PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
May 10, 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, Mrs.
Evans, and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr.
Binkley and Mr. Blair were absent.
Others present were Bill Vance, Greg Bachman, Joe Henderson, Mitch
Banchefsky, Karen Risher, Art Jacob, Heidi Stover, Beth Bolyard, John Raab Phil
Masinople,
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 12, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion; Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans 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. Art Jacob, Ms Heidi Stover, Ms Beth Bolyard, Mr. John Radd, Mr. Philip Masinople, Mr. Tom Lewis, and Mr. Joel John 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”. All standing stated “Yes”.
4. SCHEUDLED MATTERS.
A. 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 1/25/11). Mr. Henderson stated the applicant has
requested that this remain on the table and that the applicant is aware it can
remain tabled for one more month before it falls off the table.
B. Review and request for a motion to
approve a comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Epiphany Lutheran
Preschool located at
The applicant is proposing to
place the ground sign for the preschool sign where the existing wooden sign
is. Mr. Henderson further stated the
ground sign being proposed is approximately 34.95 square feet and would have
one brick column extended up the west side sign and have a decorative limestone
cap. Zoning code section 1292.03 (3) (A)
states that ground signs shall have a brick or stone base with columns
extending a minimum 75 percent up each side of the sign The proposed sign does not meet this
requirement. The sign area would be three feet high by six feet wide,
approximately 18 square feet. Below the name would be a changeable copy letter
area that would be approximately eight square feet or 55 percent of the sign
face area. Zoning code section
1292.03(3) (C) states that non permanent lettering shall be limited to 30
percent of the sign area. The sign
appears to have three colors that are black, white, and purple. The sign would be internally illuminated. Staff recommends the height of the ground
sign should not exceed seven feet above the elevation of
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground signage that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the existing wood sign shall be removed prior to installing the proposed ground sign for the preschool.
2. That the brick on the sign shall match the brick on the building.
3. That the height of the ground sign
shall not exceed seven feet above the elevation of
Mr. Blake clarified that the code
reads that all ground signs shall have columns at both sides of the sign that
are a minimum of 75 percent of the height of the sign. Mr. Art Jacob stated he was there representing
Mr. Bosch stated the Commission has consistently required that there be columns on both sides as is required by our code and he will hold to that. He clarified that the verbiage on ground signs is that one ground sign per building per street frontage may be erected where permitted, and that a comprehensive sign plan does allow for the City to consider additional ground signs where appropriate and staff feels this has been a second use at the Church for a long time. The City has had an issue with temporary signage and is trying to work with the applicant regarding this and that staff feels this is a case where a second sign is appropriate. Mr. Bosch stated that once this second sign goes up there may be other churches that will come in to request a second sign. The Commission has tried to keep the streetscape clean, especially along the State Route 256 corridor. Mr. Henderson stated this sign would be on a separate parcel that does not have a building on it and there has been a sign there for years.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that this sign will be located north of the existing drive and approximately 20 feet south of the original parcel line and that there is not a problem with offsite signage as there are three parcels. He also clarified that the existing wooden sign for Grace Lutheran will be removed. Mr. Hackworth stated he feels the Commission should stay consistent with the code regarding requiring two columns.
Mrs. Evans clarified that there is an alternate drawing with two columns and those were passed out to the Commission members. Mr. Henderson stated that the proposed alternative has the entire sign increasing from 18 to 24 square feet and the changeable letters appear to be at about 45 percent of the total sign area. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the weather proof box will be located on the Church side of the sign and not the street side. Mr. Blake clarified that the new drawing will be marked as Submittal B.
Mrs. Evans moved to approve using Submittal B as submitted and the
following Staff recommendations;
1. That
the existing wood sign shall be removed prior to installing the proposed ground
sign for the preschool.
2. That the brick on the sign shall match
the brick on the building.
3. That
the height of the sign shall not exceed seven feet above elevation of
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch clarified that this will be sufficient to cover the changeable copy as submitted on submittal B as being at 45 percent of the total sign area. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Power Shack Family Fitness located at 2100 Yarmouth Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing an additional signage area on the north and south elevations of building. Power Shack family Fitness is adding a second tenant to the building. They are requesting additional exterior signage for the future tenant. The proposed north elevation sign faces the parking lot and would encompass 40 square feet, and be approximately one and one half feet tall, and 26.75 feet wide. It will have channel letters and will be two colors. The proposed south elevation sign faces State Route 204 would encompass 59.625 square feet and be approximately 2.5 feet tall and 23.85 feet wide. The sign will be comprised of channel letters, have two colors, and will be internally illuminated. The existing signs are on raceways and staff supports the proposed signs being located on raceways that match the brick of the building.
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for building signage for Power Shack Family Fitness that complies with the minimum zoning code and the following condition:
1. That the building signs shall be allowed to be on raceways that match the brick of the building.
Mr. John Radd stated he is representing Freda’s Hair Designs and that Mr. Philip Masinople is here representing ACL Realty. Mr. Blake clarified that those representing the applicant did not have any issues or comments regarding staff’s recommendations.
Mr. Nicholas stated that for sustainability purposes he would ask that the applicants consider used LED lighting on the interior versus neon. There were no further comments.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations and the following
condition:
1. That
the building signs shall be allowed to be on raceways that match the brick of
the building.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.
Mr. Blake stated on the next item on the agenda the applicant was not present at the beginning of the meeting and asked that anyone who plans to offer testimony or evidence on this issue stand and raise their right hand. Mr. Aaron Underhill, Mr. George Parker, and Mr. Doug Maddy 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”. All standing stated “Yes”.
D. Review and request for a motion to
approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan, Architecture, Landscaping and Lighting for 4 Seasons Soccer Complex
located on
Mr. Henderson reviewed the zoning history and stated the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan on October 13, 2009 and the City Planning, Projects and Service Committee approved the rezoning and Preliminary Development on October 21, 2009. Planning and Zoning Commission approved the rezoning and Final Development Plan on March 9, 2010 and the City Planning, Projects and Service Committee approved the rezoning and Final Development Plan on January 19, 2011. City Council approved the rezoning and Final Development Plan for the 4 Seasons Sports Complex on February 1, 2011and this took effect on Mar 3, 2011.
Mr. Henderson stated that during the Final Development Plan approval there were setbacks and changes to the site. This site plan appears to be compliant with all setback requirements set during the Final Development Plan with one exception and that is that the eastern side yard building setback on the site plan submitted is 25 feet and the approved Final Development Plan states in condition 14 that a 30 feet eastern side yard building set back in Sub Area A shall be required. This will need an additional five feet. Mr. Henderson stated the letter from the architectural consultant’s review of the complex, as well as letters from the different departments of the City that have reviewed the plan, were included in the report provided to the Commission.
Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing steel sheet siding for the sides and roof and this is considered a permitted exterior building material in a civic and institutional building type. A Type A buffer would be required along the western portion of the property line of the proposed indoor soccer complex. Staff supports waiving the Type A buffer along the western property line because the property to the west will most likely develop as a commercial use and would then not require a landscape buffer. The required emergency access drive per the Violet Township Fire Department would be 25 feet and this would limit the amount of side yard setback to be able to construct a Type A buffer. The applicant is proposing 21 spruce trees along the northern property line between the indoor soccer complex and the property line to soften the architectural elements of the building. The north, south and east property lines are adjacent to commercially zoned parcels and do not require a buffer. Interior landscaping is required throughout the parking lot. The landscape plan does appear to meet the landscape requirements.
Mr. Henderson stated the owner is proposing eight light poles with four in the middle of the parking lot that would be double headed and four on the southern portion of the site that would be single headed. They are proposing a shoe box style cut-off light fixture that would be in the parking lots and on the side of the building. There would be 10 wall mounted light fixtures on the south, east, and west elevations. The Nonresidential design standards for lighting requirements states that all pole mounted fixtures used in nonresidential developments except for industrial buildings shall be cut-off style of a traditional or historic reproduction or historic reproduction using a gooseneck style arm on decorative poles with a clam shell base. The proposed light fixtures do not meet this requirement and would require a waiver to install as proposed. Mr. Henderson used a Material Board of the proposed building materials to indicate the colors that are proposed for the siding as well as the colors for roof and the accent colors.
Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That all conditions in the rezoning and final development plan shall be met.
2. That Sub Area A shall have a 25 foot wide unobstructed (no power lines, fire hydrants etc.) cross-access easement along the entire eastern portion of the property per the City Engineer requirements.
3. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
4. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
5. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the Violet Township Fire Department requirements.
6. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.
7. That the steel sheet siding for the primary and secondary facades and the roof of the indoor soccer complex shall be approved as a conditionally permitted exterior building material per the Nonresidential Design Standards.
And the following waivers:
1. That all pole mounted fixtures used in nonresidential developments except for industrial buildings shall be cut-off style of a traditional or historic reproduction using a gooseneck style arm on decorative poles with a clam shell base unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That a type A buffer shall be required along the western property line that is adjacent to a residential use unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Vance stated this is not the classic commercial development such as Kohl’s, Best Buy or a shopping center. It provides recreational opportunities that our Community currently does not have. In the spirit of those facts staff went through the negotiations as far as our Nonresidential Design Standards with the intent to negotiate the best product that we could. Staff has a sincere appreciation of the investment interest of the developers and appreciates the fact that they would like to provide something to the Community that is currently not here. Staff will endorse the continuation of working with them to realize this goal.
Mr. Aaron Underhill stated he is an attorney representing the applicant. This project has been ongoing for over two years and after Mr. Vance became involved they have made great headway. He thanked Mr. Vance and Mr. Henderson for all the work they have done. They have been very responsive to the applicant and they have made a lot of progress in the past couple of months. Along the way there were a number of large issues to address regarding traffic, road improvements, and impact fees and he feels they are happy with where they are on those issues. For various reasons the cost of this project has risen to over $4,000,000. The applicant has agreed to do road improvements with no reimbursement from the City. The cost of the materials proposed has gone up quite a lot. They feel they have achieved the best design they can based on the cost restraints that are there, however, if the cost of the project goes up much further it will almost make it cost prohibitive to be able to charge the users of the facility a fair price.
Mr. Underhill stated that there are school sites in the City that have used the shoe box type of light fixture as does Kohl’s which has a sizeable parking lot. The applicant feels this type of fixture is appropriate here also. The type of lighting intensity is important for security purposes. This can be done with the gooseneck fixtures but that would add another $35,000. to the project.
The applicant feels this type of lighting is akin to the school developments that utilize this type of lighting fixture. With respect to the request for the easement to be unobstructed on the east side of the facility, they are fine with that. There are existing power lines outside of the easement area and that is a discussion that may need to take place with the neighboring property owner if the City ever desires to make that a thoroughfare. Initially they did not propose to pave that and they now will do so.
Mr. Underhill stated the sanitary sewer
service provider mentioned in the original document was the City of
Mr. Underhill stated in designing
a building like this it’s difficult to bring the scale of massing down to a
size that feels typical. If you were going to strictly apply the Nonresidential
Design Standards with respect to materials, no one would be able to build this
using all brick. The front of this
building will be seen by everyone coming into the facility. They have provided stone on the front that is
above and beyond what is called an accent material, it is the main component of
the front of the building. It is
difficult to achieve the design that the Nonresidential Design Standards call
for. Mr. Underhill passed out photos
from the Franklin County Auditor website of the
Mr. George Parker stated he is the architect that designed this facility and displayed a sample board showing the exterior front of the building. He stated when the printing was done the color of the roof came out more blue than the green it actually will be. He displayed a sample of the actual green color that the roof will be, the colors for the trim, fascia, trim around the windows, the color of the window frame, a sample of the synthetic stone that will be used. He stated he they thought the colors all go well with the stone. In the stone above the tall windows at the entry to the building there will be sculpture of a player kicking a soccer ball. There will be a retail store on the first floor, storage areas, administrative offices, and an open stairway to the second floor. There will be food concession stands on both levels. There will be trees and landscaping that will create a softer, three dimensional look. Mr. Parker stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Blake stated when he looks at
the presentation and reads the analysis from the City’s architectural
consultant, one thing that stands out to him is the comment that “ The review
of this building for compliance with current design standards does not include
site lighting, landscaping, utilities or signage. This application is the largest project GFA
Inc. has reviewed for the City of
Mr. Henderson stated that a lot
of the fitness gyms that have come in are in shopping centers. Lifestyle Family Fitness came in with a
shopping center and is anchored to the center.
You also have to look at the context of how it is applied to that
building. The whole thing came in as a
commercial building and then after it was approved they came in advised that
the major tenant was going to be Lifestyle Family Fitness. Mrs. Evans stated she is wondering about the
sewer and stated we have the water in the area but not the sewer and asked if
that was correct. Mr. Vance stated it is
his understanding that it is
Mr. Bosch stated he has taken his
daughter to the indoor soccer facility and the building proposed here looks a
lot better than the one at
Mr. Bosch clarified that the
sanitary pipes and anything else of that nature that sticks up through the roof
will be the same color as the roof. Mr.
Bosch stated his concern is the lighting.
In reference to the schools being mentioned, those were both
redevelopments and one of those was just an addition to the existing lights
there. He fully understands and supports
how this is located in the zoning code.
This is the first project around this huge undeveloped area and since
our code we have not had any facilities of this size other than some of the
ones along
Mr. Hackworth clarified that the colors of green, tan, and brown would fall into our approved color pallet. Mr. Hackworth stated that the roof color appears blue on the plans and clarified that it will be green; he also clarified that this is a metal roof. Mr. George Parker stated the roof material is three foot wide panels and has ribs that rise up 12 inches on center; this is not a true standing seam roof which has a high narrow seam, it is a almost like a board and batten pattern on the walls and then a similar pattern on the roof. Mr. Henderson stated that one of the reasons the City requires a material board is because prints don’t print out the way it actually will look. Mr. Blake clarified that the green color on the sample board is the true color of the roof.
Mr. Hackworth stated that on Item D, 6 it states that “Roofing material and color – Does not meet the Nonresidential Design Standards. Under the Civic and Institutional category the applicant may employ standing seam metal roofing on a limited basis upon approval of the City”. Mr. Henderson stated he read this as referring to the material only and not the color. Mr. Lewis stated the material is not approvable; the color is approvable. Mr. Underhill stated he does not know if Mr. Lewis had the text however it does mention that metal roofs are permitted. Mr. Henderson stated that text was not approved as part of the final development plan; it was the conditions and then the actual map. When the applicant came through for the rezoning and final development plan the text was not a part of that approval. Mr. Underhill asked what the text was for and Mr. Henderson stated the text was part of the development agreement. When this came through the Planning and Zoning Director was still here and it was stated at that time that we were approving the plan and the conditions, we were not approving the text as part of the approval for the development plans. Mr. Underhill stated he would defer to Mr. Banchefsky on that.
Mr. Lewis stated since they have been the consultant for the City there have been only a few applications given the scale of this one. The school was approved a standing seam metal roof as a conditional approval. Mr. Underhill stated in Mr. Lewis’s defense if he did not have the text he was just applying the rules. He further stated as development standards text the development agreement itself didn’t address design issues. Mr. Banchefsky state he has not seen either of these documents and is not in a position to comment on them. If the text was part of the zoning then the specific provisions of the zoning text would over ride anything else in the zoning code, however Mr. Henderson is stating that is not the case.
Mr. Henderson stated he would need to go back and check the minutes but his understanding is that one of the things the Planning and Zoning Director stated was that we were reviewing the Site Plan with the conditions; we were not approving any part of the design of the building when it came in for the preliminary development plan. The applicant showed us a picture of what it might look like but at that point they did not identify any materials or anything like that. We were just approving the Site Plan, the setbacks, the height variances and that kind of thing. Mr. Underhill stated along with your zoning there was a requirement of the zoning submittal as a text. Without a text there is no reason to have a planned district, you would apply the straight zoning because you are not asking for any variances or anything. Mr. Underhill further stated they have a development standards text that he even submitted with this application on April 8, 2011 that says text submitted in conjunction with Certificate of Appropriateness application and reflecting conditions of approval of zoning and final development plan for the entire PUD. Mr. Henderson stated the plan is these conditions and that is what we have gone by since 2009.
Mr. Vance stated they are referring to the 2009 meeting and discussions and considerations. Mr. Henderson stated it was the final development plan that had 24 conditions and this is what that development plan was based off of. Mr. Banchefsky clarified the applicant submitted a packet with this but when the former Planning and Zoning Director reviewed it, it was based on the site plan. The applicant did submit text but the conditions are part of the final development plan, as the City has done for other developments. Mr. Banchefsky clarified that the approved zoning did not have the text that Mr. Underhill is referring to, it had another document that was the conditions of the staff report. Mr. Underhill stated they get PUD’S conditioned all of the time. A PUD will almost always, in any community you are in, have a text associated with it. Otherwise we are just talking about the zoning code and variances that could be granted only by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Here we are in a planned district and he submitted it in this style. Mr. Underhill further stated he was confused and asked if the there was way we could recess to check the public record and inquired if it is online. Mr. Henderson stated all of our minutes from 2003 forward are online.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 8:45 P.M. and reconvened at 9:01 P.M.
Mr. Vance stated that there were discussions and negotiations in 2009 and he does not know that we have documentation of all of those discussions and negotiations. What staff does know at this point in time is what is before you this evening is what is being proposed and what the developer is seeking approval of. This is essentially where we are at.
Mr. Underhill stated he will continue to assert, although he thinks it is irrelevant at this point, that there was a text. He could hand anybody anything and this is not the official City record so in the City’s defense can’t come up with the document tonight, he understands that. He further stated that what they are proposing is what the need to build, and have to build, with these materials, and also that they had a site plan and a drawing that was shown to the Commission and the drawing did have a red metal roof on it. Those plans were approved as part of the original process. They now have a color the have deemed appropriate and allowable under the Nonresidential Design Standards. It is probably a moot point but he wanted to make the point that the applicant had previously shown this Commission and Council drawings of conceptually what this would look like and they have stayed within that concept. That is the point he is trying to make and it is sort of irrelevant whether we come up with the text tonight or not.
Mr. Banchefsky stated that normally a part of the planned district zoning is the text. That is what you look at to see what you can and can’t do. He understands that a text was prepared and it was submitted. It’s unclear to him based on the records that he has seen now as to whether that text was actually incorporated in the rezoning which was ultimately approved by Council. Planning and Zoning Commission would see that also as part of our review. The Planning and Zoning Director at that time was Lance Schultz. Mr. Banchefsky further stated that Mr. Henderson has told him the text was not incorporated as part of the official rezoning but that there was a set of conditions that was. In terms of what Mr. Underhill is saying in terms of that being the building materials and the roof, since we can’t document that text was part of the official approval for the zoning he thinks what they have to do is treat that as one of the exceptions that would require a super majority vote and move forward. The applicant is saying is that these are the materials they can afford to use, that they think are appropriate and that is what they are submitting. Mr. Banchefsky further stated that he thinks Mr. Underhill does not want to waive any of the rights if there is a text and Mr. Underhill stated that is correct. If there is a text and this gets turned down for something that ends up being in the text then we will be back here to address that issue.
Mr. Lewis stated in his defense, they were in two very lengthy meetings with all these guys and never once was the notion of a development text for this development brought up and hopefully Mr. Underhill will concur with that. Mr. Underhill stated that was true. Mr. Lewis is not their consultant. There has been some confusion and the applicant’s architect was not involved other than to present a drawing at that time so we have a lot of different consultants and experts here. This is not an affront on Mr. Lewis at all it’s just been a bit of confusion. Mr. Bosch clarified that Mr. Lewis’s comments are based on what is in the standard zoning text and not anything that has been, or might have been, discussed. Mr. Hackworth stated there is not a lot of scale on the drawing and clarified that the total height of the building is 45 feet. Mr. Parker stated that from the main eave of the building to the ridge is about 50 feet.
Mr. Blake clarified that what was approved is 45 feet and stated that is one of his problems with this. He does not have a scale and this is confusing to say the least. There is nothing to scale to show height, window sizes, fascia sizes, overhangs, anything like that we can even look at. Mr. Henderson stated condition 11 of the final development plan states that the maximum building height for the 4 Seasons Sports Complex Sub Area A shall be increased from 35 to 45 feet. Mr. Underhill questioned if that would be measured per code. Mr. Parker stated if the height is measured to the mid point of the roof or the ridge of the roof is what Mr. Underhill is asking. Mr. Underhill stated the City should change how their code measures heights. Mr. Parker questioned if it measured from finished floor or from finished grade. Mr. Henderson stated it is from finished grade. Mr. Parker stated that is different from most code as in most code it is normally measured to the mid point of the roof from the grade and not the ridge because the ridge is not a big volume area. He further stated it is 40 some feet, he was guessing at 50 feet and if the City code is 45 feet then they will not exceed 45 but they need to verify whether that is to the ridge or that is to the mid point of the roof. Mr. Henderson stated he would double check, it was always his understanding that the maximum height of whatever the building truly was, but he will check our code.
Mr. Hackworth stated he did not see any entrance on the back. Mr. Parkers indicated where a passenger door only as there is not a driveway to get back there and the front there are double doors that are the central entry and there are two fire code stairwells that have doors up to the second floor. Mr. Hackworth clarified there are stairwells to go to the second floor in one portion of the building. Mr. Parker stated one portion of building is two floors. Mr. Henderson stated that the front bump out has a second story for a viewing area. Mr. Hackworth stated he is having a problem visualizing the materials and how this is put together. The drawing doesn’t seem to be real detailed in his view. Mr. Parker stated he did that on purpose. They have the ability to do computer and three dimensional drawings. He further stated he drew this personally as he wanted to make this realistic. It is hard to make it realistic when you are doing computerized drawings. He felt this was the right way to present it. He further stated he likes to give out the 11x17 length so that the drawing can be viewed up close or taken home if someone wants to.
He stated he is surprised that Mr. Hackworth would think that it doesn’t illustrate a real appearance to the building. He stated he could show a lot of drawings that he has seen done on a computer and you go out and look at the real building, usually the real building looks better than the computerized drawing. Mr. Hackworth stated there a couple of trees on the drawing and they are very close to the peak of the roof and if that is 50 feet that is going to take quite a few years to get to that size. Mr. Parker stated he plants fewer tree, but more mature trees and it makes a big difference in what it looks like. Mr. Parker stated they are only showing on the front of the building two large, tall trees and the rest are ornamental trees but you have to look at the landscape plan to see what the different varieties are. It is not that big of deal to plant three or four trees in front of this building that are in scale with the building. That is not just guessing at it, they intend to do that.
Mr. Vance clarified that at this
point in time it is his understanding that this application is complete and that
he, in conjunction with the City Planner, Mr. Henderson, would work to
coordinate this application that is before the Planning and Zoning Commission
this evening. On some of the items to be
designed, our contractual architect and design consultant indicated that he did
not review. The City did not submit
those items for him to review because the City does not pay him to review those
areas. It is his understanding that the
application brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission is complete as
far as the responsibilities of the applicant, otherwise we would not have
brought it before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Henderson stated they do have the
required material. Staff did work with
them on a few occasions. The landscape
plans originally submitted were not stamped as being prepared by and licensed
landscape architect. Staff worked with
them to get those resubmitted showing the stamp so this is a re-submittal. They do have the site plan, elevations of all
four sides, landscape plan by a licensed architect, a lighting plan showing the
pole lights and wall mounted lights with a photometric plan. Mr. Blake clarified that the applicant has
all the requirements to the City of
Mr. Nicholas clarified that the building dimensions are 496 feet long and the depth through the center of building, at the middle portion where the windows are, is 210 feet. Mr. Nicholas stated one thing that may be missing, unless he is overlooking it, is the dumpster enclosure detailing. Mr. Henderson stated they are not identifying a dumpster at this location. Mr. Nicholas stated they are. Mr. Underhill stated it is on the landscape plan. Mr. Henderson stated that is not part of the site plan; there are variations between the site plans when you start look at the site plans submitted for the lighting, site plan submittal for landscaping. Mr. Nicholas stated it located on the southwest corner of the building at the curve of the pavement.
Mr. Henderson stated on the submittal there were 10 oversized drawings and 15 of the rendered ones. Staff reviews the oversized drawing and on that one it does not identify any dumpster location. Mr. Nicholas asked where that leaves us. Mr. Vance asked if it can be verified what the dumpster will be surrounded by and enclosed within. Mr. Joel John stated he is the landscape architect and on the landscape plan it shows the layout of the dumpster and the plantings around it. Mr. Henderson stated the landscape plan does not match up with either one of site plans that he has reviewed. They are showing a pavement that is on the east side that is actually being shown on the other person’s property and asked if that can be verified. Mr. Henderson stated the site plans do not match up and that is half of the issue on the review. The site plan he reviewed does not identify a dumpster while the landscape plan does. Mr. Nicholas typically we require the dumpster surround to be stone or brick to match the building with wood doors. Mr. Nicholas clarified that it was agreeable for staff to handle that administratively. Mr. Bosch clarified that requirement would be met as in the report staff recommends approval with the minimum zoning code requirements and then list the conditions, and the dumper enclosure would fall under the minimum zoning code requirements.
Mr. Nicholas stated in the nonresidential design standards it mentions horizontal articulation for any facades with a length over 6o feet. It states that any length over 60 feet that are visible from public areas shall be articulated through the use of bays no greater than 30 feet. He stated he does not see that on the east and west, and just one spot on the rear and we are talking about almost 500 feet. He stated this is a major concern. He drove around the site and looked at it from a few locations and these are all visible facades with no articulation in his opinion. He further stated another concern is the large of expanse of roof. With steel buildings it is difficult to get design elements and features however the nonresidential design standards to talk about roofs on page 19 it mentions minimal slopes of a roof and mentions the height of the roof compared to the base. It also states dormers shall be used to break up the roof plane or primary facades.
Mr. Nicholas further stated the City’s architectural consultant and perhaps the plans examiner mentioned the lack of egress and if after the plan review the examiner requires additional exits that will change the appearance of the architecture as well. Mr. Henderson stated they have seen minor changes when a project gets to the plan review stage and staff has been able to approve those administratively and would not be bringing something back to the Commission for something like adding a door. Mr. Nicholas stated he understands that, he is just saying that it will change the exterior appearance. He clarified that the wall lighting will also be the shoebox style and that the second story will not change the layout of the window placement. Mr. Parker stated that has all been designed with the second story in mind. Mr. Nicholas stated with the information before the Commission tonight he will not be in favor of this application.
Mr. Underhill stated he thinks all zoning codes and design guidelines are always a prediction of the future and it is difficult to believe they can encompass everything. Admittedly, they do not meet the letter of the law in terms of application of those standards and meeting them here, and quite frankly doesn’t think they will ever get there. They have made a good faith attempt to go as far as they could with it for it to make design and economic sense. He further stated they do appreciate the comments and hopefully they have been forthright with reasons why and trying to take all things into account. He further stated if the Commission is willing to vote this evening on this they are willing to concede that they will do the gooseneck fixtures.
Mr. Blake clarified that if there is a motion to approve with staff recommendations it will require a majority of the members here so it will require three votes to pass the overall application. Mr. Banchefsky stated as the staff reports indicates there are also two nonresidential design standard waivers that would have to be enacted. Given the complexity of this, that would require 4 votes given the fact that we have five members here. He suggested that the Commission vote separately on the main application and then on the waiver items so that we are clear on the vote count.
Mr. Underhill clarified that if the vote is no this evening under section 1272.10(C) that would allow the applicant to have other options in terms of going to City Council, not as an appeal necessarily but as a variance situation if they don’t get approval for what they are asking for tonight. Mr. Banchefsky stated 1272.10(C) is a variance by ordinance of Council.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve with Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan, Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting that complies with the minimum
zoning code requirements and the following staff recommendations:
1. That all conditions in the
rezoning and final development plan shall be met.
2. That
Sub Area A shall have a 25 foot wide unobstructed (No power lines, fire
hydrants etc.) cross-access easement along the entire eastern portion of the
property per the City Engineer requirements.
3. That all mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view.
4. That the site plan
shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
5. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the
6. That the proposed
development shall meet all other City development requirements.
7. That
the steel sheet siding for the primary and secondary facades and roof of the
indoor soccer complex shall be approved as a conditionally permitted exterior
building material per the Nonresidential Design Standards.
Mr. Blake stated that he is not in favor of this development and clarified that this would be a no vote.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion; Roll call was taken with Mr.
Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Hackworth voting “No” and Mr. Bosch
voting “Yes”. Motion failed, 4-1.
Mr. Banchefsky stated there is no reason to have the other two votes.
5. REPORTS.
A. Planning and Zoning.
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Henderson stated that there was not a BZA meeting this past month. There will be one this month for Pickerington Pointe Apartments
(2) FCRPC Report. Mr. Henderson stated FCRPC did meet and there was nothing on the agenda that pertained to the City.
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. Community concerns. There were none.
B. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Mr. Henderson passed out copies of the draft of the Refugee Road Corridor study that was put together by the City Planner and the City’s Intern. He asked that the Commission members review the draft and give him any feedback via email or set up a meeting with him. Any feedback from the Commission members will be incorporated into what is submitted next month for the public hearing. Mr. Blake clarified that comments should be given to Mr. Henderson within the next two weeks. Mr. Vance stated there may be additional comments made at the Public Hearing so there is some flexibility there.
Mr. Henderson stated they would like to have a Public Hearing next month in June and then have to go before the Commission for a vote in July to forward it on to the City Planning, Projects, and Service Committee for discussion.
C. Sustainability/Green Building Memo. Mr. Henderson stated there was a memo from the Planning and Zoning intern included in the Planning and Zoning packets. The intern has done some review on what other city’s have and this is something staff is asking for feedback from the Commission members. In the coming months staff would like to bring this forward as a conditional use for the City when it comes to solar panels.
D. Commission Discussion. Mr. Nicholas stated at the southeast portion
of the intersection of
He further stated that on
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Blake moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:47 P.M., May 10, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Joseph P. Henderson, City Planner