28 MARCH 1995

7:00 P.M.




The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Councilwoman Peggy Manis,

Tim Sullivan, Barry Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson and Chairman William G. Syfert

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Assistant City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer



A. Final Approval - O’Charley’s & Tumbleweed Restaurants at Northwest

Corner of Princeton Pike and Merchant Street (tabled 3/14/95)

Tim Hershner of Hershner Associates stated we are prepared not to necessarily present anything based on the staff and consultant’s comments that we have acceptance of, but we are also prepared to present, if there are questions. We have had lengthy conversations about some of the issues, and feel comfortable that everything can be resolved without any problem; that we can live with the conditions.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda for his report. Mr. Shvegzda stated in reviewing the comments we had for the March 8th review, all items have been substantially addressed. The only exceptions would be additional analysis on the gap summary analysis, and there are details to be worked out on the situation regarding the bypass of the storm water runoff on the Cookers site. However after the conversations we have had with the developer’s engineer, we have come to an agreement on how to take care of that problem.

Mr. Shvegzda continued regarding the gap analysis, in Anne McBride’s comments, her recommendation would be that if Planning Commission wants to proceed with the plans as they are, the driveway be approved based on restricting right in and right out until we get the additional information to warrant that it be an unrestricted driveway. Mr. Syfert added this is the main drive coming in.

Mr. Galster commented to clarify, I assume the water runoff is agreed to and it is all signed? Mr. Shvegzda responded yes, they will have to add an additional catch basin and provide a means to utilize the existing catch basin by a concrete gutter arrangement.

Ms. Manis stated as to the gap analysis and the entrance, I don’t have a problem right now with it being right in and right out. If they can substantiate the gap analysis study to meet left in and out also, that can be worked out with the Building Department. Mr. Shvegzda responded right, they will have to supply the additional information. As a matter of fact, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting to discuss that issue.


Special Planning Commission Meeting

28 March 1995

Page Two


Ms. Manis continued and if it remains right in right out, will there be some kind of divider put up like at the BP Station? Mr. Shvegzda answered our recommendation for this particular site would be that the physical device to restrict traffic should be back on the driveway, only because this is kind of an island, an isolated area.

Mr. Sullivan asked if they have addressed the Tumbleweed sign projecting above the roofline. Mr. McErlane responded the drawings at this point have not been physically modified to show it, but there is a note on each of the elevation drawings that say that a parapet will be raised and the sign will be lowered.

Mr. McErlane continued as you will note on the drawings, the dumpster for Tumbleweed has been moved back to a location next to the building, and also there is a note on the site plan that indicates that the dumpster enclosure location on the north side of the site for the O’Charley’s Restaurant will be five feet minimum from the property line, so that eliminates the need for a variance for that.

Mr. McErlane reported there will be a requirement for at least one, possibly two variances. One is for the height of the ground sign, and I recommended that the 10 foot high ground sign would be a better situation than three individual seven foot high ground signs up front, but it is up to Planning Commission to recommend that to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The other thing we noticed is there is a detail for the Tumbleweed dumpster enclosure that was submitted The actual surround for it is on another detail, but the enclosure is a larger enclosure and includes a space to store mesquite firewood and cardboard. Because our zoning code says you cannot have outside storage, that would have to be addressed through a variance as well. The detail that was submitted that shows the surround also shows a roof over it, a standing seam metal roof over a portion of it. It doesn’t show on any of the rest of the drawings. Mr. Hershner commented it might be for keeping the wood dry; we could make sure it is not visible.

Mr. McErlane continued on Anne McBride’s report, she seemed to be satisfied with the circulation for the drive through. Her only concern was because of the dumpster location and the drive through location, and the view of the dumpster and the back of this building from the office complex, she felt there should be more landscaping along this island. Mr. Syfert commented that is the only problem she had back in that corner? Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

Mr. Wilson stated on the blueprint we are looking at neon signs on windows? Mr. McErlane reported we did get details which should be attached. There are four of them about four square feet apiece. Mr. Wilson asked if that were part of the total allowable signage, and Mr. McErlane responded it fits within the total allowable.

Mr. Tiffany stated I spent some time going over these, and far as the mesquite and cardboard, I understand that the mesquite would be a necessity for the business but as far as the cardboard goes, I’m not real keen on outside storage of cardboard. I don’t know if they are doing it for recycling purposes or to start the fires, but personally I would not like to see us recommend to BZA the storage of cardboard outside.


Planning Commission Special Meeting

28 March 1995

Page Three


Mr. Tiffany continued I agree that we should keep this right in right out until we get confirmation of the gap analysis. Once that is worked out and it is satisfactory to the engineer, I don’t have a problem with it. It seems like everything else has been addressed, and I appreciate it.

Ms. Manis asked what the cardboard is for? Mr. Hershner answered I honestly don’t know what it is for. Ms. Manis commented if it is for recycling, I think we would rather see it there than blowing around. Mr. Wilson said can’t this mesquite wood be stored someplace else, like in your basement? Mr. Hershner said there is no basement.

Mr. Tiffany stated if everybody is as confident as I am that everything has been addressed or is being addressed, I would move that we grant approval, referring to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance on the signage, recommending that they grant it for one 10 foot instead of three separate seven footers, that we keep it right in right out only on the Princeton Pike entrance until a gap analysis is complete to the satisfaction of the engineer’s department, that Anne McBride’s Don Shvegzda and Bill McErlane’s comments are addressed. Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant wished to address any of these items, and Mr. Hershner responded we understand and we can live with those.

Mr. Wilson commented the way I understand it, the option would be for three seven foot signs for each of these or one 10 foot sign. Do we have to give each one a seven-foot sign? Mr. Syfert answered they are entitled to identity. Looking at the proposed 10-foot sign, Mr. Wilson asked what would be in the space for the third tenant. Mr. Hershner answered it could be a blackout panel; O’Charley’s is a forest green, and we could pick that color. Mr. Wilson said in the motion, let’s put something down here that is aesthetically pleasing. It is obviously temporary in nature that you can take out when your third tenant comes in, but if it is a year or two, it still would look good a year or two from now. Mr. Tiffany so amended his motion and Ms. Manis seconded it. On the motion to grant approval, voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Wilson asked about the third tenant, and Mr. Hershner answered chances are we will not have to use the drive through user at all; it looks like it will be an upscale furniture store, so it would be a low generator of traffic.


Mr. Blake moved for adjournment and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1995 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

_______________________,1995 ________________________

Steve Galster, Secretary