PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

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. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Bosch were present. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Brenda VanCleave, Stacey Bashore, Todd Harmon, Shane Buerke, Ben Payne, Nicole Miller, Susan Graham, Mike Davis, Lou Stemen, Scott Deisler, Mark Ouelette, Greg Lisk, Craig Guenther, Craig VanBremen, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF April 10, 2007, Regular Meeting- Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nicholas voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Hackworth introduced Todd Harmon and stated that he was appointed to the Commission by Council and that appointment will be effective next month.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for the Diley Towne Center a 50,308 square foot Retail Development on the northwest corner of SR 256 and Diley Road (DiCesare/Buerk Property). (Tabled 4/10/07). Mr. Bosch moved to remove this item from the table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the commission and stated that staff supports with the following five conditions:

1. That a 3-4 foot high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along Diley Road.

2. That a 2-3 foot high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along Windmiller Drive.

3. That a 1-2 foot high undulating mound with continuous landscaping that shall be installed along Old Diley Road.

4. That a more detailed plan for the retention pond and associated landscaping shall be prepared and compatible with the City's plan for the corner.

5. That the landscaping plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.

Shane Buerk and Benjamin Payne introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Buerk stated we have no exemptions with staff recommendations. Mr. Schultz clarified that he wanted the developer to walk the site with the City's arborist to get an idea of which trees should remain and if the arborist indicates that those trees should be saved then we won't count them as trees that need to be replaced. He further clarified that if they are not deemed to be retained we would want the same landscaping you have further east to be extended in that area. Mr. Blake clarified that the tree issue would be worked out with staff. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the out lots would be seeded after construction and Ms. VanCleave stated they are required by the Ohio EPA to seed for erosion control and staff will make sure it is taken care of. Mr. Buerk clarified that the mounding would be reduced to aid visibility for the new building and help the grade. Mr. Hackworth asked about sidewalks and Mr. Schultz stated sidewalks are required to be connected to the out lots. Mr. Binkley asked if the out lots adjacent to the right-in would be responsible for the plantings along it and Mr. Buerk stated it would be the responsibility of the tenants. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for the Diley Towne Center a 50,308 square foot Retail Development located on the northwest corner of SR 256 and Diley Road (DiCesare/Buerk Property). (Tabled 4/10/07) Mr. Nicholas moved to remove this item from the table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated staff supports with the following eight conditions:

1. That the ground signs shall be 5-ft from the right-of-way and shall be outside the site triangle.

2. That the two-retail strip building ground signage shall be limited to two colors.

3. That the height of the retail ground signage shall not exceed 20-ft above the elevation of the sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign.

4. That the three out lot building signage shall be limited to three colors.

5. That the height of the out lot ground signage shall not exceed 10.16-ft above the elevation of the sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign.

6. That the wall signs shall be limited to three colors for the entire building.

7. That the wall sign letters shall be channel type per the submitted cut sheet with trim and returns to match.

8. That all signage shall have a matte finish.

Mr. Schultz stated that City Council passed the revised sign ordinance on April 16 and that will be in affect May 17th, so that is why staff is recommending three colors for the entire building, however the applicant is requesting three colors per tenant. Mr. Blake clarified that the Commission has been approving three colors per tenant. Mr. Buerk stated the building signs are indicated as a four foot tall by twelve foot wide sign banner and they are requesting an amendment to allow 80% of the total frontage for the signage. He stated it would be to allow tenants no higher than 32 inches in total height and width and the length equals 80% of the total face. Mr. Schultz added that it was typical of other developments in the City. Mr. Blake clarified that would be added as a condition and Mr. Schultz stated that we will also need revised drawings that we will approve. Mr. Nicholas asked if there was any discussion regarding signage on the rear of the building that faces Windmiller and Diley and Mr. Schultz stated they are typically allowed to have signage if it faces a public street. Mr. Nicholas stated his concern was that there is landscaping that could block all of it out. Mr. Hackworth asked about directional signage from Old Diley Road and Mr. Schultz stated that was out of the realm of our sign plans. Mr. Blake clarified that Condition No. 6 will state "that the wall signs shall be limited to three colors per tenant per our conversation" and Mr. Schultz stated applicant is requesting Condition 9 that the width of the building sign shall be 80% of the tenant space and the sign height would be not to exceed 32 inches. Mr. Buerk clarified that the anchor tenant sign would be not to exceed 36 inches. Mr. Nicholas moved to approved with revised staff recommendations and with the condition that the building signage width shall be 80% of the tenant space and the sign height would be not to exceed 32 inches, with the exception of the anchor tenant sign not exceeding 36 inches; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for Dippin Dots Ice Cream located at 10503 Blacklick Eastern Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following seven conditions:

1. That no tables or chairs shall be permitted in the "L" shaped concrete island.

2. That the outdoor table and chairs shall not be plastic.

3. That a 36-inch accessible walkway shall be maintained along the front and side of the building at all times.

4. That no audio visual, music speakers or any other type of sound devices shall be located in any outdoor seating area.

5. That the owner of the retail strip center shall submit a letter approving the patio.

6. That the patio shall comply with the Building Department requirements.

7. That the patio shall comply with Violet Township Fire Departments requirements.

Nicole Miller introduced herself as the General Manager for Dippin Dots and was there on behalf of the owner. Ms Miller clarified that the tables were not to come out on the "L" shaped island and Mr. Blake stated his concern was with the traffic flow in that area. Mr. Schultz stated typically we request that these islands be landscaped, however, the developer at that time requested the islands be concrete to get pedestrians from the parking lot to the center. He further stated based on the initial developer's request he doesn't feel there should be any obstructions in this area. Ms Miller requested tables on either side of the front door as long as the sidewalk was open and Mr. Schultz stated it would be fine as long as it complies with the Building Code requirements. Ms Miller clarified that there were no requirements if they would decide to put umbrellas on the tables. Mr. Bosch clarified there would be no fenced in areas. Ms Miller clarified that there would be three tables along the east side of the building and two on either side of the front doors for a total of seven tables. Mr. Nicholas asked if the color for the umbrella fabric would need to be approved and asked what color would be used. Ms Miller stated they would probably be something light with some small polka dots and they were not sure if they will even have umbrellas, but wanted to bring it up. Mr. Nicholas requested that seating be taken out of condition number four to read any outdoor area and condition five should read shall submit a letter "to staff" approving the patio. Mr. Schultz clarified that there were speakers outside already. Mr. Blake stated he found it hard to hold different uses to the same requirements because some are nuisance uses and some are not. Mr. Hartmann stated it was within your discretion and he didn't have a problem making a distinction between a place that serves meals and alcohol than a place a place that serves ice cream as being different. He further stated in this situation we could change it to the hours they are open or make an exemption that they can't exceed what they currently have. Mr. Hartmann stated there have been no complaints as far as we know. He clarified that we should allow them to continue with what they currently have, but do not exceed the existing speakers. Mr. Bosch stated his only problem was the interpretation of the music and making distinctions, so he would like to see something along the hours of operation. Mr. Hartmann stated the police have a noise threshold as well. Mr. Schultz stated that staff will determine how many speakers there are and document it. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; and with the revision to Condition 4 to remove the word seating; and with the addition of "to staff" on Condition 5 and with the addition that the speakers shall not exceed the current use; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

D. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for Smoothie King located at 10501 Blacklick Eastern Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following six conditions:

1. That the outdoor tables and chairs shall not be plastic.

2. That a 36 inch walkway shall be maintained at the entrance and along the front and side of the building at all times.

3. That no audio visual, music speakers or any other type of sound devices shall be located in any outdoor seating area.

4. That the owner of the retail strip center shall submit a letter to staff approving the patio.

5. That the patio shall comply with Building Department requirements.

6. That the patio shall comply with Violet TWP Fire Department requirements.

Susan Graham stated she was the owner of Graham Family Enterprises and that they are following the franchise requirements for their tables. She further stated that they are not planning to do outside music at this time. Mr. Schultz stated our Chief Building Official reviewed this and there is an issue with the occupancy load that pertains to restrooms. He stated they will need to get a variance at the state level to allow the outdoor seating and Condition 5 addresses that. Mr. Bosch requested that the table that sits in the "L" shaped area be moved back up against the building. Mr. Nicholas requested that "to staff" be added to Condition 4. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations and with the addition of the wording "to staff" to Condition 4; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

E. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Family Dental Care at 699 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following seven conditions:

1. That the sign shall be at least 5-ft from the property line and outside the site triangle.

2. That the sign height shall not exceed 10-ft above the adjacent parking lot grade.

3. That the sign shall be limited to two colors with a matte finish.

4. That natural materials (brick or stone) shall be used for the base and columns.

5. That the columns shall extend up the sides to match the height of the sign area.

6. That the columns shall be the same width as the sign face.

Mr. Henderson stated the following was added:

7. That the owner will submit a letter to staff acknowledging the sign change revision.

Mr. Schultz stated the purpose of the additional condition is that presently there is sign at this location that advertises two tenants and the proposed sign only advertises one tenant. He further stated the building is in the process of building sold so it is being treated as a development sign for multiple tenants. Mr. Bosch clarified that if it ever went back to two tenants we are within compliance to our standards. Mike Davis introduced himself and stated he was with Kessler Sign Co. Mr. Henderson stated he received a phone call stating the building was sold, so we are requesting proof of who the owner is.

Mr. Davis stated they will be taking out the old sign and putting the new sign in the same place. Mr. Davis showed an example of foam panel with a brick finish and requested to use it on their sign. Mr. Blake stated that the Commission has been very consistent in the past few years for natural materials and that the columns carry up both sides of the sign. Mr. Schultz clarified that in ten days the revised sign code calls for columns extending a minimum of 75% up the side and most of the time it is all the way up. Mr. Davis stated he would be willing to go to 75%. Mr. Schultz clarified that this would be the first sign outside of the Olde Downtown that would not be brick or stone up the sides. Mr. Nicholas stated he couldn't vote for the foam material, but he could support an alternative such as cultured stone. Mr. Schultz stated one of the reasons we require natural materials and a footer is because we had a sign blow over because it wasn't constructed properly. Mr. Nicholas stated he would be in favor of allowing them to use the cultured materials or the thin bricks. Mr. Davis stated he wouldn't have a problem with the cultured materials and suggested taking the sign up closer to the top. Mr. Schultz stated one of the reasons we request stone being extended up the sides is when the exposed aluminum becomes weathered than it looks inappropriate. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the columns should be the same width as the sign panel and Mr. Davis stated that for maintenance reasons he needs to extend them. Mr. Schultz stated that we didn't know how they access the signs when the conditions are made. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the columns would come up to the top of the letters that say dental care. Mr. Schultz clarified that the applicant would need to submit an actual site plan. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; and with the revision to Condition 5 that states the top of the columns will be at the top of the text that says dental care; and including the addition of Condition 7; and with the revision to Condition 6 that states that the columns shall be as close to the same width to allow accessibility for the maintenance of the sign as submitted; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

(The commission recessed at 8:39 p.m. and reconvened in open session at 8:43 p.m.)

F. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for a New Elementary School in the Villages at Sycamore Creek Subdivision for the Pickerington Local School District. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following 12 conditions:

1. That a traffic impact study shall be prepared by the applicant and any required traffic improvements shall be incorporated as approved by the City Engineer.

2. That the parking setback along Sycamore Creek Street shall be 30-ft.

3. That the dumpster shall be screened with bricks to match the building and have wood doors.

4. That the loading docks and any mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.

5. That the building shall comply with the City's architectural consultant's recommendations.

6. That the development shall comply with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

7. That the development shall comply with the City Engineer's requirements.

8. That a 3-4 foot high undulating mound with continuous landscaping that includes shrubs and flowers shall be installed along Fairfield Drive and Sycamore Creek Street.

9. That the parking striped area on the western parking lot between the parking spaces and drop off location shall be a landscaped parking island.

10. That the illumination plans shall comply with the maximum foot-candle requirements.

11. That the light fixture style shall be revised to be compatible and sensitive to the existing subdivision.

12. That the light poles shall not exceed 32-ft in height including the concrete.

A representative from Kleingers & Associates stated that the MOU for the traffic study will be submitted next week and they will be applying for variance with the Ohio Facilities Commission for a parking setback on Sycamore Creek Street. Mr. Schultz clarified that the variance would be through the State and not the City. He stated our parking setback is 30 foot, but their plan shows 26 feet, so for compliance they are reducing their access drive by four feet. A representative from Kleingers & Associates indicated that they will revise the undulating mound as per staff recommendations. He stated it is the school district's desire to accommodate as much as possible, but instead of parking islands they would like to keep the parking striped area for maintenance purposes. A representative for the applicant asked for clarification on the illumination report from Mike Stacy and Mr. Schultz clarified that the City's zoning code would supersede Building Code requirements for this issue. Mr. Schultz stated the City's architectural consultant would be willing to work with the applicant to find a cut off light fixture that would complement the area. A representative for the applicant requested that Condition 12 be changed from 32 feet to 33 feet to prevent damage to concrete base. Mr. Blake asked about storage of buses on the grounds and whether it could be limited after school hours. Mr. Stemen stated it was not their intent to store buses there and it would only be done in emergency situations. Mr. Schultz stated he didn't know if the Code could limit that and Mr. Hartmann stated he didn't feel that it fell under what we are reviewing tonight. Mr. Schultz stated staff requested Condition 9 because typically we require landscaped islands, however the northern parking lot will be used as a bus drop off area. He continued that is why we have suggested additional landscaping to the southern parking lot so it would create a buffer there to protect students from being dropped off from the parking at that location. A representative for the applicant stated their proposal was a permanent concrete curb in place of the parking blocks for the length of that drive and asking for relief at the ends without landscaping. He further stated the proposal would be just concrete for purposes of maintenance. Mr. Bosch clarified that the curb would be two feet wide and would provide a buffer. Mr. Hackworth asked for clarification on the safety in the parking lot and Mr. Deisler stated we only have one entrance and we have one way drive aisles to keep circulation moving. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the barriers on the south parking lot would be concrete and his concern was the south bound one way with an exit. Mr. Binkley suggested turning the south bound one way around and going the other way and making a right-in off of Sycamore. Mr. Deisler stated that is something we can do and we are open to it. Mr. Schultz stated that is something that can be addressed with the traffic impact study and then we will have a better idea of the distribution of the traffic. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the sidewalk around the site would be four foot wide. Mr. Schultz stated that staff is suggesting that the school connect into the bike path coming from Sycamore Creek and that will address the need for a wider sidewalk along the street. Mr. Bosch clarified that school crossings would be indicated at the intersections. Mr. Hackworth suggested that the sidewalk in front of the buses be extended out to the street and Mr. Deisler stated it would be good idea. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the eight foot path at the back of the site and Andrew stated it would be to provide emergency vehicle access around the whole site and to become a connector to the bike path. Mr. Nicholas asked about the enclosure for the mechanical yard and Mr. Deisler stated they would be proposing landscaping screening in addition to the fence. Mr. Deisler stated they are proposing a change to the location of the dumpster to pull those adjacent to the mechanical yard and have one screen around the whole area. He stated we can work with staff on it. Mr. Nicholas asked how building lighting should be handled and Mr. Schultz stated that Mike Stacy is willing to work with the architect to find a fixture that would be appropriate. Mr. Binkley asked if there was a minimum foot candle requirement for the parking lot and Mr. Henderson stated we have been following the national lighting engineer standards. Mr. Stemen indicated he would work with staff on this. Mr. Blake reviewed the changes to the conditions as follows: that the light fixtures would be worked about between the applicant and staff; condition 12 would be a not to exceed 33 feet including the concrete base; condition 9 would be revised to say a concrete raised island. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; including the addition of the applicant working with staff on light fixtures; revision to Condition 12 of not to exceed 33 feet including the concrete base; and Condition 9 would be revised to say a raised concrete island; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting "Yea." Motion passed 6-0.

G. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Material and Landscaping for Lisk Dental Office located at 9 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That the plans shall comply with the City's architectural consultant's recommendations.

2. That the development shall comply with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

3. That the accent lights shall be aimed directly on the sign, with no overflow of the light.

4. That the maximum footcandle (fc) allowed on the ground sign should be 10-fc.

Greg Ouelette introduced himself as the architect for the project and Greg Lisk introduced himself as the owner. Mr. Ouelette stated they are proposing to add a covered entrance at the west of the building and make it look better. He stated it would match the existing materials and retaining wall. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the elevation does have pork chop overhangs. Mr. Binkley moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

H. Review and request for a motion to approve a Final Plat for approximately 11.62 acres of the Zane Property located just north of Pickerington Medical Complex for Fairfield Realty Investment. Mr. Blake stated this item had been tabled at the applicant's request.

I. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for Five 8,000 square foot Office Buildings at the offices at Stonecreek located just south of Kohl's. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That the ground sign shall be a minimum 5-ft from the right-of-way and shall be outside the sight triangle.

2. That the ground shall be limited to two colors and have a matte finish (red pms 194 and beige to match the retail building).

3. That the wall signs shall be limited to three colors for the entire building.

4. That the channel letter cabinets shall be located behind the wall and internally illuminated with face, trim and return uniformity.

Mr. Schultz stated Condition Three is based on the sign code revisions not being adopted. Mr. Blake clarified that the Commission has approved three colors per tenant in the past. Mr. Schultz clarified that engineering will be reviewing the traffic control signage and it would be an administrative approval. Mr. Craig Guenther stated he was with Equity and they are requesting approval for three colors per tenant and other than that he had no further comment. Mr. Sauer asked about the columns going up 75% of the sign and Mr. Schultz stated when Kohl's sign was designed and approved, it was similar to how this looks, and at that time they indicated they would stay consistent throughout this development. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the open areas above and below the tenant signage. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the planter was the whole width of the base of the sign. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0. (See amendment below Item J)

J. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for the Offices at Stonecreek for Five 8,000 square foot Office Buildings located just south of Kohl's. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That the ground sign shall be located a minimum 5-ft from the right-of-way and outside the site triangle.

2. That the ground sign shall be limited to two colors and have a matte finish (green letters with a grey-buff background)

3. That the wall signs shall be limited to two colors and have a matte finish (white letters with a grey background)

4. That there shall be one wall sign per tenant with a maximum two signs per main entrance door.

Mr. Schultz stated we wanted to limit the signage on the buildings and the building signs would not be illuminated. Mr. Guenther clarified that the sign that fronts Hill Road is not currently planned in this phase of construction, but they wanted to get approval on it now should they need to add it later. Mr. Schultz clarified that the Commission can approve it and if they don't build it, that is at their discretion. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the stone material was true stone. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Blake questioned whether Item I would need to be reconsidered to include three colors per tenant and Mr. Hartmann stated it would need a motion to reconsider and then a vote.

Mr. Bosch moved to reconsider agenda Item I; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Bosch moved to approve agenda Item I with staff recommendations including the modification to Condition Three to include three colors per tenant; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed 5-0.

K. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Buildings One (Lot 2), Two (Lot 3) and Three (Lot 4) of the Windmiller Square Office Condominiums on Refugee Road just west of CME Credit Union. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following four conditions:

1. That a 3-4 ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along Refugee Road.

2. That the size of the plant material shall create an effective screen at installation.

3. That the missing trees per the planting schedule around Lots 3 and 4 shall be shown on the landscape plan.

4. That shrubs and trees shall be planted around any mechanical equipment to screen them from public view.

Mr. Craig VanBremen introduced himself for Berry & Miller Construction. Mr. VanBremen stated that because of the steep grade change between the top of their curb to the site and the top of the curb for the street, they needed to amend the amount. He proposed one and a half to three feet above the City sidewalk and it's elevation is four to eight feet above our building, so we think the combination will create enough of a buffer. Mr. Schultz stated that staff met on site with the applicant and what they are proposing is what staff will approve, but we will need to see that based on our conversations in November. He further stated that he wanted the City's landscape architect to walk it again to make sure it reflects what was discussed. Mr. VanBremen indicated they would work with staff on that. He stated that he thought they had a continuous buffer along Refugee Road and will maintain. He further stated it is their intent to place landscaping anywhere that they can for screening. Mr. Schultz stated the intent of Condition Two was to have landscaping that is effective at installation. Mr. Blake clarified that condition one would be revised to say one and a half to three feet high and would be addressed internally by staff. Mr. Nicholas stated he had concerns with erosion on the south side of the access road and protecting that waterway. Mr. Schultz stated that was discussed with the engineer. Mr. Binkley stated they have to be in compliance and if the geotech report came back alright it should be fine. Mr. Schultz stated he would check with the engineer on it. Mr. Binkley moved to approve with staff recommendation including the revision to Condition 1 that includes the applicant will work with staff and change from 3-4 ft to 1 1/2 to 3 ft; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

L. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for Buildings One (Lot 2), Two (Lot 3) and Three (Lot 4) of the Windmiller Square Office Condominiums on Refugee Road just west of CME Credit Union. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following five conditions:

1. That the ground signs shall be at least 5-ft from the property line and outside the site triangle.

2. That the 2.33-ft open area between the sign panel and the base shall be eliminated.

3. That the ground signs height shall not exceed 11-ft above the adjacent concrete sidewalk grade.

4. That the wall signage shall be 18 square feet for each sign area.

5. That all signage shall have a matte finish.

Mr. VanBremen introduced himself and stated they would like to make the whole area signage by filling it in. Mr. Schultz clarified that the square footage they are showing is 60 feet and that is typical for this type of development, so adding that extra two feet of open space would be above what has been approved for most developments in the past. Mr. Bosch clarified that the sign would be lowered and brought down. Mr. VanBremen requested an additional color per tenant for the wall signage and Mr. Blake clarified that Condition Six would be added to say any wall signage would have a maximum of three colors per tenant. Mr. Blake clarified that plywood would not be used as indicated for the monument sign. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with revised staff recommendations to include Condition Six stating that all wall signage be limited to 3 colors per tenant; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr, Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

M. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Landscaping for a Parking Lot at Simsbury Park. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Mr. Binkley asked where the ADA accessible route to the right-of-way was. Mr. Schultz stated we will address that with the engineer. Mr. Hackworth asked if there were any lights planned for this park. Mr. Schultz stated it would be closed at dark and there may be a gate planned. He further stated he would highly recommend that this gets approved to make sure it can be budgeted this year. Mr. Binkley stated he could not approve it as is. Mr. Bosch stated the plans do not show the ADA requirements. Mr. Schultz stated he would address that with the engineer. He stated we have grants to build the frisbee golf course and if we don't get it built this year we will lose the grant money. Mr. Binkley stated there has to be a contingency that it has to meet ADA requirements. Mr. Schultz stated with a limited budget we may incrementally add lights. Mr. Blake asked about securing the park from accessibility at dark. Mr. Schultz stated that some of these decisions are made by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Bosch stated his concern was that we treat what we do the same as we treat everybody else. Mr. Schultz clarified that the Commission was approving the roadway and the parking lot. Mr. Hackworth asked if the same entrance would be used and Mr. Schultz stated we are realigning it to be with Shadow Oaks. Mr. Schultz stated we are approving the access point and the parking lot. Mr. Nicholas suggested a condition that the City Engineer works it out so it meets all the ADA requirements and that a gate be placed at the south end of the boulevard island at the most practical time financially for the City. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with the condition that all ADA requirements shall be met and with the condition that a gate be placed at the south end of the boulevard after the completion of the parking area; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nicholas voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director

(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated BZA met in April and approved a front yard setback variance on Courtland Lane and a parking space variance for the Shoppes at Hill Road. He stated there is one agenda item in May for a deck in Shawnee Crossings.

(2) FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated there were no issues related to Violet Township and there was discussion for an apartment project behind the Meijer's next to the Fairfield Airport. He stated there was no support for that development for that site.

B. Planning Studies- No Discussion

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission - Mr. Schultz stated staff and a member of the Tree Commission went to the site and they are comfortable with the process.

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Blake stated he wanted to clarify his abstention on the outdoor patio for last month. He stated he was torn because he has a problem with a patio at that location. He stated he would have felt more comfortable if the applicant would have stated how they handled the issues. Mr. Binkley stated that Northstar Realty told him they appreciated the process for their project. Mr. Nicholas asked about the latest information on the Post Office sign and Mr. Hartmann stated he could look into it. Mr. Schultz stated when we extended the road we made their sign non compliant from a site line perspective. Mr. Hartmann stated if it is a safety issue we can look into the process. Mr. Nicholas requested it be investigated as a safety concern.

C. Conditional Use Process for Outdoor Patios - Mr. Schultz stated we wanted to have a discussion and we are working with the attorneys on this. Mr. Blake stated there are a lot of places coming forward with patios and he wanted to be ready for it. Mr. Hartmann stated there is a section in the code that would be easy to amend and it talks about outdoor spaces. Mr. Hartmann stated that the problem with the smoking issue is going in excess of the state law, because you would be challenged. Mr. Bosch asked about the number of feet from the building and Mr. Hartmann stated it may be in the regulations. Mr. Nicholas stated he was concerned with egress on the last patio approved with the six foot fence. Mr. Binkley suggested limiting it to one patio per establishment. Mr. Hartmann stated if you make it a conditional use it gives you a great deal of flexibility with restrictions. He stated it would be a Code change and we can have it ready for next month before it goes to Council.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Binkley seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Binkley voted "Aye." Motion carried 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:58 P.M. on May 8, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning