PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         CALL TO ORDER:  Mr. Bosch called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as follows:  Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Blair were present.  Mr. Blake and Mr. Binkley were absent.  Others present were Joe Henderson, Brian Sauer, Bill Vance, Greg Bachman, Karen Risher, Mark Matthews, Jason Heitmeyer, John Bernard, Bob Johnson, Steve Eversole, and Don McMillen.  Mitch Banchefsky arrived at 7:45 P.M.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 12, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Blair moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yes”.  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

3.         SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS. Mr. Bosch asked that anyone who plans to offer testimony or evidence at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting tonight stand and raise their right hand.  Mark Matthews, Jason Heitmeyer, John Bernard, Bob Johnson, and Steve Eversole did so.  Mr. Bosch asked the following: “Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you 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 approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture for Mark Matthews and Associates Insurance located at 107 West Columbus Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing an addition to the insurance agency located at 107 West Columbus Street.  The addition would be 29 foot by 36 foot (approximately 1,044 square feet) on the south side of the building.  The existing structure appears to be approximately 1,050 square feet and this will bring the total square footage of the building to an estimated 2,094 square feet.  The site is zoned C-2 Commercial Business/Mixed use.  The applicant is proposing 10 parking spaces.  The access to the parking lot would be relocated from Cross Street to Park Alley. The City’s zoning code was designed for the development of property on large lots more consistent with sites along Diley Road and Hill Road North. There are many constraints that occur when developing, redeveloping, or adding on to property in and around the Olde Pickerington Village. Variances and waivers would be required in order for this property to develop. This is very similar to ones we have seen recently such as 101 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson further stated that the applicant is not proposing any alterations or additions to the north elevation (front yard).  The east side (front yard, corner lot) building setback would be 25 feet with a parking setback of 15 feet.  The right-of-way along Cross Street is approximately 50 feet. The lot is only 60 feet wide and it is not practical to meet the building setbacks. Mr. Henderson stated the building addition appears to have a setback of 13.1 feet while 25 feet is required. The east edge of the parking lot appears to be 5 feet from the property line while 15 feet is required. A front yard building and parking setback variance would be required. The west side (side yard) building setback would be 25 feet with a parking setback of 15 feet. The site is adjacent to R-4 residentially zoned land to the west. The west edge of the building appears to have a setback of 17.7 feet while 25 feet is required. The west edge of the parking lot appears to be five feet from the property line while 15 feet is required.  A side yard building and parking setback variance would be required. In addition, a Type C buffer would be required because this is adjacent to an R-4 zoned district. A Type C buffer would be required unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The south side (rear yard) building setback would be 30 feet with no rear yard parking setback required.   The building addition would be 47.2 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Henderson stated for each 100 square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, a minimum total of ten square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. Due to the size of the lot staff supports a waiver on this. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing to relocate the access from Cross Street to Park Alley.  Staff recommends that the curb cut on Cross Street be closed and that it match the existing curb along that street. The addition would be designed to match the existing structure with using the same siding and window style. The current slate roof will be removed and the applicant is proposing making the whole roof three dimensional shingles.  Mr. Henderson stated there is one correction to the wording in condition four in the report provided to the Commission.  The word building should be changed to parking.  Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the Site Plan and Architectural that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:

           

1.         That a front yard (east) building setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

2.         That a front yard (east) parking setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

3.         That a side yard (west) building setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

4.         That a side yard (west) parking setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

5.         A parking space variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

            6.         That the parking spaces shall be 9 feet by 18 feet or a variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

            7.         That the aisle width shall be 24 feet or a variance shall be required though the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

            8.         That the existing curb cut along Cross Street shall be eliminated and be constructed to match the existing curb.

           

9.         That the building addition shall match the existing building material and colors.

 

The following waivers for the Nonresidential Design Standards in Appendix IV would be required:

 

            1.         That a type C 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.         Ten percent of the vehicular use area must be interior landscaped unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

 

            3.         That the exterior primary material cannot be vinyl on the primary and secondary facades unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

 

Mr. Henderson stated there are a lot of variances and waivers to this, however, all of the setback requirements and parking spaces are very consistent with the Olde Village. As we develop in the Olde Village there are going to be more constraints and issues than there are in other areas due to the age of the buildings, the size of the lots, and that our code was not really designed for this type of development. Staff is trying to encourage development and expansion of businesses in the Olde Village and they need these waivers in order to do so.  Mr. Bosch clarified that with the waivers it will require 4 out of 5 votes to be the majority needed for approval. Mr. Jason Heitmeyer stated he has been commissioned by Mr. Mark Matthews to do the building expansion. Mr. Henderson has done a good job of presenting what the intentions and goals of the applicant are. He presented a sample of the shingles that will be used on the new roof for the existing building and the new addition as well so that it will appear as seamless. Mr. Hackworth clarified that approval on this will be based on if the applicant does get the variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Mr. Bosch stated that the Commission is doing a Certificate of Appropriateness, however, it is contingent upon the Board of Zoning Appeals approving the variances.  Mr. Bachman stated that our code calls for the parking stalls to be 18 feet long and an aisle width of 24 feet. On the site plan it shows the lot as 60 feet wide with five feet of green space on each side and that reduces the lot to 50 feet in width for the parking lot. Mr. Bachman proposed instead of a five foot green space on each side, if you make that three foot of green space on each side it would result in an area that is 54 feet wide. Changing the parking stalls from 18 to 17 feet and the aisle from 24 to 20 feet would add up to the 54 feet. That is tight but it could work because the fire department vehicles would have a little bit of overhang.  With the type of dimensions we have in the Olde Village this is about the only way to make these types of development work. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the entrance going into the parking lot would be 20 feet wide, that this is zoned C-2, that the property next to it is R-4, that Park Alley is one way going to the east in that area and that the only way to get into the parking lot would be to come in off of Hill Road.  Mrs. Evans stated that she did not have any questions. Mr. Nicholas stated he thinks this is a good project for the Olde Village and he appreciates the type of construction that the Heitmeyer’s have done in the Olde Village as well. He clarified that the applicant would not have to come in with a Lighting and Landscape Plan and that the code does not require external lighting for a lot of this size. Mr. Nicholas stated that the grade at the rear slopes toward Park Alley and clarified that the rear will probably have more steps than what is shown on the south elevation. Mr. Heitmeyer stated they have discussed possibly creating a handicap ramp on the southeast corner of the building. Mr. Henderson stated that in the long run we should look into the language about the zoning in the Olde Village and setbacks as this is going to be a problem for anyone who tries to develop in the Olde Village. It is a hindrance and if we could remove that barrier from the path of development that would be a smart move on our part.

 

 Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicant is in favor of the big parking lot he has on the plan.  Mr. Matthews stated he is not in favor of a smaller lot due to the number of employees he has. Mr. Nicholas stated he is not saying smaller, he is saying another alternative and that he is leaning toward what England Insurance did off of Park Alley with nose in parking. An alternative would be to do nose in parking off of Park Alley and off of Cross Street. Mr. Matthews clarified that Mr. Nicholas was suggesting that there would not be an actual entrance into the parking lot. Mr. Heitmeyer stated he didn’t think he could fit 10 parking spaces in there with the nose in parking configuration. Mr. Nicholas stated he thinks it would work and that it would save money on asphalt, preserve some green space which would help with buffering, and it would eliminate the problem of the space being tight as Mr. Bachman stated it would be with his proposal. Mr. Heitmeyer clarified that there is telephone pole in the corner of the lot. Mr. Bachman stated his preference is to not have people backing out into the alley as there are sight problems along the alley. Mr. Nicholas stated he was just going along with the same thought as what we did at England Insurance. Mr. Henderson stated that at England Insurance there is a better sight line, that the alley dips down north of this property and if someone was coming quickly they may not see a vehicle backing out from this location.  Mr. Bosch stated from an access management standpoint it is nice to have one point of access.  Mr. Heitmeyer stated that they are open to suggestions.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that if waiver three is approved the applicant will be allowed to use vinyl siding. Mr. Henderson stated if this not approved, per our Nonresidential Design Standards list, the primary material is stone or brick.  The building is vinyl, as are most of the buildings in the Olde Village and it makes sense to all vinyl on this addition.

 

Mrs. Evans moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architectural with the following conditions, with a modification to # 4 that the word be parking as opposed to building;

 

1.         That a front yard (east) building setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

2.         That a front yard (east) parking setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

            3.         That a side yard (west) building setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

4.         That a side yard (west) parking setback variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

5.         A parking space variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

            6.         That the parking spaces shall be 9 feet by 18 feet or a variance shall be required through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

            7.         That the aisle width shall be 24 feet or a variance shall be required though the Board of Zoning Appeals.

           

8.         That the existing curb cut along Cross Street shall be eliminated and be constructed to match the existing curb.

           

9.         That the building addition shall match the existing building material and colors.

            Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yes”.  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

Mrs. Evans moved to waive the requirement that a Type C buffer shall be required along the western property line that is adjacent to a residential use; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr., Bosch, and Mr. Blair “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.

 

Mr. Nicholas moved to waive the requirement that 10 percent of the vehicular use area must be interior landscaped; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.

           

Mr. Blair moved to waive that the exterior primary material can not be vinyl on the primary and secondary facades; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blair, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yes”.  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

Mr. Vance stated that staff has been working with Mr. Matthews on this and stated that the City  Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and staff appreciate Mr. Matthews investment in the Olde Village.

           

B.         Review and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan for Remnant Church located at 1745 Hill Road North.  Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to modify the existing site plan for their tenant space at Shoppes at Turnberry to allow an outdoor play area for a daycare along the rear of the building.  The Shoppes at Turnberry have a full access at a light along Tussing Road and a right-in/right-out only on Hill Road North. This is located near the middle of the shopping center in an el shaped space that the daycare will be in and they are looking at putting a 26 foot by 40 foot (approximately 1,040 square feet) outdoor play area on the back.  The play area will be enclosed by a six feet tall wood privacy fence with an exit gate at the southeast corner of the play area.  There would be eight pipe bollards painted yellow surrounding the play area, four bollards on the east side and four on the west side and there are no bollards proposed on the south side of the play area.  There will still be a 28 feet wide access drive around the rear of the building and that will be sufficient for

vehicles and trucks to get through.  The Shoppes at Turnberry appear to have sufficient parking

 spaces for the addition of the 1,040 square feet play area for the Daycare.   Staff supports the

Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code

requirements.

 

Mr. Bosch clarified that the applicant is not here. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the access drive in the rear is 28 feet wide and that other than the wood fencing the only other kind of protection is the eight bollards. Mr. Nicholas stated his only concern is from a safety standpoint and that the bollards along the side are about six and one-half feet apart.  He has a serious concern regarding safety along that forty feet length. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the bollards are three and one-half inches high and that there is nothing in the plan that advises of the diameter. Mr. Nicholas stated his opinion is that it would not be appropriate for the Commission to suggest a diameter because it is his opinion that the safety issue would then fall back on the City.  Mr. Banchefsky stated he would have to turn to Engineering to determine if there is any standard on this, however he is not aware of any.  Mr. Vance stated that he feels that the Commission could suggest that some additional bollards be added if they want to go that route, however, there also has to be some parental responsibility assumed as well. In his estimation additional safety devices would not be a bad idea. Mr. Bosch stated he definitely would be in favor of putting additional bollards in along the south side. Mr. Blair clarified that it appears the bollards will be located close to the fence.  Mr. Nicholas stated if they would put in seven equally spaced bollards along there that would be approximately five and one-half feet of spacing between them.  He further stated that he would rely on the City Engineers recommendation as far as the number.  Mrs. Evans stated she agreed with Mr. Nicholas.  Mr. Nicholas he is hesitant to opening ourselves to any liability as far as the number or size.  Mr. Banchefsky stated if there is no engineering standard to go off of then you go by common sense and if the Commission feels it is safer to have more bollards out there, from a liability perspective he does not see this as an issue.

Mr. Nicholas clarified that if the Commission would add a condition to this regarding the bollards and the applicant did not agree with that they would have the option of coming back in.

 

Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Nonresidential Design Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Site plan with the following condition:

 

1. Adding a minimum of seven additional pipe bollards to be placed equally spaced along the forty foot length of fence in a similar fashion as is in the plan; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.

 

 Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yes”.  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

            C.        Review and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture for a storage building at Seton Parish located at 600 Hill Road North.  Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing a 40 foot by 80 foot (approximately 3,200 square feet) storage building for the parish that would be located on the east side of the existing parish activity center, approximately 900 foot from Hill Road North.  The storage building would only be used for storage of materials required for the parish festival and additional storage for miscellaneous parish items that are currently stored in closets throughout the facilities.  The building is proposed to match the exterior building materials of the activity center. The site is located directly south of the PYAA fields.  Mr. Henderson further stated he has driven by it and that this building would not be visible from Hill Road.  No additional parking would be required. They are showing a gravel access road coming from the northeastern corner of the parking lot, along the north side of the existing activity center and creating a turn around lot along the north and eastern sides of the proposed storage building, creating access to two overhead doors.  Staff is comfortable with the access drive being gravel because the existing drives in that area is gravel and there would be minimal use of this drive. There are no windows for security reasons.  Staff supports a waiver of the Nonresidential Design Standards for this. This is not a pole building and there is a continuous foundation.  Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:

           

1.         That the building shall only be used for storage.

 

            2.         That the building materials shall match the parish activity center in materials and colors.

 

            3.         That the building shall be constructed as proposed.

 

The following waiver for the Nonresidential Design Standards in Appendix IV would be required:

 

            1.         That the storage building for Seton Parish shall be designed to meet the Nonresidential Design Standards unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

 

Mr. Steve Eversole stated he is the applicant and that John Bernard, the business manager for Seton Parish, and Bob Johnson, the architect, are also here. They are asking for the waiver on the window issue as this is behind everything and will only be used for storage.  Mr. Nicholas stated that on the south elevation there is an overhead door and clarified that a drive to that door is not required. Mr. Henderson stated that this is similar to the storage facility for PYAA.  Mr. Nicholas clarified that here will be one by four cedar on the corners and that a one by four freeze board will be underneath between the stucco and the soffit on the side walls and the rear.

 

Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture with the following conditions:

 

            1.         That the building shall only be used for storage.

 

            2.         That the building materials shall match the parish activity center in materials and color.

 

            3.         That the building shall be constructed as proposed.

 

            4.         That corner boards and freeze boards of one by four cedar shall be used.

Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yes”.  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

Mr. Nicholas moved to approve a waiver that the storage building for Seton Parish shall be designed to meet to the Nonresidential Design Standards; Mr. Blair seconded the motion.  0Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Blair voting “Yes”.  Motion passed, 5-0.

 

5.         REPORTS.

 

                        A.        Planning and Zoning.

                                    (1)        BZA report.  Mr. Henderson stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals did not meet last month and that there will be at least two cases for rear yard setbacks for decks on the agenda for the August 25th meeting.  In addition, he will be working with the architect for Mr. Matthews to get that moving as soon as possible.  They will meet tomorrow to get that on the agenda.

 

                        B.         FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission did meet.  He did not attend the meeting.  They did approve an extension on the Preliminary Plan for Spring Creek Subdivision in Violet Township.

 

6.         OTHER BUSINESS.

 

            A.        Community Comments.  Mr. Hackworth stated that he was northbound on Fuller’s Way on the traffic circle and there was a vehicle going southbound around the circle to go into the apartments. Mr. Hackworth further stated there are no directional signs there. Mr. Bachman asked if that was illegal in our code, Mr. Hackworth stated he did not know, but it seems to him we need to paint a line on the road or put a yield clockwise or counter clockwise sign up there. He further stated he thought this was a one-way circle and there are no signs at all to tell people which way to go. Mr. Bachman stated that technically traffic circles can go either way.  Mr. Hackworth stated that Town Square Drive has signs and it is one way around.  Mr. Bachman stated there are only two approaches to that road, not four approaches. Mr. Hackworth stated he just wanted to make someone aware of this.  Mr. Bachman stated that is more of a legal question and that he would get with the Law Director on that.

 

            B.         Solar Panel Discussion (September Discussion) update.  Mr. Henderson stated he did meet with Mr. Banchefsky and Chris Miller at their office to discuss solar panels.  Mr. Miller mentioned that if we are going to do approach this we should do so on a larger scale instead of going at it one little piece at a time. The City Planner coming on board has some background in passing ordinances for solar and wind. Mr. Henderson stated he would like to use that knowledge and expertise to help write something and also to work with Mr. Banchefsky and Mr. Miller to make sure we put something together that will hold ground today as well as ten to twenty years from now.  It is moving forward, however, he would like to get a few more pieces in place before it is moved forward. In reality it may be more like October.  Scott Fulton will be joining us as the City Planner on August 22nd and comes from the Franklin County Economic and Planning Department. He comes in with a lot of experience and has a lot of knowledge regionally and locally.  He has an undergraduate from Miami and a master's from Toledo in Planning and Geography.  He will be taking over the Planner II position and will be taking over presenting the staff reports at the Commission meetings. He will be introduced formally at next month’s meeting.  Mr. Vance stated he will be an extremely valuable of our team and that he is a dynamic and proactive individual.

           

C.        Commission Discussion.  Mr. Vance stated we have a situation involving the property located at 18 East Columbus Street.  Mr. Don McMillen is the owner and is here tonight.  He would like to add vinyl siding to the front of the building.  There is currently vinyl and the other three sides.  Mr. McMillen pursued the Olde Village funding that Council made available. He is going to use the $1,000 that the City provided and increase that by at least an additional $3,500 and will address the front of the building and replace approximately twenty windows.  Staff reviewed the language related to the Olde Pickerington Village Design Guidelines and does not feel that Mr. McMillen’s request is a substantial deviation. It will be an improvement to the actual structure and staff would like to move forward as the deadline for using these funds is the end of August. Staff supports this and did want to bring this to the attention of the Commission as there are going to be significant improvements to this building and they will be very noticeable.  Mr. Bosch clarified that a vote of support is not necessary and that staff wanted assurance that the Commission has no issues with this direction that staff is headed in.  Mr. Nicholas thanked Mr. McMillen for his willingness to pursue this. He would like to see Mr. McMillen and staff pursue the use of a historically replicated vinyl siding. He clarified that the applicant is proposing replacing the windows with a vinyl window that will have a 50/50 split.  Mr. McMillen stated the current windows are wooden double hung except for the first floor and those have been replaced with windows with muttons and he wants all of the windows to match. Mr. Nicholas stated for historical purposes he would prefer windows with one vertical bar like those used in the building where Park Alley Tavern and the Village Crepe are located. Mr. McMillen stated he was not familiar with this type of window.  Mr. Nicholas stated he could email contact information to Mr. Henderson and he could forward that on to Mr. McMillen.  Mr. McMillen stated that he is ready to get this started. Mr. Vance stated it is appropriate to make that recommendation and it is his understanding that Mr. McMillen wants to get this done by the end of August and he thinks he would be willing to look into any other potential options as fast as he can, then talk to his contractor and utilize all reasonable resources available to see if he can accommodate this request. Mr. McMillen will be coming back at some point in the future to address replacing the other three sides of the building that are currently vinyl. Mr. McMillen stated that one reason he wanted to get rid of the muttons on the windows is that the owner of the business located there would like to see those removed because of the blockage and they are hard to get to.  Mr. Nicholas stated he would get that information to Mr. Henderson tomorrow.

 

7.         ADJOURNMENT.  Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Blair seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Blair voting “Aye”.  Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M., August 9, 2011

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

____________________________

Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________________

Joseph P. Henderson, Development Services Director