8 JANUARY 2002

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Robert Sherry, Richard Huddleston, David Okum,

    Councilman Tom Vanover , David Whitaker and

    Chairman Syfert.

    Members Absent: Councilman Steve Galster

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

    Mr. Syfert welcomed Mr. Sherry, who is replacing Mr. Darby, who resigned because of other duties. He also reported that Mr. Galster was called out of town on business.

  6. Mr. Okum moved to adopt and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all except Messrs. Vanover and Sherry who abstained, voted aye and the minutes were approved with four affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Vanover asked Mr. Parham to introduce the new employee in the city administration. Mr. Parham presented Beth Stiles who will be the assistant to the city administrator/economic development director. Her primary role will be to handle economic development activities in the city. She has extensive background in that area, serving with the City of Cincinnati for 10 years, was with Fort Thomas as the downtown manager and has experience in real estate. We are glad to have her on board.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė November 20, 2001
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė December 10, 2001
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė December 25, 2001
    6. Planning Partnership Update

Mr. Huddleston reported that there will be an electronic town meeting this coming Saturday at the Grand Ballroom at Music Hall. They have taken the synopses of these localized meetings and put them in a form so they can be discussed and voted on electronically by we hope 1,000 local residents of Hamilton County. This would set the direction of the county on three or four major issues, planning, funding priorities and requests to state and federal government and transportation. It is all day Saturday, and I would encourage any interested residents or members of the commission and administration to participate in this to try to help us set some future directions for Hamilton County.



8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Okum added that Hamilton County hasnít had a plan in place

for some years (1964). Rarely do you have a chance to be a part of the planning process, so if you have an opportunity to give a Saturday to the community, this would affect many peopleís lives and futures.

Mr. Vanover said I will be attending, as well as Mr. Osborn, Mr. Squires and several other councilmembers are planning to be there.

Mr. Syfert reported that we have one member missing tonight, and it takes five affirmative votes for final approval.

    1. Approval of Fascia Change, Pump Island Canopy, Exxon, 11144 Springfield Pike

Tim Martz of Lykins Oil Company passed out pictures of the project. He stated that at the December 11th meeting, we proposed to change the existing canopy into the standard Exxon canopy, which had a backlit 24 inch red band around it. We have agreed to limit that to eight inches non-illuminated. You have the picture in front of you. The canopy itself will be white with an eight inch red band and two illuminated Exxon signs, 25.5 square feet each on the east and the west sides of the canopy.

In terms of the color coordination of the entire facility, if you look at that picture, the Shell yellow band will be removed. The Friends sign in the yellow that matched the Shell has already been removed. We intend to make the red that we have white, and the building will be gray with that red canopy. Hopefully that meets your requirements.

Mr. McErlane reported that the only questions he raised in his comments were the size of the red band and whether or not it was illuminated, and those have been answered tonight.

Ms. McBride said the eight inch wide band is down from the 24-inch band that you saw in December. One question the commission needs to decide is whether or not the white the red and the gray constitute a coordinated color scheme. The Corridor Review District requires that there be a color-coordinated scheme for the site. Obviously the two signs at 25.5 s.f. would be acceptable to this part of the staff and there should be no revisions to the lighting. I know that has been a concern with regards to the canopy.

Mr. Okum said I spent some time going through Exxonís web page, and Exxon uses gray colors in their logo on their letterhead. They use Exxon with a gray band and a flare striping which is light gray, and you could do that canopy in the same way that they do their letterhead, and eliminate the issue of the stark white and the Exxon background.




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Okum asked if the Exxon were to be cut into the canopy facing as it was presented in December, or will it be a red painted stripe on the existing canopy with individually lit Exxon letters attached to it?

Jim Thacker answered that they would be individual letters attached that will protrude about four inches.

Mr. Okum said and the existing canopy will be painted out. Mr. Thacker said the existing canopy has a lighted fascia that has to be removed and there will be a white metal fascia.

Mr. Okum commented that the awning is a pretty significant one. It is in place and I can see your wanting to retain that. However I tend to have some difficulty with a white white canopy and gray building and red awning and yellow and red Friends sign on the building as well. Mr. Martz said the Friends sign has been taken off.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okuma asked if he had been on the web page to see how they utilize the gray and flare on their top band of the letterhead. Mr. Martz answered that he hadnít, but I can assure you that the Exxon gray canopy was eliminated many years ago. Mr. Okum responded I canít argue that, but we had asked for a corporate identity presentation that Exxon uses in other areas. There are other restrictive districts in the country.

Mr. Martz reported that Exxon has red white and blue, and that is the image they want to portray at the island. That is why their new canopy would be red and white and their sign would have some blue in it.

Mr. Okum said their current stationery doesnít reflect that, but it doesnít mean that it is their entire corporate image. Mr. Thacker reported that this picture of the Exxon interior was designed. The engineer had three options. The other one was all white with the red Exxon, and the third one was the large red 25" red on white. Those were the only three options he would offer us. I have never seen the gray you are talking about on any sign.

Mr. Okum said it is just on their letterhead, but I am trying to bring you back to what would be allowed in the Route 4 Corridor District. An eight-inch band with the awning and the colors not being tied to the building tend to affect the outlook.

Mr. Martz responded we would be more than happy to change the building color. Mr. Thacker commented that it could be white, and Mr. Okum said I donít want the building white either. I believe the Tuffy just around the corner from you presented a white, which was changed to gray.

I have not seen any offer from you to change the lighting at the bottom of the canopy, and we discussed that at the last meeting.




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Martz answered as I said as part of any package, we would be willing to agree to change the lighting. I think Jim has an example of that.

Mr. Thacker said these are diffusers that we can put up on each of the 220-watt lamps that completely cut out the glare. It lets just enough light out through these holes so that the glare is cut down completely on the bulb. Mr. Okum said so the lens protruding below the canopy does not become overlit or project light out through the sides. Mr. Martz confirmed that. Mr. Huddleston asked if the manufacturer had photometric charts, and Mr. Martz indicated that they did.

Mr. Huddleston commented for purposes of discussion, I would be prepared to make a motion. Addressing the applicant, he said you have indicated that you are willing to provide either fixture alterations or new lenses to eliminate the glare under the canopy fixtures. Mr. Martz confirmed this.

Mr. Huddleston added that personally I have a real problem with the color scheme. Ms. McBride recommended that a coordinated color scheme should be submitted; I would say it should be a detailed coordinated color scheme with accurate material samples, and that color scheme should be in basic accordance with the Route 4 Corridor District requirements to satisfy our staff, along with the other recommendations by Ms. McBride. Have you seen those?

Mr. Martz answered it was my understanding from the last meeting that the problem was with a 24" red band, and that there was no problem at all with the white on the canopy. I am sorry I misunderstood, but that was my understanding.

Mr. Huddleston asked if he were familiar with the Corridor Review District requirements and Mr. Martz answered that Steve, our sign man, is familiar with them, and I reviewed them. I donít want to say I am an expert. Mr. Huddleston commented in my opinion you had a pre existing condition that wasnít necessarily in full accordance with those requirements, but it was a reasonably coordinated color scheme. You have gone from that to something that is not coordinated at all. I have a real concern about how we go forward with that. If you or your staff have familiarized yourselves with the corridor requirements, I would like to know how you are prepared to respond to that.

Mr. Martz answered I suggested that we make the building the same color as the canopy, and Mr. Okum didnít like that option. I am no in a position to be able to change Exxonís identification. If the commission would like us to go back and resubmit to Exxon for a gray canopy, we could do that. But at the meeting on December 11th, the white was not brought up as a problem.





8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Huddleston commented in my mind what we need to see is not just how you are going to treat the canopy, but how you are going to treat the facility in total, building and canopy. I am prepared to make a motion that would only expand on Ms. McBrideís recommendations, but would require you to come back for an approval of a coordinated scheme for the entire facility and site and that you be in a position to reduce the glare on those canopy lights in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. Sherry said I am new here, and I do want to make a few companies. My company does a lot of gas work and I am quite familiar with the BP and Shell Company standards. There is a new Exxon on Ridge road that I would suggest you look at. I think it is indicative of their company image, and it is a very beautiful station.

Mr. Martz said that location is part of a rebirth in the area and certainly is the best looking in the area. I thought the problem here was the red, and that has the 24" red band, but I agree with you completely.

Mr. Sherry continued I looked at it, and it raises other issues. We havenít talked about their price sign; it is bright blue. Mr. Martz responded that has been approved; it has white, red and blue. Mr. Sherry added they had a dark gray roof and a tannish type of EIFIS and stone; I thought it was quite attractive.

I donít care for the gray on what I am looking at here; it is reminiscent of the Shell colors and I think you need to make that go away and bring us something a little more in keeping with the Exxon image and the corridor standards.

Mr. Sherry wondered if the diffuser for the light had been used somewhere so I can go look at it? Mr. Thacker answered I will get the location back to you. Mr. Syfert asked him to give that information to Mr. McErlane so we all can look at it. Mr. Sherry added I have not seen that before, and Iím not happy with those kinds of fixtures that they have down there now. They are so overpowering and they do blind you when you are on Northland or Route 4. If the diffuser will do the trick, I am all in favor of it.

Mr. Huddleston said you are interested in brand identification, and I am in sympathy with that. We are interested in a coordinated color scheme for this facility in the Corridor Review District. Hopefully we can find a match there. I would reinforce what Mr. Okum said earlier; Iím sure this isnít the first controlled or special district that Exxon has had to deal with. If you are willing to work with their marketing and their facilities people and come up with something that reasonably addresses our corridor requirements, I think we would be prepared to act affirmatively for you.

Mr. Martz said in terms of the coordinated color scheme, I was handed this paper a half an hour ago, and had no time to prepare. I am certainly open to the motion to give you that at the next meeting.




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Syfert asked if he were suggesting that we continue this until February, and Mr. Martz answered under the circumstances, yes.

Mr. Okum said I would recommend that the applicant get a copy of the Route 4 Corridor Review District standards, and be better in tune with what the requirements are under that use. Mr. McErlane added that they are a part of the Zoning Code and the Zoning Code is on our web site in full in an Acrobat Reader form. The web site is

Ms. McBride said for the applicantís benefit, there were specific excerpts from the Corridor Review District in last monthís staff report because there was concern then as well about a color scheme. If you have last monthís staff report, you do have some of that information already.

Mr. Sherry asked if the tiger would be anywhere? I know they are on the dispenser. Will they be on the building? Mr. Martz answered that it wasnít a part of it. Will there be any building signage? Mr. Martz answered no adding that they have a tiger mart option, but this isnítí going to be one.

Mr. Syfert said at the applicantís request, we will table this to February 12th.

B. Approval of Temporary Classroom Ė Springdale Elementary School 350 West Kemper Road

Richard Shaffer of Princeton City Schools passed out written answers to the staff questions. He stated the proposal is to install a modular classroom at Springdale Elementary School, just north of the present site. Several months ago the Board of Education voted to eliminate our classrooms in all the basements of our older schools, which would be Springdale, Sharonville, Lincoln Heights and Glendale. We are planning to have modular classrooms in three of those older builders.

It will not increase enrollment; it will just move the students out of the basement areas. After our flooding experience at Heritage Hill in July, these older buildings took on a lot of water through the foundation.

This will be a double classroom, 24í x 70í total length and will accommodate two classes and will have restroom facilities in the classrooms.

Ms. McBride reported that she hadnít had time to review the information the applicant just passed out. On Friday afternoon they submitted a site plan but you couldnít read the dimensions on the setbacks.





8 JANUARY 2002



Ms. McBride added that the concern that we had expressed in December was that we didnít necessarily think it was a bad thing; we have approved these types of uses in other locations, but we didnít have the information that we have asked for in other locations. I can appreciate that it is a school, but I think we need to treat all these types of uses in a similar fashion.

The commission has expressed a concern previously about what the exterior would look like, how the bottom area would be treated, how the mechanical equipment would be treated, and how long the unit would be in place. We had asked for that information in December and had not received it until five minutes ago. We have not had a chance to review this, and I am not in a position to make a recommendation to the commission.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that we had comments at the December commission meeting. I hear that there will be a sanitary sewer lateral installation to serve the trailer, which will go out to the existing sanitary sewer that is within Walnut. Mr. Thacker said it would run west and south into an existing sanitary line coming out of the west side of the new addition. Mr. Shvegzda said the concern was that it not be within the existing pavement in Walnut. Mr. Thacker said on the site plan you received last Friday, there is a bottom line that shows where it comes out of the building and continue out to Walnut Street.

Mr. Shvegzda continued that the other general question is about the circulation of the parking in that area. I am concerned about the latchkey program where the children are dropped off early in the morning. I am not sure which door they access the building from, but does that cause a problem with that?

Mr. Thacker answered that the children are dropped off and walk across the asphalt walkway across the grassy area and directly into a corridor on the northwest side. The modular classroom would be set back far enough that it would not interfere with the children coming in and out.

Mr. Shvegzda said I donít see anything of major concern on this project. It is just a lot of these issues that need to be discussed and shown on the site plan.

Mr. Thacker said the setback requirement is 35 feet from the right of way, and this will be well past the 35 feet.

Mr. Syfert asked if there was another access point behind the trailer, and Mr. Shaffer answered that there is the cafeteria area and this would be another fire exit over here. This is a qualified corridor for fire exit.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, we did receive a brochure on the modular units and there was one page checked. Mr. Shaffer responded that they had so many configurations that is the closest one they would have.



8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane asked if that were the color they wanted, and Mr. Shaffer answered that historically they have come in either beige or gray. We have several of them at Lincoln Heights and Stewart Elementary, and we stain these whatever color would be preferable. We would be able to stain it any color that you would desire.

Mr. McErlane commented that the dimensions on the site plan are barely legible, but it is 24í x 70í, and that is the unit size? Mr. Shaffer said yes. Mr. McErlane asked about the skirting. Mr. Shaffer reported that historically we use T-111 for skirting and we have our different painters stain it whatever color would be preferable.

Mr. McErlane stated that when he first contacted the school about this proposal, there was some indication that you were hoping to move in over the Christmas break. What is your schedule now?

Mr. Shaffer answered until we received your approval, we have not ordered anything at all. We are just now moving one in at Sharonville. In this case we would have to provide the rough in for the plumbing and they would have to put in the footers or piering. So it probably would be the beginning of March before anything would get on site.

Mr. Syfert asked the time for this, and Mr. Shaffer answered that the intent here is that we will permanently move the children out of the basement of these buildings. We have a facilities committee looking at different bond issues for building a new building in Springdale. That is why we are projecting three plus or minus years, but we would not want to put those kids back into those basements because of the flooded areas.

Mr. Syfert said some of the concern of the commission might be that we could be looking at seven or eight years down the road on these. Is that a possibility? Mr. Shaffer answered I cannot speak for the board, but I would say that perhaps through attrition that our classroom sizes may be able to move around. To answer your question, I have found out in 15 years that anything is possible.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. McErlane if the fire and public safety people have looked at this. Mr. McErlane answered that we would have to issue a building permit for location and foundation and hookups to it. The state preempts inspections of the unit itself, because they are all preinspected by the state. The Fire Department was furnished a copy of it, and I havenít heard any comments from them. As far as distance from the existing building and access, there is no problem.

Mr. Huddleston said I that if and when we act favorably on this, that Planning Commission provideuddlHu

a sunset provision. I am in sympathy with the school districtís problem; without funding, they cannot do anything, but I would be concerned if it is there 10 years from the time we approve it. At least they would have to come back and tell us their plans at that time.


8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane passed around the brochure of the modular units.

Mr. Sherry said I am concerned about the setbacks. It is 10 feet from the existing school. I would have thought that there would have been some kind of fire rating on that to comply. Mr. Shaffer responded it is 10 feet from the existing building since it is not a fire rated wall within the modular classroom. That is the setback as far as we know, unless Mr. McErlane says it is different. Mr. McErlane reported that he had not looked specifically at the requirement for the setback. In no case would it be more than 15 feet, but 10 feet seems to be the appropriate number. I would have to look at it.

Mr. Shaffer commented that is what it has been in the other communities. If there were something different, we would accommodate whatever you would require.

Mr. Sherry said how does the slope relate to the modular unit? Mr. Shaffer answered that one end would almost be level, and as you go to the east it rolls down, probably four feet. On the one side we would have to pier the side and camouflage that however we would have to, with more skirting or a retaining wall. Mr. Thacker added that the paint would match the school in color also.

Mr. Sherry asked about any input from the PTA; are they were aware of this? Mr. Shaffer answered I am sure they are, but I donít know what the board had done on their own.

Mr. Sherry said we had two children go to that school, and my wife was very active in the PTA, and I know when the playground was built, the original location for it is where the trailer is. There was quite a bit of controversy over that; they didnít want anything there and it got moved to where it is now. I wanted to bring that to your attention.

Mr. Shaffer responded I appreciate that. Our problem with Springdale is that you are landlocked everywhere else, so that would be the place to put it. Certainly we couldnít move it away from the building but with the proximity to the existing structure, we try to keep it as close as we possibly can for supervision.

Mr. Sherry added that his wife participated in the facilities committee and I have read the report. I know that the basement has never flooded, but it is moldy and there is mildew down there. I agree that something should be done there, and this is probably the first step.

Mr. Okum said I agree that getting the children out of the basement is necessary. When they looked at Springdale Elementary, there were no classroom relocations that they could do. You are only going to gain two classrooms out of this.

Mr. Shaffer said we actually have four classrooms in the basement area. We have two smaller classes that are directly affected, and on the other end we have art rooms.


8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Shaffer said we are incorporating two of the classes inside the structure, but trying to come up with four classrooms in the existing structure is a problem. The original intent was to have floor classrooms in two separate modulars. By working things around with the principal, they can contain the other two classrooms in the existing structure.

Mr. Okum asked how the downspout leader lines on the modular units would be handled. Mr. Shaffer answered that there is a storm line right there that we could tie into. The only ones we have contended with before were right over the doors themselves. Mr. Okum said your primary objective is to place the unit as much on the existing asphalt as you can. It looks like itís going to carry over a little bit into the greenspace. Mr. Shaffer answered it does. Under the 10 foot, I think it comes out another six feet.

Mr. Okum asked the location of the doorways and ramps for the unit, and Mr. Thacker answered that there will be doors on both sides and a set of steps on one side and a ramp on the other side.

Mr. Okum said you are taking four fairly healthy trees. Mr. Thacker said these are very borderline, so depending on exact placement, these four caliper inch trees will have to be relocated. We would move them down. Mr. Okum asked how much green area was between the modular, and Mr. Shaffer answered 14 feet. Mr. Okum said when you say relocate, I havenít seen anybody move a tree that sizes for ages. Can they do that? Ms. McBride answered that they can. There are companies in town that specialize in that. Mr. Okum said so your intention is to relocate those trees in the same area.

In the literature they show some hedging that is used to break up the skirting and give it a little more residential look. I donít foresee this being here for three years; I think that is optimistic and we are talking five minimum, and we should address that. If it is not kept up, it can look pretty bad in three years. There are some nice looking units there. Will there be windows on the parking side? Mr. Shaffer answered that there would be windows there.

Mr. Okum said if this is approved, I would support the ramping system being concrete. Mr. Shaffer said wood is what we provided in the past. Mr. Okum responded if it is wood for five or six yearsÖMr. Shaffer answered that our district paint crew restains them every year to maintain them.

Mr. Whitaker asked what grades would be placed in the modular unit, and Mr. Shafer answered it would be preschool or kindergarten, and that is the reason for the need for the restrooms. Mr. Whitaker continued so they would be confined to that area except for lunch or recess. Mr. Shafer confirmed this.

Mr. Vanover asked if the exterior walls vinyl or metal siding? Mr. Shaffer answered that the one that came in at Heritage Hill was gray vinyl siding.




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Vanover commented I personally despise T-111. Long term, it is a maintenance nightmare. Depending on approval, I would look at some other skirting solution.

I donít know the status is now, but for a while MSD was holding steadfast. Would this be considered a new tap for sanitary? Mr. McErlane responded MSD would get involved from the inspection standpoint anyway. They were looking at new developments and flows, and Iím sure this doesnít tax it anywhere near what a restaurant would. Mr. Syfert commented that it is just a substitute, Ms. McBride added that they may be able to demonstrate that they are not increasing the number of students; they are relocating them on site.

Mr. Shaffer said I can address some of the other concerns and questions. The height was in the packet, and the HVAC system is through the wall units instead of rooftop. We had originally set overhead electrical and communication lines but if you would prefer to have it trenched that is not a problem. We could have it trenched over. The parking will not be altered, because we are not increasing the number of students.

Mr. Sherry wondered how they would get water to the building, and Mr. Shaffer answered that it would be trenched over from the existing building. There is a classroom right inside where we can pick water up.

Mr. Sherry asked if they had considered lattice around the perimeter instead of the T-111 with landscaping? Mr. Shaffer answered we are willing to do whatever the committee decides.

Mr. Thacker said on the skirting, with the wood, the school could get parts and replace it. What we would really like to do is put landscaping in to protect it. The lattice does look nice but I would like to have something solid but we are open to whatever you want to do with the skirting.

Mr. Okum wondered if the committee had discussed the type of roof you would put on it? Mr. Shaffer answered that it would be slightly sloped; it peaks to 12 feet and has a gentle slope. The one at Heritage Hill was EPD, a rubber roof. Mr. Okum commented that the book shows both peaked and single slope. The reason I was asking is because I would like to see more of a peaked roof system on it. Mr. Shaffer responded I could approach JELCO and see what they can provide.

Mr. Okum said my suggestion in terms of skirting is that I donít have a problem with the T-111 for purposes of keeping the kids from climbing underneath it, but I agree Ė I hate looking at it. If I were to make a motion, I would say "continuous hedging and plantings approved by the city planner in areas around the unit on the west, north and south sides." That would be areas visual from the entrance into the cafeteria, the front of the building entrance and the parking lot area, those three sides, east west and north.



8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Shaffer said on the south side, we would be in the asphalt. Mr. Okum commented that they might be a little in the asphalt to do some landscaping on the west side and east side. You would need to cut into that, or plant on top of the asphalt. .

If there are any light packs on the building for security, they need to be downlit with residential shielding. Mr. Shaffer commented we would have some existing on the north side. Mr. Okum said that would be between the buildings and would need residential shielding as well. The existing trees should be relocated in the same proximity as they are to the building. I would suggest that the HVAC units that are on the north side be placed on the south side. Mr. Shaffer commented that normally they have come in on the ends of the units. Mr. Okum said I am thinking on the end of the unit, toward the cafeteria side. Mr. Syfert said they show one HVAC unit on each end. Mr. Shaffer commented that they could build them however we design them.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the modular facility for Springdale Elementary to house two classrooms. The units shall be 24' x 70í and placed where referenced in the submission. Also, wall mounted light packs if used shall be shielded with residential shielding. The units shall have continuous hedging and plantings around the unit on the west north and eat sides and approved by the city planner. The four existing trees on the north shall be relocated in the same area as necessary to facilitate placement of the unit. HVAC units shall be mounted on the east side and skirting shall be T-111 and stained to match the siding. There will be a 5-year limit on the placement of these units, after which they must submit for continuation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the motion was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Approval of Landscaping (Hobby Lobby) and Additional Parking Area Ė Cassinelli Square, 11360 Princeton Pike

Wendy Klepcyk of Michael Schuster Associates said in response to last monthís meeting, we are proposing to demolish the existing garden center from the former HQ building as well as the covered area and screen wall and gate and fencing area that is currently attached to the building.

In addition to that, we will be providing a parking field in that area as well as additional landscaping. Also we will have raised beds that will be 10í x 4í x 2í high painted to match the Hobby Lobby color scheme with plantings included as indicated on the elevation.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the proposed parking which is the existing concrete surface that is in place, there are no dimensions on that indicating the overall width in particular. It scales about 97í based on two 19í parking stalls and two 24í drive aisles. Only 86í is required.



8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Shvegzda added that a suggestion might be to utilize the excess width to both protect the south face of the building and also to provide a protected pedestrian area. That is a long stretch for people to walk within the drive aisles.

In terms of existing features, there is a raised concrete median in the north/south driveway to the west of the building that is not shown, so it is a little unclear as to how that affects the access into this proposed parking field.

It is also shown to have access to the area that is to the east of the building. The drive access shown from that eastern area on to that common north/south driveway to the east of the subject building is quite a bit different from what is indicated on the plans. It was difficult to see how all that was functioning there, so there was a question on that.

On the drainage, this is an existing surface in place, but now that it will be utilized for a different purpose, the question is how the drainage will function. There needs to be some type of curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot and there was nothing submitted concerning lighting.

Ms. Klepcyk responded that they are proposing to provide a standard 6-inch curb at the perimeter where the existing screen wall will be removed. In terms of pedestrian access, right now the sidewalk in front of the Hobby Lobby area is flush with the asphalt paving. We could stripe that off with the additional 10 feet similar to the way it is done out in the front to provide additional pedestrian access. There is an existing detention area underneath the greenhouse area, and we propose to utilize that for surface drainage.

Ms. McBride said they are going to be removing that garden area and adding 74 parking spaces. They didnít provide dimensions of those spaces or drive aisles and we would need to see those. They are proposing to paint the south wall of the Hobby Lobby consistent with the balance of the exterior of the building.

The site plan indicates that dead or damaged landscape materials fronting on Tri-County Parkway will be replaced with similar material. This needs to be done throughout the PUD. There are a number of plants that are in poor state or no state, and they need to be replaced. That is a requirement of the Zoning Code and we need to find out specifically where they are proposing to do that to make sure they will be covering all of that.

They are proposing the three raised landscaped beds on the west elevation of the building and six 18-inch terra cotta planters on that front elevation. We would suggest additional terra cotta planters. That is a pretty long building elevation and we would like to see it broken up in a low cost fashion for the applicant.





8 JANUARY 2002



Ms. McBride continued that they are proposing a new parking area for the south and they have not indicated any lighting. We would need to see and review a lighting plan for that area.

Also, staff is suggesting that the dimensions of that parking area be readjusted to provide for a sidewalk adjacent to the south building elevation. There is not one proposed at that location at this time.

The new landscaped islands that they propose within that parking area to the south have one tree and some shrubs. The landscape architect feels that there needs to be two of the Cleveland select pears in each island, with eight to 10 additional blue chip junipers to fill in that island. Additionally we need to have the size of the Cleveland select pears identified.

On the parking islands immediately to the west of the building, there are no shrubs, so we would like to see the blue chip junipers added to that for consistency as well as to fill those in.

There needs to be additional plantings added to the island east of the loading dock for screening purposes. I understand that they are going to be putting in the vinyl slats, but they sometimes have the habit of falling into disrepair, and we need to see additional material in that area.

Mr. Okum asked if the landscape architect mentioned breaking up that long 72 parking space area with another planting island in the middle of it. Ms. McBride indicated that she did not, but I would always be in favor of that. Mr. Okum added that this is a major improvement over what we had, but another island in the middle would duplicate the two at the other end and would help.

We have seen the west elevation, but we donít know what the south elevation will look like. Ms. McBride responded that what the applicant has indicated is that they are going to paint that to the beach house color to match the rest of the existing building. Mr. Okum said I see on that elevation that there is a light pole. Ms. Klepcyk responded that they would be providing three light poles at the planting areas and at the center of this island. We also would provide an additional planting island. We are including two of the Cleveland select pear trees on each island and they would be 3-inch calipers.

Mr. Okum said so you are going to carry the façade on the southern portion, the same finish, all the way down. Will the rear of the building, the dock area be updated, painted and redone? Ms. Klepcyk answered that it would be painted the beach house. Mr. Okum asked how far the beach house went, and Ms. Klepcyk answered that it would extend to the furthest corner.

Mr. Okum asked if any light packs would be necessary, and Ms. Klepcyk answered we are not proposing any. Mr. Okum continued that I would suggest that the motion include that if there are light packs they should be downlit and shielded to protect the adjacent properties from glare.


8 JANUARY 2002



Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked the type of landscaping she was recommending for the screening of the dumpster area on the east. Ms. McBride responded I believe that there are evergreens out there and we would want to see a continuation of that. Ms. Klepcyk responded that all along this area are evergreens. Mr. Okum said and those will be maintained and supplemented.

Mr. Sherry asked if the landscape architect had any recommendations about landscaping along the south side of the building in lieu of the sidewalk? Ms. McBride asked if he meant something similar like we have done on the west side with raised beds, and Mr. Sherry responded even more so. I think there is a distinct difference between the south side and the rest of the building. From what I could tell, the existing masonry wall is plain concrete block, not split face like the rest of the facility, and that is a huge difference. Without breaking it up, I think it would look terrible.

Ms. McBride responded that the one thing I would say is that there is and will be in better condition a landscape area between Tri-County Parkway and the parking area. That doesnít disrupt the appearance you will see from the parking area, so I am not disagreeing with you. In terms of what we see from the public right of way, there is a pretty significant landscaped area there that they will be improving.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said you had mentioned that instead of a 10-foot sidewalk you were considering striping it out. The pavement there now is concrete, just in the area of the garden center. Your idea would be to shift the parking stalls to the south somewhat and provide a striped area. Mr. Klepcyk confirmed this, adding that it would make it flow easily into what is there right now. The drawings themselves only address the painting of the CMU wall on the south side. They donít address the metal fascia that is on it.

The original drawing for the storefront had indicated a different color for that metal, but it wasnít the dark color. I think the sloped metal roof was the dark color and the other metal is also an off white beige, but it is a different one than the block, and the idea would be to carry it around. Ms. Klepcyk confirmed this.

Mr. Huddleston said if we are gong to do a walkway along the south edge of that building for the length of that parking field, would it make any sense and could it be reasonably maintained to put anchored continuous parking blocks in there to protect that as well as keep the vehicles out of that area?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that it would be a more proactive kind of thing to separate the traffic from the pedestrians. It wouldnít necessarily have to be contnuous. There could be some gaps in it to allow for the surface drainage to flow.







8 JANUARY 2002



Ms. McBride added that to supplement that and respond to Mr. Sherryís concern, maybe you put some of the raised planters in, in lieu of the parking bumpers. A few could break that up and also provide that separation.

Ms. Klepcyk commented that would be preferable to providing a brand new sidewalk and it would help dress up that south elevation as well. Mr. Syfert said I donít believe that a sidewalk is necessary if we would do something like that.

Ms. McBride commented that staffís concern was that there be some provision when you come out of the store with a cart and a three year old, that you donít immediately have to worry about the cars coming around. Whether it was a raised sidewalk or a combination of planters and bumpers, just so there is a safe area to allow the people to get to their cars.

Ms. Klepcyk answered I think that addresses a couple of the issues that you have and would be a good solution.

Mr. Vanover said there donít seem to be light packs on that south side. Since we lost the wall where there were light packs, are you planning on putting light packs on the new south wall?

Ms. Klepcyk answered we were not proposing anything. Iím not sure what is on that south wall right now; I know there is some lighting in that area and I havenít been able to get back in there. Mr. Syfert said you have the three-pole lights out in the parking field. Mr. Vanover said if there were light packs, I would suggest that they be downlit and shielded.

Mr. Sherry asked where the doors would be on the front elevation. Ms. Klepcyk answered that there is a new entryway being developed by Hobby Lobby and the doors would not be visible from the front. Mr. Sherry asked if that would be out at the existing column line, and Ms. Klepcyk answered yes. They will be recladding the existing columns that are currently where the columns were for the HQ and enclosing that area with glass and providing entry on each side.

Mr. Sherry asked if the recladding would be brick or split face block and Ms. Klepcyk answered I believe it is split face block that would be painted. They would supplement this area with a EIFS fascia footbridge.

Mr. Okum said looking at the length of the south elevation, four to five would probably break it up better than three. Ms. McBride agreed, adding that if you allowed staff the latitude and if four isnít enough, we could have five.








8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Okum moved to approve the landscaping and additional parking area with the following conditions:

    1. Included staff, engineer and plannerís recommendations;
    2. To be approved by the staff, planner and city engineer;
    3. Pole lighting to be lit non glare type with flat lenses set within the case;
    4. Three additional lights as submitted;
    5. Wall-mounted light packs shall be shielded and downlit only so as not to affect adjoining property owners and the public right of way;
    6. Lighting fixtures shall be the same style and color as existing on the site.
    7. Landscaping shall be maintained at all times.
    8. Applicant shall be adding precast planters with plannerís recommendation of six on the west elevation and adding four to five raised planters on the south elevation;
    9. All landscaping to be approved by the City Planner;
    10. All three building elevations to include repainting and replacing all damaged and necessary materials;
    11. Color pallet as submitted by the applicant;
    12. There shall be a safety walkway on the south elevation which shall consist of parking blocks and planters;
    13. Fencing on the east elevation shall be completely refurbished and maintained in a like new condition at all times;
    14. There shall be an additional island placed in the 72 parking space field, adding landscaping in a location for a light.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

D. Final Approval of Pictoria Corporate Center Signs #4A and #6

Bill Woodward, one of the developers of Pictoria Corporate Center reported that last month we made a lot of progress on the signs, and had some good constructive criticism on a couple of the signs and we have come back with improvements.

There were five items that we modified with this submittal. Two of them were adjustments of setbacks on two of the signs, and one was the elimination of the sign that we had proposed in the right of way by Showcase Cinemas.

There are two signs in question. On Sign 4A, the suggestion was to reduce it from four panels to a two panel sign. We think it is a tremendous improvement from what we originally submitted. It also reduces the height from 11 feet to 8í-6".





8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Woodward added that the location of the sign is 30 feet from the right of way of Northwest Boulevard and five feet from the right of way of Pictoria Drive. Actual field measurements and coordination of existing landscaping determined that. If there is a concern to make that setback 10 feet, it can be accomplished with the readjustment of a couple of trees, so thatís not a huge issue to us.

The second sign was the free parking sign, which was originally proposed at 6í x 12í. The suggestion was that it be reduced down to 3í x 15í. It was our understanding that the commission wanted to move that from the proposed location to right above the entrance to the garage. We thought that was a given, and that is our intention. I have a couple of drawings to verify it.

Mr. McErlane reported in essence the freestanding sign at the corner, #4A, now has a 6í x 7í copy or 42 s.f. and it is 8 Ĺ feet high. It is shown 5 feet from Pictoria Drive, and 30 feet from Northwest Boulevard, although the drawing scales 25 feet and not 30 feet. The sign presented last month had a 6í x 9í-6" copy, or 57 s.f. and was 11 feet high, 12.9 feet from Pictoria Drive and 18 feet from Northwest Drive. It would be our recommendation that the sign be set back 10 feet from Pictoria Drive and be located such that it is not within the sight triangle for corners.

Sign #6, the one on the building is 3í high x 15í long, or 45 s.f. The sign presented in December was 6í high x 12í long or 72 s.f. We didnít receive any new building elevations for Sign #6. Planning Commission recommended that the location be directly above the entrance of the parking garage. That particular sign doesnít appear to be centered over the entrance to the parking garage on the site plan drawing, so we need to clarify where the sign location will be. I donít know if last month we discussed bringing that sign down directly over the entrance. Previously it was another spandrel level higher than that, another level higher than just directly over the door.

Mr. Woodward indicated where the sign would be on the digital photograph. Mr. Syfert commented to reiterate what you said earlier, you indicated that the Free Parking sign would be directly over the entrance and that bringing Sign #4A 10 feet off Pictoria Drive would not be a problem. Mr. Woodward confirmed this.

Mr. Huddleston asked for staff comment on the proposed location. Mr. McErlane reported that it appears to be located where Planning Commission had directed it to be placed, although the drawing still shows the previous location. For the record, we need to scratch the one.

Ms. McBride said not having been here last month but having read the Minutes, it was a little unclear as to whether or not there should be some reference to the location of the parking garage included on Sign 4A. I didnít know if that was a concern of the commission, and I will defer to you on that.



8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Sherry asked how the signs are lit. Mr. Woodward answered they are internally lit. Our sign person, Gene Maier of Maier Signs is here. Mr. Maier reported that they are internally illuminated with T-Fal high output lamp, more or less a fluorescent tube lamp. Mr. Sherry commented that the Free Parking sign looks like a box sign fully lit with black letters on it. Mr. Maier said that we are using a material that is black during the day and at night it will have a smoked white finish to it. It is the same material we are using on the pylon on the top ID area; just the letters are illuminated.

Mr. Sherry said on Sign 4A, your orientation is to the east/west road through there, and I assume are trying to capture the traffic coming off Route 4. Mr. Woodward responded that it is positioned further away from Northwest Boulevard and turned at a 30-degree angle so it is visible to traffic on both roads, and was approved last time.

Mr. Okum moved to approve Signs 4A and 6 as presented with the limitations of the recommendations of our building department for setback and line of sight. It also should include the placement of the free parking sign over the entrance door into the parking garage and the one indicated on the drawing should be deleted. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.


    1. Approval of Panel on Existing Pylon Sign, The Great Indoors, 11925 Commons Drive

Kim Welch of Commercial Sign Company said there seems to be an issue of the square footage. Initially the city granted The Great Indoors 1,016 s.f. for signage on the wall. Those letters are 7í-9" x 64í long and are on the building. They are not really 7í-9" tall letters; that is the width from the top of the highest to the bottom of the lowest, so it seems to me that they are being penalized square footage wise for the lower case logo they have chosen to use. When you measure these letters, they really come out to be more like 350-360 s.f. per side, which brings them to approximately 720 s.f.

Mr. Syfert said we have heard this argument before. We just go by the code, so you are really wasting your breath.

Mr. Welch continued then all I can say is that we are proposing to put new faces on the pylon that has been blank for quite some time.






8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to change the blank blue panel on the existing pylon sign that is incorporated with the Dave & Busterís logo. The proposal is docked by the lower half of the panel, and to change the color of the entire panel to an off white or beige.

The existing panel is 24í-9" high by 22í wide and The Great Indoors portion of the panel would be 12í-4 1í2" x 22í wide or 272 ľ s.f. The current sign area for The Great Indoors consists of two wall signs at 7í-9" x 64í or 992 s.f. total for the two. There also is one café sign at 24 s.f. for a total of 1,016 s.f. With the proposed pylon panel, it would be 1288.25 s.f. The allowable sign area for the store is 702 s.f., so when Planning Commission approved the signs for the store approved a deviation of 314 s.f. With my comments, I included a copy of the original sign drawing, and initially it was intended to have three panels. Actually it was built as a single panel. It doesnít really have three divisions in the sign face. If youíll notice the original sign panel showed tenants in the shopping center because at that time Dave & Busterís pylon sign was a tradeoff for a previously approved sign for the shopping center.

Mr. Sherry asked Mr. McErlane how the sign is measured, adding that his drawing has different dimensions on it. Mr. McErlane answered that the 22í and 24í came off the panel drawings that were provided for The Great Indoors. The sign drawing I attached to the comments reflect what the sign was originally constructed by.

Mr. McErlane asked the applicant the panel size that they are proposing, and Mr. Welch answered that we actually surveyed these measurements and they are accurate.

Mr. Sherry asked why the sign has been vacant for the last three or four years.

Mr. McErlane said without knowing the negotiations between tenants and landlord, I can try to explain. When Dave & Busterís came in, Planning Commission traded off a Dave & Busterís sign with this panel on it for a previously approved sign to serve the shopping center on the north side of the total development for Tri-County Commons.

The original plan had indicated that the use in the former candy plant would remain a warehouse or light industrial. Any developments that occurred along the interstate were office/warehouse type developments, so there was no need for them to have a pylon sign. The developer of Tri-County Commons Shopping Center negotiated a pylon sign on the interstate. When Dave & Busterís wanted a pylon sign, Planning Commission said the only way weíll consider one is if the shopping center would give up the rights to their sign and incorporate whatever they would need to have for the shopping center on the sign. The panel says Samís Club and Wal-Mart on it. I donít know but I believe Dave & Busterís paid to have the sign installed and provided the panels for the shopping center to place in there but it never happened. This is all supposition.



8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Okum said I found good reason to approve that sign when we approved it earlier. On the other hand, it was for purposes of identification for that development and two of the businesses that were located within it.

By the mere fact that the sign was constructed, and it does not meet what we approved, Iím not overly excited about one panel being The Great Indoors and the other panel being left blank. I certainly not encouraged by the fact that we would put The Great Indoors on the whole thing, whether you lease the whole thing or not. Again, the purpose of it was to replace a development center identification sign for purposes of multiple identification. We are narrowing it down to two; do we know if there is going to be a second one on top? Who will you be leasing the sign space from?

Bob Wyrick, representing Sears and The Great Indoors said I can tell you that at this time there isnít anyone else who wants to have their name placed on that pylon sign. It is my understanding that the Bergman Group wanted to get as much of it used as possible. If we took the whole thing, that would be rather large and probably would be more than you would wish. They are looking for someone to take over a portion of that sign that has been blank for such along time. They would like us to take 50% of that sign and put it to use. Now that someone will provide the new sign face, that would cut down on someone elseís cost and maybe they will be able to have one of the other tenants take up part of the sign a little easier.

Mr. Okum said I can understand that but it is an awful lot of sign. Considering the sign is larger than it was supposed to be, I certainly would like to see some separation between those faces of use, an 8j to 10 inch break between the sign panels would be reasonable, considering that the sign is larger than it should have been and could be forced to be reconfigured, I guess. I think in fairness what we should try to do is reach a medium. I am still not happy about the identity of the development not being on the sign period. That was the purpose of the pole sign, to allow Tri-County Crossings to get some identity on I-275.

How do you plan on facing it and what do you plan to do with the blank space?

Mr. Welch said I personally donít plan on doing anything with the blank space. The owner has found someone that is willing to pay them to at least buy half of that sign, and apparently hasnít found anybody else yet to do that. I came here as a representative of the company that was asked to change the face, so I canít really answer that question.

Mr. Okum asked him what he would do to separate that monstrous face? Mr. Welch answered that it is going to be separated by the drawing submitted that shows a line. It is actually one face, but will look like two faces. Mr. Okum said if we were to ask you to give a 10" recess channel in that sign, could you do it?




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Welch answered I would prefer to have it be one face with something that you deem more appropriate. To retrofit the cabinet as it is would require an awful lot of work. It would be much better to put a new face in that cabinet and stretch it from top to bottom, side to side all the way around.

It is a stretched face. Mr. Okum said currently it is a stretched face on the whole almost 25 feet, which was supposed to be 23 feet. Mr. Welch asked if he wanted a 10-inch border through the center, and Mr. Okum responded I am saying a recessed channel to give a break to that sign. Mr. Welch commented you are asking for two faces then. Mr. Okum answered if that is what it takes.

Mr. Wyrick commented that would require us to rework their existing sign. As I drive by on the highway, Iím not sure if it was recessed that you wold be able to identify that it was recessed versus if it was some sort of changing color, some sort of demarcation between our portion and the other portion. I am not sure you would see that. Mr. Okum responded that there are other signs in the city that have recessed separation between the signs.

Mr. Wyrick commented I guess the thing is we probably would have to take that whole thing out. Mr. Welch added that it would have to be reworked completely; quite a bit of work would have to be done to it. The thing of thing you are talking about is the more traditional pylon sign where you see the different tenant panels with a clear space between each panel. Is that what you are talking about? Mr. Okum responded I want to get that look, instead of a billboard on the interstate. Mr. Welch said that look can be accomplished without totally reworking that sign.

Mr. Wyrick asked if he was looking for a 10-inch separation, and Mr. Okum responded yes, and I think that the mall site identification needs to be incorporated. When this sign face was to come through, I assumed that there would be a site identification carried into that signage, and currently there is not.

Mr. Welch said I donít know that I can address that. Mr. Okum responded Iím not asking you to address it, but you have rights to 50% of this sign. According to the original drawings, we had a sign identification area of 40 inches. We had 43 inches for one tenant and 86 inches for the other tenant. I would hate to go without the identity of the site. As far as Iím concerned, I would rather it stay blue until they get it together.

Mr. Vanover said Mr. Okum asked the question, and I didnít hear a clear answer. Who are you negotiating this sign frontage with? Mr. Wyrick answered The Bergman Group, the developer.

Mr. Sherry asked who has rights to the sign, the tenants at the top of the hill where Samís is? Mr. Wyrick said I really canít answer that question. I do know that our real estate department obtained written permission from The Bergman Group to utilize 50% of that sign.


8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Wyrick added that Iím not sure what The Bergman Groupís relationship is in terms of the other tenants in that area and the use of that sign, so I canít give you an answer to that, because it would take away someone elseís rights. Even though nobody has decided to use it, they certainly have had the opportunity to.

Mr. Sherry asked if it would matter if your 50% of the sign were in the middle. Mr. Wyrick said Iím not sure; that would certainly cut down the opportunity if two other tenants would want to utilize it; one would be quite a bit smaller than we would be. I donít want to speak for them, but I am assuming that if they can get this thing in thirds, and Dave & Busterís is about the size of what we will be below, it would be somewhat uniform if they could get someone else in there. Mr. Sherry responded but we are not talking about being in thirds; we are talking about your taking half of it. Mr. Wyrick agreed, adding that the intention was for us to take the lower half, and not the middle. Iím not sure if The Bergman Group would want us to do that either.

Mr. Syfert commented part of what we have here is that the sign we are looking at that has the identity of the center and the Samís and Wal-Mart, was put together with the North American group, and not The Bergman Group. I am not sure that The Bergman Group knows what went on, and I donít know where our responsibility lies. All I know is that we have an application in front of us. I donít know if we owe anything more than to act on this sign or not.

Mr. Okum said there was a pole sign that was released from placement for the site for North American Properties to allow Dave & Busterís to put that pylon sign in. Iím not sure if we donít have some covenant restrictions that force the right of those North American Properties tenants from that sign space. I would hate to act and breach those restrictions by approving something that we donít know if the covenants addressed previously. It is clear that there was a release of a right to place a pylon sign for North American Properties. In exchange for that, they were given space on this sign that Dave & Busterís erected. I vividly recall that, and the question is are there some deed restrictions or covenant restrictions that dictate that North American Properties are to be provided that space on the signage? By giving it to the Great Indoors, we may be in contradiction to the covenants.

Mr. Huddleston said I somewhat apologize to the applicant. You are in the middle of something you didnít create. On the other hand, we have to resolve it. I would suggest with the applicantís verbal approval that we table this issue to next month, at which time the applicant would ask that The Bergman Group be represented to state their position and why the sign was built not according to what was originally approved. At the same time I would suggest we have staff review both the minutes of that approval, as well as any covenant restrictions for this on the North American Properties site that would permit us to move effectively on this. Are you willing to table the issue until next month? Mr. Wyrick indicated he was.




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Wyrick added I have one question for you. Beyond that, are there issues in terms of the look of the sign, or other issues I have to be concerned about besides The Bergman Group?

Mr. Huddleston responded I donít know what is going to comes out of next monthís discussion should you and The Bergman Group decide to come back and after we have had ample time to research the historical perspective of why one pylon sign was abandoned for this one and then it was not carried forward into what I believe was this Commissionís understanding of how that was going to happen with the new signage. You are just trying to get your sign done and I am in sympathy to that, but on the other hand, we have other overriding issues, which affect what you are trying to accomplish. I donít know of any other way to resolve it.

Mr. Wyrick answered I understand that we need to bring The Bergman Group back in to make sure that from a legality standpoint we are all in good shape. I just want to make sure that if there are any other issues that I need to be working on during the next month so I donít have to come back in yet another month.

Mr. Huddleston responded I would suggest that you keep in touch with the Mr. McErlane and his staff. They will do some research to see what they can find out as to what restrictions if any were imposed at that time, and why one sign was abandoned for another and if there are in fact ongoing covenant restrictions.

Mr. Wyrick responded I will try to get to The Bergman Group and see if they can provide me with approved shop drawings or whatever they had for submittals.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said I think what you are trying to get at is if there are any other issues, like the size of the sign or the lettering on the sign as an additional thing to be concerned about. Mr. Huddleston commented how would we know that unless we know the other answers. Mr. Syfert responded they donít want to change the size of the sign or the design of the sign in any way I donít think, unless we have some vehement objections to it. I donít know how we react to that because we are hung up on the other part of it, which has to be resolved.

Mr. Wyrick said I will check with our real-estate department and The Bergman Group, and we will get those issues resolved and if necessary bring back our real estate group. You are asking questions that they will have to answer; I canít.

Mr. McErlane added I think Mr. Syfert was trying to express what the applicantís concerns were because if we resolve the legal issues, will Planning Commission still have a concern about the size of the sign or the construction of the sign. Heís trying to get a feel for that. If he needs to change that, letís change it during this month period and bring it back instead of coming back in with the same thing and having a discussion that says we donít like it.


8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Okum said I am going to stand by my position that the sign is not constructed per what was submitted. It was for purposes of identity. Mr. Syfert commented that is history. Mr. Okum continued I understand that, but I am going to say that if an approval is permitted, then I donít think their space should be any larger than the Samís space that was on the previous submission. I certainly think there should be a separation between the panels of at least 10 inches.

Mr. Vanover said I would like to see some spacing, some gap. I am not asking you to go out and reconstruct the cabinet; I think it can be accomplished within the single sign face with some color transition, opaque colors or whatever. From that distance, that 2-Ĺ inches wonít stand up; it wonít be visible at all.

Mr. Sherry said I also would like to see some separation. Two inches isnít enough; you wouldnít see that, whether it would be 10 inches or something more or less, I donít know. It would be nice to have another look at that from the interstate instead of what we have here.

Mr. Wyrick said I am going to drive by it on the expressway tomorrow. I donít know if the framing of the face itself is much of a separation from a distance. I donít want to make it so big that it looks funny either; we want to make it look good. We appreciate that you want the separation and Iíll make sure that our signage folks are aware that we need something substantial in there. I donít know if 10 is the magical number of inches or if it should be smaller than that. I will certainly take it back and ask them what they feel would be something that would give us separation and make the sign look good.

Mr. Huddleston added that I think the sign wasnít built in conformance, and while I apologize to you gentlemen caught in the middle of something that is a little undefined, I think trying to design something other than just tracking the issues with the Building Department and seeing what direction they are going in is premature at this point of time, to say we would be willing to do anything. I know thatís not the kind of answer you like to take back to management, and I can understand that, but I donít know a better answer at this point of time. I would hope that we can work something out to your satisfaction, but I donít think it is going to happen this month, and possibly not next month.

Mr. Wyrick answered there probably will be additional comments next time. I just want to make sure that there is not a glaring issue out there that when I go back they donít say why didnít you have them check into that too? It doesnít sound like there is anything glaring. First of all we will come back with something that does some separation. We also will make sure that from a legal standpoint that we are on solid ground with the developer and with any other tenants out there.




8 JANUARY 2002



Mr. Okum moved to table and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the item was tabled to the February 12th meeting.

Mr. Okum said they have indoor storage for the grocery carts, but they seem to keep all their extra carts outside. That was not approved on the original plan. Mr. Syfert asked him to inform the store manager.

  2. Mr. Syfert asked if there would be anyone except him who would not be present at the February 12th meeting. There was no one.

    Mr. McErlane said we passed out surveys in last monthís packets. We got one back, and we would appreciate it if you would take the time to fill them out.

    Mr. Okum said at last monthís BZA meeting, there was an application for a variance to the process of measuring square footage of sign space presented to us by Kerry Ford. This is the first time we have had that type of approach to a variance. The Board asked the applicant to go back and look at his plan a little more closely and resubmit a different sign. It is an interesting approach to a variance; I donít think I have ever heard of that before.



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,2002 ________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



_______________________,2002 ________________________

Dave Whitaker, Secretary