PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 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. Binkley, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Blair were present. Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas were absent. Others present were Joe Henderson, Scott Fulton, Mitch Banchefsky, Karen Risher, Chris Schweitzer, Dan Heitmeyer, James Johnson, Jamie Gates, Mark Matthews, Jason Heitmeyer, Pat Reade, Sandy Melillo, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 12, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yes” and Mr. Blair and Mrs. Evans abstaining. Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Henderson stated that in the packets there is a copy of a letter from Porter Wright, the attorneys for Westport Homes, a developer in the Preston Trails subdivision. Originally they had submitted to be on this month’s agenda, before the agenda was final they asked for it to be withdrawn. They presented information at an informational meeting they had last week and they want to come back with answers to some of the questions from that meeting. For them to be on the agenda it is required that a public hearing notice be sent to all of the adjacent property owners. The applicant will need to give staff 30 days notice and staff will notify the property owners that this will be coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

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 to be sworn in. Dan Heitmeyer, James Johnson, Jamie Gates, Mark Matthews, Jason Heitmeyer, Pat Reade, and Sandy Melillo did so. Mr. Bosch then 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 amend a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall Signage for M&M Chicken and Fish located at 1225 Hill Road North. Mr. Fulton reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to install a four foot by eight foot (32 square feet) internally illuminated box sign above the front door in the eyebrow area of their tenant space in the Sunoco Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing to go in the northern most tenant space. Mr. Fulton further stated the sign is three colors. The code states that channel letters are required and the Comprehensive Sign Plan that was approved for the Sunoco Center requires channel letters in addition to a maximum of 20 square feet of signage. This is 12 square feet over that in terms of square footage. In addition it is proposed as a box sign and channel letters are also required for this. Staff does not support the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan amendment. Mr. Bosch clarified that no one was here to represent the applicant. Mr. Binkley clarified that the applicant understands that this is not within our regulations and that they did not make an attempt to change this application. Mr. Fulton stated the applicant wanted to keep this similar to their other locations in terms of signage. Based upon the difference in cost between box sign and channel letter signs, the applicant thought they would attempt to amend the Comprehensive Sign Plan on the chance that it would be approved.

Mrs. Evans moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Binkley voting “No”. Motion failed, 0-5.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage at J. Nichole’s Day Spa and Salon located at 185 West Columbus Street. Mr. Fulton reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated the applicant is proposing to install a two foot by two foot (four square feet) ground sign on a six foot pole at the corner of Park Alley and Hill Road South to assist customers in locating their parking lot off of Park Alley. The applicant has road frontage along West Columbus Street and Hill Road South and currently has one ground sign along West Columbus Street that faces the West Columbus Street and Hill Road South intersection. Code allows one ground sign per frontage on a public road. It is Staff’s opinion that the current sign is targeted more toward traffic along West Columbus Street and therefore does not count as their Hill Road South ground sign. The applicant is proposing to locate the additional sign on the southwestern portion of the property approximately nine feet for Hill Road South and approximately 10 feet off Park Alley.

Mr. Fulton further stated this appears to be located out of the site triangle. The intent of the sign is to help people coming to the salon locate where the parking lot is. The sign has three colors and the six foot pole is made out of aluminum. Traditionally, businesses located in the Old Pickerington Village area that are outside of the Old Downtown Pickerington Village district have had signs approved that do not have brick and/or stone columns or bases. These were approved to be similar to signs in the Old Downtown Pickerington Village district. Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for J. Nicole’s Day Spa and Salon that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following two conditions:

1. That the proposed ground sign shall be constructed as submitted.

2. That the proposed sign shall be setback a minimum of five feet from the right-of-way line and be located outside of the site triangle.

Mr. Dan Heitmeyer stated the sign they are proposing is at Park Alley and the Hill Road South area. It will enhance the ability for customers coming from the north and the south to find the location of the parking lot and will avoid confusion in that area. There have been some near accidents in this area and hopefully this will help prevent accidents. The design of this sign matches closely with businesses that are south of this property. Mr. Bosch clarified that the applicant did not totally understand the second condition regarding the site triangle. Mr. Fulton stated that this is one way in, however some people do not adhere to that. It is required at intersections that there be a clear line of site should people be exiting, thus a clear line of site is required here in the event people would be exiting from Park Alley onto Hill Road South and that is the reason for the condition. Mr. Heitmeyer stated there are utility lines in that area and he will go over the location with staff.

Mr. Binkley moved to approve with the following conditions:

1. That the proposed ground sign shall be constructed as submitted.

2. That the proposed sign shall be setback a minimum of five feet from the right-of-way and be located outside of the site triangle.

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

C. Review and request for a motion to amend a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall Signage for Windmiller Self Storage located at 701 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Fulton reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated that the applicant is proposing to install an approximately 22 foot by 2 foot sign (approximately 44 square feet) wall sign on the northeast building face of their main building. This is zoned C3 and our code states that businesses in the C3 district can install a sign on a building wall that faces a street, parking lot, or service drive. On this property there is a parking on that side of the building and based upon that it does meet the requirements of the code. The sign will have channel letters and that also meets the requirements of our code. The sign will be white with the words “SELF STORAGE” on it. Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that meets the minimum zoning code requirements.

Mr. James Johnson stated he is the applicant. The business has been there for eight years and there are still a lot of people who tell them they did not know that they were here in Pickerington. The sign will be visible to the buildings behind this one and the intent is to make more people aware of their business.

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

D. Review and request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Service Facility at Windmiller Self Storage located at 701 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Fulton reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated that the applicant is operating a self storage facility on this site that consists of six buildings and they are approved for a total of nine buildings. Until the need arises to add buildings the applicant would like to use the existing open space to park boats, campers, and other large vehicles. The applicant already provides this service at their other locations outside of the City of Pickerington. The applicant plans on allowing parking on the property only until the need for additional buildings occurs. At that time they will cease the outdoor storage and construct those buildings. There is already gravel in the area of the proposed parking and the applicant might be adding additional gravel to help the parking area function properly. Mr. Fulton further stated that based on the Conditional Use Permit requirements the proposed parking areas are classified as outdoor storage areas so this does comply with the Outdoor Service Facility regulations. In addition, in terms of a code enforcement aspect this provides people within Pickerington a local site to park large vehicles such as boats and campers as an alternative to parking them in their driveways.

Mr. Fulton stated the property currently has landscaping installed along Windmiller Drive. There are clusters of uniform pine tree arrangements installed that were approved at the time of the previous approval. The distance between each of these pine tree arrangements is 58 feet and this appears to line up with the gaps in the aisles between each of these buildings. There is a building in the front that is larger and the gap between these two pine tree arrangements is approximately 89 feet. Staff recommends that the applicant install an additional pine tree arrangement to help screen the parked vehicles from the roadway and the residential area to the west. The applicant stated in a letter of intent that they have established criteria by which patrons must comply in order to park their vehicles at this location. The criteria include the vehicle being titled, operable, visibly appealing, and parked in an orderly fashion. No maintenance will be permitted to occur on site and access will only be permitted between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. These requirements will be monitored and enforced daily.

Staff supports the Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Service Facility for an outdoor storage area that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:

1. That the applicant shall install additional landscaping in the center of the 89 foot gap that matches the existing pine tree arrangements.

2. That no maintenance of vehicles shall be permitted to occur on site.

3. That access to vehicles stored on site shall be only permitted between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.

Mr. James Johnson stated he is in favor of the additional landscaping, and that they did set up the landscaping so that it would screen the driveways. The only thing he would request is that they be able to take out this landscaping should a building be built there and requested that this be one of the conditions. Ms Jamie Gates stated that there has been a high demand for this type of service, especially from residents of the Windmiller Ponds subdivision that is nearby. They have had to turn customers away and are losing that business. They do have high restrictions at their other facilities. Vehicles on blocks will not be allowed. The parking will be aligned with assigned spots and the times people can be there will be limited as they want to fit in with the community. Mr. Blair stated he has no problem with adding the condition that the trees can be taken out when the building gets constructed. This was approved originally to block the driveways, that is the intent and we should keep it that way. He further stated he is fine with the other conditions as well. Mr. Hackworth clarified that there will be additional lighting. Mr. Johnson stated that at the end of each driveway they have pads already poured for the lights and they will be putting in lights there. Mr. Hackworth clarified that shoe box lighting was approved. Mr. Henderson stated they were approved in 2002 and that was prior to the implementation of our Nonresidential Design Standards. Mr. Hackworth also clarified that the lights will not be shining into the residential areas. Mr. Johnson stated the lights would be directed to the east, toward the commercial area and not the residential area. Mr. Hackworth clarified that a condition that vehicles stored here must be licensed and operable could be added and that he would prefer that be done.

Mrs. Evans clarified that the buildings are not visible from Hill Road North. Mr. Binkley clarified that the other locations of this business that are located outside of the City are also graveled. Mr. Johnson stated that they do use fine gravel and when they get ready to do the building that will be used in the foundation. Mr. Binkley stated his fear is that a permanent gravel lot will end up there and clarified that a condition could be added that this approval was for five years and at the time of expiration the applicant would have to re-apply. Mr. Bosch stated that the condition could be added with an expiration date of five years from the date of approval. Mr. Henderson stated that if this is approved for five years, prior to that expiration date the applicant would need to resubmit and go through the process again and if were issues they would be brought up at that time. Mr. Binkley clarified that if this were to sell the new owners would have the approval under that same condition.

Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions:

1. That the applicant shall install additional temporary landscaping in the center of the 89 foot gap that matches the existing pine tree arrangements. This can be removed when a building is constructed.

2. That no maintenance of vehicles shall be permitted to occur on site.

3. That access to vehicles stored on the site shall only be permitted between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.

4. That all vehicles shall be licensed and operable.

5. That this shall be for a five year approval starting from the date of the approval.

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

E. Review and request for a motion to append a Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan for Mark Matthews and Associates Insurance located at 107 West Columbus Street. Mr. Fulton reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated that the applicant received approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan at the August 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to construct a 29 foot by 36 foot (approximately 1,044 square feet) addition on the south side of the building. That addition requires that an ADA ramp be installed. The applicant is proposing to construct the ADA ramp on the west side of the proposed addition. A variance was granted at the September Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to allow the applicant to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to five feet. This is basically on the west side of the building and any way you attempted to configure the ramp it would require a variance. Using the west side of the building requires the least substantial variance for the property.

Mr. Fulton stated that the access was approved in August 2011 by the Planning and Zoning Commission to come in off Park Alley. The applicant has reconsidered and would like to keep the access to the property at the existing location off Cross Street. The parking space requirement was 11 spaces, with the variance it was reduced to 10 spaces. The number of parking spaces has been reduced from 10 spaces to eight spaces after this reconfiguration. At the September 2011 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting the applicant received a variance to allow the eight spaces. There is on street parking available in the area and the Municipal lot is 100 – 150 feet to the east so there is ample parking. The Certificate of Appropriateness is to allow the change of the site plan for the ADA ramp and to allow access to the parking to continue to come in off of Cross Street. Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the Site Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements.

Mr. Mark Matthews stated he is the applicant and in regard to the handicap ramp, they were not clear in understanding that they needed to ask for a variance for it to be in the setback. At the August 2011 Planning and Zoning meeting concerns were expressed regarding the access being off Park Alley as it is one way. Mr. Matthews stated they now think the best solution is to have the access continue to be off Cross Street. Mr. Bosch clarified that the width of Cross Street is two cars wide.

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

F. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning for approximately 0.18 acres located at 35 West Church Street (parcel# 041-02790-00) from PO – Suburban Office to R4 – Residential.

Mr. Bosch opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Fulton stated the applicant appeared before the Commission last month with a request to rezone the property located at 35 West Church Street from PO – Planned Suburban Office District, to C2 – Central Business/Mixed Use District. The applicant has relocated the office that was there, the property is now empty, and the owner would like to be able to use this as a rental property for residential tenants or if the right business came along, they would like to rent it to them. The C2 district would have allowed both uses. At that meeting there was a tie on the Commission vote and it was denied. It then went to the Service Committee for review and they requested that it go back to this Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Fulton further stated in the interim the applicant is looking into refinancing the property and the question came up as to whether or not a single family residence could be reconstructed on the property if the existing single family home were destroyed. In the C2 – Central Business/Mixed Use District, a single family home could not be rebuilt if it were destroyed. It would have to be at least a two family residential structure in order to be built. Based on this, refinancing for them could become difficult and they decided to amend their rezoning application to rezone the property to R4 – Residential District instead of the C2 – Central Business/ Mixed Use so that they can refinance.

Mr. Bosch stated that anyone who wished to speak could do so at this time.

Pat Reade stated he is the property owner and due to restrictions on rebuilding in the event of a fire the decision was made to go with residential use only. He stated he contacted all of the adjacent property owners with the exception of one person and they are all in favor of the residential rezoning. In addition, the Houser family has written a letter of support and that has been provided to the Commission members. His property is in move in ready condition and he feels this is the best use for the property at this time.

There being no further comments, Mr. Bosch closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M.

Mr. Fulton stated prior to this property being rezoned to Planned Office it was zoned R4. A lot of the Old Pickerington area is zoned R4 and in Staff’s opinion there is not a problem with rezoning this back to R4. Staff supports the rezoning with the minimum zoning code requirements. Mrs. Evans stated most of that side of West Church Street is zoned R4 and she can’t see a lot of business activity going on there. Mr. Bosch stated driving down the street it already appears that this is a residence.

Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the rezoning back to R4; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blair, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Henderson stated this will go before the City Planning, Projects, and Service Committee on October 20^th at 7:15 P.M.

5. REPORTS.

A. Planning and Zoning.

(1) BZA report. Mr. Fulton stated at the September BZA meeting there were two cases. One was for a rear yard setback for a deck on Gray Drive. There was also a side yard setback for the ADA ramp and the reduction in parking spaces variances for Mark Matthews Insurance. Both cases were approved.

B. FCRPC. Mr. Fulton stated there was nothing on the agenda for Violet Township. Every 10 years FCRPC takes a look at fees associated with membership. As population grows, the fees are based on that population. The fee has been $.20 per citizen. At the meeting they proposed to raise the fee to $.25 per citizen and this did pass.

6. OTHER BUSINESS.

A. Community Comments. Sandy Melillo stated she is president the Old Pickerington Village Business Association and owns property in the old village. They were informed of the verdict on Mr. Reade’s rezoning request last month and were concerned about the split decision. At some point they would like to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to share the vision they have for the downtown and hopefully have more flexibility to encourage business to relocate to this area. Mr. Bosch stated that sounds like a good topic for a work session. He suggested that Ms Melillo get with staff and schedule a work session where they can discuss this.

Mr. Henderson stated there has been discussion of creating a new zoning district that might be more orientated to the Old Village. Our zoning code is set up for the types of development we see in the 256 corridor or in subdivisions and this creates the need for a lot of variances in the Old Village. Some people are leery of variances and when they hear that they have to go before this Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals to decide if they can have an extra five feet on a side yard setback etc., they at times decide not to proceed. We want to make is so we can attract development in the downtown area whether it be commercial, residential or office. Staff would like to work with Olde Pickerington Village Business Association, the Chamber of Commerce and property owners in the Old Village to try to create a new district. Mr. Bosch stated this would be a good idea. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the initial idea is to consider a different zoning classification. They might have the “triangle area” in mind, however, there are other areas outside that area where this would make sense. The triangle area does not include properties such as J. Nicole’s or Ms Melillo’s business, but it does not make sense to not include those areas because they are part of the old village. By creating a zoning district it does not have to be a defined area.

B. Solar Panel Discussion Update. Mr. Fulton stated that a draft of the Solar Zoning Regulations was provided to the Commission last month. They were also distributed to other agencies, including the Fairfield Country Regional Planning Commission for review and comments. Those comments were included in this month’s packets. Mr. Hackworth stated he was interested in the concern found in Chapter 7 that Commander Delp commented on. This is regarding it being prohibited for the owner or possessor of real property to allow an obstruction to cast a shadow upon a solar energy system. The concern of Commander Delp is that there is no clarification about existing structures or trees. As an example, Commander Delp stated if he were to put his solar collectors next to a neighbor’s shed or in the shade path of the neighbor’s s tree, he would then cause the neighbor to be in violation of his solar rights and subject to the sanctions (whatever they may be) of Chapter 7. Mr. Hackworth stated when he bought his house the oak tree in the front yard was about four foot high and is now over the top of the roof of the house now. If the neighbor put in solar panels the tree could get high enough to block the solar panels. He further stated he did not think legally that someone could be forced to take their tree down.

Mr. Fulton stated this is a gray area and solar rights are something that probably would need to be researched in more detail. The thought behind it would be if the neighbor knowingly did something to block the solar panels, or it could work in reverse in that if a neighbor had a tree, then the owner of the solar panels would not put them under the shade of the tree. It is an area that needs to be researched with more of a legal opinion to see how things work in other areas.

Mr. Banchefsky stated this is an interesting issue and there is not a lot of law to address this. Some other states have said if you have a tree like you have in your front yard and a neighbor puts up a solar panel then you have to cut your tree down. That is one extreme. Mr. Hackworth clarified that this is just to get the ball rolling and open discussion on the subject and that some of these issues will be addressed. Mr. Fulton stated these are just some things that he has seen in other regulations that he thought should be put in the draft. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if solar panels are placed in a yard where someone could touch it they would have to follow the National Electric Code and that someone would not get shocked by touching the solar panels. Mr. Binkley stated that net metering shall adhere to the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4928.67 or any corresponding statutory provision. Mr. Bosch stated the Ohio Revised Code will then refer to the National Electric Code.

Mr. Bosch stated he appreciates Mr. Fulton’s efforts. We need to be proactive and have something in the works rather than having to react in the event that we should have a larger commercial venture come in that wants to use solar panels. Mr. Fulton stated when he was with Franklin County they developed regulations for wind turbines because people would call saying they were thinking about doing this and they had nothing on the books. Mr. Henderson stated Staff’s goal is to take the comments they have gotten and in the coming months bring something forward as a recommendation that would go on to Council. Mr. Bosch clarified that there has been communication with the law director in this matter.

C. Commission Discussion. Mr. Binkley clarified that someone from Happy Endings has contacted the City regarding putting up the side curtain on their patio. Mr. Henderson stated staff had a meeting with the owner today. Last January they had approval to have their side curtain up until April 15, 2011. This will be on next month’s agenda for the side curtain and the addition of some landscaping. Staff has not seen anything yet on the landscaping. Mr. Henderson stated that we have not come up with anything for side curtains and this may be a point that that the applicant will bring up. Mr. Binkley stated Planning and Zoning did come with something and Council did not approve it. Mr. Bosch stated he was at a business that has side curtains on an outdoor patio that has a frame and a structure with the side curtains built right in and they were attached and zippered, so there are types available that we have not seen here.

Mr. Henderson stated more and more businesses are going to be coming in with this type of request. Mr. Binkley stated we need to do something as we are going to face this every year. Council has said we have to explore this. Mr. Bosch stated Council has said the Commission couldn’t say no, however they did not say we could not say no on each individual case because Council does not have that authority unless they want to disband the Commission. Mr. Binkley stated there is grayness in the code that he likes but there is also black and white that he thinks needs to be there. Mr. Bosch stated that is what we tried to do. Mr. Hackworth stated there were examples in the report from the consultant where the curtains were a backdrop; there were pillars and maybe some landscaping so that you did not notice the curtains as much. The problem with patios being built onto existing buildings is that there is no buffer as they go right out into the parking or the edge of the sidewalk. They also these plastic curtains that end up flopping around in the wind. Mr. Bosch stated instead of addressing side curtains as just that one piece that maybe it should also be landscaping, with some kind of buffering requirements. Mr. Binkley stated he thinks something could be put in there to make it so they have to break it up and put mullions or something in every so often. We need to come up with guidelines regarding this. Mr. Evans stated she did not see where Happy Endings could put in any landscaping. Mr. Henderson stated where their patio is was originally a docking bay and in 2007 Happy Endings came in for the patio. He tried to blend the side curtain in with black tarp where the black railing is and then clear where the opening is. He was trying to make it unnoticeable. Mr. Binkley clarified that Happy Endings is the only business that is coming forward at this time. Mr. Bosch stated the we need to treat everyone the same, however there is a difference in taking a storefront and turning it into a sports pub wanting a patio on basically the sidewalk versus a facility that is building new and building a dedicated patio. It is difficult to come with one set of guidelines. Mr. Binkley clarified that if we made limitations by saying that unless the business is 75 percent food oriented then they are not allowed. Mr. Banchefsky stated it would be viewed as arbitrary as to how you are coming with that or why you are coming up with that. It could be a problem, however, you can set reasonable standards. Mr. Binkley stated he wanted to bring this up because this time of year it is bound to be coming in.

Mr. Hackworth stated another issue is Rule 3. They still have ramps in the gutter on the street for vehicles to get into the field across the street to park. If we have a heavy downpour those could float out into the road. Mr. Bosch stated they are four by four wood. Mr. Henderson stated he would speak with the City Engineer and the Service Department to see what we need to do to get those removed. Mr. Binkley clarified that there has been some discussion on the possibility of expanding the parking. Mr. Henderson stated he does not know if they have the capital to build a larger parking lot. There has been a lot of conversation lately about the noise and he has every complaint filed since it was built. He was asked by the Commission to have this information in case they come in to amend their Conditional Use Permit for outdoor service facility. Mrs. Evans clarified that there is a big noise problem with the neighbors. Mr. Henderson stated the calls are not coming from where he thought they would be and instead are from Cherry Hill. Mr. Bosch stated there are woods and three rows of houses between his home and Rule 3 and he can hear the thumping of the electrified bass guitar. This is in direct violation of what was approved as to no amplified music. Mr. Henderson stated it is his understanding that any noise that is heard beyond their property line the police department will cite them for every time, and within every couple of minutes they will continue to cite them. Mr. Binkley clarified there is a provision of the Conditional Use Permit that it can be revoked if they are in violation. Mr. Banchefsky stated the Codified Ordinances does have that provision under Conditional Uses that the city can revoke that conditional use if there is a violation. There were emails today regarding this and he has spoken with the Law Director regarding this. Mr. Henderson stated the City Manager. Chief of Police and himself are in conversation regarding this, that there were emails today. Mr. Banchefsky stated there were emails today and he was talking with the Law Director on this.

Mr. Hackworth clarified that Keller Farms has until October 15, 2011 to have their business open. Mr. Henderson stated the reason they had to get a councilmanic variance is because it did not list the M district in the Outdoor Service Facility code. The Commission approved changing that and it will be going before Council at the end of November and will go for three readings. Then Keller Farms will be able to come before this Commission for a Conditional Use for an outdoor service facility at that location if they choose to do so. His understanding is that they do want to come back to this location next year. Mr. Hackworth clarified that they will be removing their property that is there. Mr. Henderson stated it is to their benefit to remove it. Mr. Bosch stated at this stage he has to agree.

Mr. Bosch stated he appreciates what staff has done to correct the contractor situation on State Route 256. It was much better after Mr. Henderson got involved. There currently is a “Men Working” and a “Be Prepared to Stop” that were up for about a week with no work being done in that area. ODOT does not allow the wording “Men Working” on signs on state routes. Mr. Henderson stated there were a couple of complaints the same night as last month’s meeting regarding the borer equipment being next to the roadway. Some of the staff members who work in the Building, Development, Engineering and Planning and Zoning building at 51 E Columbus Street went there and physically removed a reel of conduit that was sitting in the middle of the roadway. Staff will address the other issues. One thing they are required to do is put signage up and they did that too well and are now just leaving it up. He will speak to them tomorrow regarding. Mr. Bosch stated that when Wow Cable is working in subdivision they leave their reel cable trailer with the wheels sitting in the gutter and the tongue sitting out over the sidewalk and the reel sticking four feet out into the street. He stated they were doing that all through the subdivision and cars had to swing out around it. Mr. Binkley stated the borer machine was sitting in his front yard and the worker using it was not wearing any safety gear. His question was what happens if the worker gets hurt while operating this machine on his property without any safety gear on. Mr. Henderson stated the City has had quite a few problems and concerns with the process and it sounds like they are going to be in town for the next six months to a year and they will make sure that they get in line. Mr. Hackworth clarified that they are sanctioned under the state. Mr. Henderson stated they responded well after staff spoke with them. They do need to be reminded and the Engineering Department has done a good job with this. He will pass on the concerns stated here to them.

7. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Hackworth moved to adjourn; Mr. Blair seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blair, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans , and Mr. Binkley voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:59 P.M., October 11, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

____________________________

Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk

ATTEST:

___________________________________________

Joseph P. Henderson, Development Services Director