building Official is pursuing his investigation as to the structure itself so there are ongoing efforts with staff regarding the patio cover.
C. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan and Architecture for the Offices at Stonecreek located along Stonecreek
Drive South (TABLED 01/25/11).
D. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Site Plan, Architecture and Lighting for Pickerington Elementary School located
at 775 Long Road (TABLED 01/25/11).
Mr. Hackworth moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Blair seconded. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting
“Yes”. Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission and stated that the applicant is proposing a
renovation/addition to
Mr. Henderson stated that the applicant is proposing the stained brick to match the original brick in the building as the original brick is no longer available. The architectural consultant supports a waiver to allow the proposed stained brick because he feels it is in the spirit of the approved materials. He further stated the applicant is proposing an insulated metal panel on the west elevation of the new gymnasium which is not only the primary façade, it is also the main entrance to the addition. The architectural consultant supports a waiver to allow the insulated metal panel because he feels it is an appropriate used of the material given the decorative and functional nature of this. The lighting plan is replacing the existing light poles which are currently the shoe box style. The proposed lighting does not meet the requirement of the Nonresidential Design Standards and staff recommends that the light fixtures be a gooseneck-style fixture. Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture and Lighting that complies with the minimum zoning code requirement and the following conditions:
1. That all mechanical equipment should be screened from public view.
2. That the five foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Long Road shall be extended from the existing sidewalk to the school’s eastern property line.
And the following waivers for Nonresidential Design Standards in Appendix IV would be required:
1. That the stained brick building material proposed shall not be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That insulated metal panels proposed for the building shall not be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. That the light fixtures shall be a gooseneck style fixture unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Brian Lutz stated he was
there to represent the applicant, SHP Leading Design. He stated that they do
have some concern regarding the screening of the mechanical equipment on the
existing building. There is already a
very large mechanical unit on the roof that is visible and the unit being added
will be smaller. The problem with the screening is that it adds significantly
to the cost of the structural changes to the roof in order to accommodate the
screening. To provide the amount of
space required for air to move around the unit the screening would have to be
very large. Mr. Lutz stated that the mechanical unit that is there now is not
that big of a presence on the overall building.
Mr. Bosch clarified that the new mechanical equipment will be for the
gymnasium and with the existing building any changes would be a like for like
or a smaller unit. Mr. Lutz stated with
the gymnasium addition the unit will be housed inside the building. On the rest of the building there is no space
to accommodate the mechanical equipment within the building. The area where the roof top unit will be is
50 to 60 feet from
Mr. Bosch clarified that all of the light poles will be replaced to the new style. Mr. Hackworth clarified that some of the existing brick will be stained. Mr. Lutz stated in some cases they will be staining the existing brick and in some cases they will be staining the new brick so that it matches exactly the same tone as on the existing building. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the brick used 20 to 30 years ago cannot be found today so with the staining it will make the new addition blend in with the existing. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the metal panel is a cream color that will match the existing fascia of the building. Mr. Hackworth clarified that 2/3 of the vote would be five votes. Mr. Hackworth also clarified that there would not be lighting in the area of the athletic field and that all of the lighting is in the parking area. Mr. Binkley clarified that there would not be any chain link fencing added. Mr. Henderson stated that this project will result in the modular classrooms going away. Mr. Binkley clarified the existing chain link fence may be where it is due to the play ground area and that it can be gated off, then opened up for the purpose of picking up and dropping off students. Mr. Binkley clarified that staff will verify that the lighting levels will be uniform. Mr. Henderson stated that the lighting levels are uniform. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the masonry walls on the proposed mechanical yard on the west side of building are 6 – 8 feet high and they will keep it appropriate to the walls that are there now, as well as with the size of the equipment they are screening. He also asked if the material for the
gate will be wood or a product that will look like wood and last longer. Mr. Henderson stated he had not seen the wood at this point and that code will require wood gates. Mr. Blake clarified that the Commission members agreed with removing number one in the conditions and adding that the replacing of the chain link fence will be a vinyl coated chain link and the applicant will work with staff on the color.
Mr. Blake moved to approve the Nonresidential Design Standards
Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture, and Lighting with
the following conditions:
1. That
the five foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Long Road shall be extended
form the existing sidewalk to the school’s eastern property line.
2. That the chain link fence being replaced
will be vinyl coated and the applicant will work with staff on an approved
color.
And the following waivers for the Nonresidential Design Standards in
Appendix IV would be required:
1. That the stained brick building material
shall not be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
2. That insulated metal panels proposed
for the building shall not be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. That the light fixtures shall be a
gooseneck style fixture unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that it is not necessary to add language on the stain color for the wood doors on the mechanical enclosure.
Mr. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 7-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Asian Bistro located
at 10503 Blacklick Easter Road, Suite (TABLED
1/25/11).
F. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for a storage shed located at
Commission members and stated
that the applicant is proposing to build a storage shed in the rear of the
property that would encompass 192 square feet (12 –ft x 16-ft). The storage shed would be natural in color. A storage building over 120 square feet
requires a Conditional Use Permit. The
storage shed would be built approximately 5 feet away from the southern and
eastern property lines. Staff supports
the Conditional Use Permit for storage shed at
Mr. Blake clarified that the
applicant or a representative of the applicant is not present. Mr. Binkley clarified that this is not in a
flood plain. Mr. Bosch clarified that this
complies with the color requirements.
Mr. Vance clarified that this is consistent with other similar requests
in that area. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voted
“Yes”. Motion passed, 7-0.
G. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground
Signage for Luse Office Building located at 647 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing a ground sign for 647 Hill
Road North Office Building (Phase 1 building of the Luse Office Complex). The ground sign would be located in the
northeastern landscaped island near the building and close to the
The sign is proposed as a post and panel style. Section 1292.03(3) A states that ground signs shall have a brick or stone base with columns extended a minimum of at least 75 percent up each side of the side and that the brick or stone should match the building. The sign would be approximately 29.44 square feet (3.68 feet tall by eight feet wide) and the sign area would be approximately 17.3 square feet (2.16 feet tall by eight feet wide). The sign will be two colors, black and white and will be internally illuminated. Staff recommends the ground sign shall not exceed seven feet above the adjacent entrance sidewalk. The sign will be set back at least five feet from the right-of-way and be located outside of the sight triangle. The proposed sign appears to meet these requirements. Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the height of the above ground sign shall not exceed seven feet above the adjacent sidewalk.
Mr. Blake clarified that the staff recommendation is consistent with what has been requested of other applicants in the past. Mr. Henderson stated in reviewing this with past requests this is consistent with what we have requested of other applicants. One that comes to his mind was for Heritage Elementary. The administrative staff recommended this style be approved and the Commission did approve it. Mr. Richard Bingham stated he is the applicant. Mr. Vance stated that staff is entirely on the same page and supports approval provided that the foundation and the columns are both addressed and that is a firm recommendation. Mr. Blake stated his observation of the base is that it would not take that much more to extend this over 10 – 12 inches on either side, and you already have the footer here for the space, and to frost level. Running two courses of brick up either side would cover up 75 percent of the sign. Mr. Blake stated he would be in favor of approving this with staff recommendations. He further stated he thinks the applicant is 90 percent there already with what he had proposed that they are willing to do. Mr. Bosch stated the Commission has consistently done this throughout and he definitely would not be in favor of going against what the Commission has required everyone else to do.
Mr. Nicholas clarified staff had
not seen this before tonight and that based on what was discussed at the
training work session regarding revisions this is something that can be dealt
with now. Mr. Banchefsky stated that
something like this is basic enough that we can incorporate it into the record,
have it in file, there would be no doubt about what was actually approved. His advice would be if it is a complete
revision or something that requires technical review then that is something
that you don’t consider. Mr. Banchefsky
further stated he has no problem going forward with something like this and Mr.
Henderson stated staff feels comfortable with this. Mr. Nicholas clarified that
what is being suggested is that on the side elevation of the sign, to run that
up to the minimum of 75 percent of the side of the sign and be 12 inches from
the side of the actual sign board is what is being suggested by the
applicant. Mr. Blake stated there was
not a regular, standard brick shown on the illustration. Mr. Bigham stated they were having trouble
with the computer program in making the illustration and further stated that
the brick on the sign will match the brick on the building. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the plan was
approved for 10 buildings and staff is not aware of what the plans are for
signage for the additional buildings when they are built. He also clarified that
Mr. Bosch moved to approve with the staff’s recommendations, and to
match the existing brick on the building, and with the following condition:
1. That the height of the ground sign shall
not exceed seven feet above the
adjacent entrance sidewalk.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blair voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 7-0.
H. Review and request for a motion to approve a Preliminary Plat for Pickerington Pointe Residential Subdivision located behind the Police Department on Fuller’s Way for Pride One Development. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated that the applicant is proposing to develop the remaining 23.413 acres of Pickerington Pointe Condominium into a senior targeted luxury apartment community that will consist of approximately 112 new ranch style apartment homes with one and two car attached garages. The proposed development would have approximately 34 less units than the approved development. The existing road network throughout the site would remain as originally approved with the deletion of a small portion of a road to create a larger green space in the middle of the development. The building footprints would be relatively consistent with the approved development. The plans show minor changes to the footprints, staff feels comfortable with these proposed changes. The applicant is proposing to have the site platted to create four new parcels. Two of these parcels (proposed lot 1 and lot 2; 0.916 and 0.318 acres respectively) would be split and then will be transferred to the existing Pickerington Pointe Homeowners Association for the purpose of creating open space and an additional condominium building. The remaining two parcels (proposed lot 3 and 4; 7.186 and 14.363 acres respectively) would be for the new apartment development. Each phase will be a separate parcel. The developer needs to divide the two phases into separate parcels in order to secure financing for the project. Due to the situation with the previous developer of the condominiums going into foreclosure the proposed development is the best alternative to develop a half built residential project and correct an otherwise negative situation. Final Plat approvals are required, the Final Plat shall reflect the conditions approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Zoning Certificates for each building will be required.
Staff supports the preliminary plat that complies with the minimum zoning requirements and the following conditions:
1. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept.
2. That the developer shall secure a cross access easement that must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Attorney prior to the City’s acceptance of the plat.
3. That all proposed buildings meet the requirements of the Residential Design Standards.
4. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
5. Board of Zoning Appeals variances would be required for front and rear yard setbacks.
Mr. Blake clarified that at this time the Commission is only reviewing the Plat and nothing else. Mr. Henderson stated that the applicant wanted to provide information so that the Commission could see that this will be quality project. Mr. Bosch clarified that this will have 34 overall less apartments than there were condominiums when this was originally approved. Mr. Blake stated this will have less units and less of an impact on the City.
Ms Linda Monerey stated she is with EMH&T and also here to represent the applicant is Shawn Goodwin, an engineer with EMH&T and David Conwill of Pride One Development. She stated these units are targeted toward senior citizens and are two bedroom and two bath units. Mr. Blake clarified that they will be slab on grade construction. The two larger parcels are because they are not able to finance the whole larger piece in one package, and the two smaller pieces are based on the fact that Mr. Conwill has been really working with the condominium owners to help them feel comfortable with what is going to happen with the rest of the property. She stated they are here tonight for just the plat but would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Blake stated he would prefer if we stay with just the Plat as that is the only thing being addressed tonight. Mr. Binkley stated he would recuse himself from discussion. Mr. Blake stated that Mr. Binkley would not be voting on this issue tonight. Mr. Bosch stated he is in support anytime we get more green space and less units than what were previously approved. Mr. Evans stated she agreed with Mr. Bosch. Mr. Hackworth stated he did not have any questions. Mr. Blair did not have any comments. Mr. Blake stated that Mr. Conwill put together a wonderful packet for the Commission and that with what they are offering the existing condominium homeowners it shows that they are coming in here in good faith and that this is a wonderful looking project.
Mr. Conwill stated the president of the Condominium Board meant to be here tonight but she had a conflict and will be at the next meeting. The Condominium Board has been very supportive and they want to see this project developed in the manner that the applicant is proposing. This development will not be part of the condominium association and the Condominium Board is happy the new development will have its own area. This development will be targeted to seniors and will not add students to the school district.
Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with the following conditions:
1. That a dedication plat and legal
description shall be prepared for the City to accept.
2. That the developer shall secure a cross access easement that must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Attorney prior to the City’s acceptance of the plat.
3. That
all proposed buildings meet the requirements of the Residential Design Standards.
4. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
5. Board
of Zoning Appeals variances would be required for front and rear yard setbacks.
Mr. Bosch seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting “Yes”.
Motion passed, 6-0.
I. A public hearing and review and
request for a motion to approve text amendments to Chapter 1292.04 Temporary
Signs for which a Certificate is required – Special Promotions/Grand
Openings/Temporary Announcement Signs.
The public hearing opened at 8:42 P.M.
There were no comments and the public hearing closed at 8:42 P.M. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed
the revision to this section of the code at the December, 2010 and the January,
2011 meetings. He further stated if this
is approved tonight it will go forward to the City Planning, Projects and
Service Committee meeting on February 16 and if it is approved there it will
move forward to
Mr. Nicholas moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth
voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 7-0.
5. REPORTS.
A. Planning and Zoning
(1) BZA Report. Ms Crotty stated that there is one item on the agenda for the February BZA meeting. Pickerington Pointe is requesting the front and side yard building setback variances on the agenda for the February 24, 2011 BZA meeting.
(2) FCRPC.
Mr. Henderson stated Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission met
this past month. The only subdivision
activity was a variance request in
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. Community Comments. There were none.
B. Sustainability/Green Building. Mr. Vance stated this was discussed at the last work session and Ms Crotty and Mr. Henderson are still going in the direction of solar panels and building regulations.
C. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Ms Crotty stated a lot of the mapping is already done however they do need help with drafting the plan and that is time consuming. Applications for an intern were reviewed, interviews took place and Justin Barker will be starting on February 14 as an intern and he will be working on drafting a plan. It is estimated that it will take about 80 hours to complete the plan.
D. Commission Discussion. Mr. Nicholas clarified that if motion is made and there is
not a second, the motion would die. It would then be up for another motion for consideration. Mr. Nicholas clarified that Mr. Banchefsky has not had a situation where there has been a lack of a motion being made. Mr. Banchefsky stated that the Commission takes an oath and is obligated to take some type of action on each motion. Mr. Vance stated he would suggest that if the Commission is not prepared to make a motion in support that they then consider making a motion in denial with specifics so the applicant has the information they need to tweak their application. Mr. Banchefsky stated that would be an appropriate option however the problem there is if it is denied the applicant has to resubmit. The other option would be to explain to the applicant what the problem is and to table it. This is what the Commission has done in the past. If it is something that has no chance of passing then he recommends denying it. Mr. Banchefsky stated if it is a matter of the applicant needing to do more work on the issue, it might then be better at that point to table it.
Mr. Vance stated he was thinking of situations where staff specifically recommends denial of an application. In that situation it might be a good indication of the Commission’s support of staff’s recommendations to deny the request. He further stated this is just a recommendation for the Commission’s consideration. Mr. Banchefsky stated if staff’s position is a hard no and the Commission is in agreement, it would be futile at that point to table it unless the applicant states they will go back and fix everything and bring it back in. Mr. Blake clarified that in Mr. Vance’s past duties he has seen situations where an applicant brings something in that is so out of the realm of what meets the City’s standards or guidelines that the efforts to try to work with them have been futile.
Mr. Vance stated if an applicant does not adhere to recommendations from staff regarding accordance with past Commission protocol, or what is established in the regulations for the City, and instead come in to the Commission and adamantly proposes something that contradicts either of those two things, they would be due a clear denial. The applicant could then proceed from that point forward. If they go back and retool whatever they have done up to that point in time they have obviously spent a lot of time with staff and those resources could be better utilized elsewhere. There is the potential for that to happen if people take us serious from the beginning. Mr. Blake stated he feels that in the past there have been items on which the Commission spent many late nights when they probably should not have. Mr. Banchefsky stated as discussed at the last meeting you may have a situation where an applicant has to just come through here to meet some legal obligation and just have to show that they have been here.
Mr. Binkley stated in January when Volunteer Energy came in and asked for a reconsideration motion it was something that in his time on the Commission he has not experienced and asked for an explanation on that. Mr. Banchefsky stated that can be done. According to Robert’s Rules, and he thinks also in the City code, there is a provision that a Commission member who voted on the prevailing side can, at the next meeting, and only at the next meeting, suggest that the matter be reconsidered and if there is an affirmative vote of the Commission to do so then it can be reconsidered. He stated he does not recommend that it be taken up at that next meeting because first of all, it may not have been advertised. The reconsideration has to be done at the next meeting however you do not have to actually have the hearing until later. If there is a favorable vote on the reconsideration and you want to talk it over at the next meeting and you give adequate notice to everyone he thinks that is the way to do it.
Mr. Blake stated at the meeting
where this was voted on there was no one here for either the owner of the
property or the developer/builder to state what happened. The negative vote did not impact the builder
as much as it did the owner. The owner of the building was stuck with whatever
the builder did or did not do and he now feels like he should have made a
motion to table as no one was here to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Binkley stated the explanation of what
the process to reconsider an item previously ruled on helps tremendously.
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being
nothing further Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn, Mr. Binkley seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley
voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 7-0. The
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:58 P.M., February 8, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________
Susan Crotty, Development Director