PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 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, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
Blair were present. Others present were Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Bill
Vance, Brian Sauer, Greg Bachman, Karen Risher, Janet Thiede, Amy Kuhn,
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Approval of minutes of June 14, 2011,
Public Hearing. Mr. Bosch moved to
approve; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting “Yes” and
Mrs. Evans voting to “Abstain”. Motion passed, 6-0.
B. Approval of minutes of June 14, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Blair moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yes” and Mrs. Evans voting to “Abstain”. Motion passed, 6-0.
3. SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS.
Mr. Blake asked that anyone who plans to offer testimony or evidence at
the Planning and Zoning Meeting tonight to stand and raise their right hand.
4. SCHEDULED MATTERS.
A. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Site Plan and Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting for 4 Seasons Soccer
Complex located on
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission members and stated that the applicant is proposing
to develop sub-area A of the Ebright/Homestead 4 Season Soccer Complex
development. The site would be approximately 5.28 acres and would be the back
third of the development. They are
proposing an approximately 115,230 square foot indoor soccer complex with four
fields. The Nonresidential Design
Standards consider the sports facility as a civic and institutional use. The applicant is proposing 184 parking
spaces. The indoor soccer complex would be connected to the public way by a
private road that would dissect sub-area B and connect to the proposed public
road (
Mr. Henderson stated the site plan appears to be compliant with all setback requirements set during the Final Development Plan except for the eastern side yard building setback. The eastern side yard building setback is identified on the plans as 25 feet. The approved Final Development Plan states in condition 14 that a 30 feet eastern side yard building setback in sub-area A shall be required. This is the same as it was two months ago and there is an additional five feet that would be required. A dumpster enclosure has been identified in the northwestern corner of the parking lot just south of the building. The applicant is showing the dumpster having two stone columns with the walls of the dumpster being metal siding and trim to match the building. The gates appear to be metal siding and trim to match the building as well. The zoning code requires that all dumpsters shall be screened by brick or stone walls and have wood doors. The applicant would have to show a brick or stone dumpster enclosure with wood doors or have the dumpster enclosure requirements waived. The gates are also being identified as siding and these would have to be wood doors.
Mr. Henderson stated the City’s architectural consultant did review the 4 Seasons Soccer Complex during the May Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Staff has reviewed the updated submittal internally since there were minor changes to the proposed elevations. Windows have been added to the north elevation to help break up the rear of the building. the total height of the building is identified as 44 feet and is under the maximum height requirement. The applicant is proposing steel sheet siding for the sides and roof of the indoor soccer complex. This is a conditionally permitted exterior building material in the civic and institutional building types. Materials listed as conditionally permitted or new materials not listed as prohibited in these standards may be approved by the City on a case-by-case basis provided the City finds the proposed material meets the intent of section VII.D.I
Mr. Henderson further stated that on the landscaping the applicant has improved the rear elevation. The applicant is proposing 35 spruce trees of a mixed variety along the northern property line between the indoor soccer complex and the property line. These would soften the architectural elements of the building and create a buffer between the building and the property to the north. The original application proposed 21 spruce trees and they have now added 14 additional trees. It was discussed that a significant and aggressive buffering would be proposed along the rear of the building (north elevation). Staff recommends that the spruce trees along the north elevation should be at a minimum of six feet at installation. The applicant is showing trees at a minimum of six to eight in height and that meets and exceeds what we normally require for Blue Spruce and pine trees.
Mr. Henderson stated that for the
lighting the applicant is proposing four light poles that would be double
headed. The lights would be a
Mr. Henderson stated 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 feet wide unobstructed (no power lines, fire
hydrants, etc.) cross-access easement along the entire eastern portion of the property per the City Engineer’s requirements.
3. That the spruce trees along the north elevation shall be at a minimum of six feet
tall at installation.
4. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
5. That
the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
6. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the Violet Township Fire
Department requirements.
7. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development
requirements.
8. That the steel sheet siding on 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.
The following waivers for the Nonresidential Design Standards in Appendix IV would be required:
1. 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.
2. That the wall mounted sconces on the north elevation shall be a traditional or historic reproduction fixture unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Banchefsky that as a result of the Commission’s denial of the previous submission the applicant exercised their rights and filed an Ohio Revised Code 2506 administrative appeal in Fairfield County Common Pleas Court. The next step is that the City is required to submit a complete transcript of all proceedings that occurred as a result of this hearing, going all the way back to the original filings, hearings before Council and everything. Mr. Banchefsky further stated that he and Mr. Aaron Underhill, the applicant’s counsel, have discussed this and Mr. Underhill has filed a Motion to Stay the City’s having to prepare or move forward with this litigation. Judge Martin did not sign that Motion to Stay as he wanted to wait and hear what happens at tonight’s meeting. If there is a successful outcome at tonight’s meeting the appeal will go away. Currently there is an appeal pending and the City has not done anything yet. The applicant has indicated that if need be they would provide the City with more time to file the transcript. Hopefully that won’t be necessary. Mr. Blake clarified that this should have three separate motions with one motion for approval and then separate votes on the two waivers, and that it will require a two-thirds majority vote for passage and that would be five affirmative votes.
Mr. Aaron Underhill stated he is an attorney representing the applicant and that he appreciated the efforts that the City officials have made to get this back here and also appreciates the Commission’s vote to reconsider this case and hear it again. He stated he thinks we all want to resolve this in a manner that is fair and acceptable to everyone and hopefully they have accommodated most of the Commission’s concerns. At the last meeting they brought in a plan that they felt met the City’s standards. There were details that the applicant felt they had gone as far as they could with and the applicant felt that some the issues might be so expensive that they would kill the project. After the vote of disapproval from the City, a number of City officials did approach the applicant and ask if they could meet and give some guidance. The City officials outlined what they believed the major concerns were, made some suggestions for implementing those changes, and indicated a willingness to bring this back before the Commission for reconsideration. Following the meeting new plans were drawn and that is what is being presented tonight. In the meantime the applicant did file a 2506 Administrative Appeal. Technically it is a lawsuit but it is really like another appeal step that can be taken and the reason he did that was to preserve his client’s rights to argue that the plan met the City’s code. Mr. Underhill further stated his preference is to have this approved tonight and to then drop that appeal. He stated that he and Mr. Banchefsky have worked together and have a cooperative relationship. In the event that this is not approved and the appeal goes forward he is willing to do whatever he can to make sure that the City has enough time to prepare diligently for that case, however they hope it does not come to that.
Mr. Underhill stated they felt there were three major issues that needed to be addressed in order to bring this back in a form that could be approved. The most important issue to address was the rear of the building, how it looks, and how it will be screened. The second thing is that there were some inconsistencies between the site plans, landscaping plans, dimensioning etc. that caused some confusion at the last meeting. He apologized for that, and stated they did not realize that there were such inconsistencies and hopefully they have taken care of those to a large extent. The last issue is that they have tried to provide the Commission with additional detail for the dimensions on the plans Mr. Underhill further stated that on the north elevation, the back of the building, the first thing they changed was to break up the expanse of the long wall on the back. At the suggestion of the City, they have added five sets of four windows in the middle of the rear of the building and that does provide some change there to break it up. There were concerns about there only being one egress door on the rear of the building. There are now two egress doors. Mr. Underhill further stated that in terms of changes to the façade the applicant has decided that the best way to buffer this was to add more plantings in the back of the building. The have added additional evergreens along the back and they agree to these being at least six feet in height. In addition, the applicant will now be using the light fixtures that are preferred by the City. There is one exception on the rear of the building and the feeling there is that this is more utilitarian in nature, and based on the screening that is going to be back there, the applicant prefers this type of lighting for safety and security issues and they are requesting that the Commission grant a waiver on that.
Mr. Underhill stated they have relocated the dumpster to make it consistent with the landscaping plan that was presented. They have also clarified the location of the sidewalks. They have agreed to nearly all of the conditions and recommendations in the staff report, however, there are a couple of items that are fairly minor in nature that they would like discuss. The first item is the setback on the eastern side. In the approved zoning this was 35 feet and they are asking for 25 feet. They were trying to adhere to the setback in the final engineering design, however, with the interior having four fields, office space, and storage area, and with trying to ensure that the entrance to the building would line up with the private drive, it ended up being about five feet off. It is preferable to have a lesser setback adjacent to the rear of the shopping center as opposed to adjacent to the offices to the north, and as they do not know what is going to happen on the property to the west of this they would like to preserve that space as much as possible. They are asking that the Commission consider this waiver. Mr. Underhill stated the second thing is the dumpster enclosure that does not meet code. The reason they have done it this way is to keep it consistent with the architectural look of the building, however, they are certainly willing to talk about this issue. He further stated they do appreciate the assistance of City staff and how the City has reached out to them on this.
Mr. George Parker stated he is the architect that designed the building and clarified that the Commission does have the information on the previous rear and side elevations and the current plan. The trees on the back are spaced so that there is a straight line of sight and there is no confusion as to how to get away from the building in the event of a fire. As the trees grow they will do a good job of softening the look of the building. The rear of the building is now more attractive with the addition of the windows. The trees in the front elevation of the building are starting out at 12-15 feet high but they will grow fast and in a year years will be at the beginning of the roof. They selected trees with open branching. There is an elaborate placement of shrubs and smaller plantings along the front of the building and this will make it attractive when finished.
Mr. Blair thanked the applicant for addressing these issues and for taking the time to meet with them. He stated they have addressed his concerns and he is comfortable with what is in front of the Commission. He stated he did not have a problem with the recommended waivers or with keeping the dumpster as the same material as the building. He further stated he would like to hear the Engineer’s comments on the setback reduction. Mr. Blake clarified that the property to the west is currently zoned R-4 Residential, that the code would require a Type A buffer and that unless waived there has to be Type A buffer there. Mr. Henderson stated that Violet Township Fire Department is asking for a 25 foot drive along the west side of building and it would be difficult for the applicant to get a Type A buffer there with the 25 foot setback. Mr. Blake clarified that it is staff’s opinion that as the land to the west develops it is likely to come in as a rezoning request for commercial or retail and would not remain as residential. Mr. Blake stated the City has Design Standards in place for commercial and residential however he thinks these are guidelines and that with a building of this magnitude it would almost be impossible to build it to the design standards today and the thinks the applicant has done a good job of working with the City to get a building that will be economically feasible and come close to what the City is looking for.
Mr. Hackworth stated that if the applicant had placed the building on the lot turning it 90 degrees and backing it up to the former Big Bear store then the store would have shielded the back of it from view. Mr. Underhill stated that when this originally came in the plan was to have access to Birchwood and if the building had been turned the way Mr. Hackworth mentioned it would have blocked that entry. Their initial thought was that this was what the City wanted and they came to realize that this was not what the City wanted and there were problems with going onto private property etc. He further stated on a rectangular piece of property such as this one, unless you are going to have one continuous use, the back portion is usually not worth very much. They have pushed the building as far back as possible to preserve and create as much space in the middle for office space as possible. Turning the building the other way would create negative issues with maximizing the marketability and the size of the area for the office space. Mr. Hackworth stated this is backed up against the northern property line, there may be an office building going in just to the north of this and he is sure that will have to abide by our Design Standards just like the rest of the Equity development there has had to. He stated he has a concern on whether Equity can sell that land in the future for an office building with a 45 foot building sitting right behind it that is not built to the same standard that they would have to follow. Mr. Underhill stated he heard somewhere along the way that Equity in general does not have a problem with what is being proposed here. Mr. Henderson stated he does not recall any comments one way or the other on this.
Mr. Underhill stated that the issue of the setbacks that are appropriate here and whether the use of a building of this size is appropriate is a policy consideration at the zoning stage and that decision has been made and approved by both this Commission and Council previously and now we are at an administrative place where we are trying to make sure that we set the building appropriately. Mr. Hackworth clarified that Mr. Bachman requested 25 feet on the east side that is meant for an access road that would be one way so that instead of going out to St. Rt. 256 and having to make a left turn they could come down along the side of the building and get out to a traffic signal. Mr. Henderson stated it is a 25 foot unobstructed lane without power lines, fire hydrants, downspouts, and with nothing from the building protruding into the 25 feet and that the 30 feet was basically creating a five foot buffer between the building so that someone could step out of the building and then have the 25 feet access. Mr. Bachman stated that since the 30 feet was approved they have had further discussion and that the access drive will now be one way. A twenty five feet access is more than sufficient for a one way access. The Fire Department does still want the 25 feet to meet their requirement. Mr. Hackworth clarified that only goes half way back to meet the garage doors on the on the eastern side of the building Mr. Underhill stated that they will be granting the City an easement over the entire side going back to the north beyond the pavement. They are paving to there as that is all they need for fire access but in the future there would be the ability to pave the rest of that. The applicant will maintain that area until the City would use that. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the dumpster will have the same metal siding as is being used on the building and that it will have stone columns.
Mrs. Evans stated she liked the
building before and even more now. There
are definitely improvements that have been done. She has no problem with the dumpster or the
25 foot access and has no issues with the building. Mr. Bosch stated he does not have an issue
with waiving the Type A buffering or the waiver for the wall mounted sconces on
the back of the building. He has reviewed the Refugee Road Corridor Study and
it states that a maximum of 20 percent commercial and retail for this lot, this
whole area, plus all the rest of the area to the south that is in zone
five. Mr. Henderson stated the theory is
that the land next to this will come in as office due to how far it is from St.
Rt. 256 and also the middle of this would be office use. He stated the Nicodemus property is 108 acres
and this site is a total of 16 acres and that is just about 20 percent that
would be developed commercially. Mr.
Bosch stated he does not have an issue with this. He assumes the City will have an easement for
the proposed water line extension on the west side of this so there would be
extra area that could be buffered. He further stated the intent on dumpsters
has always been to use brick or stone to match the buildings. If this goes with the metal panel the intent
is to match the building. Mr. Henderson
stated that the code was changed because a lot of the wood and chain link
dumpster enclosures were being damaged by the dump trucks and that the masonry
walls would hold up better to damages via the trucks. Mr. Bosch stated the intent was to blend in
and so he does not have an issue with the enclosure. He stated that in viewing
other indoor soccer complexes in the area this one looks nicer than the one at
Mr. Binkley clarified that if the
Nicodemus property would develop before sub-area A or B of this development it
would be responsibility of the developer of the Nicodemus property to put in
the extension of the proposed public road,
Mr. Binkley stated that if and
when someone comes in to discuss the Nicodemus property they need to be made
aware that if nothing in Sub-Area B or C is in place they are going to be
required to pay for that. Mr. Vance
stated that the connectivity that they would get would also get the benefit
right-of-way that that this developer is going to have to acquire from the
owner of the
Mr. Binkley stated he is fine
with the material for the dumpster and clarified that the dumpster would not
encroach upon the 25 foot access road.
Mr. Henderson stated there could be some adjustment on the plan if that
occurs. They are required to have 178 parking spaces and they have 184 so at
the final zoning certificate approval they could remove a few parking spaces
and keep that out of the fire easements and still meet the requirement needed
for parking as well as having the dumpster design. Mr. Binkley clarified that there are
sidewalks along the private drive that come all the way to the proposed
Mr. Nicholas stated on the site
plan there is also a dumpster shown in the southwest corner of sub-area C along
Mr. Binkley clarified that the lights will project into the 25 foot unobstructed eastern access. Mr. Bachman stated that as this is a one way access he did not have any concerns with it and this would be a question for the fire department. Mr. Underhill stated Mr. Nicholas clarified that the most the lights will stick out from the building on the eastern elevation would be approximately one foot. Mr. Underhill stated they will adhere to the Lighting Plan and if there is anything contrary on the architectural drawings, those will not apply. Mr. Bosch clarified that on the sides it is the sconces and not the gooseneck. Mr. Henderson stated that in the lighting plan that was submitted in the application they were not gooseneck style, they were the half bell style and situated up against the wall. Mr. Parker stated then that is what they will be. Mr. Bosch clarified that on the front and both side elevations it would be wall mounted fixtures, everything on the back will be wall sconces that are a shoe box style and there would also be four double headed lights on poles in the front. Mr. Henderson stated the wall mount lights on the front and sides will be a sconce that will mimic the bell style and will protrude approximately one foot from the building.
Mr. Nicholas stated for consistency, the dumpster enclosure should be stone or brick to match the building. Mr. Binkley clarified that a dumpster technically is a wall and that it does have footer. He stated this is into the 25 foot building line. Mr. Henderson stated that per the building code this would be allowed five feet from the property line as it is considered an accessory structure. Mr. Nicholas clarified that there will not be any equipment mounted on the roof, that they will all be inside the building. Mr. Binkley clarified that if there is a transformer put in it will be on a pad and be screened from view. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the setbacks for the building were approved in the Development Plan. He clarified that they were asking for four waivers and they would require five votes for passage. Mr. Blake clarified that there were be a vote on the first eight items, then a vote on the two waivers in the report, an additional waiver on the eastern setback and an additional waiver on the dumpster to be constructed with four stone columns to match the existing stone on the building. Mr. Banchefsky stated there should be a motion as normally done for the first eight conditions, and then four individual motions, one for each waiver.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan, Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting
with the following conditions:
1. That all conditions in the final
development plan shall be met.
2. That sub-area A shall have a 24 foot
wide unobstructed (no power lines, fire hydrants, etc.) cross-access easement
along the entire eastern portion per the City Engineer requirements.
3. That the spruce trees along the north
elevation shall be at a minimum of six feet tall at installation.
4. That all mechanical equipment shall be
screened from public view.
5. That the site plan shall be in
compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
6. That the site plan shall be in
compliance with the
7. That the proposed development shall
meet all other City development requirements.
8. That the steel sheet siding for the
primary and secondary building facades and roof of the indoor soccer complex
shall be approved as a conditionally permitted exterior building material per
the Nonresidential Design Standards.
Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blair voting “Yes” and Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Hackworth voting “No”. Motion passed, 5-2.
Mr. Blake stated that the waivers would each be voted on separately.
Mr. Bosch moved to waive the requirement that a Type A buffer shall be required along the western property line that is adjacent to the residential use; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 7-0.
Mr. Blair moved to waive the requirement that the wall mounted sconces on the north elevation shall be a traditional or historic reproduction fixture; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yes”, and Mr. Nicholas voting “No”. Motion passed, 6-1.
Mr. Bosch moved that the eastern setback will be reduced from thirty
feet to twenty five feet; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch, and Mr. Binkley voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 7-0.
Mr. Blair moved to waive the requirement that the dumpster shall be
screened by a brick or stone wall and have wood doors, and that it shall
instead be constructed with two stone columns with the walls being metal siding
and trim to match the building; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call
was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blair, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans
voting “Yes” and Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Nicholas voting “No”. Motion
passed, 5-2.
B. Review and Request for a motion to approve the Refugee Road Corridor Study. Mr. Henderson stated there were a few minor changes in the text so that it would read better. There was a paragraph added regarding a bus stop for COTA and Fairfield Transit in Section 8, the western most portion of the Study. After approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission this will move forward to the City Planning, Projects and Service Committee and then on to Council. Mr. Hackworth clarified that it could be possible to put in a ten foot multi-use path in the western portion of the corridor. Mr. Bachman stated he did not take a look at that for detail but there would have to be some grading and other easements along there to be able to do that.
Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt the
5. REPORTS.
A. Planning and Zoning
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Henderson stated there was one case last month and that was for a front yard fence setback for a corner lot and it was approved. There are currently no cases scheduled for August.
B. FCRPC Report. Mr. Henderson stated FCRPC did meet. There was a
Final Plat approved for
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. Community Comments. Mr. Bosch stated he has a comment regarding
all of the signs for the heating and cooling business on
B. Solar Panel Discussion. (August discussion) Update. Mr. Henderson stated that he plans to have something before the Commission after he meets with our law director and others in his office that have dealt with solar panels to discuss this. He also is in communication with other communities that are also looking at this in a more proactive approach to solar panels and that type of green development that is being seen in the planning field.
C. Keller Farms Nursery Development Update. Mr. Vance stated that Mr.
Bernie Fleming of Keller Farms received a council variance that is good for this year only. This development was the topic of conversation throughout June and most of it was good. There were concerns expressed informally regarding the momentum of the development being in direct relation to what was proposed initially. For the most part the development progressed in a positive fashion. There were some issues with the structure. After clarifying that Bernie Fleming had not been sworn in, 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. Bernie Fleming stated “I do”.
Mr. Fleming stated he is the
owner of Keller Farms Landscape and Nursery. The have a greenhouse on
Mr. Fleming stated they like the site. One of the concerns was the entrance and once the layout was as it should be it has been great. The have placed no parking signs on the outside and people are adhering to that. The parking space there has been adequate. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if this were to be long term the type of canopy structure that is there now would stay the same. Mr. Fleming stated to go to a permanent type garden center they would have to acquire the property. The business has been incredible there and there is not another business like this in the area. They would certainly entertain a permanent location and have been approached by realtors, however they first need longevity, and also the economy plays a big role in that decision. Mr. Blake stated this Commission asks a lot of questions because they do not want surprises. As a courtesy Mr. Vance allowed the Commission to look at the submittal that was taken to Council and his concern is there is a discrepancy between what was in the submittal and what is actually there. In the submittal he did not see the two trailers filled with plants or the old truck that is sitting there and clarified that these were not what was approved. Mr. Blair stated this is something that Council has discussed. He feels that going through this process that Council also understood that they are not the Planning and Zoning Commission and they don’t go through this process as diligently as this Commission does. Obviously no trailers were approved, the truck was not approved, and they did not look at the business signs issue either. Mr. Blake stated these are the same questions he has. He further stated he thinks this is at a wonderful location and hopes the business thrives. He clarified that the next step next year would be to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Vance stated this variance is for one year as a trail run for the owner to learn more about the site and for the City learn more about his operation. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the variance this year runs through October. Mr. Fleming stated he would like to start the process for approval for next year as soon as possible. Mr. Henderson stated they could schedule a Growth Management meeting on a Tuesday and put together a time frame. A change to the zoning code may need to occur due to the type of zoning this parcel has, it an M1 district. That is one of the reasons Mr. Fleming had to go the route that he did due to the time frame to meet the peak period for sales of landscaping products. They should sit down in the next month or so to put together the complete time frame that is needed so this will be good to go for next year if that is the route Mr. Fleming decides to take.
D. Commission Discussion. Mr. Nicholas clarified that sign issue
at
Mr. Vance stated that the one dollar a slice sign has been on the list to address for quite some time and they are going to address that in the immediate future as we go forward. He believes that staff has made a lot of progress as far as the temporary signs go. They pop up constantly and if there is a sign that anyone would like to see come down, pass that on to staff with an email or phone call and they will absolutely address that. Mr. Blake stated that on Sunday afternoon he saw a guy in a white pick up truck picking up signs and he must be paid by the builders because the whole back of his truck was full of builder’s signs. It was not the City picking up the signs as he at first thought. Mr. Bachman stated if he is out working on a weekend he does pick up illegal signs. He was out Sunday morning taking pictures of St. Rt. 256 for a safety project and did pick up 27 of them. He has picked up over 100 signs this year and he knows that the code enforcement officer has picked up many more times what he has.
Mr. Nicholas stated that one item
among several that are weak in our zoning code is our tree preservation. He would like to have that as an agenda item
in the coming month or two and he will provide some information to staff to
include with packets for consideration.
Mr. Blake stated he wanted to congratulate everyone who works for the
City on how nice the
ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn,
Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blair voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:21 P.M., July 12, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
____________________________
Joseph P. Henderson, City Planner