WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ken Kraus, Pete Griffin, Don Bergwall, Alan Seymour, and John Cunningham – two vacancies

OTHERS PRESENT:

David Creviston, Stephen Andrews, Nalon Linn, Harry Gandre, Barry Bayer, Tammy Penhorwood

CALL TO ORDER:

Vice-chairman, John Cunningham, called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

July 14, 2004 – Mr. Kraus stated under Holbrook & Manter, second paragraph, first line, plan should be plain. Mr. Kraus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Voice vote was unanimous.

May 12, 2004 – Mr. Bergwall made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Voice vote was unanimous.

NEW BUSINESS:

4-Unit Apartment Building – 701 Kenny Lane. Filed by Stephen Andrews, Andrews Architects, Inc.

Mr. Stephen Andrew gave an overview of the buildings.

Mr. Kraus asked about the lighting. Mr. Andrews stated there would be lighting on the buildings, by the doors and above the garages. There would be no lights in the parking lot.

Mr. Andrews state there will be no signage on the property. Mr. Andrews stated the mailboxes would be next to the street.

Mr. Andrews stated the buildings would be the same color as the existing house. The stucco and vinyl will be Linen. The roof will have 25 yr. dimensional shingles in the color Weatherwood.

Mr. Griffin stated he would prefer to see the sidewalk on the other side of the pine trees rather than so close to the street. Mr. Andrews stated they want to preserve the mature trees. Mr. Kraus stated they could make an easement for the sidewalk to be on private property.

Mr. Creviston asked why there is a sidewalk going in here now if none of the other properties have them? Mr. Cunningham stated they are a requirement now.

Mr. Seymour stated the points he captured are to try to move the sidewalk to the other side of the pine trees if possible and to continue the sidewalk the length of the adjacent property. He stated the direction of the drainage off of the property would be discussed with the City Engineer.

Mr. Seymour made a motion to approve the design review of the 4-unit apartment building with the understanding that the drainage issue will be verified and it drains appropriately, the desire of the Planning Commission is to have the sidewalk behind the trees if approved by the city engineer and the sidewalk be extended across the adjacent property and approval is received by the Shade Tree Commission.

Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes

Scotts Fitness Center – Scottslawn Rd. Filed by Scotts Company

Mr. Gandre stated there are not going to be any curbs. It will match the existing buildings on the campus.

Mr. Bergwall stated it is not something they can overlook, it is a requirement.

Mr. Cunningham stated it is not a requirement to have curbs under the DRD3 code.

Mr. Griffin asked how the number of parking spaces was determined. Mr. Bayer stated they used the basic building code.

Mr. Bayer stated the roof is a rolled rib roof. Mr. Linn stated it is 26 gage steel with a polyurethane primer with a 1-coat paint finish on it. It will be a 4/12 roof pitch. The siding will be made out of cement board, made to look like wood.

Mr. Bayer stated there will be double-headed lighting throughout the lot. Mr. Gandre stated they would be the same fixture and pole style as the research facility.

Mr. Gandre stated they have not really discussed signage. However, there will probably be a small sign near the entrance. He stated he is discussing with management about putting up street address signs for all of the buildings out there.

Mr. Cunningham made a motion to approve the plans for the Scotts Fitness Center as presented with the understanding that it will go before Shade Tree and all future signs meet code.

Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Griffin Yes

OLD BUSINESS

Political Sign Resolution forwarded by City Council

Mr. David Creviston read his proposal for the ordinance to the commission with some minor changes. He stated he suggests there be no changes to 1143.03, the definition. In 1143.10, item a, posed should be posted and add to the end of the sentence, or in the public right of way. Mr. Creviston stated there are 3 major reasoning for using this language. For the aesthetics of the city, safety and the line of sight issue and because if someone would not be in favor of a school issue, for instance, the school would have to let them post the sign on their property. Item d, add create after or. Item e, change the 10 to 4 square feet and add the words are exempt at the end of the sentence. Mr. Creviston stated the Planning Commission should go through and revise the entire temporary sign section of the planning code.

Mr. Bergwall stated he thinks it is a good idea to give the zoning inspector the power to remove the signs in violation without prior notice. He stated in the Planning Commissions draft of the ordinance, item a, the words put out should be changed to posted.

Mr. Bergwall asked in item b, why does it state on city owned property and not public property? Mr. Kraus stated if you use the wording public property, then you are stating the schools cannot put up signs on their lawns and that’s not what we want to do. Mr. Cunningham stated someone should be able to put up signs against the levy since it is public property. Mr. Bergwall stated a way around this would be to state it must be placed on private property with the property owner’s permission.

Item c, Mr. Bergwall asked if it was really needed in the ordinance?

Mr. Bergwall asked if item d needed to be consistent with item b and stated city owned property and not public or private property? Mr. Kraus stated this verbiage came straight from the law director. Mr. Seymour stated the word temporary should be removed and replaced with any property. He also stated, the sentence should be a separate line item. Mr. Griffin stated the word such should be replaced with political.

Mr. Seymour stated in the old item e, the word residential should not be capitalized. Mr. Bergwall stated the phrase, for purpose of this ordinance, should be removed. He asked why the 10 square foot limit has to be specified as in residential districts and not in all districts with the exclusion of billboards. Mr. Kraus stated in his discussion with the Law Director, size is one of the issues, which may be challenged in court. He stated in residentially zoned districts, the city permits signs for home businesses of 4 square feet. By allowing 10 square feet, we are allowing more footage for freedom of speech than for businesses. To hold the other businesses to the smaller signs when they are allowed larger business signs is not right.

Mr. Bergwall stated he preferred Mr. Creviston’s item f in place of the old item f in the draft if it is found enforceable by the Law Director.

Mr. Cunningham stated he like Mr. Creviston’s item g. Mr. Kraus stated he does not know if you can deny someone the right for a variance. Mr. Griffin stated they should not include it.

Mr. Kraus stated the resolution to city council should be as follows: on the draft, 1143.03 (10) definition, there is no change. 1143.10 item a, replace put out with posted. Item b was left as is. Item c was left as is. Item d, delete temporary, replace public or private with the word any, make the second sentence starting with such new item e replacing the word such with political. New item f, residentially will have a lower case r and delete the phrase for purposes of this ordinance. New item g will be Mr. Creviston’s item f. Mr. Kraus made a motion to forward this to City Council with the changes just listed.

Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes

Mr. Seymour stated the Weaver Rd. Chestnut St. area between Walnut St. and Chestnut St. is what he is trying to raise awareness to. He stated there is a project going on right now, Keystone Crossing and 2/3 of their drainage goes across Chestnut into that basin. There is also a development in the works on the opposite side of Chestnut Street from Keystone Crossing on the Dasher property. Not too far in the future, Greenwood Colony will continue to grow to Chestnut Street. What is happening in there is a lot of rooftops and hard surface drainage going into a very low area, which feeds the Town Run. We need to think thoroughly and make the right decisions when it comes to development and the way storm water is handled.

Mr. Seymour passed out the city study on how they propose to address containment before it goes into the Town Run. He stated where the Town Run comes across SR 38, the city proposes to trunk part of it through a 54” trunk line, which increases to a 60” storm line and then has outlets and allows the water to go into the low area as a detention basin. They then install an additional pipe down Walnut Street for a new outlet so it drains back into the Town Run. He stated this is in the airport area. Mr. Bergwall stated he is surprised the FAA would allow that. Mr. Seymour stated it is not meant to be a pond, just a low area. Mr. Seymour stated Keystone Crossing would drain about 2/3 of their property into this low-lying area. The Dasher property will be coming to us soon as a sketch plan. Mr. Kraus stated it is up to the commission to put pressure on the administration to verify the detention potential of the airport property. He stated if that couldn’t be verified they have no choice but to look at some of the Dasher ground for it and it is going to effect how the ground is laid out.

Mr. Bergwall stated he feels the Keystone Crossing property is not suitable for residential development. Mr. Seymour stated it is zoned for it. Mr. Cunningham stated the code overrides that by stating the commission has the right to determine whether the land is safe to develop.

Mr. Seymour stated the Dasher property developers would have to make improvements to Walnut St. plus the proposed city storm handling, so their infrastructure will be of sizable cost. Mr. Kraus stated there has to be some discussion with the administration. If they don’t get an answer to the FAA question, we cannot give any approval to any plans.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.