CITY OF PICKERINGTON

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2003

PUBLIC HEARING

7:20 P.M.

OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REZONING OF 0.25+/- ACRES LOCATED AT 78 WEST COLUMBUS STREET FROM R-4 (RESIDENTIAL) TO C-2 (CENTRAL BUSINESS/MIXED USE) FOR THE DESIGN TEAM (KERN PROPERTY)

Mr. England opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present: Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, and Mr. Bosch. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Kenneth Kern, Frank Davis, Jody Davis, Bret Kastoe, Jeanette Kastoe, Carolyn Busack, Brittany Williamson, Eleanor Willard, and others.

Mr. England asked if there was any discussion for or against the proposed rezoning.

Mr. Frank Davis stated he and his wife have been in the barber business for 25 years and currently have their business at Brookview Shopping Center. Mr. Davis stated he has lived in Pickerington all his life and he would welcome the opportunity to finish his career in the town where he was raised. Mr. Davis stated his lease at his current location expires on May 31^st and they have been looking to purchase a property that would be suitable for their business. Mr. Davis stated Mr. Kern had asked if they would be interested in his property at 78 West Columbus Street. Mr. Davis continued that he had visited every resident on West Columbus Street to introduce himself to the neighbors. He stated he would like to appeal to Mr. and Mrs. Kastoe that he would be a good neighbor. Mr. Davis stated further he felt his business would be an asset to the old downtown and would help other businesses in the area prosper. Mr. Davis stated his is not a high traffic business, they operate by appointment, and he did not feel his business would add a lot of parking in the area. Mr. Davis stated he and his wife would park in the rear and he has learned the City is going to be putting in a public parking lot right across the street from this property. Mr. Davis stated the only employees would be himself, his wife, and one other person. Mr. Davis stated his wife works part-time and when she left, the other employee would come in.

Mr. Kenneth Kern stated he is the property owner and the applicant for the rezoning. Mr. Kern stated he has requested the rezoning so Mr. Davis can have his business in the city.

Mr. Bret Kastoe stated he was not against Mr. Kern selling his property, but he did have concerns about the parking in the area. Mr. Davis stated the rear of the property does accommodate three parking spaces and he would be parking his car in the garage. Mr. Davis further stated his business is by appointment and he does not have a lot of walk-in customers. Mr. Kastoe further stated he understood the city would be doing some work in the area and the street would be torn up, and that would cause more problems with parking.

Mr. England stated 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., February 11, 2003.

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, FEBRUARY 11, 2003

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. England called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. England, were present. Mr. Maxey arrived at 7:50 P.M. Mayor Postage was absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Kenneth Kern, Frank Davis, Jody Davis, Bret Kastoe, Jeanette Kastoe, Carolyn Busack, Brittany Williamson, Eleanor Willard, Daryl Berry, Ron Carmen, Jim Johnson, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 14, 2003, Public Hearing regarding road standards in multi-family developments and other revisions. Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 14, 2003, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. England, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Bosch voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve the rezoning of 28.548+/- acres from AG (Rural District) to R-4 (Residential District) for a single-family development located north of Long Road and south of the railroad tracks and just west of the proposed Long Estates Subdivision for Rockford Homes (Woodward property). (TABLED, 11-12-02)

B. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Pickerington Heating and Cooling at 22 North Center Street. (TABLED, 11-12-02)

C. Review and request for motion to approve a final development plan for Long Estates Phase II a single-family development on approximately 79.89 acres for William Lane located north of Long Road and south of the railroad tracks (Lane property). (TABLED, 11-12-02)

D. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for Cottman Transmission at 860 Refugee Road (TABLED, 1/14/03)

E. Review and request for motion to approve proposed rezoning of 78 West Columbus Street from R-4 (Residential) to C-2 (Central Business/Mixed Use) for the Design Team (Kern Property). Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposed to renovate the existing house into a barber salon and that is permitted in the C-2 zoning. Mr. Schultz stated within the same block to the east is a law office and to the south is an office use. He stated the Columbus Street corridor has a variety of mixed uses including retail stores, restaurants, and professional offices. Mr. Schultz stated the Olde Pickerington Village Development Plan encourages pedestrian style commercial development along the corridor. Mr. Schultz stated although this property is surrounded by R-4 zoning districts, he felt the use is appropriate because of the existing mixed uses, and other commercially zoned properties along the corridor are surrounded by residential zoning districts. Mr. Schultz stated the building would apparently remain the same; therefore certificates of appropriateness for building materials, landscaping and lighting would not be required. He stated any signage would require a certificate of appropriateness approved by this Commission. Mr. Schultz continued that although additional parking is not required as part of the site plan approval in the Olde Pickerington Village area, he strongly encouraged the employees park in the rear of the property to allow more spaces on Columbus Street for patrons. Mr. Schultz stated staff does support this rezoning. Mr. Schultz further stated as part of the downtown revitalization plan a parking lot is planned to be located across the street. Mr. Sabatino clarified that Mr. Schultz’ recommendation was that the employees park in the rear of the property so the front would be open to patrons. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Sabatino ascertained there is space in the rear of the property where three cars can be parked. Mr. Sabatino further ascertained Mr. Davis would not object to himself and his employees being required to park in the rear.

Mrs. Jeanette Kastoe, 84 West Columbus Street, stated her home is next door to this property and when they purchased their home approximately five years ago it was with the intent of restoring it to it’s original grandeur. Mrs. Kastoe stated one of her biggest concerns is that their property value as a residence will suffer if they are completely surrounded by commercial. Mrs. Kastoe stated there have been several changes across the street, the empty lot where the parking lot is to go, and the cell phone tower that they look out onto, and she does not see all of that as necessarily positive change. Mrs. Kastoe stated she feels it is essential to the old village to keep a mix of residences and businesses. She stated she felt an old working downtown is not that without families living there. Mrs. Kastoe stated she would like to know if there is a formula or goal to keep a level of mixed use. She stated she would like to know if there was a point where you said no more commercial, because she felt we have to keep some residences.

Mr. Kastoe stated he was still concerned with the parking as he did not feel there was space for the employees, customers, etc., to park on the street. He stated he would be concerned with Mr. Davis putting his money into a business and then having the street torn up where no-one can get to it. He stated a parking lot may be planned for across the street, but it isn’t there yet.

Mr. Davis stated Pickerington is his home and he would not put in a business that would harm the area. He stated as far as the parking is concerned, his is a time managed business. He stated he does not schedule appointments so that people are sitting around waiting, and their clients are very loyal to them. Mr. Davis stated again the last thing they wanted to do was do anything to harm the area.

Mr. England stated the old downtown is a mixed use, there are several businesses scattered along Columbus Street as well as several residences and it does not appear to have done any harm to any of those homes.

Mr. Bosch stated it sounded like the parking is the main concern with Mr. and Mrs. Kastoe. He stated if all of the staff parking could be accommodated behind the house, and if this Commission felt it would be adequate to maintain staff’s recommendation for the employees to park in the back, and Mr. and Mrs. Davis were in agreement with that, he felt he could support this rezoning.

Mr. Smith stated he concurred with Mr. Bosch, and he would also be interested if there was a formula for determining mixed use. Mr. Sabatino stated it was his recollection from serving on the Olde Downtown Commission that there was never a ratio of residential and businesses allowed, and he agreed that you do need both elements in the old village area. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve the rezoning with the condition that employee parking be located in the rear of the property; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

F. Review and request for motion to approve Olde Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for Dr. Carmen at 177 West Columbus Street. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to renovate the second floor to add storage and refine certain parts of the office. He stated four dormers would be added to the east elevation and three dormers to the west elevation, and the eastern front building wall would be extended to square the building off. Mr. Schultz stated the plan would meet the setback requirements of the zoning code. He further stated the dormers would be constructed to match the existing building materials, the shingles will match the existing roof color, and the new windows in the dormers and existing second floor window fronting West Columbus Street should have muttons and mullions. Mr. Schultz stated he supported the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions that the building materials of the proposed dormers be compatible with the existing building color and materials, that all the proposed windows have muttons and mullions, and that the existing second floor window fronting West Columbus Street have muttons and mullions. Mr. Daryl Berry stated his company had constructed the building for Dr. Carmen and now Dr. Carmen wishes to add some space to the building for storage and to accommodate some additional staff. Mr. Berry stated the materials used will be identical to those on the existing structure. Mr. Berry stated there has been some additional work done on the interior since the elevation the Commission has was done, and there will be three dormers on each side. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not recall muttons and mullions on the first floor windows. Mr. Berry stated when the building was constructed there was discussion about that, and the building is an historical replication of a building that is over 100 years old. Mr. Berry stated the only window that was to have muttons and mullions was in the gable, and those have not been put in as yet. Mr. Nicholas stated he was not sure if it would look right to have them in the second floor and not the first floor windows. Mr. Nicholas stated he would recommend they be added in the first floor windows. Mr. Berry stated the design example that the lower large picture windows emulated was from the old buildings in Pickerington. Mr. Berry stated in the older homes the style of windows was to have a small window above and a large window below, and that is the example used in this building. Mr. Berry stated if this Commission requires the grids to be put in, it is an easy thing to do, however, he felt it would look out of character. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions listed by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

G. Review and request for motion to approve Old Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Chesta Company, Inc., at 93 West Columbus Street. Mr. Schultz stated the owner was proposing to construct one projection sign fronting Columbus Street. He stated the sign would be rectangular in shape with a sign area of approximately 12 square feet. He continued the sign material would be sandblasted redwood with red, white, and blue colors and located between the two windows above the front porch and project out 4 feet with a metal yard arm. Mr. Schultz stated it would be his recommendation that the sign be either mounted directly to the building horizontally and not projected on the second floor or projected over the entrance to the building on the first floor. Mr. Schultz stated the signs that are located on the second floor in the old village area are mounted directly to the building horizontally and not projected. He further stated the location and orientation of signs in the old village area should be as consistent as possible. He stated he supported the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the sign be mounted directly to the building horizontally on the second floor or projected over the entrance to the building on the first floor. Ms. Darla Burman stated the only reason she did not request to have the sign hanging from the porch, was due to the planned renovation to the sidewalks and she did not feel there would be sufficient clearance. Ms. Burman stated she did not have a problem with mounting the sign horizontally on the second floor between the two windows. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve the sign on the condition that it be mounted horizontally on the building on the second floor between the two windows; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. England voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

H. Review and request for motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness for signage for Johnson Self Storage at 749 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is requesting one ground sign and two wall signs. He stated the ground sign is 9 feet 4 inches high and 12 feet wide, and the sign area is a total of 50 square feet. Mr. Schultz continued there would be four feet of brick from the ground to the bottom of the sign area. He further stated the plan does not indicate the color of the sign, but it should be limited to three colors. Mr. Schultz stated there would be bricks approximately one-half way up both sides of the sign and typically the city requires bricks up the entire way of the sign. He stated ground lights would illuminate the sign and it would be located just south of the main entrance into the development. Mr. Schultz also stated the wall sign fronting Windmiller Drive would be 1.5 feet high and 27.5 feet wide for a total sign area of 41.5 square feet. He stated the letters would be 18 inch wall mounted, lighted, hunter green in color, attached directly to the drivit, and the bottom of the letters would be 18.5 feet above grade. Mr. Schultz stated the wall sign on the rear of the building, facing S.R. 256, would be the same size. Mr. Schultz stated staff did not support a wall sign facing S.R. 256 because the site does not have frontage on 256 and is located approximately 1,000 feet from 256. He continued when the property east of this site develops the sign would not likely be visible from S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated approval of such sign location could set a negative precedent of allowing commercial buildings wall signs without road frontage. Mr. Schultz stated he supported the comprehensive sign plan with the conditions that the ground sign be located 5 feet from the adjacent property line and 5 feet from the right-of-way and outside the site triangle; that the brick on the ground sign match the brick on the building; that the rear wall sign facing S.R. 256 not be permitted; and that the ground sign be limited to three colors. Mr. Sabatino clarified that a color rendering of the sign had not been received. Mr. Johnson stated the sign up front would be wood with brick on both sides and green letters on a white backing. Mr. Johnson stated the sign facing 256 would be a great asset to his business. Mr. Sabatino clarified that we do not typically permit signs on the rear of a building. Mr. Schultz stated it was his concern that if this were permitted, we would have several uses on S.R. 256 coming in and requesting additional signage. Mr. Sabatino stated that as the property faces Windmiller Drive, he felt this Commission should consider that sign only. He stated further he was concerned with the monument sign having brick only half way up the sides. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed with Mr. Sabatino on the brick on the side, and what he would like to see was on the front of the building where the brick columns come up almost to the roof line, if we could extend the brick sides on the monument sign up to about where the top of the Windmiller Self Storage sign is. He stated he felt that would bring it more into scale with the building. Mr. Bosch stated with the location of the monument sign you would be able to see it only from one direction. Mr. Johnson stated he felt the sign on the front of the building would speak for itself. Mr. Nicholas stated he did concur with the staff on not allowing the wall sign on the rear of the building. Mr. Nicholas further stated that the green letters on the front of the building would have to have a flat finish rather than glossy. Mr. Nicholas also stated he concurred with Mr. Bosch that the brick on the sides of the monument sign should be raised to be in proportion with the brick that is on the building at the roof line. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with the conditions that the brick go up the sides of the monument sign in proportion to the brick on the building with respect to the height at the roof, and that the wall signage have a flat finish, that the sign on the rear of the building facing S.R. 256 not be permitted, that the sign be located five feet from the adjacent property line and five feet from the right-of-way and outside the sight triangle, that the brick on the ground sign match the brick on the building, and that the ground sign be limited to three colors; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. England, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

I. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for lighting for Johnson Self Storage at 749 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Schultz stated this deals with the same site just discussed and the owner is proposing ten light poles, eight fronting Windmiller Drive and two illuminating parking areas on the east and south portion of the site respectively. He stated each building would have several building mounted lights for customer safety. Mr. Schultz stated the light poles would be 20 foot tall “shoe box” down lights, they would be directed away from Windmiller Drive, and as the site is surrounded by commercial uses or commercially zoned property the lights should not illuminate onto any residential properties. Mr. Schultz stated the commercial design guidelines require rural design light poles, and the poles should match the light poles at Dr. Martello’s , CME Credit Union, the flex office building on Windmiller Drive, and the proposed doctor’s office on Windmiller Drive to maintain a consistent light pole character in this area. He stated the type and style of building mounted lights are not identified. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions that the light poles not exceed 20 feet in height, be cut-off type and oriented towards the site, that the light poles be rural in character to be consistent with other land uses along Windmiller Drive, and that the lights shall be high-pressure sodium. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Johnson will have to describe what type of building mounted lights he is proposing, however, because the site is in the center of commercially zoned property he did not feel they would spill over into other areas. Mr. Johnson stated the building mounted lights would be wall packs and would shine out toward the other building. He stated there would be no spillage out toward Windmiller Drive. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to put the “shoe box” light poles up and the building next to him, Colonial Heating, has shoe box, the World Gym, Kroger, the car wash, and the new police station have shoe box. He stated the Credit Union lights do not match the dentist office or Mr. Berry’s development. Mr. Johnson stated his lights sit about 25 to 30 feet off the road and with the greenery he is required to put in they will not be that noticeable. Mr. Schultz stated he realized the sites are not consistent with regard to the light poles, however, he has to let the Commission know what our guidelines are and what has occurred throughout the area. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was the consistency in the area and what the Commission approves tonight will probably be what goes in throughout this development. Mr. Bosch stated that stretch there is not consistent now, and rural lighting is a 30 foot electric pole with a barn light on it. Mr. Schultz agreed it is pretty subjective. Mr. Bosch stated this is a commercial area, it will be a commercial corridor, but since it does lead into a residential neighborhood we do want it to look right. Mr. Bosch stated since the majority of the existing lighting is shoe box, as long as we maintain the same style he has no problem with it. Mr. Bosch stated his only question was regarding the wall mounted lights along the front of the main building and if they would project onto Colonial Heating. Mr. Schultz stated they need to be less than one foot candle at the property line, and he did not request the applicant to do a foot candle study because with the property line being 30 to 40 feet away he assumed they would not illuminate that far. Mr. Nicholas stated he would recommend the applicant work with the staff on the lighting especially when it comes to the foot candle issue. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the “shoe box” lights as requested and the other conditions listed by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz clarified the condition he had recommended that the lights be rural in character would be removed. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. England voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated the Board did not meet in January and it did not appear they would meet in February.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission approved extensions on the preliminary plans for the Winding Creek development and Spring Creek development, approved Meadowmore Section 2 final plat, and Woodstream Section 4 final plat. Mr. Sabatino stated these plats are all in Violet Township and ascertained Winding Creek, Spring Creek, and Meadowmore totaled about 800 lots. Mr. Schultz stated he was not sure how many lots were in the fourth development. Mr. Sabatino further clarified that more would be coming to the Commission and that the Fairfield Regional Planning Commission had not had any discussion regarding an intent to hold back the growth in the Township.

5. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.

A. Tree Commission. No report.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. England, and Mr. Nicholas voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:35 P.M., February 11, 2003.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin

Municipal Clerk

___________________________

Lance A. Schultz

Director, Planning & Zoning