PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as follows: Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blair were present. Mr. Binkley and Ms. Evans had advised that they would not be able to attend. Others present were Bill Vance, Cristie Hammond, Susan Crotty, Greg Bachman, Phil Hartmann, Craig Vandervoort, Ted Wenger, Brian Hein, Brian Hoy, Matt Maynard and Kurt Paisley.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 25, 2011, Work Session. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 25, 2011
Regular Meeting (TABLED 02/08/11). Mr.
Hackworth moved to remove from the table; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 5-0. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr.
Nicholas voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 8, 2011
Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
3. SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS. Mr. Blake asked that anyone who plans to offer testimony or evidence stand and raise their right hand. Mr. Craig Vandervoort, Mr. Ted Wenger, Mr. Brian Hein, Mr. Brian Hoy and Mr. Matt Maynard did so. Mr. Blake asked the following; Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the Pickerington Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Mr. Vandervort, Mr. Wenger, Mr. Hein, Mr. Hoy and Mr. Maynard responded “Yes”.
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. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated that in November of 2007 the conditional use permit for the patio was approved, then was amended in June of 2008 to allow the color of awning. In January of 2010 a conditional use permit was approved for the enclosure to allow the side curtains conditionally until April 15, 2010, and that the Commission would work on establishing guidelines for patio enclosures. At this time standards for patio enclosures have not been established. The applicant is now proposing to amend the conditional use permit for an outdoor patio to allow seasonal side curtains on the canopy. They would be made of a flame retardant polymer fabric and clear plastic windows. The patio is approximately 276 square feet and has seating for approximately 26 patrons. This particular item is not addressed in the Nonresidential Design Standards or the Outdoor Service Facility Regulation. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the discretion to consider approving outdoor patio enclosures on a case-by case basis.
Mr. Blake clarified that four votes are required for approval. He started he wanted to make it clear to all of the applicants tonight that as two members of the Commission are absent we must have four votes for an affirmative. Mr. Blake clarified that the first time the applicant was in front of the Commission for this conditional use request was in December of 2010 and that at that point there was discussion regarding the Building Department was going to take a look at the enclosure. Mr. Henderson stated it is his understanding that the Building Department has inspected this and have sent a letter to the applicant. Ms Crotty stated that one of the letters sent by the Building Department was returned to that department and that there was also a certified letter sent. Ms Crotty stated the letter the Chief Building Official sent was attempting to set up a meeting with the applicant.
Mr. Brian Hoy stated he only received one letter and that was an invoice. Mr. Henderson stated the invoice Mr. Hoy is referring to is for architectural review fees. On any development where our architectural consultant reviews it, the standard procedure for the City is to invoice the applicant for those charges. The letter being discussed was from our Chief Building Official, Mr. Chet Hopper. Mr. Hoy stated he did not receive that letter, they had their mail forwarded from one location to another and this is the first he has heard about that letter. Mr. Vance stated that City sent a letter to the owner and the tenant. The owner of the shopping center did receive his letter as the certified mailed received form came back. The letter was a request to meet to discuss the building permit issue and obviously that meeting has yet to take place. Mr. Hoy stated he has not heard that from the owner, Mr. Lee Gray.
Mr. Vance stated that staff would prefer that the correct procedure be followed and that the approvals and building permit issues are taken care of in advance of the installation of side curtains instead of coming in after they have been installed. The curtains have been installed, are being used, and the City and the applicant are now in the position of playing catch up. The biggest concern for the City is public safety. We want to be sure that the area now enclosed does not cause any unnecessary potential for someone getting hurt or there might be some electrical situations that the City is not familiar with. Mr. Hopper has gone inside the establishment for a quick look and it appears to be safe, however, the City would like to go through the formality of actually getting the building permits to provide for the installation of these curtains in the future, providing that they receive the support of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hoy stated in their defense, they did use a professional company from Pickerington to install this and he was under the impression that the company had taken their due diligence to pull the required permits. Mr. Vance stated staff has no objection to the curtains as they are currently being utilized. Mr. Blake clarified that with the approval last year it was only approved through April 15, 2010, the side curtains were to be taken down at that time and the applicant was to come back to the Commission for approval before they were reinstalled. Instead they were then reinstalled in late 2010 without approval and it was after that fact that the applicant came in for the conditional use.
Mr. Bosch stated his understanding when this was tabled was that it was done so that the City and the applicant could determine if any type of landscaping could be done below the curtain to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Blake stated that was his understanding also. Mr. Hoy stated what they had asked for in December of 2010 was for the Commission to vote on whether or not they would be allowed to leave the curtains up as they are currently through April 15, 2011 and then they would come back in prior to reinstalling the curtains in the fall with a layout and design that would use landscaping to make it more aesthetically pleasing along the front and in the area of the corner of the building. He further stated that there is a photo enclosed in the report of this area showing what it looked like prior to this awning and side curtain and he feels they have made a drastic improvement to what this area looks like now over how it looked prior to what they have done. Mr. Blake stated that he doesn’t think this is the question, that it is more a question regarding the process of how it got from where it was to where it is today.
Mr. Nicholas stated that he thought the applicant had approval to keep the curtains up until April 15, 2011 only. Then the curtains would come down, the applicant would reapply in the fall with improvements to the design for the Commission to consider and to gain approval to reinstall the side curtains. Mr. Henderson stated that the original approval through April 15th was not for this year, it was for 2010. Mr. Henderson stated this was discussed at the December, 2010 meeting, no decision was made as the applicant requested this be tabled until the January, 2011 meeting and it has remained tabled until this month. Mr. Nicholas clarified the issue today is to vote on whether or not the side curtains are allowed. Mr. Hoy stated he thought that what they were asking for in December is that they be allowed to keep the side curtains up until April 15, 2011, and then come back in with some design enhancements. All seven Commission members were not present at that meeting so he asked to have it tabled for one month. He further stated that he and his business partner were not both available to attend a meeting until this month.
Mr. Blake stated he wouldn’t be against approving this through April 15, 2011 with the condition that the curtain does not get put up again without first coming back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval and also that prior to this coming back to the Commission, the applicant will meet with the City to get the aesthetics worked out that the applicant had mentioned the last time, and to make sure that any regulations from a building standpoint are also addressed. Mr. Vance stated this would satisfy staff’s needs. There does not seem to be a lot of options available for the curtain material. The main concern for the City is public safety with the new enclosure and it is his understanding that a situation like that could potentially be for smokers and the City wants to make sure everyone is safe. He stated if the applicant will proactively approach staff and seek out our assistance prior to the next time the curtains are installed we will not find ourselves in the position of playing catch up that we are now in. That would be the best way to go about this. Mr. Blake stated he agrees with this.
Mr. Blair stated he thinks what Mr. Blake proposed makes sense, to have it come before the Commission again in the fall and we take it back up then after staff and the applicant come to a conclusion. Mr. Hackworth stated he is not a fan of side curtains. The City spent a lot of time, effort and money to enhance our Nonresidential Design Standards and he does not see this as an improvement or of a design that he can support. Mr. Bosch stated at this point he has not seen anything as far as a product that he can support. Upgrading with landscaping to find something that blends the side curtains in with the building so that it looks like it belongs, rather then it just being slapped onto the side of the building, is the only way he will approve this in the future. He further stated that he has no problem in allowing the side curtain to remain up until April 15, 2011 as per suggested as long as it is with the express understanding by the owner of the establishment that this approval is for through April 15, 2011 only. Mr. Bosch also stated that the owner should work with the City to develop something that will blend the side curtain in prior to coming back to the Commission for approval. He further stated he will not support it if it comes back in as it stands today.
Mr. Nicholas stated he would be in favor of a side curtain system that had some architectural feature to it rather than just being flat and straight. He further stated he believes side curtains can only take up two sides and 50 percent or less of the area however that is for the Building Department to discuss with applicant. His suggestion to the applicant is that he work through that with the Building Department prior to reinstalling the side curtain after April 15, 2011. He further stated at this point, if it were to come back in like this he would not approve it and encouraged the applicant to be creative when it comes to redesign and landscaping. He would be in favor of allowing this to stay until April 15, 2011 only. Mr. Vance stated in regard to the building permit and the removal, the City can handle this administratively if the law director has no objection. Mr. Hartmann stated he has no objection to the City handling this administratively. Mr. Blake asked that the applicant provide Mr. Henderson with a good mailing address for him.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve to direct staff that the side curtains are
to be taken down by April 15, 2011 and that the applicant is to come back to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval before installation next year;
Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blair voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 5-0.
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 Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Asian Bistro located
at
E. Review and request for a motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage for Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers located at 1263 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to amend their Comprehensive Sign Plan to allow for larger building signage for the 2,722 square foot Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers restaurant located at 1263 Hill Road North. They are not asking to alter the ground signage or the mural signage that was previously approved in October of 2010. The sign would be located at the same location previously approved. The overall size of the sign is the only thing they are proposing to change. The previously approved building signs encompass 18 square feet and are approximately three feet tall by six feet wide. The proposed building sign would encompass 32 square feet and be approximately four feet tall by eight feet wide. This sign is in character with other out lot buildings in the City. The proposed building signs would be five colors; red, white, black, yellow and orange.
Staff supports the wall signs having four colors since the previously approved Comprehensive Sign Plan allowed for the wall signs to have four colors. Staff supports the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the bricks for the ground sign shall match the building.
2. That the width of the brick columns shall be wider than the channel letter cabinets.
3. That the height of the ground sign
shall not exceed eight feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade along
4. That the brick on the ground sign shall fill in the area under the curve of the bottom of the oval.
5. That the wall mural shall be allowed as a special case sign per the code.
6. That the mural shall be five colors and the remainder of the signs shall be four colors.
Mr. Blake clarified that the applicant is not amending what was previously approved for the mural and ground sign; the applicant is just asking for three wall signs that will be slightly larger than previously approved and nothing else is changing. Mr. Kurt Paisley stated he is with M & A Architects and is here on behalf of Raising Cane’s. He stated that the elevations that were reviewed in October of 2010 did show the four by eight wall signs that are being discussed tonight so this is the exact same elevation as back in October. The only thing that is different is the spec sheet for the wall signs and it was hindsight on their part for having the incorrect dimensions on there in October.
Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for
building signage with the following conditions:
1. That the bricks for the ground sign
shall match the building.
2. That the width of the brick columns
shall be wider than the channel letter cabinets.
3. That the height of the ground sign
shall not exceed eight feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade along
4. That the brick on the ground sign shall
fill in the area under the curve of the bottom of the oval.
5. That the wall mural shall be allowed as
a special case sign per the code.
6. That the mural shall be five colors and
the remainder of the signs shall be four colors.
Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
F. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Preliminary Plat for Huntwork Gardens located off of East Street and
Raine Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the
report previously provided to the Commission and stated that the applicant is
proposing a lot split of the existing 7.596 acre parcel (#041-02651-00) into
two parcels. One parcel would be 2.004
acres and would have access to
1. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept.
Mr. Blake clarified that if this parcel had not been sub platted five times that this could have been done administratively. Mr. Craig Vandervoort stated he is the attorney for the owners, Mr. Ted Wenger and Mr. Brian Heins, and that both of the owners are here. There presently are no plans to do anything with this area and it will continue to remain as a buffer. He further stated that they are asking that this plat be accepted as a first and final plat. Mr. Blake clarified that the owners purchased this property in the last year from the Huntwork family and that the family owns the entire seven acres that wraps around this. After the purchase it was decided that the 2.004 acre parcel’s appropriate use in the future would just be buffer and so after the original purchase this is being transferred to the new owners of the apartment complex.
Mr. Hackworth clarified that
1. That a dedication plat and legal
description shall be prepared for the City to accept.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake
and Mr. Bosch voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
G. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Preliminary Plat for the Zane property located just north of the
Pickerington Medical Complex along Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission and stated that the developer is proposing the extension and
revision of lots one and seven of the Zane tract commercial subdivision. Staff has determined these changes to be minor. The developer is donating the 0.438 acre
westerly extension of
Mr. Greg Bachman, City Engineer,
stated this was a little difficult for such a small piece of property and that
the applicant had worked well with the City on this. The City will acquire land
for the future extension of Commerce Drive and also a 10 foot strip on Hill
Road so that we will have a 50 right-of-way on the west side of Hill Road for
ultimately a 100 foot right-of-way for Hill Road. The applicant is getting more right-of-way
from the McAuliffe piece because the City will no longer need Olde Route 256
because
Mr. Henderson stated that Staff supports the preliminary plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:
1. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept.
He further stated that the applicant is requesting that this be approved as a preliminary and a final plat and staff does not have any issues with that request.
Mr. Craig Vandervoort stated he
is the manager of Hill & Commerce Drive, LLC and his only comments are that
he appreciates that staff worked with him on this to sort out all of the
details to make this possible. From the
very beginning
Mr. Blake stated this was a tough issue when it first came before Planning and Zoning Commission due to that strip of land. Mr. Hackworth stated it appears that road narrows as it goes to the west and clarified that it will have a 60 foot right-of-way all the way to the edge of the property.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve as a final plat with the following condition;
1. That a dedication plat
and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voted “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
5. REPORTS.
A. Planning and Zoning.
(1) BZA Report. Ms Crotty stated that last month’s BZA meeting had to be rescheduled to Feb. 28th. Pickerington Pointe subdivision was on the agenda for setback variances and those were approved. The next meeting will be on March 31st and the applicant will be requesting a rear yard setback variance for a deck.
(2) FCRPC Report. Ms. Crotty stated the meeting for last month was canceled and there were no agenda items.
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. Community concerns. There were no comments regarding community concerns.
B. Good Property – Temporary garden
center,
Ms Crotty stated the proposed use
is permitted in just about every district except for M and staff is not sure
exactly what the intent was behind that.
It is permitted in M1 and there are no properties within the City zoned
as M1. Ms Crotty stated staff wanted to
share this information with the Planning and Zoning Commission and explain why
it is going to
Mr. Blake clarified that if this is approved
it will be staff’s recommendation that the variance carry the stipulation that
it is for 2011 with the approval expiring on October 15, 2011. This will
provide the time to either pursue a rezoning if necessary or the creation of a
current use for this type of activity within M1 zoning. Mr. Hartmann stated that in discussing this
with Mr. Banchefsky it seemed to be the feeling that it was odd for this to be
left out in the M zoning. Mr. Blake
clarified than any applicant could request a
Mr. Hackworth clarified that this
would be going to
Mr. Nicholas stated he thinks
that as temporary this would be all right. He has made several trips by there
and when traveling west on Town Square Drive and looking at this property
across Hill Road North, the way this is drawn the alignment does not work
out. The lot is gravel and with vehicles
making a fast exit out they could shoot gravel onto cars behind them. His other
concern is the amount of traffic this might generate. These are issues he feels staff and
C. Sustainability/Green Building memo. Mr. Henderson stated that staff has done further research and had received some interesting information this month from an active Board of Zoning Appeals member on alternative solar panels on roofs. Staff did supply a memo to the Commission and they hope to have more information for them in the future and would welcome any feedback from the Commission. Ms Crotty stated she did hand out an example of some things we could look at to adopt and incorporate into our code to regulate solar panels and their uses within the City. Her recommendation is that when the Commission members get a chance that they look at that and provide feedback to staff with comments on what they liked, what they didn’t like, if there is something they would like to see added, etc., and she will pull it together and the Commission can discuss that at a future meeting.
D. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Ms Crotty stated this is coming along well. Our intern, Justin Barker, has been working on the plan and she thinks everyone will be pleased with the end result. Staff needed assistance with drafting the text and he has also looked at it with a critical eye and is providing some recommendations. She further stated that there are probably a few weeks to go before it is ready. When it is completed she hopes to be able to bring Justin in to a meeting to do the presentation.
E. Commission Discussion. Mr. Nicholas stated he has done a lot of
research on the subject of the Sustainability issue and has found several
examples of sustainability and green guidelines. The most thorough one was
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M., March 8, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Susan Crotty, Development
Director