PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY JUNE 14, 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. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Blair were present. Mrs. Evan had advised the clerk she would not be here due to illness. Others present were Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Greg Bachman, Justin Barker, Karen Risher, Benjamin Hoffman, Shawn Smith, Tom Jordon, Rocco Sabatino, Scott Seaman, Joy Davis, Jerry Dailey, Nellie Shaner, Tim Shaner, Stephanie Marshall, Janet Thiede, Jack Marshall, Tom Shook, Terri Darrow, Nick Labudovsky, and Roger Stenson.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 10, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to
approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yes” and Mr. Blair
voting to “Abstain”. Motion passed, 5-0.
3. SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS. Mr. Blake asked that anyone who plans to offer testimony or evidence at the Planning and Zoning Meeting tonight stand and raise their right hand. Benjamin Hoffman, Shawn Smith, Tom Jordon, Rocco Sabatino, and Tim Shaner 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 “I do”.
4. SCHEDULED MATTERS.
A. Review and request for a motion to
approved a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Site Plan and Architecture for the Offices at Stonecreek
located along
B. Motion to reconsider a Nonresidential
Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture,
Landscaping and Lighting for 4 Seasons Soccer Complex located on Refugee Road
just west of Hill Road Plaza (former Big Bear), pursuant to 1272.04 (h)(2) of
the City Code. Mr. Blake asked for an
explanation of the criteria for a motion to be reconsidered. Mr. Banchefsky stated there are several criteria. It can be
referred back by Council, or if there has been a substantial change in the
plan, or if the Planning Commission thinks that it should be reconsidered. If a
majority vote is in favor of this then it will be reconsidered. The applicant
is not able to be here today and if this motion is approved they will file
everything in advance, come back at the next meeting with the reconsideration,
and the Commission will hear the application again. Mr. Blake stated it is his understanding that
the applicant is reworking the original submittal that was brought before
Planning and Zoning. Mr. Banchefsky stated the
applicant met with staff, modifications were proposed, and they are working on
those. Mr. Henderson stated that is correct.
They have submitted part of it for review and they have shown some
changes that were discussed at the meeting, as well as at the last Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Blake clarified that the City has no stance on
whether or not this is reconsidered. Mr. Bosch moved to reconsider a Nonresidential Design Standard Certificate of
Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture, Landscaping and Lighting for 4
Seasons Soccer Complex; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blair voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 6-0
Mr. Henderson stated this will be on the agenda for July.
C. Review and request for a motion to amend
a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall
Signage for the Hill Road Plaza located at 1171 and 1173 Hill Road
North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission and stated
1. That the sign areas shall be no greater than six feet high by 35 feet wide (approximately 210 square feet) per sign area.
Mr. Ben Hoffman stated he is with
Advance Sign Group and here to represent the applicant. He stated this was
started by Big Lots, however, he is here on behalf of C. B. Richard Ellis to
establish the criteria not only for Big Lots but for the future tenant in the
space as well. Mr. Bosch clarified this is only for the two building signs. Mr.
Henderson stated the monument ground signs are not being changed at this time
nor are any of the other tenant space signs.
Mr. Blake stated he has heard positives and negatives about Big Lots
coming in to Pickerington. This building
has been empty since 2004 and speaking personally, he is pleased to have them
want to invest in the City of
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for 1171 and
1. That
the sign areas shall be no greater than six feet high by 35 feet wide
(approximately 210 square feet) per sign.
Mr. Blair seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “YES”. Motion passed, 6-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage and Olde
Downtown Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness
for signage for Majestic Realty located at 8 Lockville
Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing a new
wall sign for Majestic Realty at 8 Lockville Road
located within the Olde Downtown Pickerington Village
and is required to go in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission for
approval. The wall sign would be located
on the front (west) elevation of the building in an existing sign area to the
south of the main entrance parallel to
1. That there shall be no overflow light created by the spot lights for the wall sign.
Mr. Blake clarified that the applicants are out of town and the sign company representative is at another meeting and that the applicant did call and stated that he has no issues with the staff report. Mr. Nicholas stated that he does not remember the Commission reviewing the lattice structure with the roof over it next to the porch. Mr. Henderson stated that the covered entryway was there previously and that the last tenant might have installed the lattice work on their own without staff being aware of it. Mr. Nicholas stated that he feels staff should look into this.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for
1. That
there shall be no overflow light created by the spot lights for the wall sign.
Mr. Blair seconded the
motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Hackworth
voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Architecture for Valvoline Instant Oil Change located
at 893 Refugee Road. Mr. Henderson
reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is
proposing several changes to enhance the appearance and improve visibility of
the business. Changes include painted
aluminum architectural enhancements at the front corners, awnings over the
1. That the accent material on the top of the building shall not be red unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That the awnings shall not be red unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Tom Jordon stated he is here to represent Valvoline. This is a corporate wide renovation that has been ongoing for three years. Valvoline has been at this location for approximately 20 years and recently renewed their lease for 15 years. The business does well, however, it does not perform up to its potential, and they want to draw attention to the business. The red color is part of their corporate identification. Mr. Hackworth stated he has no problem with the color. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the colors will have a matte finish. Mr. Blake stated he thinks they have done a wonderful job with the architectural features they are adding.
Mr. Binkley moved to approve with the staff recommendations; Mr.
Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 6-0.
F. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for wall and ground signage for Valvoline Instant Oil Change located at
The applicant is proposing a new ground sign for the northeast corner of the lot. Per section 1292.03(3)A states that ground signs shall have a brick or stone base with columns extending a minimum of 75% up each side of the sign. The sign is being proposed as a stone masonry post and panel style sign with concrete caps and aluminum sign material. Stone pilasters extend approximately 87% up each side of the sign. The sign would be approximately 82 square feet (eight feet high by 10.25 feet wide). The sign area would be approximately 35 square feet, (5.58 feet high by 6.25 feet wide) and would have the Valvoline Instant Oil Change logo on it. The sign would have three colors, red, white, and blue, be internally illuminated with LED behind the lettering, and appears to meet the requirement that all ground signs be set back from the right-of-way line at least five feet and be located outside the sight triangle of 20 feet by 20 feet.
Mr. Henderson further stated the applicant is proposing a wall sign that says “Valvoline Instant Oil Change” on the north elevation directly above the front entrance. Chapter 1292.06 (j) states that channel letters shall be required with face, trim and return uniformity. What is being shown above the main entrance is not a channel letter style sign. He stated his understanding is when this is lit at night only the words would be lit, with only the letters lit and not the red area. This does not meet our standards and would need special consideration from the Commission. The sign encompasses approximately 45 square feet, consists of three colors, (red, white and blue) and is internally LED lighted. There are three small wall signs on the east elevation and they are proposing channel letters that do meet our design standards. There is signage there now that is similar to this; this would basically be a face change on this elevation. Mr. Henderson further stated that two bay indicator directional signs are proposed directly above the car bays on the south elevation of the building. These would also be the three colors of red, white, and blue and staff has no concerns regarding the colors. Each bay indicator is 13.3 square feet (10 feet wide by 1.33 feet high), consists of three colors (red, white, and blue) and either a “1” or “2”. It does not appear that the proposed signs on the south elevation will be illuminated. Zoning code requires that channel letter cabinets be located behind the wall. The existing signage on the east elevation is currently on raceways. The building is older and probably due to the way it was constructed, they were not able to put the cabinets inside. Our code requires that raceways not be there but due to the age of the building staff feels that they should still be allowed to use those raceways. Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Valvoline Instant Oil Change that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the existing sign shall be removed immediately following the completion of the new ground sign.
2. That the proposed wall signs shall be located on raceways.
Mr. Tom Jordan stated he is here to represent the applicant and started that on the building sign, technically that’s not raceway. The way they were going to construct this sign was that the red box would be painted aluminum and the words “Valvoline Instant Oil Change” would be individual letters mounted to that and those would be illuminated with LED. Mr. Henderson clarified that each letter would be its own individual letter and that does meet our code. The “V” will be three dimensional and mounted on top of the red box and will have a halo around the back of it and LED illuminated on the face. Mr. Nicholas clarified that on the sign above the front entry, the letters will be channel letters that are raised away from the red box.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth,
Mr. Blair, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 6-0.
G. Review and request for a motion to approve a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture for Advanced Auto Parts located at 1320 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to repaint the black metal band around the west and south sides of the building beige and installing a modular red panel system on the west elevation for sign backing. The goal is to increase visibility of the business. The business is located in an area that is sort of down in a hole. The applicant is proposing to paint the entire upper metal facade of the building only and this extends along the west and south elevations. The original color is a faded black and will be painted with beige, neutral color that is approved in Section VI.E.3 of the Nonresidential Design Standards. The metal band could be painted without going in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission as it is an approved color. There appears to be a painted red band at the bottom of the metal elevation feature. This would not be allowed unless waived by the Commission. Mr. Henderson stated the modular red panel assembly would consist of 10 panels and would be approximately 234 square feet (39.5 feet wide by 5.92 feet high). Each panel is four feet wide with the exception of the two end ones which are 3.75 feet wide. All panels are 5.92 feet high. The Nonresidential Design Standards does not list bright red (PMS 485) as a permitted color and a waiver would be required for both the band across the bottom of the metal panel and the band that will be behind the signage.
Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for Architecture that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following waivers:
1. That the bright red (PMS 845) band along the bottom of the existing metal panel system would not be allowed unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That the bright red (PMS 845) modular panel assembly would not be allowed unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Shawn Smith stated he is representing Advanced Auto Parts, that he had reviewed the staff report and submitted sample material to show what the red is going to look like to the Commission. He further stated that this is a stucco finish on a metal band that is then painted so it does mute the color and it is not a high gloss finish. They are rebranding and want to continue at this location and it is down in a hole. They are refurbishing this location to meet their prototypical standards throughout the nation with their trademark identity and logo.
Mr. Hackworth stated that there is one photograph in the report that looks like the brick will be painted and another photograph that shows the brick staying the same. Mr. Henderson stated that the photo that shows the brick as white is not what they applicant is proposing to do, it is a photo of another building and is there as a sample to show the upper portion of the building. The brick on this building will stay the way that it is today. Mr. Blake thanked Mr. Smith for bringing in the sample and stated it is a good description of what they are going to do.
Mr. Binkley moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, and
Mr. Blake voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 6-0.
H. Review and request for a motion to amend a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall and Ground signage for Advanced Auto Parts located at 1320 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to install a cloud sign on the west elevation of the building and a reface of the existing pole sign. The changes proposed to the existing signage will update to the new trademark look and design of Advanced Auto parts as well as increase visibility for the business.
Mr. Henderson stated the proposed cloud sign on the west elevation encompasses 100 square feet (35.5 feet wide by 2.83 feet high). The existing wall sign is approximately 111 square feet (37 feet wide and three feet high). Chapter 1292.06 (j) of the code states that channel letters shall be required with face, trim, and return uniformity. However, non-channel letter comprehensive sign plans can be considered in circumstances deemed special by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The existing signage is channel letters with exposed neon. Staff feels since the existing sign is channel letters and the code requires this channel letters, that the proposed wall sign should maintain this requirement. The proposed sign meets the intent of the code and the Commission has approved similar signs in the past. Mr. Henderson further stated that Chapter 1292.06 (h) of the code states a Comprehensive Sign Plan shall not include more than three colors, including black and white. A registered trademark with multiple colors is permitted to encompass 10 percent of the sign area and all signs shall have a matte finish. The proposed sign contains four colors; red, yellow, black and white. The entire sign has been trademarked. The only portion of the sign containing more than three colors is the checkered flag, encompassing approximately 4.58 square feet (4.58 percent of the total area). The checkered flag area is 9.37 percent of the total sign area, is a registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office and it does meet that requirement in the code. This is less than 10 percent, and would meet the requirements of section 1292.06 (h). The sign would be internally illuminated with fluorescent lamps. Staff feels this meets the intent of the code and would be permitted. The existing signage on the wall is exposed neon and this will be getting rid of that as well.
Mr. Henderson stated the ground sign is an existing pole sign and is considered a nonconforming sign. The applicant is proposing a sign face change to the existing sign. Chapter 1292.08 (b) states that the copy may be changed, provided that the change applies to the original nonconforming use associated with the sign and that change is made by the owner of the sign at the time the sign became nonconforming. The copy will not be enlarged and the proposed sign face change would not alter the structural shape of the sign. The proposed sign contains four colors, red, yellow, black, and white. The only portion of the sign containing more than three colors is the checkered flag encompassing approximately 4.53 square feet (9.37 percent) of total area. Staff feels this meets the intent of the code and would be permitted. Staff supports the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for building and ground signage that complies with minimum zoning code requirements.
Mr. Shawn Smith stated they will be removing the exposed neon and provided examples of what the signage will look like at night. Mr. Smith stated this building sits back approximately 160 feet from the right-of-way and is below grade. The current sign has 30 inch exposed neon letters and they propose maintaining that 30 inch design with the sign shown in the application. They are reducing the square footage of the sign as well. The letters are a raised pan form face and is not a flat panel on a cabinet. On the free standing sign they are doing a basic face replacement. Mr. Bosch clarified that the red in the cloud and the red behind it are the same pantone colors however they will be a little brighter and will be a matte finish. Mr. Bosch stated if the reds are about the same color the letters will appear as raised channel letters and three colors. He further stated he would like to see something done to get rid of the pole mount sign as we have tried very hard to get rid of those and asked if any thought had been given to that. Mr. Henderson stated with this just being a face change, technically, in this aspect of the code, it would not be before the Planning and Zoning Commission, however, it was submitted as a whole package. This is an existing sign and it is difficult for us to make them build a different sign in its place. Mr. Bosch clarified that this is an amended comprehensive sign plan and so we are opening up the whole thing. He stated he would be in support of working with the applicant to see if we can get something that would bring it a little more into uniformity with what we have through that area. Mr. Henderson stated that our code, as it is written today, requires all ground signs be a monument style with the columns up the sides. This sign has been for a long time. Mr. Smith indicated a sign in the area that has a pole cover and stated that they could put 24 to 36 inch pole cover around the base so it gives it more of a column feel than a pole design and would make it consistent with the sign for the neighboring building. To take out the existing foundation, replace and rerun wire, etc., it would be more costly and an economic hardship. The pole cover would be a way to easily achieve giving this more depth.
Mr. Blake stated that there is a large elevation drop in this area and when he looks at this sign his first thought was that the visibility for this building from St. Rt. 256 is difficult and he is in favor of them being able to make this building stand out. Mr. Henderson stated this is probably 20 feet down in and that when driving St. Rt. 256 you can barely see the sign at eye level. Mr. Blake stated he does not have an issue with the face change and appreciates the offer of a pole cover. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the pole cover would be black and stated he is in favor of this. Mr. Nicholas stated when driving south it is difficult to see the roof of the building and maybe a little bit of the sign on the building face, and on the ground sign you can see the sign panel and maybe two to three feet of the pole. A pole enclosure to match the colors of the sides of the existing cabinet is a compromise he would consider. Mr. Smith clarified this would be similar to the pole sign for the medical building in that area and would be black to match the outside of the cabinet. Mr. Blake stated he is happy with Mr. Smith’s offer of adding this around the pole. Mr. Bosch stated that is a good compromise in this situation as it will match the other pole sign in the area so we are staying consistent with the type of sign in that area. This is a unique location for signage along the 256 Corridor and he is not sure a 20 foot column of stone would look appropriate there either. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the pole cover would be the same depth as the cabinet and that when the applicant comes in for their zoning certificate staff will take a look at that.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations and the following
condition:
1. That a pole cover be added that is
similar to the
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blair voting “Yes”. Motion
passed 6-0.
I. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a rezoning and Preliminary Plat Development Plan for the approximate 5.82 acre Gillilan property (#041-11222-00) from C3 Community Commercial District to PC3 Planned Community Commercial District located on the northeast corner of the refugee Road and Milnor Road intersection.
Mr. Blake stated Mr. Henderson
would do a brief summary, Mr. Blake will then open the public hearing, and
anyone in attendance will have the opportunity to make comments, express
concerns, or ask questions. He will then
close the public hearing, however, that does not eliminate the opportunity for
anyone to speak later on during the meeting. Mr. Henderson reviewed the zoning
history and stated City Council accepted an annexation of 362 acres on March 1,
2005 and this property is included in that annexation. In January 2009 per the
annexation agreement, Planning and Zoning Commission did rezone this from C-2
TWP-Limited Commercial (
Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. He stated that this is basically just a formality and does not limit the ability to ask questions or make comments later as this meeting proceeds. He asked that anyone not sworn in at the beginning of the meeting who wants to ask questions or offer testimony to stand and raise their right hand. Roger Stenson, Rocco Sabatino, Tim Shaner, and Scott Seaman 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 “I do”. There were no comments or questions at this time and Mr. Blake closed the public hearing at 8.29 P.M.
Mr. Henderson stated that the
applicant is proposing a lot split of his 5.82 acre property on
1. That a cross access easement shall be created and recorded to allow for cross access on the private drive.
2. That the public road extension and private drive shall be completed before any development is completed on the Gillilan property.
3. That the Type A Buffer requirement along the eastern property line shall be waived.
4. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Engineer requirements.
5. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.
Mr. Henderson stated that the last condition means that they would need to come in for the Certificate of Appropriateness as the lots develop. Mr. Blake clarified that what the applicant is proposing is to take this large commercial property and break it into smaller commercial lots. Mr. Blake clarified that the four larger lots are approximately one acre each and the smaller one is approximately one-half acre. He stated that as a resident of Pickerington and a home owner he is more comfortable with some smaller commercial properties around him than one large plot of land that could be developed into a larger business.
Mr. Scott Seaman stated he works
with W. E. Stilson Consulting Group and is here to
represent the applicant and stated the staff report is correct. The owner wants to subdivide the property to
attract smaller businesses. This property is in an annexed area and the only
frontage for the property is right across from the intersection of Refugee and
Mr. Tom Shook clarified the
buildings will face
Mr. Seaman stated he had a question on the differences between a C3 and PC3 zoning. Mr. Henderson stated a planned district is technically a rezoning and it has to meet the requirements of the five conditions listed in the report and mentioned at the end of the review of the report. There are also additional requirements of obtaining an approved Certificate of Appropriateness that is approved when each lot comes in for development, and also meeting the requirements of the Engineering Department. Mr. Banchefsky stated that the City Planning, Projects and Service Committee and Council have the ability to have additional conditions. Mr. Henderson stated if this is approved tonight it will then go to the City Planning, Projects and Service Committee meeting next week, then come back before this Commission for the Final Development Plan, back to Service as a Final Development and then on to Council for three readings. This Commission can approve this as a Preliminary Development Plan or as a Final Development Plan if there are minimal issues. Mr. Blake asked that if there was anyone else who thinks they might want to speak tonight to please stand and raise their right hand. Terri Darrow, Nick Labudovsky and Jack Marshall 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 “I do”.
Ms Terri Darrow stated she lives
in Springcreek Condos, on the corner of
Mr. Binkley stated that the
Corridor Plan identifies an area north of the proposed private drive as being
under a stream corridor protection zone of 125 foot width and the road sits on
top of this. Mr. Bachman stated he would
have to check on that. Mr. Hackworth clarified that although it does not appear
on the map, the access for lot five will be off of the public street and that
the lot to the east of the Gillilan property is shown
as residential on the County’s GIS system. However, it has come in before
Mr. Jack Marshall stated he lives
in
Mr. Tom Shook stated he is a
resident of Springcreek Condos. The area has brought in businesses first and
then done the roads secondary and this seems backwards. There are a lot of children on
Mr. Roger Stenson
stated he is also a resident of the Condos. The rear of his property faces the
properties the applicant is asking to split. Ten years ago he was a part of the
organization of people that led to the granting of a traffic light be being
placed there and inquired where the money that was required of Dominion Homes
is escrowed. Mr. Hackworth stated he had this checked about five years ago when
he was on Council and that the Fairfield County Engineer has it. Mr. Stenson clarified there are eight separate warrants that
have to be met to put in the traffic light. He stated he would like someone to
come out and view the traffic back up on
Mr. Blake stated that the Commission has noted the concerns of those who have spoken this evening and he again stated that this is not being rezoned as far as to what it can be used for. It is commercial today and if a big box store such as Lowe’s wanted go in at that locations there is not a lot the City can do to stop them. Mr. Jack Marshall inquired if anyone wanting to go in there has approached anyone at this time, and Mr. Seaman stated he has no idea on if the owner has or has not been approached. They were instructed to go with this layout for the lot splits. Mr. Blake stated Mr. Seaman is with an engineering firm that has been employed by the owner of the property to handle what is being done tonight.
Terri Darrow stated that a left
turn onto
Mr. Banchefsky stated the code contemplates that an applicant can make that request and asked Mr. Henderson if there were any additional requirements or provisions that would go with a Final Development Plan that had not been submitted as part of this plan. Mr. Henderson stated as long as there were no major concerns or corrections that need to be done it can be moved forward as a Final Development Plan. We have done this on multiple occasions on things like this where there are only a few minor issues and those were granted as a Final Development Plan. It would still go in front of City Planning, Projects, and Service and before Council for three readings. A lot of times there are major changes that need addressed before it can presented as a Final Development Plan, but on this one there are no major concerns with this going forward as a Final. Mr. Banchefsky stated this would be discretionary with the Commission whether to treat this as a Preliminary or Final Development Plan and he proposed based on that request that a motion may be appropriate to address that before you vote on the actual application.
Mr. Binkley inquired if staff had
looked at the proposed private drive with a thought of changing that to meet
public standards with an eye toward extending that through to
Mr. Roger Stenson
stated the Regional Planning had required that a corridor road be built from
Pickerington Road to Springcreek Drive as a way to
cut through and that was part of the reason why there is to be a traffic light
there. The developers did not ask for that, Regional Planning required it and
asked if the City knew when that corridor road would be built. Mr. Bachman that would be over two years from
now that he is aware of. Mr. Hackworth
stated there was a road that is to go from
Mr. Bosch moved to consider this as being a Rezoning and a Final Development Plan; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 6-0.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Rezoning and Final Development Plan with
the following conditions:
1. That a cross accent easement shall be
created and recorded to all of for cross access on the private drive.
2. That the public road extension and
private drive shall be completed before any development is completed on the Gillilan property.
3. That the Type A buffer requirement
along the eastern property line shall be waived.
4. That the site plan shall be in
compliance with the City’s Engineers requirements.
5. That the proposed development shall
meet all other City development requirements.
Mr. Binkley seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair,
Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yes”.
Motion passed, 6-0.
5. REPORTS.
A. Planning and Zoning
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Henderson stated there was one item on last month’s agenda for variances on residential design guidelines that was approved for Waterstone Landing Apartments (former Pickerington Pointe Apartments). They called in for their third building footer inspection today so they are moving forward. There is one case for a front yard fence variance for a house that sits on a corner lot on this month’s agenda.
B. FCRPC Report. Mr. Henderson stated
FCRPC did meet and there was nothing on the agenda that pertained to the City
of
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. Community Comments. There were none.
B. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Mr. Hackworth stated that he sent an email to
Mr. Lota, the director of COTA, regarding the
possibility of extending their bus route about a mile or so. He clarified that
the large parcel that the Police Station sits on has about five vacant acres.
He would like to pencil in a spot on the Refugee Road Corridor Study for a
C. Solar Panel Discussion. Mr. Henderson stated staff would like to bring
something before the Commission on this in September. Staff sent out the memo on this a month or so ago asking for feedback. Mr. Banchefsky has a few comments on this and he would like to speak with him regarding what he has seen in other communities, then make a few changes and bring this back to the Commission as an agenda item. Mr. Hackworth stated back in the 70’s we went through this with solar heating. The problem with solar heating is the storage devise, whether it is a battery or whatever. He stated he is concerned about the types of equipment people will be putting in their yards. He read of an instance where someone had put 55 gallon drums with some sort of salt solution in their yard. He is concerned about something we do not think of being used and asked if our language in the code would cover all possibilities. Mr. Banchefsky clarified that Mr. Hackworth was speaking of the language that is being proposed. Mr. Henderson stated what was proposed in the information sent out was not from Mr. Banchefsky, it is from staff’s standpoint, however, he does want to sit down with Mr. Banchefsky and go over with him what he has seen in other communities and make sure that what we think might fit our community seems standard across the board in with what other progressive communities have adopted for solar panel regulations in central Ohio.
D. Commission Discussion. Mr. Blake stated he has had a concern for approximately six weeks regarding a piece of property in the City that did not come through the Planning and Zoning Commission, it went straight to Council for a variance. The City, in good faith, negotiated with the owner regarding structures and non structures so that they could open their business in a timely fashion. The Commission was, out of courtesy he believes, shown what the developer/owner was planning to put on that property. He is bringing it up tonight as he want to go on record that it is his understanding that what they presented to Council is not what they are doing. He stated that he is very disappointed with what he is seeing, and for the record for the staff, he is very disappointed on how the code is being handled on zoning enforcement and asked that this be taken to the City Manager. He stated that Mr. Blair is Council’s representative on the Planning and Zoning Commission and asked him to give the Commission a brief update on this issue and where it is currently at today.
Mr. Blair stated that Mr. Blake had described this well on what was done. This was shown to Council about a week before Council approved it. They came in to Council and stated they wanted to open soon as their business is seasonal. If they had to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission process it would delay the opening of their seasonal business. Council granted the variance with the stipulation of the building that was seen in the plan and there was nothing on the plan showing the use of two trailers and nothing in terms of parking outside the fenced in area instead of inside the fenced area.
Mr. Blair stated that since that point Council has raised these concerns with the City Manager. Mr. Vance then sent a letter to the business asking where they are in the process of doing what they stated they would do when they received the Council variance approval. Mr. Vance received a letter back from the business that stated they had been delayed due to rain. The City Manager stated since that point, what the applicant advised he was going to do has obviously still not been done. It has probably now been about one and a half to two weeks ago since that letter has been sent. Mr. Blair further stated he has raised his concerns again by saying we need to put pressure on the business to make sure they understand. They obviously are not doing what they showed us. They also did inform the City they would put “No Parking” signs up in the front and that has not yet happened, nor has the building structure been done, or the two trailers taken off the lot.
Mr. Binkley clarified that they were granted a councilmanic variance for this and that it could be revoked. Mr. Henderson stated his understanding, in conversations with the City Manager, is that we did have a wet May and he was going to give them the month of June to meet the requirements and if they did not he would start the process to do what was needed in order to get to do this to comply with what was approved. Mr. Binkley asked how the long that process would take. Mr. Blake stated that was a good question. Mr. Blair stated that was his concern this past week and they obviously have had a good amount of time. He addressed this in an email late in the afternoon and he was not in the office today so he does not know if he has responded back. Mr. Binkley stated he understands the City’s position of being pro development. He was been a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for eight year and he is also pro development. However at some point, if someone is yanking you around, you have to put your foot down and tell them it’s not working. Mr. Blair stated he thinks the direction from Council at this point is to advise them to show some progress at least. We have not seen anything since the letter was sent two weeks ago. Mr. Bosch stated he understands the building and stuff like being delayed due to the rain, but to slap up four or five no parking signs does not take two months. Mr. Blair stated he would definitely take the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this issue back to Council. Mr. Blake stated Mr. Blair has been very proactive in this and stated he wanted to thank Mr. Blair for bringing this to the City’s attention from the Commission’s standpoint. He knows that Council took doing this councilmanic variance action very seriously. Mr. Blair stated it was not something Council took lightly and this has came up in discussion since that point for another opportunity and that was quickly shot down by most of Council; Planning and Zoning has a process and its here for a reason. Mr. Bosch clarified that this was a one year trial thing. Mr. Blair stated they were told that, after this year, they would have to come back within the time frame to get this approved by coming back before the Planning and Zoning Commission. So if they want to do this again they will be going before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval next year. Mr. Bosch stated as part of this process for this year the business needs to be reminded of that. He is assuming this has been fairly successful for them at that location because he has been by there several times and has seen a lot of traffic there.
Mr. Hackworth stated he has a
comment on the Refugee Road Corridor Study.
On there it mentions widening
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn, Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:52 P.M., June 14, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
____________________________
Joseph P. Henderson, City Planner