REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Bosch called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Jennifer Readler, Steve Agganis, Harry Agganis, David Percy, Steve Moore, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 14, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. There being no discussion, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0.

3. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING. Mr. Bosch stated the next item on the agenda would be the annual organizational meeting of the Commission. Mr. Bosch opened the floor for nominations for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Nicholas moved to nominate Brian Bosch as Chairman; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch asked if there were any other nominations. Mr. Fix moved to nominate Mr. Blake as Chairman; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken on the nomination of Brian Bosch as Chairman with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea,” and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Nay.” Motion failed, 4-3.

Roll call was taken on the nomination of Mr. Blake as Chairman with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Smith, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

Mr. Fix moved to nominate Tory Kramer as Vice Chairman; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

Mr. Nicholas moved for Planning and Zoning Commission to continue meeting on the second Tuesday of each month at 7:30 P.M.; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

4. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for ReMax office building at 10400 Blacklick Eastern Road (TABLE) Mr. O’Brien moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided the Commission with a letter from Mr. Mapes regarding the two issues discussed at last month’s meeting dealing with the Type A buffer and the issue of the lower branches being removed from trees on the property. Mr. Schultz stated a Type A buffer is required adjacent to a residential site, however, there is a section in the Code that states the buffer requirement can be waived by two-thirds vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is building an approximately 10,000 square foot building and they are preserving 15 trees along the eastern perimeter. He stated they are removing 23 trees and those will be replaced in accordance with the tree preservation ordinance. He stated there would be a 3-5 foot mound with maple trees and flowerbeds along S.R. 204. Mr. Schultz continued that in addition to the 15 trees, staff is requesting 3, seven to eight foot pine trees in the opening of the 15 trees, and 14 additional pine trees, five to six feet high to make this more opaque and meet the requirements of the Type A buffer. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions that the existing 15 trees along the eastern perimeter of the site be preserved, that the red maple on the eastern perimeter of the site be replaced per the tree ordinance requirement or have the original grade restored around its roots, that the three pine trees that are between 7 and 8 feet in height at installation shall be located in the open space between the existing trees along the eastern perimeter of the site, and, finally, that nine pine trees north of the opening and five pine trees south of the opening on the eastern perimeter of the site shall be installed and shall be between five and six feet in height at installation and be located a minimum of five to fifteen feet west of the existing trees. Mr. Bosch stated the Commission had also asked to have the arborist determine if having the trees planted in the easement would be to close to the future building. Mr. Schultz stated he had not been able to contact the arborist as he had been on vacation and with the recent ice storm he has been very busy with all of the downed trees. Mr. Schultz stated he did not feel that would be an issue if we could verify the placement when they are put in. Mr. Blake clarified that Mr. Percy had received a copy of the letter from Mr. Mapes regarding the two issues discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for ReMax office Building at 10400 Blacklick Eastern Road contingent upon the conditions listed by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

B. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for a Ground Sign for ReMax office building at 10400 Blacklick Eastern Road. Mr. Schultz stated the owner was proposing a single ground sign along S.R. 204 and a potential second building on the site would likely require an additional ground sign. He stated the ground sign would be approximately 8.5’ x 10’, and would have a total sign area of 42.75 square feet. He stated there would be a maximum of five tenant panels on the sign, and the ReMax panel would have a white background with blue and red letters and graphics. There would be approximately one foot of brick from the bottom of the sign area to the ground, the brick would extend up both sides of the sign, the top of the sign would be comprised of an aluminum cabinet painted white, the sign would be internally illuminated, and the height of the ground sign should not exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the parking lot grade adjacent to the sign. The parking lot in this area has an elevation 872 feet. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the conditions that the sign panel lettering and graphics have a matte finish, that the number of colors on the each panel shall be limited to three, that the ground sign shall be located five feet from the property line and outside the site triangle, and the height of the ground sign should not exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the parking lot adjacent to the sign. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the base of the sign, where the brick columns meet the base, would be finished off with brick or stone. Mr. Kramer clarified the black trademark symbol indicated on the sign drawing would not be on the sign. Mr. Bosch clarified when the other building is built it will probably require another ground sign and questioned if that should be dealt with at this time. Mr. Schultz stated the intent would be they should be the same. Mr. Smith clarified the Commission was voting to approve the sign with the brick as shown in the illustration. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan contingent upon staff recommendations being met and the removal of the realtor logo on the sign, that both ground signs have the same design, and that either stone or brick be used for the cap of the base of the sign; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Mr. Fix clarified the requirement that both signs on the site have the same design was to prevent confusion when the second sign is requested. Mr. Schultz clarified the requirement for the second sign was based on the understanding this was one parcel and one development. He stated should the parcel be split into more than one parcel this requirement would not be valid. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for building signs for Stonecreek Diner at 12990 Stonecreek Drive (former Bill Knapp’s restaurant). Mr. Schultz stated the owner was proposing three wall signs on the building and the former Bill Knapp’s had a single sign on the elevation above the main entrance which was approved by Violet Township. Mr. Schultz stated this property was annexed to the City in 2002. Mr. Schultz stated the City’s Code allows a wall sign on a building that faces a street, parking lot, or service drive. The owner is proposing three signs while the building faces two streets, therefore, by our Code only two signs are permitted. He stated the owner is proposing a 21 square foot sign on the north elevation, a 31 square foot sign on the west elevation, and a 31 square foot sign on the entrance wall elevation. Mr. Schultz stated the sign would have a black background with red channel letters. He continued there is a pole for a pylon sign that was constructed for the former use and the sign was removed a few months ago. The pylon sign and associated structure is considered a nonconforming sign because the previous business ceased operations for more than 90 consecutive days and, therefore, the pylon sign pole needs to be removed. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the following conditions: That only two wall signs be permitted on the building, that the existing pylon sign pole be removed prior to approval of any zoning certificate for signage, and that the sign panel lettering have a matte finish. He stated a zoning certificate for signage is required prior to installation of the signs. Mr. Steve Moore stated he was the sign contractor for Mr. Agannis the owner of the property. He stated he understood they would be limited to two signs and since they were losing the third sign perhaps the other signs could be increased in size, and they understood they had the option to ask for a ground sign at a later date if they desired. Mr. Agannis stated not having a ground sign now they felt it was important that the center and west elevation signs be the same size. Mr. Bosch stated as he understood it the center elevation and the west elevation signs were the same size, and the owner was satisfied with those two signs. Mr. Agannis stated that was correct. Mr. Bosch stated when they wanted to put a ground sign in they would be required to come back to this Commission and request a modification to the Comprehensive Sign Plan. Mr. Kramer clarified the signage requested now would not have an effect on a ground sign when they requested it. Mr. Schultz stated our Code allows 50 square feet for a ground sign, and the sign design, location, etc. would need to be approved by this Commission. Mr. O’Brien stated the minutes would reflect that the square footage of the signage on the building would have no effect on the square footage of the ground sign. Mr. Moore stated he did have a concern with the requirement for a matte finish on the lettering, as matte finish is not available in channel lettering. Mr. Nicholas stated he thought the Commission had dealt with this issue before and it was determined the channel letters did not have to have a matte finish, but the background would have a matte finish. Mr. Bosch stated as he recalled if the background was matte, the square footage of the lettering was so small it did not make that big of a difference. Mr. Moore stated the background is paint so he did not have a problem with making that a matte finish. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the signs on the center and west elevations contingent upon meeting the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz, and deleting the requirement that the sign panel letters have a matte finish but requiring the background to have a matte finish; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

5. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there was one case for BZA this month regarding a variance for a change of use for the Richter House in the old downtown from commercial to residential use.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated he was unable to attend the last meeting, however, all of the agenda items were approved, none of which were in Violet Township.

C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated he hoped to have more information on the status by next month’s meeting.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission. No report.

B. 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 he is close to having all of the mapping done.

Mr. Schultz stated we now have a full time Code Enforcement Officer and we are starting to enforce temporary signs for non-profit organizations. He stated we will probably receive a lot of complaints from the schools, churches, PYAA, etc. Mr. O’Brien clarified they can apply for a temporary permit for a sign not to exceed 32 square feet if they own the property and the signs can be there for 30 days. Mr. Schultz stated if the signs come down and then go back up, they start another 30 days. Mr. Fix stated he felt we should put something in the Code to prevent these signs from coming down and going right back up. Mr. Schultz stated we do allow temporary signs in the right-of-way if he or the City Manager sign off on it, and in the past we have allowed them at the intersection of S.R. 204 and S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated we did recently remove signs from Flash Soccer as they are not in the City, however, if you are in the City we are more lenient. Mr. Schultz stated we try to remove all of the realtor signs as soon as we see them. Mr. Schultz stated our Code does allow developers to put signs at the entrance to subdivisions and we do not address a time limit. He continued that in the past it has been the policy that when the last house is sold or the last tenant has been leased in a commercial development, the signs should come down. The Commission requested Mr. Schultz look at the Code and see what we can do to clean this up. Mr. Fix stated he did not feel the soccer signs should be a problem because even if they are not in the City, they are a part of the community. Mr. Blake stated he did not feel we should selectively enforce the Code. Mr. O’Brien stated if we agreed to a couple of locations for the signs with notification of where the signs would be and how long they would be there it might help the problem. Mr. O’Brien stated we are cracking down on the code enforcement in other areas, so we should enforce this as well. Mr. Fix stated he did not have a problem with that, but if we were going to enforce the Code we should do it universally. Mr. Bosch stated the non-profits do need the ability to advertise, but we do need to control where and for how long the signs will be up. Mr. Kramer stated he did not feel it was fair to the individuals who follow the requirements not to enforce the Code on the ones who do not. Mr. Blake stated he felt there should be some latitude for the non-profits to advertise. Mr. Schultz stated as he understood the Commission, they felt the Code should be amended to allow these temporary signs in certain locations upon notification and approval by the City Manager. Mr. Fix summarized that what the Commission was asking was that until we have a code that is clean, allow for temporary signs in certain intersections of the community, notify the people putting the signs up that that is what is expected and nothing more and if they go outside of those boundaries we will remove their signs. He stated further they were asking Mr. Schultz to get with the City Manager and prioritize when he can address the code issues.

Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to have Mr. Schultz look into the situation of the two stone monuments at the Refugee Road and S.R. 256 to see if they are in the site triangle as they seem to create a safety hazard. Mr. Schultz stated he would look into this and see what he could find out.

Mr. Smith stated his term on the Commission would be expiring in February and due to other commitments he would not ask to serve another term. Mr. Smith stated he has enjoyed sitting on the Commission and is very proud of the work they have accomplished.

7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:42 P.M., January 11, 2005.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning