PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JANUARY 13, 2004
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.61 ACRES LOCATED AT 836 REFUGEE ROAD
FROM
C-3 (COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL) TO C-4 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) FOR CAT TRACKS, LTD., (HURT PROPERTY)
Mr. Bosch
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mayor Shaver, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
Wisniewski. Others present were: Lance
Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Ted Hackworth, Ray Hurt, Renae Hardy, Randy
Baughman, Nadia Farah, Deborah Brown, Dorothy Stolz, Mitch O’Brien, and others.
Mr. Bosch asked if there were any comments in favor of the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Ray Hurt stated he is the owner of the property and the tenants who are leasing it are requesting the rezoning. Mr. Hurt stated Cat Tracks is also a trucking company that has the big cranes, and those bothered the people who live in the condos next to the property, so they brought in the car lot instead. Mr. Hurt stated in order to have the car lot they need the rezoning.
Mr. Bosch asked if there were any comments against the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Randy Baughman stated he is the property manager for Brookview condominiums that are directly adjacent to this property. Mr. Baughman stated one of the concerns of the condo residents regarded the cranes that were previously on this property. He stated some of these cranes were 30 feet high, and when the people looked out their doors they saw all this construction equipment that was for rent. He stated the selling or leasing of cars did not bother the residents, but they did not want the cranes brought back. Mr. Baughman stated there is fencing around the property, and the condo residents cannot see the cars that are there now. He stated the residents were not necessarily against the rezoning, they were just concerned about what could go in there.
Ms. Renae Hardy stated she is the current tenant on the property. She stated she is actually a co-tenant on the property, and her business is to assist Big Cat Leasing with the disposal or resale of vehicles at the end of their lease contracts. Ms. Hardy stated her request was to rezone the property to C-4 to permit the sale of vehicles. She stated what she would like to point out is that she has no actual road frontage, the property is accessed from an access road. She further stated along the northern edge of the property, next to the condos, there is approximately a seven foot fence so the residents cannot see the property. Ms. Hardy stated she calculated she has space to park 12 to 13 vehicles at a time. She further stated she has no lights that would shine into the windows of the condos, no external intercom system, or anything of that nature that would disturb the neighbors. Ms. Hardy stated if the rezoning is approved she will continue to maintain the property neatly and conduct operations in a manner that would not disturb the neighbors.
Mr. Bosch stated if there were no further comments he would close the public hearing at this time, and further discussion would be appropriate at the time the Commission considered this item on the agenda.
The public hearing closed at 7:30 P.M., January 13, 2004.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
JANUARY 13, 2004
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Bosch called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mayor Shaver, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. Mr. England was absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Ted Hackworth, Randy Baughman, Nadia Farah, Deborah Brown, Dorothy Stolz, Mitch O’Brien, Ray Hurt, Renae Hardy, Bruce Summerfeld, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 9, 2003, Regular Meeting. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. There being no questions or comments, the minutes were approved.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve the rezoning of approximately 0.61 acres located at 836 Refugee Road from C-3 (Community Commercial) to C-4 (Highway Commercial) for Cat Tracks, Ltd. (Hurt property). Mr. Schultz stated this property is surrounded to the east, west, and south by community commercial uses, businesses, and retail uses, and to the north there is a condominium use. Mr. Schultz stated in November 2003, the City notified Cat Tracks that auto sales in a C-3 district is prohibited. He stated Cat Tracks performs minor automobile related activity such as technical service repair and detailing. He stated the applicant was selling used cars until informed they could not do that. He stated they were now requesting a zone change to C-4 that will permit the sale of new and used cars as a conditional use. Mr. Schultz stated the Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies this as a community commercial/office district, and does not distinguish between community commercial and highway commercial zones. He stated the only area in the City zoned for Highway Commercial is between S.R. 204/Tussing Road except for Rutherford Auto Body which received a zone change to C-4 in 1987. Mr. Schultz continued in a C-4 district the following uses are permitted that would be not be permitted in a C-3 district: automotive major repair; automotive vehicle and equipment sales; telecommunications equipment; and, sexually oriented businesses which would not likely meet conditional use criteria because it is within 1,000 feet of a residential district. Mr. Schultz stated approval of a C-4 district adjacent to a C-3 and R-10 district could set a precedent for more C-4 zone change requests for the sale of cars, motorcycles, etc. He stated within the past six months there have been several requests for the sale of used cars and when told they must be in a C-4 district they have not contacted him again. Mr. Schultz stated it appeared the site could meet the conditional use requirements for auto sales in a C-4 district. Mr. Schultz continued staff could not support the zone change request and set a precedent of permitting a C-4 district adjacent to C-3 and R-10 uses. Mr. Bosch clarified those uses stated by Mr. Schultz are the only differences between a C-3 and a C-4 district, and all of those are conditional use, meaning they must have approval of a conditional use. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there were any complaints from the residents of the condominium development when cars were being sold, and how long was that going on prior to receiving the notice from the City. Ms. Hardy stated her business had been in operation since April and prior to that Big Cat Cranes was on the property. She stated there were complaints when the large cranes were on the property, and they were allowed to be there. Mr. Baughman stated he had received no complaints from the residents about the sale of the cars, however, he received numerous complaints when the cranes were there. He stated prior to Big Cats being at this location, the residents had complained about diesel vehicles running and the fumes created by the previous use. Mr. Blake clarified a C-3 district would allow the large cranes for leasing on that lot, but did not allow automobile sales. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct, it was determined a few years ago that leasing equipment is permitted in a C-3 district with no stipulation on size, tonnage, etc. Mr. Schultz stated Pickerington Carpet Outlet on S.R. 256 leases U-Hauls and that is when the determination was made that you could lease equipment in a C-3 district. Mayor Shaver stated he would like Mr. Schultz to have that determination evaluated to see if it was a correct interpretation. Mr. Mapes inquired if this property met the parking requirements in terms of the parking spaces that would be necessary for the car sales. He stated he calculated there should be 39 parking spaces if they were going to have a car dealership there. Mr. Schultz stated right now they do not have any parking striped except against the building. Mr. Bosch clarified this is a paved lot. Mr. Mapes stated if the zoning were to be changed it would have to meet the parking requirements. Mr. Schultz stated he felt that any use would not meet the parking requirements because the existing building is large and the site is small. Mr. Mapes stated further this would be zoning property that has no frontage other than an access road that is probably an easement with everyone else. He stated we typically require some sort of road frontage and not be landlocked in terms of what they are doing. Mayor Shaver clarified this would be the only C-4 in the city that is not around I-70, except for Rutherford Auto Body. Mayor Shaver stated his concern was setting the precedent of allowing C-4 use down this far, then what would stop someone from requesting a large car lot further away from the highway. Mr. Smith ascertained Ms. Hardy did have the ability to have the 39 parking spaces required. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the applicant’s position as they did have six years remaining on their 10 year lease of the building, however, he also understood the problem of setting a precedent for this type of use this far from a highway. Mr. Bosch stated if this Commission would like to take more time to look into this and weigh their options, it can be tabled. He stated that would allow Mr. Schultz to review the situation. Mayor Shaver stated he did not see the difference between allowing some businesses to lease cranes or U-Hauls, and not allow her to sell vehicles. Mr. Tom Devine stated he had previously operated the crane company on this property and he is a co-owner with Ms. Hardy on Big Cat Leasing. He stated he moved the crane business to what he thought was a better area, and Ms. Hardy carried on the vehicle business at that location. He stated they do have the lease with Mr. Hart and if he has to move the sale of vehicles he will have to move the cranes back as he needs to operate a business in order to pay the overhead. He stated further he did not feel if this business were allowed that it would open the door for a large dealership, as any zoning has to be approved. Mr. Devine stated he would ask this Commission to look at the location so they would know what the property was actually like. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had driven back there today, and no one could see the property from the road. Ms. Nadia Farah stated her concern was what could go onto this property in the future if the zoning is changed. Mr. Smith clarified that currently the Code is interpreted that if you lease equipment in a C-3 district, that is acceptable, however, if you want to sell it, it must be a C-4 district. Mr. Bosch stated from hearing the comments of the residents, he definitely wanted to take into account their concerns. Mr. Bosch ascertained Ms. Hardy would have no objection if this Commission put a restriction on the size of vehicles as a conditional point. Mr. Schultz stated this Commission can only put conditions on planned districts, and for that to occur the request would have to be changed to a planned highway commercial district. Mr. Bosch clarified if this were a planned highway commercial district, this Commission could put a restriction on the number and size of vehicles allowed, no lighting, etc. Mr. Schultz stated if this is changed to a planned district, another public hearing would need to be scheduled, and if that is the way the applicant wants to go he would have to review it as a planned district. Mr. Smith stated if he understood Mr. Devine correctly, if this zoning is not approved the cranes will return. Mr. Devine stated he would have to look at his options, he was not saying he would bring them back, but if he is in the lease he must use the facility. Mr. Baughman stated the condo resident’s concerns were if the cranes would go back and what may happen down the road when the lease expires. Mr. Nicholas again clarified Ms. Hardy has six years remaining on her lease and if this is not approved she is basically out of business. Mr. Nicholas inquired if a time limit could be put on a zoning, and Mr. Mapes stated that is not allowed. Mr. Bosch stated he felt this was an issue that this Commission should take a look at before making a decision that would affect the tenants for the next six years. Mr. Bosch moved to Table; Mayor Shaver seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mayor Shaver, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. Review and request for motion to
approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Signage
for All Pets at Pickerington located at 573 Hill Road North. Mr. Schultz stated this building was
constructed in the early 1990’s, and the owner is proposing to decorate the
east elevation of the building with paw prints.
He stated the zoning code does not address graphics and the approval of
such a request could set a precedent for graphics on buildings throughout the
City. He stated staff did not support
such a request until graphic standards could be researched further. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was what
graphics other businesses could put on their buildings if we do not have
standards. Jennifer Schoenfeld stated
she is the veterinarian at All Pets and she was requesting this to identify her
building as it is no longer visible from S.R. 256 with the rerouting of
Courtright Drive. She stated the paw
print design would help new clients find them and also define what business is
the big white house with green shutters.
Mayor Shaver clarified Mr. Schultz’ concern was not specifically with
this design, but with the fact that the City does not have a graphic design
code and he would like the time to research and develop such a code for this
Commission to review. Mr. Schultz stated
that was correct, and he would also like to review what other communities
allow. Mr. Mapes clarified All Pets
currently has a monument sign and a small name plate sign by the front door. He stated she is allowed a wall sign and that
is defined as a means of identification, description or illustration that draws
attention to a product or service. He
stated the paw prints could be considered a wall sign and all wall signs are
contingent upon the city’s approval. Mr.
Wisniewski clarified it is not unusual to use graphics in a sign, but it is
unusual not to have any wording in the sign.
Mayor Shaver stated he concurred with Mr. Schultz that it would be a
good idea to develop graphic design standards.
Mr. Bosch stated he agreed a wall sign could have graphics, but he felt
it should also have wording. He stated
he could not support six paw prints painted on the side of the building as a
wall sign. Mr. Bosch inquired if Dr. Schoenfeld would be amenable to making it
more like a traditional sign, and Dr. Schoenfeld stated it would be boring but
she could do it. Mr. Smith stated his
concern was the time it would take to develop graphic standards and meanwhile
Dr. Schoenfeld did not have an answer from this Commission. Mayor Shaver stated he understood this would
be turned down and once the standards are developed she could reapply. Mr. Nicholas stated he concurs with Mr. Smith
that developing standards could take some time, and he questioned if Dr.
Schoenfeld could come back with a Comprehensive Sign Plan where this could be
considered. Mr. Schultz stated this
request is unique and they could come in with a Comprehensive Sign Plan, but
his concern would be the same. Mr. Smith
stated he felt the city would have more protection if this was brought back as
Comprehensive Sign Plan as we could put conditions on it. He stated he would suggest this come back to
the Commission next month as a Comprehensive Sign Plan so those conditions can
be put on it and that we start developing graphic standards so we will have them
in the future. Mayor Shaver stated he
would still prefer this come back as a traditional sign and not a comprehensive
sign plan. Mr. Bosch clarified if this
were tabled tonight, it can come back as an amendment next month and be dealt
with at that time. Mr. Nicholas stated
his concern was if this was tabled and brought back next month as an amendment
for a Comprehensive Sign Plan, would that be the format this Commission would
approve. Mr. Bosch stated it would
depend on the amendment that was brought forward. Mr. Smith moved to Table; Mr. Wisniewski
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Smith, and Mayor Shaver voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. (TABLE)
C. Review and request for motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for America’s Urgent Care at 1797 Hill Road North (Developers Diversified). Mr. Schultz stated in November 2003, this Commission approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signs at the Shoppes at Turnberry. He stated this is the former CVS building that will be the America’s Urgent Care facility. Mr. Schultz stated the owners are proposing to install wall signs on the north, east, and south elevations of the building and a sign would also be located above the entrance feature. He stated wall signs are permitted on building walls that face a street, parking lot or service drive. Mr. Schultz stated further on the north elevation the proposal is for a 106.7 square foot sign that has a white background with blue lettering and a red and blue logo; the east elevation sign would also be 106.7 square feet with the same lettering and colors; the south elevation sign would be almost 50 square feet; and, above the main entrance the sign would be a 50 square foot sign. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed signs on the north and east elevations are larger than the former CVS signs at this location that were approximately 33 square feet each, as well as, the Damon’s main sign in the shopping center that is approximately 32 square feet. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant’s request is for four signs that total over 300 square feet and, if approved, this would be more signage for any building of this size in the city. Mr. Schultz stated staff’s recommendation was for a 50 square foot or less sign on the north and south elevations. He stated further the east elevation can have a 100 square foot sign because of the length of the building and the distance away from S.R. 256 if the sign above the entrance is not approved. If the sign above the entrance is approved, the wall sign on this elevation should be reduced to 50 square feet. He stated this would be consistent with what we allow other buildings. Mr. Schultz stated staff did not recommend the sign above the entrance be approved if the signs on the north and east elevations are approved. He continued staff recommended 20 total square feet of additional signage for the remaining tenant space to be located on the north, east, and south elevations. He stated there is another potential tenant space in the building and he felt that should be addressed now rather than later. Mr. Schultz stated Urgent Care may also have additional signage on the ground sign recently approved at the new entrance from Tussing Road. Mr. Schultz summarized that staff supported the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the following conditions: The wall sign on the north elevation be reduced to 50 square feet or less; the wall sign located above the entrance feature be eliminated; and, 20 total square feet of additional signage area be allocated for a future tenant that can be located on the north, east, and south elevations. He stated a sign permit is required for each sign. Mr. Bruce Summerfeld stated he was representing the applicant and the signs were basically designed following what was afforded to the two previous tenants, CVS and Revco. He stated one of the reasons their signs require more square footage is due to the length of the name and the logo that they require. He stated they felt the signage requested gave them good visibility to customers that are looking for the facility, often in urgent need of assistance. Mr. Bosch questioned the applicant if it came to a choice which would they prefer, the 100 square foot sign on the side facing S.R. 256 or the 50 square foot sign above the entrance. Mr. Summerfeld stated it was a question of visibility and set back, as the east elevation has the biggest set back from S.R. 256, and the visibility for the canopy sign is for the intersection of Tussing and S.R. 256. Mr. Bosch stated if signs were necessary in both places, he would rather see the 100 square foot sign reduced in order to keep the canopy sign. Mr. Summerfeld stated the logo is their national trademark, and to reduce that disproportionately to the rest of the lettering is a trademark issue. Mayor Shaver clarified the issue was the total amount of square footage. Mr. Schultz stated there is the potential to reduce the sign on the south elevation by 20 or 30 square feet, and then reduce the 100 square foot to 70 square feet or so. Mr. Bosch stated he concurred, and his goal was to get the total square footage down. Mr. Nicholas stated he has looked at this particular building and his concern on the canopy sign is if that sign would be practical. He stated with the trees on the berm on the south side of Tussing Road, you are almost on top of the access road by the time you could see the canopy sign, at which time it is to tall. He stated he is not in favor of the canopy sign. Mayor Shaver moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the sign on the north elevation being 50 square feet, 50 square feet on the canopy, 75 square feet on the east elevation, and 25 square feet on the south elevation, and 20 total square feet of signage for the remaining tenant space; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas abstaining, and Mayor Shaver, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
D. Review and request for motion to approve amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Town Hall Building (17-25 North Center Street) and Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Venettacci Social Papers (23 North Center Street.) Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is request three signs, a projection sign (3.2 square feet), an oval sign against the wall just to the right of the entrance (1.4 square feet), and an oval wall sign located on the north elevation facing the alley (8.66 square feet). The sign color scheme would be a black background with gold border and lettering. He stated most uses in the Olde Pickerington Village have only one sign, however, a wall sign may be erected on a building wall that faces a street, parking lot or service drive (alley). Mr. Schultz stated he felt two signs were appropriate for this use, one sign on the east elevation fronting Center Street, either a projection sign or wall sign, and one sign on the north elevation. He stated staff supports the amended comprehensive sign plan for Town Hall and certificate of appropriateness for Venettacci Social Papers with the following conditions: Only one sign be located on the east elevation, either a projection sign or wall sign, and the sign on the north elevation be reduced to six square feet or less to be consistent with Grisinni’s sign facing Columbus Street. Mr. Bosch stated he liked the overhead projection sign in the old downtown area. Ms. Meredith Venetta, the applicant, stated she was requesting the projection sign for visibility from the street, and the sign by the door was to identify the business if you were looking straight on at the building. She stated the sign on the north side of the building would identify the business for traffic coming from that direction. Mr. Schultz stated the occupant could also use a window sign instead of the sign by the entrance. Mr. Smith stated he did not have a problem with the small sign by the door. He stated it is only one square foot, identifies the business, and is tastefully done. Mr. Mapes stated he thought this was more of a nameplate, and that is allowed. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the amended comprehensive sign plan for the Town Hall Building (17-25 North Center Street) and Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Venettacci Social Papers (23 North Center Street) with the projection sign, the nameplate, and the 8.5 square foot sign on the north elevation reduced to 6 square feet; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mayor Shaver, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated one case was approved in December, and there are no cases scheduled for January.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated three subdivisions and four zone changes were approved, none of which were in Violet Township.
C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated they would meet later this month.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
B. Review and discussion regarding Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Sign Code. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided draft regulations in memo form for everyone to review. He stated he thought everything that had been requested at the last meeting had been included but he would appreciate any comments or input from the commission members. Mr. Schultz stated this is the first meeting for some members and he just wanted to let everyone have a chance to look at what was being proposed before putting it in final form.
C. Review and discussion regarding an Ordinance to Enact Chapter 1480 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances Relative to the Preservation of Notable Structures within the City. Mr. Schultz stated as the Commission had requested, Mrs. Yartin had provided the background information concerning this issue from Safety Committee and Council. He stated the next step would be to define the process we want to proceed with. Mr. Schultz stated he has not been able to find any community with an ordinance similar to this and he is still trying to determine the process for implementation. He stated he hoped to have something for the next meeting.
D. Storage Shed Research. Mr. Bosch stated this was in response to a question proposed to the Commission last month by a resident who now has to look at three storage sheds of different types, sizes, shapes, colors, etc., in the backyard of his neighbor. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided the Commission with a memorandum showing how some surrounding communities handle this issue. Mr. Bosch stated the newer subdivisions do not allow storage sheds, but the older subdivisions do not have restrictions as to the number. Mr. Schultz stated he would try to have a draft regulation prepared by the next meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Wisniewski, Mayor Shaver, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:45 P.M., January 13, 2004.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning