7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order by Chairman William G. Syfert at 7:00 p.m.


Members Present:    Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Tom Vanover, David Okum and Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent:    Steve Galster and Lawrence Hawkins III
        (Mr. Hawkins arrived at 7:08 p.m.)
        (Mr. Galster is out of town.)

    Others Present:        Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
                    Bill McErlane, Building Official
                    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer
                    Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Butrum moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.


A.    Report on Council – no report
B.    Zoning Bulletin – August 10, 2006
C.    Zoning Bulletin – August 25, 2006
D.    Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – July 18, 2006
E.    8/25 E-Mail requesting withdrawal of Golden Leaf from agenda


A. Map Amendment and Preliminary Plan for PUD – Golden Leaf Development – 414-460 West Kemper Road – tabled August 8, 2006 (withdrawn by applicant)

Mr. Okum moved to withdraw the application and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was withdrawn from the agenda.

B.    Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside Display – Lowe’s – 505 East Kemper Road – continued to September 12, 2006

Tom Manley, Store Manager approached the commission stating that the original plan showed areas that he was not interested in. The only area I want to be considered is the side of the building.

I put a new tree line blocking the right side of the building where the mulch was. I would like approval so that from March to September I can put additional bagged goods to use as a loading area. I also would like to keep my sheds in the parking lot.



Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if we had received any new information from the applicant. Mr. McErlane reported that he had not received anything in the last two months.

Mr. Manley responded I apologize. I was working with Sherry Luckey and I thought she was sending additional information to you.

Mr. McErlane stated on the original plan in the area to the west of the garden center there are 12 spaces for seasonal merchandise, which he is still asking for. This year it looked like there were pavers. Mr. Manley responded there were fake stones.

Mr. Hawkins arrived at 7:08 p.m.

Mr. McErlane reported there were areas in front of the building and on either side of the lumber and also 20 parking spaces on the east side which had trailers parked, and they are still there. Mr. Manley responded we had to go through a clearance process. Our store is going through a remodel and there are big trailers which will be gone at the end of the week. I will have the landscaping crew come in and landscape the area and display the sheds at that time.

Mr. McErlane reported that today there were building materials around the canopy area. The application never addressed all the materials stored outside at the back of the building.

Mr. Manley reported part of that is part of the remodeling and most of it will come inside the building

Mr. McErlane reported that we were never made aware that they replanted, so we have not made an inspection of this. We could let the applicant circle the items he wants to be included in the plan.

Mr. Syfert responded it is either that, or get the actual plan that they want and get everything cleaned up. This piecemeal stuff gets us into trouble.

Mr. Manley said again I apologize; I thought it was taken care of.

Mr. Okum said we talked about the area along the side of the building being screened, and I would like to see that on a plan. On the storage shed area, I agree with Mr. Galster approach, that it should look like a yard that kids play in. Present that on a plan in the two areas. I also would like to hear that the replantings have been addressed. I could support something like that. Verbal is not enough.

Addressing the applicant, Ms. McBride commented you really have to cleanup the back of that store. It has been a mess for over a year, and the commission should take a trip to Lowe’s before next month’s meeting. Mr. Manley responded I am going to ask the commission to understand that I am going through a remodel, that the merchandise will be there for two to three weeks, and that there should not be anything behind the building at all.



Ms. McBride commented the material I am talking about is used, and it is not where it is supposed to be.

Mr. Okum moved to continue the hearing until the October meeting, and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the matter was continued to the October 10th meeting.


A. Approval of Maintenance Building Addition, Vineyard Community
Church, 11355 Century Circle East

Blake Helms of High 5 and Jim Cochran of Vineyard Community Church approached the commission. Mr. Helms stated that our purpose is to provide space for the church’s outreach program, for storage and facility equipment. The addition will be 1800 s.f. to the existing 20’ x 36’ building for a total of 2,880 s.f., and it will have a beige metal siding

Mr. Helms added it will follow the contours of the existing grade, and will have four downspouts, two at the northeast and two at the southeast. Parking has been striped off to keep someone from parking in the space closest to the new building. The new addition will be protected by three new concrete bollards, and new flood lights will be added on the north side, and six dead trees will be replaced with new 10’ Norway Spruce.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned GI (General Industrial) and churches are a principally permitted use in that district. One tree is indicated to be relocated or replaced, and if it is replaced the total caliper inches removed must be replaced with the same number of inches of new evergreens.

Ms. McBride reported that the addition meets the setback requirements in the distinct. Lighting is proposed for the north elevation only, and two sets of 150 watt lamps on motion sensors are proposed for the existing and proposed portions of the building. Because of the proximity of parking spaces, protective bollards have been added adjacent to the expansion to protect it from vehicular traffic.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is more than enough detention on the site to handle the increase in impervious area so no additional detention is required.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the proposed plan as presented with staff, city planner and city engineer comments. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.


B. Approval of Development Plan, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 12123 Princeton Pike

Kelly Simon, Regional Operations Manager, Leandra Carlfeldt, Manager of Tri-County Enterprise, Chris Klensch of Klenco Construction, Darren Eyre and Randy Wogentahl approached the commission.

Ms. Simon said we are under contract to purchase this property and as part of this development would like to remove a part of the building at the front so our customers can have an access point at the front. We have talked to Mr. McErlane and made some changes, and we are here to answer any questions.

Mr. Syfert asked if the present Tri-County Enterprise was moving, and Ms. Simon responded we have not determined if we are closing that location.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business (GB) and the applicant is proposing to demolish 1,671 s.f. from the front of the building and construct five parking spaces in the front yard. The remaining building will be 3,335 s.f. with 29 parking spaces.

The lighting fixtures are not flat lens down lit, and we received only partial elevations and not the entire building elevations to review.

Ms. McBride added the proposed parking area is 5 feet off the Princeton Pike right of way. A 10-foot setback is required, so they would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The maximum impervious surface area allowed is .75, and the site has a variance to allow .77. The applicant is proposing .83, so that would require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Nine parking spaces plus employee parking is required, and there is a concern about Space 29 (closest to Princeton Pike) in terms of getting in and out safely.

They are proposing to landscape in front of the building and the area adjacent to the new parking field. The lighting plan shows 400 watt lights mounted 27’-6” high. The light level is more than .5 foot candles at the property line. You would want to make sure that the lights are flat lens fixtures and bronze in color.

They are proposing a sign on the front elevation (66 s.f.) and a pole sign 46.5 s.f. and 25 feet high. The pole sign would be located 8’-5” off the right of way. Both signs are internally illuminated and within the area allowed.

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride her recommendation on the lighting and Ms. McBride answered I would be inclined to let them have 18 to 22 feet high given the area. Mr. Okum said the average foot-candle is 3.68 and Ms. McBride responded we recommend 2 foot candles adjoining retail. The maximum hot spot is 15 feet.



Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if there would be a problem with lowering that down to 2.5 foot candles, and Mr. Syfert wondered why they needed the foot candles to be so high.
. Simon responded we need to check the condition of the vehicles upon return, and our customers need to feel safe returning them.

Mr. Okum commented I don’t have as much problem in the rear of the site, but I do have with the lighting in the front. I think you should keep your hot spots low, and lower your fixtures to a height of 18 to 20 feet.

Mr. Vanover commented you can accomplish the same thing by stepping down the wattage of the bulbs. Mr. Okum added I think something needs to be done in the lighting area. On the pole sign, thought the sign position would not go to the right of way line. Ms. McBride reported we do have a setback requirement for the pole sign.

Ms. McBride stated the access drive on the southern portion needs a 10 foot setback, and they are widening it so they will need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Ms. Simon reported we had planned on moving the space closest to Princeton Pike because of the safety factor. There is no landscaping at the building now, and we suggested lapping around the front area. We are actually decreasing the size of the building and it is a very minor increase on the driveway.

Mr. Okum commented if you went to a monument sign, I think that the Board of Zoning Appeals might be more amenable to granting the variance. Our purpose is to encourage monument signs and discourage pole signs.

Mr. Okum said I noticed your mechanical units on the north elevation are not screened, and it would be nice to see that.

Mr. Butrum asked if there was a particular place where the car inspection would be performed. Ms. Simon answered the customers pull into whatever space that is open to the front. There could be circumstances where they would need to drives to the back of the property. In that instance we would prefer to have the stronger lighting closer to the building.

Mr. Butrum said what if the pole height was 20 feet and we cut back the wattage? Ms. McBride answered you would have more poles and there would be more hot spots. Personally I am not as concerned about the back of the building. Of more concern would be the hot spots in the front of the building. Also this building height is 16’-3” and if you have poles that high (22’-7”) you would see them.

Mr. Coleman wondered about the gate enclosure and Ms. McBride reported that they would have to comply with those regulations.



Chris Klensch of Klenco Construction reported that the lighting for the site, and the impervious surface ratio concerns have been addressed. On the landscape items, we have sketches from our landscape contractor. Changes have been made to the pole height, the wall packs and the foot candles, and are represented on the latest drawings.

With us we have Darren Eyre, a civil engineer who has done the design work. We understand the concern about the green space, and we are picking up some green space with part of the building coming down.

Enterprise has done a tremendous amount of work and they want to bring this to this location. We have had quite a few conversations with Mr. McErlane, and we have tried to address all your concerns.

Ms. Carlfeldt, Manager of the Tri-County Enterprise said it is our intention to make the changes that you are suggesting and that we need to make.

We look to the lighting people and their recommendations, and when the municipality says bring them down, it is not a problem with us. We could have moved into that building as it is today, but we wanted to make it look better and bring value to the community.

We are trying to respond to the information we are getting back from you. There is nothing steadfast in what we have given you; we will definitely make the changes you require.

Ms. McBride commented the level of cooperation has been excellent throughout this process.

Mr. Vanover wondered where the vehicles would be checked in and Ms. Simon reported that if the customer parks to the far left, we will meet the customer and check the car in. Ms. Carlfeldt added I think we have a few spaces in front for customer returns, which is most convenient for the customer.

Mr. Vanover added if you can control them, you can set the light switches to turn on for the check in and then turn them down. That way you could get the illumination you need and cut down the problems for us and the neighbors.

Mr. Butrum said you mentioned new green space that we have not seen. Ms. Carlfeldt said right now the building will be pushed back, and we will create landscaping in that area which will create green space.

Mr. Klensch added we have additional copies of this (showed the plan). We do not have parking space 29 on this drawing to gain that additional green space, and we are not that close to Princeton Pike.



Mr. Butrum asked what that would do to the impervious surface ratio. Mr. McErlane answered it would be approximately .81. The reason for that is the additional pavement along the south property line.

Ms. McBride said our firm utilizes Enterprise, and the cars are delivered to us. What percentage of cars would be taken to the customer? Ms. Simon answered there are a good number, but they also come to us for cars. I don’t know the exact percentage, but this is a high retail business as well.

Mr. Okum asked about the impervious surface calculations after eliminating space 29. Mr. Eyre answered it probably would go down to .82 or .81. Mr. Okum said so you would need a variance. Mr. Eyre answered we could eliminate some of the asphalt to the south. We did that to have as much of a drive aisle as possible for safety. Also spaces 1 10 and 17 may be eliminated to pull the parking lot to the south so we would not need a variance.

Ms. Simon added we moved the dumpster to space 9 which would require landscaping and eliminated space 10. Mr. Okum asked what was on the south side of the dumpster, and Mr. Eyre answered there is an existing building about 10 feet away. Mr. Okum said if you can eliminate space 29 and something else, then you might not need a variance. Mr. Eyre stated we will do that.

Ms. McBride said the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for an impervious surface ratio of .77%, so anything over .77% would have to go back to them.

Mr. Eyre asked about the 20 foot pole sign on a two-foot base. Mr. Okum responded if they get the foot candles down, I can live with 22 feet.

Ms. Simon added in terms of placement 8 feet back, at 7 feet back it would be out of the right of way. It is a 15 foot pole sign and the pole would be at the center so we moved it back to the 8 feet.
With the parking space eliminated at the corner, we could move it to 10 feet back. The pole sign as presented is within regulations

Ms. Simon added the positioning of the sign is because of the shape of the building. For traffic gong south our building sign is not visible. So we needed to maximize the allowance for the pole sign.

Ms. McBride added with the proposed pavement on the drive, it will still need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals because it is not 10 feet off the property line.

Mr. Vanover asked if they could go to the northeast corner of the building and do a building mounted sign. Ms. Simon responded we have had a crane hanging a banner to check the visibility, and the 25 feet works best for us. Since it falls within the guidelines, we did not see any problem. Mr. Vanover commented that sites will change when we open the underpass. Ms. Carlfeldt stated that it would be easier to bring the sign down than to bring it up.



Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is a minor increase on this site and no detention is required. There is some concern about parking space 29 which is closest to S.R. 747 and we would recommend that it be eliminated. Also, drainage needs to be detailed for the new parking lot. The runoff from the proposed parking should be intercepted before it runs down the driveway and into S.R. 747.

On the new pavement along the south side, we need to make sure that will not flow onto the adjoining property, so we need additional spot elevations to verify this.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the development plan.

1. This includes all staff, engineer and city planner’s recommendations.
2. Mechanical units shall be in approved enclosure.
3. All lighting shall be non-glare.
4. All lighting shall maintain a minimum .5 foot candle.
5. Hot spots shall not exceed 10 foot candles, with an average of 2.0 foot candles on the entire site.
6. Lighting shall be down lit.
7. Poles shall be 22 foot maximum height.
8. Screening shall be around the north mechanical units.
9. Staff approval of final landscaping and lighting plan.
10. Parking space #29 shall be eliminated with additional landscaping on four building elevations as submitted.
11. Approval is conditioned on receiving variance from BZA for side yard setback.
12. Applicant will meet .77 impervious surface ratio.

Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.



A.    Asian Buffet, 380 Glensprings Drive (former Crazy Buffet) wall sign
B.    Halloween Headquarters, 455 East Kemper Road – wall sign
C.    Halloween Express, 11711 Princeton Pike – wall signs


Mr. Butrum moved to adjourn and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
                        Respectfully submitted,

_______________________2006    _______________________
                        William G. Syfert, Chairman

_______________________, 2006    __________________________                             Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary