PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 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, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Binkley was absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Steve Smith, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Stacey Bashore, Robbie Colombo, Bret Boyd, Cathy Rojina, Mark Dunn, John Gerlock, Charles Loving, James Clay, Mildred Culp, Gina Eversole, Jane Runyon, Kathleen Manring, George Hackett, Rich Fout, Tom Warner, Dan Teiss, Andy English, Tim Spencer, Steve Hermiller, Bret Boyd, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF July 10, 2007, Regular Meeting- Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch abstaining and Mr. Sauer, 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 Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for an Outdoor Patio for VIP Lounge at 1751 Hill Road North (TABLED 6/12/07) Mr. Blake stated this item would remain on the table.

B. 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 this item would remain on the table.

C. Review and request for a motion to approve Old Pickerington Village Design Guidelines Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage at 27 West Columbus Street. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following condition:

1. That the sign shall have a matte finish.

Kathleen Manring introduced herself as the owner of KM Photography and stated that she had no questions on the staff recommendations. Mr. Hackworth asked how the sign would be mounted. Ms Manring stated that it would be hung on hooks that are secured into the porch roof and will be flush with the porch railing. Mr. Bosch clarified that the sign would be the same style as the Winstead's Gallery sign. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

D. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for Volunteer Energy a 5,839 square foot Office Building at 790 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following condition:

1. That the maximum footcandle for the site shall not exceed 10-fc.

Mr. Blake determined there was no one present to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Harmon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

E. A Public Hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for approximately 47 acres from M General Industrial District to PC2 Planned Central Business/Mixed Use District for a Commercial, Office and Townhouse development located west of Hill Road North just north of the railroad tracks (Good Property). Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following 18 conditions:

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

2. That the engineering details pertaining to roadway width, right-of-way, turn lane locations, deceleration lanes, traffic signal appurtenances etc., shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

3. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way as needed along Hill Road North per the City Engineer.

4. That out lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall have access from the internal access road only.

5. That the bike path shall be designed to City standards and shall be within a 20-ft wide easement dedicated to the City.

6. That the sanitary reimbursement fee shall be paid prior to construction drawing approval (per lot and will be based on net acreage).

7. That the building setbacks along Hill Road North shall be 30-ft and the parking setbacks shall be 18-ft.

8. That the side yard parking setbacks for the four out lots shall be 6-ft.

9. That a 2-3-ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along Hill Road North and the new public street.

10. That Type A buffering shall be required along the commercial and office uses adjacent to Willow Ponds Subdivision.

11. That Type B buffering shall be required along the townhouse complex adjacent to Willow Ponds Subdivision.

12. That the townhouse complex site plan and building elevations shall comply with the minimum residential building design standards and shall be approved as part of the final development plan.

13. That the townhouse complex density shall be less than ten units per acre.

14. That a sidewalk shall be extended along Hill Road North and the new public street.

15. That all retail buildings and outlots shall be connected by sidewalk to the City public sidewalks.

16. That the proposed development shall meet all other City development requirements.

17. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.

18. That the site plan shall be in compliance with the fire department requirements.

Mr. Spencer introduced himself on behalf of the property owner. He stated they have reviewed staff comments and have further questions on two of the recommendations. Mr. Spencer stated that the sewer charge of $148,000 was disclosed to us after the preliminary meetings and our submittal. He stated that is the reason why the staff recommendations were changed because that was not recorded against the property. Mr. Spencer stated we worked with staff on a compromise that a future payment would be based on net acreage and the fee would be based on lots as they're sold.

Mr. Spencer stated that our residential plan was originally submitted with 172 units and our site plans have changed to show 192 units on the same 17 acres for a density of 11.3 and that is a result of the added sewer fee. Mr. Spencer stated that the other item was stream preservation and they agreed to a 150 foot buffer and the conclusion was that was a little excessive for what they were trying to do. He stated that we need some kind of flexibility instead of agreeing to a 150 feet buffer. Mr. Spencer gave a brief overview of the proposed project.

Mr. Blake opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.

Mr. Spencer stated that when they initially met with the Good family it was clear that the ground was zoned industrial and he approached small businesses and storage facilities that would be permitted in that zoning. He stated they came to terms with the Good family that the zoning would be better if it was something other than industrial. He stated that the specialty retail architecture will set the bar for the development. Mr. Schultz stated this application was a two step process. He stated that Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to Service Committee tonight and then the Service Committee will make a recommendation to forward it back to Planning and Zoning Commission for a Final Development Plan approval and rezoning. He stated at that time there will be another public hearing in front of Planning and Zoning and if they approve it, they will recommend it to the Service Committee. He continued that if the Service Committee approves it they will recommend it to City Council for a public hearing and three readings and a 30 day referendum period.

Mr. James Clay asked if the housing part of the development would be subsidized housing. Mr. Spencer answered no and stated that the process is lengthy and they are not interested in subsidized housing. He stated that it would be higher end residential project.

Ms Jane Runyon asked how they would accommodate the schooling for the extra children. Mr. Spencer answered that a higher density town home development does not have the same ratios of school children as single family does. He stated that the result would be 60 to 70 new kids. Mr. Blake stated that when he has tracked building permits for projects, the single family properties bring more children per home then higher end town homes. Mr. Blake asked for an approximate price point on the proposed town homes. Mr. Spencer stated that they are looking at one to two bedroom town homes and from a rental standpoint it would be around $900 to $1200 a month. He stated they could guarantee there would not be a three bedroom product on this site, because it would lend itself to families. Mr. Sagle stated they currently have an issue with the buffer because kids are walking through their backyard and he wanted to know what kind of buffer would they have to prevent it. Mr. Spencer stated that they agreed to connect the bike path and they did have a substantial buffer plan. Mr. Todd Ferris stated that the existing code already has protection in place for the buffering and they would be adding to the existing buffering. He stated that they want to encourage the children to use the internal sidewalk system that they are putting in to keep them off of the railroad tracks. Mr. Schultz explained the types of buffering. Mr. Sagle stated he felt that the six foot fence would be the most sufficient. Mr. Spencer stated the code required them to meet the standards and they would comply with that. Mr. Schultz stated that because this is a planned district we can increase the requirements as necessary. Mr. Dan Fasnaugh asked about Town Square Drive and whether there were plans to extend it west of S.R. 256 to Diley Road and Mr. Spencer answered no and clarified there would be two entrances to the project. Mr. Spencer stated that they were currently doing a traffic study. Mr. Fasnaugh asked whether the commercial or residential component would come first. Mr. Spencer answered that the back portion of the property was residential and would be first. He stated that we are looking at six specialty retail buildings and have been talking to restaurants and other businesses. Mr. Fasnaugh clarified that the expansion of Hill Road would be at the cost of the City. Mr. Sauer asked if it would be possible to put a third entrance to cut down on congestion and Mr. Spencer stated they took staff recommendations and understood this was a sensitive area. He stated that adding more access points can cause more issues.

Mr. Blake stated that the floor would remain open for any additional comments and opened it up to the Commission members.

Mr. Nicholas suggested the following condition that the applicant would work with the City and Tree Commission with respect to the natural areas.

He suggested having the Safety Committee look at the safety along the railroad tracks

Ms VanCleave stated that the stream preservation ordinance was passed last month and any variance would have to go before BZA with the engineer's guidance. Mr. Smith stated with regard to the proposed condition of having Safety look at the issues of the railroad tracks cannot condition the application on that. He stated that staff can work in terms of the buffering to deal with some of the access from this property. Ms VanCleave stated that she could address this issue at the staff meeting and she could report to the Safety Committee. Mr. Nicholas asked about the flood plain delineation and Mr. Spencer stated they were taking the aerial at its word to determine what the flood area was and the survey confirmed that. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the requirements would be met on the proposed open space. Mr. Nicholas stated that one of his concerns on the landscaping would be more natural groupings instead of linear plantings and would like them to consider that throughout the process.

Mr. John George stated he was concerned with parking lot lighting. Mr. Henderson stated we have been following the lighting engineer's standards to keep it to a minimum based on the footcandles. Mr. George stated he was also concerned with blocking off the railroad tracks from pedestrians.

Mr. Schultz clarified that if this application gets approved each commercial and office out lot would require a certificate of appropriateness approval, so there would be another review for each individual out lot.

Mr. Sauer asked what types of materials would be used for the town homes. Mr. Spencer stated that the goal if they have architectural elements such as stone, brick, and dimensional shingles, they would pick up that architecture to make the residential blend in. Mr. Schultz stated that condition 12 requires that it is in compliance with our residential building design guidelines which require 50% natural material. Mr. Sauer clarified that the buildings would be two story. He stated he had strong reservations with the density of the development particularly with the impact to the school system. Mr. Bosch stated that limiting the residential to one to two bedrooms would help reduce the impact to the schools. He stated he would be looking at the traffic impact study and see what the requirements of the developer are. Mr. Harmon asked for an explanation on the density of the project. Mr. Spencer stated they worked with the City on the right of way and they worked with a local developer on the best layout based on the new economics of the sanitary sewer fee. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the applicant was aware of the sewer capacity limitations. Mr. Spencer stated they worked with staff on phasing in the development and the absorption rates. Mr. Hackworth asked if there would be a bike path connector to Courtland Lane. Mr. Ferris stated that the bike path is part of the Parks Master Plan and it will be tied into the sidewalk system that will be along Hill Road. Mr. Spencer stated that they could accommodate the connectivity back to Courtland Lane and the reason their plan doesn't show it was because of current easements. He stated that if they could secure the easement they would consider connecting it. Ms Frommer stated that it would be tight and it seems as if they are willing to connect it. Mr. Hackworth stated he had a lot of issues with the density and in a past study it was shown that ten units per acre was a financial loser. Mr. Spencer clarified that the study summarizes the goals of the City and the way to get these densities to become profitable is to impose an impact fee and have a mix of residential with commercial and retail. He stated that is what they would be doing. Mr. Hackworth asked about concept drawings for the residential portion and Mr. Spencer stated he would be prepared to develop and show elevations after these discussions. Mr. Hackworth asked if we rezone this area how they would be prevented from building the residential and not finishing the commercial. Mr. Spencer stated that they are limited because of the sewer capacity requirements, and they will be phasing the apartments in next year and a few outlots through the remainder of 2008. He stated that they would be finishing up with the specialty retail in 2009. Ms Frommer stated that the developer has provided the proposed generated waste numbers and we have provided those numbers to the EPA. Ms VanCleave clarified that the developer requested a guarantee that sewer service would be available and per direction from our law director we cannot promise that. She stated it will be on a first come first serve basis. Mr. Spencer stated that the schedule was based on the consultants discussions and it was news to them if they were putting a burden on the system that prohibits the commercial. He stated their goal is a 180 day build out and they are comfortable with the phasing that they have talked about. Mr. Spencer stated that the Good family has expressed interest in retaining the specialty retail for themselves and this is a project that will be in front of this board for the next few years. He stated that there is a commitment level there and we are entitled to develop the property. Mr. Schultz stated that when you approve a plan as it is shown and then they revise it, they would have to come back in front of Planning and Zoning. Mr. Blake asked how there was a missed fee during the preliminary development plans. Mr. Schultz stated that we had several meetings and somewhere in the process the fair share fee was not conveyed to them. Mr. Blake stated his other concern was traffic management and access for emergency vehicles and asked what would be done for this area. Mr. Bosch stated that the traffic impact study and the engineering would be how to get this area corrected. Mr. Blake asked if there was a way to require them to build the commercial and not just the residential. Mr. Smith stated he was not aware of a way to condition it and he could look into it when they come back for the final. Mr. Dan Teiss asked if it the town homes would be sold individually or as an apartment. Mr. Spencer stated it was too soon to tell. Mr. Bosch stated he wanted to see a balanced development and wanted to see if someone could say this is balanced. Mr. Schultz stated that Mr. Hansley would be looking at that. Mr. Blake asked if there was a way to limit the residential portion to two bedroom units maximum and Mr. Smith stated there is a provision that would allow that and the Commission could impose a condition. Mr. Schultz stated that staff could work that out. Mr. Nicholas asked about the wetlands and Mr. Ferris stated that there is a formal process that they will have to go through the Corp of Engineers. Mr. Spencer stated that they don't know where the buildings are going to go yet and they will be sensitive and responsible to the area. Mr. Nicholas asked that they work with staff and the Tree Commission to look at the buffer. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations including the revision to Condition Number 6 (reimbursement fee per lot and based on net acreage); and with the condition that the developer and staff continue to work with the 150 foot buffer; and that the developer and staff work through the tree process; and that staff and developer work to reach an agreement on the one and two bedroom language; and modify Condition 13 from ten to 11.3 units per acre; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer voting "Nay and Mr. Harmon, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting "Yea." Motion passed, 5-1.

The Commission took a recess at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened in open session at 10:05 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 Hill Road Plaza Redevelopment at 1171 Hill Road North (former Big Bear Shopping Center). Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated they have come to an agreement with several of the more important issues as described in the memo. He stated that staff supports with the following amended 16 conditions:

1. That the developers of the Hill Road Plaza Redevelopment and Walgreens shall provide a letter of credit of $280,250 to meet the requirements of the ODOT Safety Grant in lieu of performing a traffic impact study. The City shall agree not to call upon the letter of credit sooner than 18 months after the awarding of the ODOT Safety Grant or at such later date mutually agreed upon by the developer and the City.

2. That a dedication plat and legal description shall be prepared for the City to accept and record the right-of-way along SR 256 and Refugee Road per the City Engineer approval and ODOT Safety Grant.

3. That the southern most curb cut on SR 256 shall be right-in only with a reduced deceleration lane.

4. That a median north of the SR 256/Refugee intersection per the City Engineer shall be required as part of the ODOT Safety Grant (additional right-of-way maybe required).

5. That a deceleration lane on Refugee Road into the right-in/right-out curb cut shall be required unless and until the developer can provide data that it is not warranted.

6. That the engineering details pertaining roadway width, right-of-way, turn lane locations, acceleration/deceleration lanes, traffic signal appurtenances, etc., shall be approved by the City Engineer per the ODOT Safety Grant.

7. That the building shall be connected by sidewalk to the City public sidewalks per the Ohio Building Code requirements.

8. That an easement agreement between Hill Road Plaza and the office and retail uses to the north to utilize the traffic signal at Birchwood Drive shall be prepared and recorded by the developer.

9. That an easement agreement between Hill Road Plaza the property owners to west to utilize the traffic signal at Windmiller Drive shall be prepared and recorded by the developer.

10. That the dumpsters shall be screened with materials that matches the building and have wood doors.

11. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.

12. That the plan shall comply with the City architectural consultants recommendations.

13. That a 3-4-ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along SR 256.

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

15. That the City would permit landscaping within the right-of-way if the owner prepares a legal easement waiving City liability in this area with the understanding that the City could utilize the subject area as needed without recourse in the future.

16. That the interior landscaping in the east parking lot shall be extended to include the parking islands at the ends of each parking row.

17. That the all the light pole fixtures shall be a gooseneck style and the wall mounted fixtures shall be compatible.

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

19. That the development shall comply with City Engineering requirements.

Mr. Blake clarified that the memo dated August 14, 2007 would take the place of the original staff recommendations. Mr. Tom Schnell stated he was the architect for the project. He asked for clarification on the Condition 7 because there is a waiver in the Ohio Building Code that doesn't require it. Mr. Schnell stated to make a sidewalk connection from the center out to Hill Road is more difficult. He stated they will comply with the City's architectural consultant's recommendations and they will do what they can to screen the mechanicals. Mr. Schnell reviewed the drawings with the Commission. Mr. Steve Hermiller introduced himself and stated he would like clarification on Condition 16. He stated that the owner wanted to do was prepared landscaping through the mainstay of the parking bay. He continued that they would like for the end cap islands be facilitated with vegetation and not trees for visibility. He further stated that they wanted to get some relief on the east side closest to S.R. 256 to allow more visibility with striping only. Mr. Schnell stated that due to the cost for the light fixtures they would like to see if Condition 17 could be revised. Mr. Roth asked if they could work something out with the lighting. Mr. Hackworth stated his issue would be with Condition 7 and that he would like to see a connecting sidewalk. Ms. VanCleave stated she would like to clarify that Ohio Building Code does require sidewalk accessibility for pedestrians to keep them out of the traffic and that is one of the City's goals. Mr. Schultz stated that the Building Department will determine whether they have to make the sidewalk access. Mr. Smith clarified that regardless of what is decided the building has to be built according to the Ohio Building Code, so if the sidewalk is required they will have to put it in. Mr. Roth stated that safety of their customers is their number one concern and they want to do it the right way. Mr. Smith clarified that when it comes to interior landscaping for vehicular use areas the Code requires ten percent and the City has already compromised on that. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to see the end caps addressed for safety reasons. Mr. Bosch suggested keeping the mechanicals up against the building and screening them. He stated that his other issue would be the lighting fixtures and would like to see them as the gooseneck style. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the CMU would be the standard eight by sixteen and they are stained in the manufacturing process and not on site. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the mechanicals on the roof would be screened by the same standing seam material of the roof. Mr. Nicholas stated that historically the Commission has not allowed a large expanse of glass on the front of buildings. Mr. Bosch stated it was not what he envisioned going down S.R. 256. Mr. Sauer suggested brick columns on the vertical wings and wanted to know what the intention was. Mr. Schnell suggested it could be cut stone and Mr. Roth stated they could come to some kind of agreement. Mr. Roth stated he was a representative of Gold's Gym and this design is crucial to them. Mr. Blake stated he didn't know how it fit into rural character. Mr. Nicholas asked that the stained CMU material be used for the trash enclosures instead of brick. Mr. Roth stated he will do groupings and mounding for landscaping, but he needs the visibility for the business. Mr. Nicholas clarified that staff wasn't asking for 50 foot tall trees in the interior parking islands and they could use six foot high deciduous trees to ensure visibility. Mr. Nicholas stated he concurred with staff on the lighting. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on the brick water table and whether there were issues with it. Mr. Roth stated he couldn't make a decision for Gold's Gym and asked that it be worked out administratively. Mr. Schultz clarified that the Commission was looking for a water table with matching materials and a stone entrance. Mr. Roth stated that they would do the gooseneck lighting. Mr. Smith stated there was an issue on Condition 16 and Mr. Schultz stated that was a typical requirement of the City. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to see 150 feet protected so people are not cutting through. Mr. Roth stated they would have to study that and work through it. Mr. Schultz stated that was part of our agreement and it was negotiated to eliminate the 150-feet protected entrance requirement. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations; including the addition of a cut stone entrance and water tables to be worked out administratively with staff; Mr. Harmon seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch and Mr. Nicholas voting "Nay" and Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Hackworth voting "Yea." Motion passed, 4-2.

G. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Two Drive Thrus for Hill Road Plaza Redevelopment at 1171 Hill Road North (former Big Bear Shopping Center). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following two conditions:

1. That the drive thru shall be clearly striped.

2. That the drive thru shall comply with the August 14, 2007 memo pertaining to traffic conditions.

Mr. Schultz stated that the condition two was from the agreement that was reached today. Mr. Hermiller stated that they agreed with the staff recommendations and planned on striping the areas of the drive thru lanes. Mr. Schultz stated as per the memo we would work with them on the integrity of that access. Mr. Nicholas asked for clarification on the access point conflicts. Ms Frommer stated that it was less then ideal and Mr. Schultz stated that their engineer agreed to work with us to tweak it and make it better. Mr. Bosch clarified that staff is expecting three clearly striped lanes. Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff's revised conditions; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

H. Review and request for a motion to approve a Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials, Landscaping and Lighting for Walgreens located at 1101 Hill Road North (current UDF site) Mr. Schultz reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following revised 17 conditions:

3. That the southern most curb cut on SR 256 shall be right-in only with a reduced deceleration lane.

4. That a median north of the SR 256/Refugee intersection per the City Engineer shall be required as part of the ODOT Safety Grant (additional right-of-way maybe required).

5. That a deceleration lane on Refugee Road into the right-in/right-out curb cut shall be required unless and until the developer can provide data that it is not warranted.

7. That the building shall be connected by sidewalk to the City public sidewalks per the Ohio Building Code requirements.

8. That an easement agreement between Hill Road Plaza and Walgreens for vehicular cross access shall be prepared and recorded by the developer.

9. That the dumpsters/compactors shall be screened with brick that matches the building and have wood doors.

10. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.

11. That the building shall comply with City architectural consultant recommendations.

12. That the drive thru canopy and enclosure on west elevation shall have asphalt shingles.

13. That the awnings shall be canvas.

14. That a 3-ft high undulating mound with continuous landscaping shall be installed along SR 256 and Refugee Road.

15. That the all the light pole fixtures shall be a gooseneck style (LSAN CH D180), the wall mounted fixtures on east and south elevation shall be side mount with ribbed glass glove (CF2A) and the wall fixtures on north and west elevations shall be typical rectangular flood lights.

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

17. That the development shall comply with City Engineering requirements.

Mr. Bret Boyd introduced himself and stated they are in agreement with all of the items. He introduced John Gerlock and Andy English. Mr. Boyd stated that they made a few changes to the elevations and submitted the new elevations this evening. Mr. Gerlock reviewed the revised elevations with the Commission. Mr. Nicholas asked about the use of a stone water table at the entry with the exception of the glass between the doors. Mr. Gerlock stated they would be using a standard Stanley door with two sidelights that are typically 18 inches. He stated that they could revise it to include the water table. Mr. Boyd stated that he couldn't speak to whether Walgreens would agree to that and they will try to work it out. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the water table would only be on the two sidelights. Mr. Gerlock clarified that Condition 16 should be revised to say "rectangular wall pack lights." Mr. Bosch moved to approve with staff recommendations; including the deletion of Condition 15 and the revision to 16 to change flood lights to wall pack lights; including the addition of the knee wall of the outside windows of the entrance way; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

I. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Two Drive Thrus for Walgreens located at 1101 Hill Road North (current UDF site). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following two conditions:

1. That the drive thru shall be clearly striped.

2. That the drive thru shall comply with the August 14, 2007 memo pertaining to the traffic conditions.

Mr. Boyd stated they were in agreement with the revised recommendations and would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bosch asked for clarification on clearly striped. Mr. Schultz stated that when we review the site plan we will make sure there is appropriate striping. Mr. Bosch clarified there would be a landscaped island as shown for their access to Refugee Road. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with staff recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

J. Review and Request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building and Ground Signage for Walgreens located at 1101 Hill Road North (current UDF site). Mr. Henderson reviewed the report as presented to the Commission and stated that staff supports with the following six conditions:

1. That the stone veneer on the sign shall match the stone veneer on the building.

2. That the metal coping along the top of the columns shall be replaced with smooth faced cultured stone veneer.

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

4. That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed 11-ft above the elevation of the sidewalk grade adjacent to the sign.

5. That all signs and graphics shall have a matte finish.

6. That the channel letter face, trim and returns shall have material and color uniformity.

Mr. Henderson explained that the coping of the sign would be a cultured stone that had already been introduced on their sign. Mr. Boyd stated they were in agreement with staff recommendations. Mr. Nicholas asked what the thickness would be for the sign and Mr. Gerlock stated they are typically two foot wide. Mr. Bosch clarified that the 24 hour sign would be consistent with the other signs in the area. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve with staff recommendations with the clarification of the smooth stone coping; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Harmon voting "Yea." Motion passed, 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director

(1) BZA Report- Mr. Schultz stated that BZA met in July and approved a deck, fence and covered porch setback variance. He stated there were two agenda items for the August meeting.

(2) FCRPC - Mr. Henderson stated there were seven items and the majority of the items were for 180 day extensions on plats.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission - No discussion.

B. Commission Discussion- Mr. Nicholas asked if there had been any discussion regarding the paper collection dumpsters that are not enclosed. Mr. Schultz stated that we have been addressing dumpster locations in town and they are going through our code enforcement process. Mr. Nicholas asked if there was any progress in the Post Office signage. Mr. Smith stated there is progress and our recommendation would be to sit down with them and try to resolve it.

C. Planning Reports - Mr. Schultz stated that we met last week to discuss the Commercial Design Guidelines and we would appreciate any comments. He stated that we hope to get a second draft out in the next month to everyone.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Harmon voted "Aye." Motion carried 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 12:35 A.M. on August 15, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Stacey L. Bashore Lance A. Schultz

Deputy Municipal Clerk Director, Planning & Zoning