PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 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. Harmon and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr. Binkley was absent due to a work assignment and Mr. Sauer was on vacation. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Phil Hartmann, Brenda VanCleave, Stacey Bashore, Gary Hall, Carol Carter, Jo White, Keely Weaver, Matt Green, Pat & Amy Fitzgerald, George Sweitzer, Craig Guenther, Shad Phip, Kevin Nowlin, Larry Morton, Bill Piearki, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF May 8, 2007, Regular Meeting- Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for a motion to approve a Code Amendment to Chapter 1276 ("Residential Districts") of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances to Add Chapter 1276.24 Prohibiting the Planting of Landscaping in Certain Residential Front and Side Yards. Mr. Schultz reminded the Commission that Items A and B were public hearings. Mr. Schultz stated that this Code Amendment would address lots where the property line extends in front of adjoining residential lines and could infringe on other sites. He further stated that there were three examples in the City where the property line comes in front of the house and most of these are on cul-de-sacs. He stated there may be more like this in the City, so the recommendation in the code would restrict any planting in that identified area or anything that would infringe the sight lines. Mr. Blake asked what brought this to the Commission and Mr. Hartmann stated he had a Council member bring it to our attention based on a few odd lots to help prevent this from happening. Mr. Blake clarified that these would be items that would be addressed in the future platting of lots. Mr. Schultz stated that the lots meet the minimum requirements of our code, however proper review would have likely resulted in the reduction of lots in the subdivision. Mr. Blake opened the public hearing. Carol Carter stated she lived next door to one of the lots and wanted to know if there was a problem if the plants were already there. Mr. Hartmann stated it wouldn't be retroactive. Mr. Schultz clarified that it will be from when Council approves it. Mr. Blake asked what would happen to the plants that were there before this was passed and Mr. Hartmann stated it would be grandfathered in as preexisting until those plants would die, because they wouldn't be able to replant. Mr. Nicholas stated he understood the reasoning behind it and wanted to know if staff considered restricting the height at maturation of the plantings. Mr. Schultz answered no. Mr. Blake asked for clarification on why this came up and Mr. Hartmann stated his understanding was that it was not a sight line issue and it was purely an issue of someone being able to plant some type of landscaping that would block off a portion of someone's front view because of the way the lot was allowed to be platted. He further stated we are now trying to go back and prevent that from happening to somebody. Mr. Blake asked Mrs. Carter about the lot next to her and she stated they did not have any problems but the other neighbor has had problems with drainage. Mr. Nicholas stated that was one of his concerns with plant material and raised beds in a dedicated soil, so that is something we need to consider. He further stated he would be okay with 24 inch high plants at maturity and somewhere we need to think about how we determine the height of the raised bed. Mr. Blake suggested the height be determined by the original grade of the lot from the plat. Mr. Schultz stated this won't be relevant in too many areas. Mr. Nicholas asked what staff's opinion would be from natural grade including a raised bed and plant material not to exceed 24 inches at maturity. Mr. Schultz stated that it sounded like an appropriate addition. Mr. Hackworth asked if there were any of these type of lots that were not built yet and Mr. Schultz stated there may be a few. Mr. Schultz stated we would address that on future lots that we would approve. Mr. Hackworth asked if these were platted per our regulations and Mr. Hartmann stated they were platted under the current standards. Mr. Schultz stated that the lots he was aware of meet minimum zoning. Mr. Hackworth asked how we could avoid these in future and Mr. Schultz stated we could research it. Mr. Hartmann stated there was probably an amendment that we could make to the platting to prevent this, but it wouldn't take care of the current issue. He further stated there are only three to four houses that are in this current situation. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Code Amendment to Chapter 1276 including the revision of adding "with growth that is in excess of two feet from the original final grade"; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Harmon, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Blake announced to the applicants who were present that due to only five Commission members being present there must be four affirmative votes for anything to pass. He further stated that the applicants had the option to table their item.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a Code Amendment to Chapter 1286 ("Conditional Uses") of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances to Add Chapter 1286.34 Outdoor Service Facility Regulations. Mr. Schultz stated this was part of the Commission's request that would require the use of outdoor service facilities to be reviewed as a conditional use. He stated that the code addition would allow review of outdoor service facilities that may have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. Mr. Schultz stated the section was modeled after Dublin's code. Mr. Hackworth asked if this was a zoning change that would require a public hearing and Mr. Schultz stated that our code does not require a public hearing for Conditional Uses. Mr. Blake opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak to this issue. Mr. Blake determined there was no one to speak on this issue and turned it over to the Commission. Mr. Hackworth stated his concern was that use would be considered separately from the appropriateness and this seemed to accomplish that. Mr. Bosch suggested compatible be used instead of comparable in section (e) and Mr. Hartmann stated that should be fine and he would make that change. Mr. Bosch asked if there was a catch using the phrase to any persons and would that shut it down if one person could show it was detrimental. Mr. Hartmann stated all it is doing is creating the criteria for the Commission to review, so it will still be up to the Commission to make the ultimate decision. Mr. Hartmann stated that the goal was for the Commission to be able to create the restrictions and define them. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve Code Amendment to Chapter 1286 including the revision of section (e) changing the word comparable to compatible; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for Giant Eagle at 873 Refugee Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

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

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

3. That the patio shall comply with Violet Township Fire Department requirements.

Gary Hall introduced himself as the General Manager for Giant Eagle and stated that he wanted to clarify the measurement for the depth of the sidewalk on their drawing should be 24 feet instead of 32 feet. Mr. Schultz stated that the patio will be adjacent to their deli area. Mr. Blake clarified there would not be fencing or gating around the patio. Mr. Hall stated there would simply be black mesh patio furniture. Mr. Blake clarified there would be no alcohol served on the premises. Mr. Harmon asked if the tables would be situated between the brick columns or between the columns and the wall. Mr. Hall stated that one table will be up against the outside column and they were planning on leaving four foot aisle ways. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for Giant Eagle with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

D. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for State Farm Insurance at 194 West Church Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

1. That the sign shall be limited to three colors and have a matte finish.

2. That the sign shall not be higher than 6-ft above the sidewalk.

3. That the sign shall be located 5-ft from the right-of-way and outside the site triangle.

Keely Weaver introduced herself and stated she had applied for a variance because the house pretty much sits in the right of way. Mr. Schultz stated that BZA would review the variance application on June 28th for the location of the sign and the approval tonight would be how the sign would look. Mr. Schultz stated the sign was not technically in the Olde Village area, but we recommend that the signs in this area be compatible with the area. Mr. Hackworth asked how far from the sidewalk the right-of-way was and Mr. Schultz stated the right-of-way is almost to the house. Ms. Weaver stated the house sits 18 feet from the curb. Mr. Schultz stated that BZA will determine whether the sign could be inside the site triangle. Mr. Blake clarified that there would be no illumination added to this sign unless it was brought back to the Commission. Ms. Weaver stated she would like to add illumination at some point, but she was not proposing that at this time. Mr. Schultz clarified that it would have to be brought back to the Commission if lighting was added. Mr. Nicholas stated he had concerns with visibility and the placement of the sign, so he would personally like to see it as close to the landscape bed as possible to give as much visibility as possible. Ms. Weaver stated that the back of the stop bar lines up with the house, so most people stop at the end of the curb and then make their turn. She stated she removed arborvitae trees to create more sight space and no one has ever complained about not being able to see. Mr. Schultz stated that he and the staff engineer would go out and review the sight distances upon review for BZA. Ms. Weaver stated that they are trying to place the sign where it would not be hazardous. Mr. Nicholas stated for future reference if ground mounted lighting would be put in, there would have to be landscaping or mounding put under the sign to block the light from drivers. Ms. Weaver stated they would be landscaping to preserve the sign. Mr. Blake requested that a fourth condition to be added for the sign to not be illuminated at this time. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations including the addition of Condition 4 that the sign shall not be illuminated; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll Call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

E. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a shed at 609 Canteridge Street (Preston Trail Subdivision). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following two conditions:

1. That the building materials and colors shall match the existing house.

2. That the shed shall have a minimum of a 5-ft setback from the property line.

Matt Green introduced himself as the applicant. Mr. Blake clarified that anything over 120 square feet must have P&Z approval. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the floor of the shed would be high enough to clear the joists. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the shed would be five foot off the rear lot line. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

F. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Unity East Church at 170 East Columbus Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following six conditions:

1. That the brick on the sign shall match the building.

2. That the sign shall be limited to two colors and have a matte finish.

3. That the ground sign shall be a traditional double sided monument style sign located perpendicular to the road.

4. That the north portion of the sign area (closest to the church) shall be one-foot above the grade.

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

6. That the maximum footcandles for the spot lights on the ground sign shall be 10-fc.

Mr. Schultz stated the application indicates a V-shaped sign and since then he had spoken with the applicant and they indicated they would do a traditional doubled sided sign. Jo White introduced herself as a member of the Board of Trustees for Unity East Church. She stated they appreciated the recommendations from staff and their concern was with the five foot from the right-of-way, because they were not clear on where that measurement would begin. She stated the issue would be the slope of the hill where the sign would be constructed because they wanted to keep it no more than eight foot. Mr. Schultz stated that typically the sidewalk is one foot inside of the right-of-way so six feet from the sidewalk would likely be the distance. Ms. White stated that would make the height of the sign nine feet and they feel that would be too high. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the location of the sign based on their sketch. Mr. Schultz stated it was measured from the sidewalk because of how they initially interpreted the code. He further stated upon our conversation he indicated that it needed to be five feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Bosch stated that we are saying that five feet from the right-of-way is the minimum so they can adjust it to get the sign as level as they can. He suggested that they work with staff on any questions they may have on requirements. Mr. Schultz indicated that staff would work with them on the grades. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion passed 5-0.

G. 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 (TABLED 5/08/07). Mr. Blake stated that the applicant has requested that this item remain on the table.

H. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for Sonic Drive In located just south of Picktown Carry Out. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and read into the record a memo dated June 12, 2007 (Attached hereto) that indicated a revision to Condition 1. Mr. Henderson stated that staff supports with the following fourteen conditions:

1. That the southern curb cut shall be eliminated. (Revised)

2. That a 4-ft ADA compliant sidewalk shall be installed to connect the site to the public sidewalk.

3. That the dumpster shall be shielded by a wall that matches the proposed building and have wooden doors.

4. That the development shall comply with the City's architectural consultant's recommendations.

5. That the standing seam metal roof above the outdoor patio shall be Sherwin Williams #6447 "Evergreens"

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

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

8. That the patio furniture shall be non-plastic tables and chairs with a neutral color.

9. That four trees be added along Hill Road North (SR 256) located approximately 45-ft on center that complies with the City's street tree requirements.

10. That a 3-4-ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along Hill Road North (SR 256) that matches Max & Erma's approved landscaping plan.

11. That a 2-3-ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along the west side of the parcel between the parking lot and the access drive but not within the extended site triangle to match Max & Erma's approved landscape plan.

12. That all the mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.

13. That the maximum footcandle for the paved area on the site shall not exceed 15-fc except for under the canopy.

14. That the light fixtures shall be Granville Series Luminaire or similar style that matches Max & Erma's, Huntington Bank or Sky Bank.

Craig Gunther and Shad Phip with Equity; Kevin Nowlin and George Sweitzer with Geo-Graphics; Larry Morton and Bill Piearki with Sonic introduced themselves on behalf of the application. Mr. Sweitzer stated they had no issues and they appreciated staff working with them on curb cuts. Mr. Blake asked if Condition 1 would be removed and Mr. Schultz clarified that it would be revised to say that we will allow two curb cuts with a dedicated in and out with an acceptable width per the City Engineer. The applicants indicated they were fine with the revision to Condition 1. Mr. Piearki stated that Sonic is a 53 year old company that builds projects all over the country and they are very involved with the communities they are in. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the south drive would be the in-driveway with the exit on the north. Mr. Bosch stated he understood the access points and wanted to know if there were any ideas of the width of the driveways. Ms. VanCleave stated we are talking about either 16 or 18 feet for the in and the out would be a dual access which would be about 22 feet. Mr. Bosch asked if there were any concerns with cross traffic as you come into the facility and Ms. VanCleave stated there would be a stop sign required. Mr. Bosch stated we need to get a revised photometric plan in to have the staff engineer review and make sure it meets the footcandles requirements. Mr. Henderson stated that he reviewed them and Condition 13 covers that and when they resubmit the zoning certificate they will have to resubmit the photometric that meets that. Mr. Harmon clarified that there would not be any type of covering or canopy on the outside dining area during the winter. Mr. Nicholas requested clarification on the Condition 3 stating it should say match the proposed building materials and asked the applicant how the dumpster enclosure would look. Mr. Morton stated it would be all brick because the chances for damage to it are high. Mr. Hackworth asked what the hours of operation would be and Mr. Piearki stated that it varies from store to store, but if business warrants it this would be a 24 hour location. Mr. Hackworth asked for clarification on the hours of operation for the patio and Mr. Piearki stated typically at midnight the exterior is closed and the drive thru remains open. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the landscaping and Mr. Schultz stated their zoning certificate will have to reflect the landscaping conditions with the mounding being comparable to Max & Erma's. Mr. Schultz clarified that it will be different than what was submitted and we were more concerned with what was along S.R. 256. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations, including the revision to Condition 1 as follows; that two curb cuts will be allowed with a dedicated in/out with an acceptable width as per the City Engineer; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

I. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru for Sonic Drive In located just south of Picktown Carry Out. Mr. Henderson the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following condition:

1. That the drive thru shall be striped clearly to separate it from the driving lanes.

There were no comments from the applicant or the Commission on this item. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

J. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Wall Signage for Sonic Drive In located just south of Picktown Carry Out. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following ten conditions:

1. That the brick on the ground sign shall match the brick used for the Sonic Restaurant building.

2. That the material used for the cap stone for the ground sign shall be identified.

3. That all signage shall be limited to three colors; red, blue and yellow.

4. That all signage and graphics shall have a matte finish.

5. That the approximate one-foot gap between the brick columns and the sign area shall be eliminated or reduced.

6. That the ground sign shall be located 5-ft from the property line and outside the site triangle.

7. That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed 8-ft above the elevation of the sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign.

8. That the LED signs and exposed lights shall not be installed on the building.

9 That the graphic board above the doors on the east elevation shall be removed.

10. That the product graphic boards on the side elevations shall be removed.

Mr. Sweitzer stated they were okay with everything except for Condition 8 regarding LED lighting because it is a very important architectural aspect. He further stated they hoped to keep the LED lighting because it is important to their identity. Mr. Sweitzer clarified that the exposed lighting was not the security lighting. Mr. Piearki clarified that the LED signage would not be flashing and the only way to make it flash is to turn it on and off. He further stated each sign is a single LED light with a single message that are very important elements of our concept. Mr. Schultz stated that the LED green band is a relatively new application to the City and wanted to get the Commission's opinion on it. He further stated we recently revised our sign code to prohibit LED lights. Mr. Bosch clarified that the LED being discussed were the two green bands and the three message boards. Mr. Bosch stated his opinion was he felt the green bands were compatible to the building, but he had to fall back on the sign code and agree with staff on the message boards. Mr. Schultz stated our architectural consultant indicated that he was fine with the LED green bands and wanted to make sure we were clear on what we were approving for consistency. Mr. Blake clarified that we didn't want to limit their maintenance of the signs on the sign guidelines and Mr. Morton stated they only need enough room to get to the sign for maintenance. Mr. Nicholas stated LED is the new technology and if the light stays on and doesn't blink or flash, he was personally okay with how they want to use it. Mr. Piearki clarified that the signs could only be turned on or off and there was no way to make it say something different. Mr. Schultz stated for consistency he wanted to get the proper direction because there are a lot of requests coming in for digital LED boards. Mr. Blake stated he felt as a board we could look at each use and see what options there are. Mr. Hartmann stated if you were to consider this application you should put the restrictions on that they have mentioned, such as the signage will not change display and that it would only be turned on or off. Mr. Piearki stated there would be three signs with two on the east elevation and one on the south elevation. Mr. Henderson clarified that the Commission was considering the architectural feature aspects. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the message boards and Mr. Piearki stated there would be a single message on each one. Mr. Piearki clarified that the signs are wall mounted signs with preformed letters that can't be changed and the LED is the source of the lighting. Mr. Schultz stated that alleviated some of the concerns because he was under the impression it was a message board. Mr. Sweitzer further clarified that the signs only advertise service not price or products. Mr. Hartmann stated he felt that the explanation provided alleviated the concerns. Mr. Schultz clarified that in the future for channel letter signs it may be LED instead of neon for the illumination source. Mr. Nicholas suggested a change on the columns for the ground sign and Mr. Sweitzer stated it would be fine and they could work with it. Mr. Hackworth asked for clarification on the material being used for the capstone and Mr. Nowlin stated they would work with staff on it to make it match Max & Erma's. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; including the revision to Condition 2 that capstone for the ground sign shall be worked out with staff to match Max & Erma's; that condition 8 shall be revised to say that the LED shall be the source of illumination on the block letters of signs; condition 5 be revised as per sketch given to applicant; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

K. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping for an Outdoor Patio for VIP Lounge at 1751 Hill Road North. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that due to the concerns expressed by the Building, Police and Fire Departments staff does not support this application.

Pat and Amy Fitzgerald introduced themselves as the applicants. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he met with the Violet Township Fire Inspector on site to show where the patio would be and how it would not take up as much room as three or four cars. He further stated they just wanted a place for people to step outside and smoke and they would be open to making the patio smaller. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he spoke with Chief Taylor and he indicated that he would feel better if there was video camera on the patio to deter illegal activity. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated to both Mr. Holcomb and Chief Taylor that they would comply with what they wanted. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated that currently they have a security guard out there to stop people from bringing drinks out, but they are still going out back and smoking. She further stated this would contain them behind their area of the building. Mr. Blake asked for clarification on whether the basic intent was to just have a place to smoke or to drink and smoke and Mr. Fitzgerald stated they would probably take their drinks. He further stated they hope to put a couple of tables out there to sit while they're smoking or put a ledge around the fence to set things on. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated currently they have people standing out in the parking lot to smoke and they thought this would help keep the area cleaned up from cigarette butts. Mr. Blake stated he is nervous about enclosed patios but would like to try to figure out a way for businesses to maintain their establishments without everyone coming in for a patio. He further stated the problem is some of these buildings were not designed to have outdoor patios. Mr. Hackworth stated he spoke with Chief Taylor and he indicated there have been a lot of incidents at this bar. He further stated he was also concerned about the safety of people in the enclosed patio. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated they would be willing to put lighting on the patio to make it safer and would continue to have a guard. Mr. Henderson asked if the back door was marked as an emergency exit only and Mr. Fitzgerald stated there is a sign above it and people don't usually use it but if we see them step out we have security tell them to go out front. Mr. Hartmann clarified that the Board of Health is still trying to figure out how to enforce the smoking ban. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if the Commission approves the application it would give them an extended area to drink and smoke. Mr. Bosch stated he would rather have a defined area for the people smoking. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified that the fence would be a five foot high solid fence with a lower gate as the exit. Mr. Hackworth asked if any consideration had been given to wrought iron fence and Mr. Fitzgerald stated they could construct a fence that can be seen through. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the Liquor Department would come in and inspect the patio once it is in to make sure that it meets the requirements. Mr. Harmon stated he had drove by the parking lot and there are 30 to 40 people out there trying to smoke and the same around the back in the alley. He stated in his personal opinion it would be better to have something to contain them for the safety of the people and the liability of the businesses. He recommended a set professional design because we know that this is coming from other businesses to make sure certain procedures are met. Mr. Nicholas suggested that the applicant work with a design professional to see what it will look like, because if it were designed properly and with security measures that would not allow people to go beyond the fence and it would be safer. Mr. Harmon asked for clarification on how people would be kept on the patio and Mrs. Fitzgerald stated they have security guards that would be out there all night. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they could also have a video camera and he thought it wouldn't be an issue. Mr. Hackworth stated his other concern would be controlling people from coming in the patio from the outside. He asked the applicant if they had received an amended letter from the Police Chief regarding his change of opinion. The applicants stated they had been speaking with him on the phone and he indicated he was okay with everything as long as there was a video camera up. Mr. Blake stated that when a building is being designed with a patio from inception it can be done easily, but with what they have to work with they are very limited. He stated he could not vote for it the way it was today because there are too many issues. Mr. Bosch suggested that the applicant address the issues and get letters from the necessary individuals and the application may stand a better chance. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that they would talk to everyone and they would bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Bosch moved to table this item; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

L. Review and request for a motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Wall Signage for Lifestyle Family Fitness in the Auto Zone Retail Center at 880 Refugee Road. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following three conditions:

1. That the sign area for Lifestyle Family Fitness shall not exceed 56 square feet.

2. That the sign shall be channel letters and have a matte finish.

3. That the sign shall have no more than three colors.

Mr. Henderson stated that Lifestyle Fitness will be locating a temporary membership office in a storefront space and the applicant is proposing to amend the existing Comprehensive Sign Plan to allow signage in that location. He further stated the applicant would be designing the sign as a permanent temporary sign, but once that sales location goes away the signage will come down. Mr. Schultz stated it appears that the owner of the establishment have provided the lease space for another tenant and whoever will occupy it in the future will have some signage. Mr. Blake asked if they would have to come back for that and Mr. Schultz answered no because there is an existing sign and the new tenant can change it out to their signage. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director

(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated BZA met in May and approved one case. He stated there are three agenda items for June with one being the State Farm sign.

(2) FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated there were three issues with Violet Township. He stated there was a 180 day extension for a plat for New England Acres and a zoning text amendment for a Planned Commercial Mixed Use District that they didn't have before. He further stated there was a rezoning of a PD to an R2 District on the land south of Kroger's.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission - No discussion.

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Schultz requested that the Commission to send in any comments they have on the Diley Road Corridor Study and he will send responses back to McBride, Dale, Clarion. Mr. Blake stated he was struggling with whether the bars needed patios for people to smoke and he was trying to figure out where this will go. He stated that we are very consistent and we are being pushed to the limit on that. Mr. Schultz stated we are addressing it with a conditional use process so the Commission can put conditions on them. Mr. Bosch suggested working with the Police and Fire Departments to come up with design guidelines on the patios. Mr. Blake asked if these uses were not in the original design of the building and someone gets hurt was the City liable and Mr. Hartmann answered no unless it was passed without complying with the Fire Department's requirements. Mr. Schultz stated he received a letter from Stilson stating that the access road to the parking lot for the Park's plan does not have to comply with ADA requirements because there are no sidewalks along Columbus Street in that area. Mr. Nicholas asked for an update on the Post Office signage and Mr. Hartmann stated we are working on it.

C. Planning Reports - No Discussion

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Harmon voted "Aye." Motion carried 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:27 P.M. on June 12, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning