REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien were present. Mr. Nicholas arrived at 7:40 P.M. No members were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Jennifer Readler, Jennifer Frommer, Susan Crotty, Jerry Dailey, John Hardt, Steve Hermiller, Louis Visco, Matt Mcjeed, Becky Coulter,Tony Martin, David Daniel, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 8, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Fix moved to amend the minutes to reflect Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blake were present in lieu of Mr. Bosch being listed twice; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken on the motion to amend with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0. Roll call was taken on the minutes as amended with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for Sky Bank (northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive). Mr. Schultz stated in 2001, Council approved a rezoning from C-3 to PC-2 for this site, which includes Kohl’s as well as other outlots. He stated the owner is proposing to construct a 2,100 square foot bank that would have a single access from Postage Drive and a drive thru is proposed on the western portion of the building. He stated there would also be a shared curb cut into the site to the west and there would be 17 parking spaces on the site, the dumpster would be just west of the drive thru canopy, and storm water would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet all zoning requirements. Mr. Schultz stated there would be a stone water table on all four sides with brick veneer above it. There would be a pitched roof with shingles, and while they are proposing Valley Forge Green asphalt shingles, staff prefers black or grey to match the building just north of the site. Mr. Schultz stated entrances to the site would be on the south and east elevations. He continued the landscaping to the north would have four trees, streetscape buffering is required along S.R. 256 and Postage Drive, and along S.R. 256 they are proposing a two-foot high undulating mound with two new trees, three flowerbeds, and several shrubs and ornamental grasses. Mr. Schultz stated the landscaping appears to meet the City landscaping standards. Mr. Schultz continued the owner is proposing seven light poles that are 20 feet in height and are a cut-off type with a straight neck. Mr. Schultz stated the light lamps they are proposing does not match the lamps in the Cross Creek development and Creek Bend Business Park. He stated staff recommends these light fixtures match. He continued the light plan meets the illumination standards at the property lines. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting with the following conditions: (1) that the asphalt shingles be dimensional and match the Fairfield Federal Bank building, (2) that the building material and color of the drive thru canopy on the east elevation be identified, and (3) that the light poles shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height and the light fixture lamps shall match the lamps at cross Creeks and the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Schultz further stated a Conditional Use Permit for the drive thru and a Comprehensive Sign Plan is required, and an approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission of construction drawings and building permits.

Mr. John Hardt stated he was present representing the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Hardt stated with regard to the light poles, if he can get the information on exactly what the other developments used they would be happy to use those lights. Mr. Hardt stated with regard to the shingles, they are perfectly happy to match the shingles with the other bank, and when they contacted the builder of that facility and the shingles they had indicated on their drawings were the same as what they were told that builder had used. He stated if that is not correct, they will be happy to change it to the correct one. Mr. Schultz stated he will research this further. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for Sky Bank (northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive) with the conditions listed by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to clarify that the light poles are 20 feet from pavement. Mr. Fix moved to amend his motion to include the requirement that the light pole 20 foot height is to the luminaries; Mr. Bosch seconded the amended motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

B. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru for Sky Bank (northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive). Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is requesting a three bay drive thru on the western portion of the site. He stated there are eight conditions that need to be met for approval and the applicant meets seven of those conditions. Mr. Schultz continued the eighth item deals with queuing lanes, and instead of having three stacked rows they are having a single file line going into the three bays. Mr. Schultz stated they have stacking for the same number of cars as they would have with three stacking lanes, so in theory it meets our stacking requirements. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the conditional use request with no conditions. Mr. Hardt stated he would be happy to answer any questions on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru for Sky Bank (northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive); Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage for Sky Bank (northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive). Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposed two signs in total, one on the S.R. 256 elevation and one on the Postage Drive elevation. He stated both signs have approximately 19 and one-half square feet of sign area, the sign would have individual channel letters with a matte finish, it would be internally illuminated, and the channel letters would have two colors with “Sky” in jade green and “Bank” in bright blue and the emblem would be blue and white. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan. Mr. Hardt stated the cut sheets provided the Commission this evening show a 6’6” wide sign which contradicts the black and white plans that were submitted earlier. Mr. Hardt stated the smaller, 6’6” dimension is correct. Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to clarify that the awnings will be the same as the location of Sky Bank in Gahanna, that they are not just the top of the front edge, they return to the building on the sides as well. Mr. Hardt stated they can be constructed either way. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage for Sky Bank (northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive) as presented to the Commission at this meeting; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building Materials for Giant Eagle in the Pickerington Square Shopping Center (TABLED, 02-08-05). Mr. O’Brien moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting the Commission approved the site plan for the Giant Eagle and also approved the Conditional Use Permits for the gas station drive thru, the drive thru pharmacy, and the drive thru bank. He stated the owner is proposing to raze the Pickerington Square Shopping Center, the Huntington Bank, and the National City Bank, and construct a new, approximately 88,000 square foot Giant Eagle and a 3,000 square foot National City Bank on the east elevation. He stated further the Giant Eagle would have a gas station located adjacent to the road and there would be a drive thru pharmacy on the west elevation, and the National City Bank would have a drive thru on the east elevation. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan was approved in February, however, three issues have been uncovered by staff. First, along Refugee Road the developer must dedicate 50 feet from right-of-way and the site plan shows 40 feet of dedication. He stated staff feels the 40 feet is appropriate if the City gets a 10-foot utility easement just south of that in case Refugee Road is widened and we have the easement for the utilities. He stated the second issue is the phasing of the demolition needs to be documented and we need to know if this will happen all at once or in phases. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant also submitted revised plans last Thursday, and staff has not had the opportunity to review them as yet. Mr. Schultz stated the front elevation would be comprised of oversized brick veneer with a soldier course, and the brick would be Adrian in color, although the brick color of the soldier course needs to be identified, however, he thought the applicant had indicated it would also be Adrian in color. He continued the entrance feature has tiered canopies with a main gable roof and with hip roof canopies on each side with brick columns supporting the canopies. He stated the EIFS material would comprise the majority of the frontage where the signs would be. Mr. Schultz stated a secondary entrance would be located just west of the main entrance and would have the same features as the main entrance. Mr. Schultz stated staff was proposing to incorporate a cornice along the front, side, and rear elevations for aesthetic purposes and he understood the applicant has agreed to include that in his design. He stated the side elevation, fronting Hill Road, would be comprised of four inch brick veneer with a soldier course to match the front elevation, the drive thru pharmacy currently has a flat roof and staff is requesting a pitched roof and, again, he understood the applicant has agreed to that condition. Mr. Schultz stated staff also recommends vertical pilasters should be incorporated into the design on the side and rear elevations for aesthetic purposes and, again, he understood the applicant had agreed to that condition. He further stated the side elevation facing Mingo Estates was proposed as precast panels with a brick face pattern with a soldier course of precast smooth face panels, and the color has not been identified. He stated staff recommends brick to match the front elevation on the side elevation and the trash compact doors are located on this elevation as well. Mr. Schultz stated for the rear elevation they are proposing precast panels with a brick face pattern and a soldier course the same as the east elevation. He stated because a significant portion of the rear elevation has exposure to Hill Road N., staff is recommending brick on the rear portion of the building to the first wall return (approximately 145 feet) and it should match the front elevation brick color. He stated regarding the building materials for the gas station, the south elevation (fronting Hill Road N.) would be comprised of brick with an EIFS band along the top of the building, and the brick and EIFS color would match the main building. He stated they are proposing two doors and staff recommends the aesthetics of these doors be enhanced and he understood the applicant has agreed to that. Further, the canopy has a mansard roof with asphalt shingles which is approximately 10.5 feet high and the color band would be located just below the mansard for signage. The columns anchoring the canopy appear to be metal and staff recommends they be constructed of brick to match Giant Eagle and to be consistent with other recently approved gas stations in the City. He stated the north, east, and west elevations are similar to the south elevation, with the main entrance and windows on the east and west elevations. Mr. Schultz stated all signage and colors on the Giant Eagle and gas station would need to be approved as part of the Comprehensive Sign Plan. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the request for building materials with 13 conditions, most of which have been agreed to. They are:

1. That the color of the brick on the front elevation of the Giant Eagle shall be Adrian in color.

2. That the color of the EIFS on the front elevation of the Giant Eagle shall be natural or earth tone color to match the Hunter’s Run Center.

3. That the soldier course brick color on the front, side, and rear elevations shall be Adrian in color.

4. That the pharmacy drive thru canopy shall have pitched roof with asphalt shingles.

5. That the side elevation facing Mingo Estates shall be constructed of brick to match the front elevation.

6. That the rear elevation shall be constructed of brick to the first wall return, which is approximately 145 feet, to match the front elevation.

7. That a cornice shall be required along the front, side, and rear elevations.

8. That a vertical pilaster shall be required on the side and rear elevations.

9. That the brick and EIFS color of the gas station shall match the brick and EIFS color of the Giant Eagle.

10. That the columns anchoring the gas station canopy shall be constructed of brick to match the building.

11. That all mechanical equipment on the roofs of the Giant Eagle and gas station shall be screened with brick to match the building.

12. That the owner shall dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way to the City along Refugee Road, to the Goodyear curb cut on Refugee Road.

13. That the owner shall dedicate a 10 foot utility easement located just south of the 40 foot right-of-way dedication along Refugee Road.

Mr. Fix stated he would request a brief recess as it appeared staff had been presented with some new information they needed to discuss prior to continuing.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 7:55 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 8:10 P.M.

Mr. Visco stated they have had an opportunity to speak with staff since the last Commission meeting, and they have an updated site plan that includes a number of recommendations from staff. He stated they also have a new elevation that incorporates a number of additional details. Mr. Mcjeed stated quite a bit of improvements have been made to the original elevations. He stated they have reduced the length of the front canopy and it created a symmetrical feel to it. He stated they have also added the asphalt shingles along the entire end of the canopies, and changed the gables into an asphalt shingle to address the requirements of the staff. Further they have modified the elevation by adding the brick soldier course along the front and along the return. He stated the drive thru pharmacy has been changed to the asphalt gabled shingles, and they have added the EIFS cornice along the front and the return. He stated the color of the EIFS has changed from the original color to the dover sky color. Further the east elevation has been upgraded to a brick veneer to match the front elevation. He stated there is also a requirement for 8 x 12” brick veneer pilasters, and they are shown book shelving the front elevation of the Giant Eagle. He stated there is also a requirement for more pilasters on the west side, the quantity of which will have to be determined, probably two on the sides and two in the middle. Mr. Visco stated of the 13 conditions Mr. Schultz had listed, they have agreed to all but the condition of having the brick on the 145 foot section of the rear wall. Ms Gilleland stated she appreciated the hard work and diligence on this project and we are very supportive of the design of the building at this point. She stated ideally we would like to see the rear elevation treated in brick to the point that you can see the building from S.R. 256, but we realize this is a redevelopment project and we are willing to examine a compromise.

Mr. Mcjeed stated with regard to the gas station elevation, there was a request for additional architectural features on the columns and he believed they had come to a resolution on that. He stated the original gas station had the metal columns to start with, and as a compromise they could not take the two or three-foot square brick veneer all the way up to the bottom of the canopy due to visibility and safety issues. He stated they have added the brick up to the window line and from that point on they have encased the columns with a column enclosure. He stated they are looking into a GFRC enclosure of reinforced concrete that can be painted or have a texture to it. He stated the color of the building is the Adrian brick and the EIFS is the dover sky. He stated since Giant Eagle and Get Go are detail oriented, they have decided to upgrade the canopy into an EIFS instead of the metal panels. He stated further they were going to lower the canopy to the height of the building itself and the canopy itself will be cut out in the center for the mechanical units to be encased within the canopy and that will address the issue the City had with regard to screening the mechanical equipment. Mr. Bosch clarified on the EIFS around the top, height is not being added to the building, and staff and Giant Eagle have reached a consensus on all of the points of the building and we are not going to require the 145-feet of brick on the Mingo Estates side. Ms Gilleland stated the east end will be brick, but the 145-feet on the south side will not be brick, but will be the aggregate. Mr. Schultz stated Condition six that he had listed will be eliminated and Condition 8 should be revised to just the side elevation and not the rear elevation, and Condition 10 should reflect that the brick will be constructed to three to four feet with the remaineder of the column being the GFRC material. Mr. Schultz stated Condition 11 should remain that the mechanicals should be screened on the main building. Condition 3 should reflect the soldier course brick color on the front and side elevations should be Adrian in color. Conditional 7 should reflect the cornice will run along the north, east, and west elevations, but not the rear elevation. Mr. Schultz stated Condition 8 should remove the requirement for vertical pilasters on the rear elevation, but would be required on the sides and front corners. Mr. Nicholas questioned if there would be an advantage to go with four-inch pilasters instead of eight. He stated he felt we were just trying to break up the surface, but to create some reveals he felt four inch would be sufficient as that is a whole brick thickness. Mr. Mcjeed stated he would prefer the four-inch if that was acceptable. Mr. Nicholas stated on the columns at the gas station, he would suggest a rowlock at the same height as the rowlock on the gas station building itself, and then use some type of trim to create a base and a capital, then it would look like a column versus a metal pipe. Mr. Mcjeed stated that would be less brick and would look like an accent, and he stated he felt that would enhance the elevation. Mr. Nicholas clarified the electrical doors would be regular man doors, painted to match the brick, and would blend in with the building. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines for the Giant Eagle and Get Go gas station with staff recommendations as modified earlier and detailed in these minutes; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake abstaining, and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Nicholas moved to consider amending the site plan as approved by this Commission; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake abstaining, and Mr. Fix, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is requesting three modifications to the site plan that was approved by this Commission. He stated starting from the south to the north on S.R. 256, at the southern right-in/right out, the applicant is requesting a second right-out from the Get Go gas station. He stated one of the conditions of the site plan approval was that the entrance shall be 120 feet from the right-of-way. He continued the applicant is requesting that be lowered to 110 feet at the traffic light location. Further, at the northern most right-in/right-out on S.R. 256, again it was required to be 120-feet and the applicant is requesting that be lowered to 101-feet; and, on Refugee Road at the first right-in at the western most access point, it was to be 120-feet until the access point in the parking lot and they are requesting that be at 101-1/2 feet. Mr. Schultz stated the engineer’s comments were that the site plan that was approved was the one recommended by staff and the engineer, therefore, these modifications are not supported by staff. Ms Gilleland stated we received the request for modifications late last week and our engineer was able to provide us with comments late yesterday. She stated we have been working very hard to accommodate this project, and we are willing to work at the last minute with the applicant. She further stated there are some issues here where she does not want to put the Planning and Zoning Commission into the position of making design decisions or traffic engineering decisions. She stated she had informed Giant Eagle that there are a couple of items that can be considered tonight, and those would be items we are willing to consider. She stated there are a couple of other items she would recommend against Planning and Zoning Commission making a decision on. She stated these are issues we may have a favorable decision on, however, our engineer needs more time to study them and to obtain more data. Mr. Visco stated the interesting aspect of this is that they are tearing down Huntington and National City Banks and replacing them with one very big building. He stated today there are parking spots for 571 vehicles and with the modifications to the entrances and such, they are at 579. Mr. Visco stated they are wide open essentially except for the pork chop at the south entrance to the project on S.R. 256, there is fairly short curbing at the signalized entrance, and they do have 120 feet at the north end of the parking lot near the Goodyear. He stated in addition they have a five or six way issue at the Goodyear which has been a concern. Mr. Visco stated Giant Eagle would prefer to have 650 parking stalls, and they have worked with both the traffic pattern as well as the entrances to try and appease everyone. He stated they felt they had a reasonable compromise with at the southern entrance a two-way entrance at the Get Go, probably 120 feet or more off the right-of-way, and they have limited their second two-way to a right-out only out of Get Go, and they are willing to extend the pork chop to make it as uninviting as possible for someone to turn left into. He stated at the main entrance they have extended out almost 120 feet and they were anticipating the fuel trucks coming in at the signalized entrance on S.R. 256 and the radius is curved to save parking spots given the fact that they are down to 580 stalls. He stated there is plenty of room to get a 50-foot fuel truck in there. He continued on the north end they have extended about 101 feet with another landscape isle that allows them to maintain full trees and keep the parking spots at around 580. Further on the north side off of Refugee they have a landscape isle that is about 101 feet off the right-of-way and they have moved the parking stalls that were crossing over onto the right-of-way back five feet. He continued they have closed off the five-way next to Goodyear, essentially having over a 120-foot landscape isle, and on the inside of the Goodyear entrance they would be putting in a six-inch curb. He stated given the constraints with the site and the need for a minimal amount of parking, he felt they had a compromise that worked for everyone and funneled as much traffic as possible to the signalized entrance. Mr. O’Brien clarified that the net increase in parking spaces with these changes would be eight. Mr. Tony Martin stated in discussions with staff prior to the meeting, there was some support for the fact that the right-out was blocked with the extended pork chop, and they could support the signalized entry, but they could not support the other three entrances that did not meet the 120-foot requirement. Ms Gilleland stated that was correct. Mr. Martin stated currently the actual distances they would have from the edge of the roadway to where this turn radius would allow someone to turn in, is greater than the 120 feet. He stated this is measured from the possible future right-of-way when and if those roadways would be widened. He stated in the current situation the distances from the actual road to where you could turn into parking is greater than the 120 feet. He stated he would propose for consideration to have this plan approved as is, but if and when the road widens and that distances becomes shorter, they adjust the parking lot at that point in time. He stated he felt Giant Eagle could support that. Ms Frommer stated she has a number of concerns as the information has come at the eleventh hour and she does not like to practice drive-by plans review. She stated, however, she does understand the schedule they are under and she recognized this development has changed over the past several weeks. Ms Frommer stated with regard to traffic, however, these issues are further reaching than aesthetic ones as they affect not only the City residents, but those of the Township and the County. Ms Frommer stated this development will have a major impact on what could be considered one of the City’s worst intersections and we are coming in to this not having required a traffic impact study of the developer to be able to take a look at traffic flow and patterns to really get a good handle on what the actual effects now and in the future will be. She stated in absence of a traffic impact study the things that you have most to rely upon are those things set forth by Code. Ms Frommer stated they are attempting to take a look at this with the Code and an acknowledgement of the fact that this is a redevelopment site, and we all know what it is right now is not up to snuff. She stated we are looking at improving this site as much as we can, and with regard to the issue at hand, the Code requires a distance to the first access off of the minor arterials of 250 feet. She stated she would recommend against the compromise of bringing it down from the currently approved 120 at Refugee Road and at the northern most at the site. She stated the two on S.R. 256, the right-in/right-out has been discussed at a staff level and is not one she would recommend, but could be one that could be lived with. She stated she has some grave concerns over what this will do the area as far as traffic pattern. Mr. Bosch stated he understands a traffic impact study had not been required, however, he would still like to see an abbreviated study based upon an analysis of at least the Refugee/S.R. 256 signal as well as the existing 256/Kroger/Giant Eagle signal with and without the traffic this site will generate. He stated with regards to the specific locations, the two the staff seems to be okay with, he was fine with. He stated the right-out with the extended pork chop meets what was discussed at the first couple of meetings, and the existing signal is doable. Mr. Bosch stated the northern most access is at 101 feet right now and he felt another 19 feet could be included there and it would still leave a wide enough opening that it is still usable parking. With regard to the two accesses on Refugee Road, the western most is at 101 feet and he would like to see that go to a right-in/right-out, but he would leave that up to the staff engineer. Mr. O’Brien clarified that for a building of this size, Giant Eagle felt the optimal amount of parking spots would be 650. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve as amended in this meeting based on staff and City Engineer approval; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Ms Frommer stated she understood what was about to be done, but she would like to point out that from a traffic standpoint this is not a good situation. She stated the decision the Commission would be making is not one of an engineering nature, it is one of compromise or good faith. She stated on the traffic merit she did not support this, but she understood what they were trying to accomplish. Mr. Fix clarified the motion was to approve the second right-out at the southern most entrance to the gas station, and to reduce the main entrance on S.R. 256 from 120 feet to 110 feet, and the entrances on Refugee Road remain the same as determined at the last meeting. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch and Mr. Blake abstaining, Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mr. Fix and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 2-2.

Mr. Nicholas questioned what would be the appropriate way of letting Giant Eagle know what they should do regarding the site. Mr. Bosch stated staff engineer stated she did not have ample time to analyze the revisions, however, if after reviewing the plans she can come back and state she can live with it from a traffic standpoint, he could then support it. Mr. Martin inquired if the Commission would be willing to revote to approve the site plan amendments subject to staff coming to an agreement with the developer. Ms Gilleland stated she was not in favor of that. Ms Frommer stated she felt a workable solution was possible, it was just very difficult to do last minute. Mr. Fix stated then as he understood it, staff would work with the developer and it would be brought back before the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Blake stated he hoped our engineer and the developer could get together and come up with a solution. Mr. Fix stated if necessary, a special meeting could be called for the approval of this issue. Mr. Martin stated he understood there were two issues that need to be worked out. First would be the first turn-in from the traffic signal, and the second is having the one right-out of the gas station with the pork chop. Mr. Fix moved to accept the amendment to the previous approval, being that the southern most entrance have the pork chop extended to 78 feet, and that there is a right-out only at the Get Go gas station, and that the middle entrance be extended back to 109 feet; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake abstaining, and Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 3-0.

Ms Gilleland stated if the Commission is amendable to considering this with further details and a staff report, it can be presented at the next meeting or perhaps a special meeting can be held. Mr. Blake stated if everyone was agreeable, he would like to have a special meeting as soon as all of the details can be worked out between staff and the developer.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were two cases in February, one being the Giant Eagle variance requests and that was tabled until the next meeting. The second item was a fence along Courtright Drive for Seaton Parish, and that was approved. Mr. Schultz stated the agenda for March has three items, the Giant Eagle variances, a deck in Shawnee Crossing, and a house dwelling size variance for a house on Center Street.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated one preliminary plan in Liberty Township was approved.

C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated the Township Trustees adopted the Plan at their last meeting.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission. No report.

B. Demolition of a building at 90 West Columbus Street that is located in the Olde Pickerington Village District (Good property). Mr. Schultz stated the owner has requested demolition of his building and because it is located in the Olde Pickerington Village District it requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval. Mr. Schultz stated a letter, photos of the building to be demolished, and the site plan. Mr. Schultz stated this information was received today and provided to the Commission this evening. Mr. Blake inquired if a study to determine if there were hazardous materials would be required. Mr. Schultz stated it would require a demolition permit from the Building Department, but he was not sure of all of the items that would need to be documented. He stated he has not had time to review all of the issues associated with the demolition. Mr. O’Brien inquired if Mr. Schultz had spoken to any of the neighbors to see what the impact would be on them and Mr. Schultz stated he had not. Mr. Good stated the hazardous materials study has been done and there is no problem with asbestos. He stated this was the freezer warehouse for the old creamery that was in the old downtown. Mr. Good stated he apologized for the short notice, he was not aware he needed to have approval from the Commission until very recently. Mr. Bosch inquired if the lot would be leveled, and Mr. Good stated just the building would be torn down. Mr. Bosch stated that would leave a flat concrete slab with a drop off. Mr. Good stated that was correct, and the reason for that was they have not decided what they are going to do with the property. Ms Gilleland stated this is another case where staff did not have the opportunity to review it in advance. Mr. O’Brien stated he has some questions on this area, there is activity going on across the railroad tracks, and he would like to have some time to speak with staff and the engineer before making a decision. Mr. Kramer stated he would also like to know if the Day Care would have a problem with the demolition going on as well. Mr. Schultz stated he felt a grading plan would be required to determine what the outcome would be after the demolition. He stated he felt more information was necessary prior to a vote by the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated he would carry this to the next agenda.

Mr. Schultz stated the next item he would like to discuss was the noise walls for Diley Road, and he presented photos of the various types of noise walls that could be installed. Ms Gilleland stated the City selects the exterior that faces the street, and Council would be making that determination. The residents that back up to a noise wall will get together and select what they would like for the interior. Ms Gilleland stated no decision was required of the Commission, she just wanted to make them aware of what was available.

Mr. Schultz stated staff is planning a Planning and Zoning Commission workshop for the near future and as soon as a date has been set he will notify all Commission members. Mr. Fix stated he thought this training would be beneficial for all members to familiarize them with various terms and other items this Commission is required to consider. Ms Gilleland stated this training would be a general overview of the Commission’s responsibilities.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:05 P.M., March 8, 2005.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning