9 JANUARY 1996

7:00 P.M.



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


MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William G. Syfert, Richard Huddleston,

Councilman Steve Galster, Barry Tiffany,

Councilman Robert Wilson, James Young and

David Okum.

OTHERS PRESENT: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Assistant City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Wilson stated there was one correction on the last page which was

discussed with the secretary and will be taken care of. Mr. Tiffany moved

for adoption and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the

Minutes were adopted unanimously.


A. Planning Commission Members Listing


A. Douglas & Arlene Eades Request Final Plan Approval - Phase 1 of Charing Cross Estates - Springfield Pike (Landominiums)

Mr. Syfert commented last month it was deemed by the staff review committee and the chairman that all the items were not in place and that they probably should not come in. If you read the January 5th notes, it might also tell you that a lot of the items that were requested still have not come in, so weíll go accordingly.

Craig Honkomp from Kleingers & Associates stated he is the civil engineer representing Doug Eades on the Charing Cross Estates project. I have some information here for this review. (He gave copies to the members.)

Mr. Honkomp continued there are several issues still outstanding that need to be addressed, but I think the vast majority can be handled by staff alone. There were several key questions that they told us we needed to come back to the board to get answers on. Once we have answers to those four questions, we should be able to take care of the other unresolved issues.

Mr. Honkomp said first is the rear yard setback (southern property line). On the initial plan, it was shown as 35 feet. We are now requesting 25 feet to accommodate the height of building and larger square footage unit that Mr. Eades would like to see built in there. Without that additional building pad area, we would end up with a lower price, lesser value unit.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Two


Mr. Honkomp stated the second issue is that Mr. Eades would like to begin construction with one or possibly two buildings off the Route 4 access. In the past meetings in years past, I understand that had been an underlying thing, that he would be able to start construction on one or possibly two buildings with access to Route 4 and without having to incur the expense of the bridge and culvert.

Mr. Honkomp continued the third issue is whether or not detention is required on this site. My feeling is it should not be provided, and I will go into detail later.

Mr. Honkomp reported the fourth issue is the actual roadway itself and the vertical alignment of the curbs. Staff had recommended that an ODOT design criteria of 25 miles per hour be held. I will go into detail as to why I think it is not feasible or necessary for this project.

Mr. Honkomp said on the zoning review, estimated project cost and construction schedule were requested. Both of those items are contingent upon answers we get tonight. The estimated project cost canít be calculated until we know the size of the unit, and the construction schedule will depend on whether we can come off Route 4 with one or two of the buildings. We then will know the exact sequence of the buildings. I do have a rough approximate estimate that could change depending on the decisions made tonight.

Mr. Honkomp stated on the comment concerning the color palette and views of the actual building and whether it should be stone or siding, since we have yet to determine the exact size of the building, we do not have architectural drawings or exact elevations and information on the percentage of siding and stone. In the packet I gave you, it shows what Mr. Eades is striving for. On the building material, brick or stone, I think once we get a decision on exactly what size building pad, we will have architectural drawings and staff can calculate whether or not that 40% criteria is met. If we have to come back at a future meeting with the exact elevation views and the exact look and makeup of the building, you can request that. I feel if staff determines it does comply, we can avoid another reappearance.

Mr. Honkomp reported on the water detention plan, Iíll get into details on that later. On the tree removal tally, I roughly did one and came up with a number slightly less than what is attached on the staff comments. I think ultimately we almost have to wait and see if we are going to use the smaller building pad with larger rear yard setback and perhaps more trees will be saved and the tally will be changed again. I think the landscaper and staff can easily sit down and agree on how many are being removed and how many are not.

Mr. Honkomp continued the primary reason that this plan shows 25í setback when the preliminary plan showed 35í is to achieve the desired square footage on the unit. That will be a decision this board will have to make. These pictures here are representative of the larger unit. If the smaller unit were chosen, the outside look is what Mr. Eades is striving for; it just wouldnít be as large.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Three


Mr. Honkomp stated on item number three, the landscaping plan shows a four foot mound versus the grading. The landscape plan was just completed and turned in at the end of December. I have not seen that myself, and once I do see it, I can easily show a four foot landscaping mound. I believe the area discussed is around Bings, the parking lot. The only concern is there is some natural drainage coming off the Bings parking lot so there needs to be a break in the mound or catch basin extended back on the back side of the mound because of that drainage. Otherwise, I do not think there is any reason why that cannot be worked into the final construction drawings.

Mr. Honkomp said on item four, number of caliper trees, I think once the final building pad size is determined, that is something the landscaper and staff can easily agree on how many trees are being removed and how many caliper inches need to be replaced.

Mr. Honkomp continued on item five, building materials, once we have the exact pad and get architectural drawings and the exact percentage of brick will be on the two facades. On item six, basement elevations will need to be one foot minimum above 100 year flood elevations or flood proofed. My detailed construction drawings showed they were closer to two foot above the 100 year flood elevations. I was considering side window openings into the basement to make sure that if the water backed up, nothing went into the basement. In addition, we would have to provide flood proofing around the sides of basement or keep the basement above. That is not a problem and can be a condition that is easily met.

Mr. Honkomp stated the comment on covenants and restrictions, number 7, as I read A through H seem very simple. They need to be included in or worked out with Mr. McErlane on the exact details. One of the exhibits was not attached, and all property owners must sign it. Those things easily can be accomplished. The only one, I, is one you all need to address, "Access to Springdale Pike shall be closed before issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in each phase." That is in direct contradiction with the way Mr. Eades would like to proceed, with one building, and possibly two with the access to Springfield Pike remaining open. Then it would not be until the beginning of the second or third building that he would be required to close this access off and make the bridge improvement off the end of Smiley Avenue.

Mr. Honkomp continued on the engineering comments, Hydraulic calculations, we went through the flood elevations. I did a flood analysis and came up with runoff values significantly lower than what FEMA had determined. I went back after Mr. Shvegzdaís original comments and reran it with FEMAís values. It did raise the elevation of the channel across from this bridge, but not overly. I want to give you a copy of the actual FEMA flood study for Springdale. This area in question was not a base flood elevation so what they did was take their elevations at the bridge and ran it back up the channel. That is what you see on the map. It is not a hydraulic determination of the flood elevation. In the FEMA study it says that the range of errors is +-37% to 41%. If you take that as an average of +-39%, it gives you a range of how astronomical that can be. I point this out to let you know that hydraulic analysis of rainfall and runoff is not a science. It is very approximate at best. You are dealing with something that is more of an art than a science, and it is based on general intuition, experience and common sense.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Four


Mr. Honkomp stated in reality with a 400 acre water shed coming down this channel and a two acre development here, you are talking about a 1.5% of the total. It is very minor and I start to wonder when you are splitting hairs and not accomplishing anything. On Item 2 on the flood elevations in the channel at the bridge, if you assume the 7/11 elevation at Cloverdale and project it back uphill to Smiley, you say we are raising the flood value. In actuality, the channel from this culvert up to Smiley Road raises four feet, so you could take the 7/11 elevation and add four feet to it and say 7/16. According to our calculations, we are at 713.3 so even if we are way wrong, I am still close to three feet. Keep in mind that it is +- 39%. The proposed bridge was a 4 foot high by 14 feet wide. If you go to Cloverdale, the opening under there now is an elliptical concrete pipe that is 5 feet x 8 feet so it has an opening area of 32 square feet. The opening water flow area on the bridge that we propose is 56 feet; we are well in excess of anything around. Our values are on the conservative side, and a 4 x 14 foot bridge is adequate.

Mr. Honkomp continued on his comment regarding showing the detention basin location, that is one of the things we need to decide, whether or not detention is actually necessary on this site. There are three basic reasons why I donít think it is necessary. One is because if you do not have a detention basin, the water runs off quicker, so it would be here and gone before the main flood coming down the channel. If you provide detention on this site, it is more likely to coincide with the larger peak flood coming down the channel and in the end increasing the flow of water down stream. That is one reason why I definitely do not recommend it. If detentionís ultimately required on this site, Mr. Eades may seriously want to consider having some type of information or letter in his file that says he is held harmless for decreasing the flood value down stream. The second reason is because this bridge in effect provides detention in and of itself, so I do not think the detention basin is necessary. The third reason goes back to the percentage of error we are dealing with.

Mr. Osborn commented obviously they want to talk a lot of detail. It sounds like they want to do it at a staff level, and I suggest that we table this right now, close it down and go back and work on it at staff level. We have strong disagreement with a lot of the things that have been said here tonight. Obviously, we need to make a comprehensive report to you all. This has not been communicated to us, and I think it would be appropriate for you to table it and send it back to us.

Mr. Syfert commented I have no problem with that. Mr. Honkomp added I think before that, we can go even further with a majority of these issues. We need answers on things like the building setback issue.

Mr. Osborn responded you raised a point about the size of the buildings; this is all new information to us and frankly, some of the things you have said here are totally incorrect. We have never given any leeway to Mr. Eades about access from the front for partial development of the site; that is absolutely incorrect. We have a commitment from Mr. Eades to develop the site consistent with his preliminary presentation, which specifically described elevations to the buildings. If the value of the site is going to change, that is if the quality of the construction is going to change based on footprints, we need to know that. All we are hearing is what you are saying for the first time. I think it is unfair for us and for Planning Commission to have to make a decision on your argumentative presentation that we are hearing here tonight for the first time.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Five


Mr. Honkomp responded I apologize if I was coming off as argumentative; I certainly did not want it to. Mr. Osborn stated I think the best way to resolve this is to refer it back to staff. Mr. Honkomp said the fourth issue was the design speed on the private road. It was requested to be a 25 mile per hour design speed. What happens is it puts the low point all the way back, and if this bridge does not handle all the water in a large storm, the water will flow over and it will be very close to this house and possibly flow into that gentlemanís garage. It will be a private drive; they can post it to be a 15 mile per hour speed limit or whatever, and I donít think meeting the 25 mile per hour design would be to any avail. Again, there were only four issues, the building setback, coming off Route 4, whether or not detention is necessary or warranted and the vertical curved speed limit issue.

Mr. Galster commented I was under the impression that this was the final approval, and this looks more conceptual. Getting back to the original zoning, where we allowed a transitional zoning, I was under the impression that meant what we were given was what it would be, and if you changed that, you would lose the transitional zoning. I question right now whether or not you would get the zoning on this Phase 1 to be a transitional district, because this is a drastic change. I have a problem with the zoning and breaking it down into Phase 1 and Phase 2. In my opinion, you can forget coming into Springfield Pike. The idea that you build two units, and maybe weíll open up the road once we sell the third, what if they never sell? Then we have the driveway out here; thatíll never fly. Mr. Shvegzda is our engineer, and Iím going to trust his water study a lot more than I am going to trust what you are telling me on the water information. As far as the setback goes, Iím not comfortable with moving it any closer to the property line either. Everything you have asked for here I have a problem with, but the basic problem that I have is should this still retain its transitional district if in fact we make it a Phase 1-Phase 2 development?

Mr. Tiffany commented since this is a t-overlay, with these setbacks, would there be a variance required from BZA? Mr. McErlane stated that there wouldnít be; it is handled by Planning similar to the PUD zoning.

Mr. Tiffany continued I concur with Mr. Galsterís comments; there is nothing final here. You have nothing in stone. You are saying we may go with this size building or that size building. I understand it is costly to put together a package, but if you have projects just about anywhere in the United States, you have to spend the money to put together the project and present it. It will have to be written down; we canít sit here and discuss ideas. I wish you had spent more time on issues like the actual buildings rather than the FEMA study. Weíll stick to the FEMA study; Mr. Shvegzda do we need to update the FEMA study in this area? This was discussed in connection with another property recently.

Mr. Shvegzda answered as we have discussed in detail, the FEMA study in this location ends at Cloverdale. It would be a matter of continuing the water surface elevation up to the point of where the proposed culvert is. There is additional analysis that could be done to hone it down, but as far as the flow numbers, I strongly feel we should go ahead and use them, whatever additional studies would be done.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Six


Mr. Tiffany continued I have a problem with the access also, and I have a real problem with doing this in phases. I donít see that we maintain the t-overlay at all with this at this point, because it is a totally different plan. It came in as one project. Mr. Syfert commented that is what we were asked for concept approval on, and thatís what we did. Mr. Tiffany added itís real tough to approve sections.

Mr. McErlane added with respect to the phased construction of it, initially Mr. Eades came in and requested development of his property, and the city requested he look at an overall plan for the entire area north to Cloverdale as an overall development, an end product, with the understanding that it might be phased. As far as construction of it, we didnít want it to be a piecemeal approach to the overall design.

Mr. Tiffany stated there is a question on Mr. Shvegzdaís comments about the ownership of Mrs. Biddleís residence. Mr. Osborn commented that would be the second part of it. If Mr. Eades could get Mrs. Biddle to be a part of this application, to be a signatory to the covenants, and be part of the concept approval plan, I think that would go a long way toward allowing us to have a position where we could phase this. One of the things mentioned in the Covenants is that we do request that Mrs. Biddle be a signatory to the Covenants. Without that, this project could end up with just exactly what we see here, which is a project which will not stand by itself.

Mr. Okum commented regarding using the bridge as a detention facility, I think that needs to be worked out with the engineer, but I need to see elevations on the buildings, and a topographical survey of the entire site and how it ties in with the adjacent sites. There were comments about foundations exposed and water proofing those foundations to storm water levels. Those become integral parts of the facade of the building. I would also expect to see all the elevations from all views, not just an overview, for me to make any decision regarding a final plan. Mr. Honkomp responded that is something that needs to be done; that is fine. Mr. Okum added because this is such an unusually shaped parcel, I would need to see how those buildings set on that, and see how the exposures of those foundations are relative to the adjacent properties, as well as the bridge section. Mr. Honkomp reported the reason this was not initially done was because it would cost several thousand dollars. Now that we are most likely dealing with the smaller building, we can proceed with architectural drawings. Mr. Okum responded I donít care if you build the smaller building or the bigger building, I want to see what you are going to build before I can make a final plan approval.

Mr. Huddleston stated I would agree with Mr. Osbornís point that discussion is meaningless. On the other hand, I certainly agree with all the comments which have already stated much of what my concerns would have been; what are the phases and what are the guarantees for the phases. I am new to the Commission and do not understand the historical perspective of this issue, but on the face of it, I would say it is not desirable before during or after the construction to have access to Route 4. Also, we would need some guarantee up front that the project is going to proceed towards completion, whether it be this phase or the entire project. If they are looking for feedback from the Commission, I think it has been said very succinctly that they need to work out with staff all of the severe problems that exist here and get some resolution before they come back before us to make decisions.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Seven


Mr. Wilson said what was originally agreed upon was what we thought you were here to work with until we saw these notes. You are asking for a final approval with exceptions, and we do not do that. What I would suggest you do is get with staff and get it resolved so when you come back we have all the information we need to vote on, no exceptions. Have everything together when you come here. You missed a couple of meetings and now you are asking for final approval for construction and costs. Those things should have been covered earlier. You are asking for final approval with all these contingencies. We are not concerned about the cost of the individual units; we are concerned about how it matches with what we need here. So I am suggesting you have everything resolved with staff before you come back, and it will save a lot of embarrassment and time.

Mr. Honkomp said if we do get to the point where staff does not feel comfortable with making final decision on 25 foot setback for example, what do we do?

Mr. Wilson responded if they say come back, then do so with Plan A and Plan B. I would move to table this until this is resolved with staff. Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the matter was tabled to .February.


A. Approval of Modification to Entrance A - Tri-County Mall

Mr. Osborn reported that they are stuck in the snow on the east coast and have requested that this be tabled to the next meeting.

Mr. Okum commented having not been a part of this, I have one concern that I would like to air before they come back in so they can get the comment and there wonít be any surprises. Experience tells me that the entrance into the Wal-Mart development, which is a single lane right turn, is inefficient. I am using that as an example that I hope that the engineers have taken into consideration here. The volume of traffic currently going into the Wal-Mart-Samís facility is having great difficulty merging into that one single right lane turn. Very rarely do cars go straight ahead. Iím hoping this will split off and half the traffic will go to the parking garage and half will go into the front. We do have the other entrances, which is an advantage, but I wouldnít want to see everything getting merged into a crunch there by cars stopping that want to proceed

forward or merge over from the second internal lane across. I thought I might air those comments even though they are not here.

Mr. Osborn reported we raised those same points, and in fairness there is no way to predict this off the model. Our position was that we felt the system was working fine, their traffic engineers had designed the entrance, we had agreed to it, and its purpose was moving big volumes of traffic back to the major parking garage. They see a need to get access into the parking field south of Lazarus, because they want to do a destination type restaurant with frontage out to that part of the exterior of the mall. Our concern has been that there would be a drop in efficiency in the entrance. We cannot prove that, and they cannot prove that it would work.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Eight


Mr. Osborn reported what they will request is that the project be constructed on a trial basis and weíll have three measures to determine if it is successful, like if we drop levels of efficiency or have an increase in accidents; if it fails, they will close it back off again. I donít want to make their argument, but what I am saying is we donít have a way of saying itís not going to work. none of us feel comfortable with it, but there is nothing we can say that is definitive. The only real test would be to let them give it a try.

Mr. Galster said I was curious as to whether or not staff has looked at the impact upon the I-275 exit ramp, where we have the two lanes trying to turn. Mr. Osborn responded yes, that is what we are concerned about, that it will reduce the efficiency of it and cause queuing. Mr. Galster commented it could back way on to the interstate; that is my concern. Right now if you are in the left side of the right turn lanes, you control which lane you are going into. Now if all of a sudden everybody knows you have to be in the far right lane of the two left turn lanes, then that left turn lane will never get in there. Mr. Osborn stated it depends on where you want to end up in the mall. If someone wants to get in that first parking field, they will use the right most lane. We have had trouble trying to educate people to go to the second or third entrance, B and C. I canít say they are doing anything with this proposal that we can quantify. We can not judge how many people will try to merge from the left lane into the right lane or our concern is they will stop and then pull over which is even worse. Mr. Tiffany commented they were in before; maybe you want to look up the Minutes; a lot of the concerns you have were there at that time.

Mr. Tiffany continued one thing really concerns me. They are proposing that we do this on a trial basis, and if there are accidents, theyíll switch it back, and weíre supposed to enter into an agreement with them on that? That seems like possible litigation. Mr. Osborn reported we would want them to post a bond that would guarantee the restoration of the entrance. We would want to establish certain measurable criteria that would determine whether or not it would pass or fail. We do not have them defined as yet, but certainly one of them is a drop in efficiency, or if we would experience a spike in accident history, something of that nature would trigger the closing of it. Mr. Tiffany responded unless they can show me and convince Mr. Shvegzda who I put my faith in, that there will not be an increase in accidents, what is the cost of the one accident in which a person is injured? Right now itís not the greatest situation in the world, but it is effective and it is an improvement over what was there before, and if we go with something that may or may not work. Mr. Shvegzda commented that is the problem; there is no way to predict accidents, and the whole thing hinges on how people will react to it and utilize it, and that is trying to guess human nature. Mr. Tiffany responded it works right now, and to second guess it and take the chance is a big mistake. Mr. Shvegzda stated we did look back into the original study for the improvements to the shopping center and the statement for Entrance A indicated that they wanted to have a driveway that was restricted up to a point north of the Tire America Store. Now it is a little bit different and it is very difficult to judge how it will work at this point. Mr. Tiffany commented Iíve not seen what they are bringing in. Is it the same thing, widening the turn and not taking it down by the garage as we proposed they consider? Mr. Osborn reported we tried to do that, and Lazarus apparently would not agree to that. I feel reluctant prolonging this discussion, because I donít think it is fair to the applicant. We really ought to see the presentation.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Syfert stated let me point out that what Mr. Osborn is talking about with the bond and trying to lay parameters out is only in the event that the Planning Commission agrees to go along with it. So with that, letís table it.


B. Approval of Proposed Kemper Dodge Addition, 1280 East Kemper Road

Mr. Wilson stated I am related to the owner of Kemper Dodge, so I will sit in the audience. Mr. Syfert stated let the record show that Mr. Wilson has excused himself from this item because of a conflict.

Terry Brennan of Brennan Builders reported that Kemper Dodge is requesting a small building addition on the site. At the same time, we have a situation with the current retention basin that is on the site. Approximately 2.75 acres is what Kemper Dodge sets on, and you have a large dry pond that is over half an acre. Mr. Kiels of Kemper Dodge requested a building addition which encroaches slightly on the retention area. His business has grown and he needs the addition, but he also needs the parking. So he investigated doing an underground chamber. We have hired BL Payne Associates to work with the engineerís office and get a design for this. It is quite large, 33,530 cubic feet of water, so it would be a very large underground retention. So we have a simple building addition here, but you will see on the early site plan a slight encroachment. We basically can work with the engineerís office on the retention and we needed the board to look at the building addition before we proceeded with the finalization of the site plan and the e design for the inground retention.

Mr. Brennan reported the addition is approximately 16050 square feet for the service department, which gives them four work bays and which encroaches into the retention area. What we will be doing is working with the engineerís office on a total new site plan design, build a chamber and pave the entire half acre. The final site plan would need to show detention our grading and final lighting and whatever additional storm we would have to pick up and put into. Early calculations with the engineerís office so we know where we stand. We need to find the most economic way to house 33,530 cubic feet of water. What I would like to do is request the board to consider the building addition and if that is okay we will continue on with the final plans for the addition and do the site plan. He desperately needs automobile storage. He currently has only one and one-half acres of paved parking. There is no real impact on the neighbors; he is approximately 50 feet back from the edge of Kemper Road, on the west side he has 24 feet and keeps it very well maintained, and on the east side it abuts a fast food restaurant, and there is a 15 foot berm area between the restaurant and the parking lot. The rear line abuts another property that is undeveloped. We do have some elevations showing the proposed addition. It is very small.

Mr. Syfert asked if the new addition would be of the same construction material, and Mr. Brennan stated that it would be. There would be four work bays. We are trying to talk him into upgrading the colors to the new Chrysler Corp colors.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Tiffany asked if the number 33,530 includes the new pavement, and Mr. Shvegzda answered yes. I spoke with Mr. Hall the consultant from BL Payne and we are within 1,000 cubic feet, so we are pretty much in agreement with what they have. It is a matter of working out the details as far as detention figures. Mr. Tiffany asked if there were any concerns on the north side of the property in terms of runoff? I donít see any catch basins shown there. Mr. Shvegzda responded basically if they maintain the same drainage patterns, everything from the north edge of pavement falls back towards that ravine. That is within the paved area, and that is what I assume will be maintained.

Mr. Okum said in regards to affecting properties, if this area in the rear, the northwest corner of the site, I have a hard time identifying the single family residences that are attached to that property, their rear lot line. I would be a little bit concerned about parking lot lighting in that area, bleedoff into the privacy of their back yards. I donít have a problem with the addition; I donít have a problem with your putting the culvert in; I do have a concern about that northwest corner and how it is treated.

Mr. Brennan commented you have a very good point, and we are going to show calculations on the final site plan that we submit. We do not want to impose any lighting on adjoining parcels, but he does need some security lighting in the back. At this time he has not done a study as to how much he really needs. We would show it on the plan, and would show that there would be absolutely no encroachment of lighting on any of these adjoining properties. Mr. Okum commented I usually encourage no light packs on buildings facing residential districts, so if they are going to put light packs in the rear corner, I would feel more comfortable with directing the lights away from that corner and protecting those residences. Mr. Brennan responded once this half acre would be paved to be used as parking, we would need probably four light standards to cover that area and we would stay away from any packs on the building. You wouldnít need them any more. Mr. Okum said I would look cautiously at that. We are obviously taking some greenspace out, although it is detention. Have you considered any improvements? Mr. Brennan responded we looked at the fact that the grades and we may even work an island situation in here because we have such a severe grade drop, and using the 33,000 we are real close. Our maximum height we could use in any chamber would be seven to eight foot tall. We have a massive design that has to take place to take 33,000 cubic feet of water. Also, we have a lot of fill to come into the site, depending on the size of the chamber up to 9,000 cubic yards of fill. Mr. Okum said what if you centered your chambers into that northwest corner? Mr. Brennan answered it would be better at the bottom. The office park is here, and we want to work from that point back. Weíll probably end up with a poured in place chamber, and we want to keep it as narrow as possible. With the final grading plan, we will have to design around the chamber, its length, height and width. Itís a double edged circumstance here; we have to be very careful on how to d o it, and when we get that design, we can look at the circumstances and maybe run a west to east to ease the grade drop and save possibly 2,000 cubic yards of fill. Mr. Okum responded especially on those island areas, he will be gaining substantial parking area and it is needed. I do not have a problem with the concept. Are we in final approval for this?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Syfert reported we are approving the addition. Are there any code problems at all? Mr. McErlane reported setbacks and land coverage are okay. With respect to detention, if that were the only thing he was doing, we probably wouldnít bring it before this board. Utility work is pretty minimal relative to the addition, other than downspout leaders.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve as submitted and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye except Mr. Wilson who abstained. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes and one abstention.

C. Approval of Jake Sweeney Chevrolet Facia Change and Second Floor Addition for Used Car Building, 33 West Kemper Road

Terry Brennan of Brennan Builders reported that the reason we need to come before the board is because General Motors has their new year 2000 upgrades on facilities. The Chevrolet Motor division has petitioned Mr. Sweeney to look at the 28 year old facility and upgrade it. It becomes a facia. The main showroom building and the used car building have butterfly roofs, which are quite dated. GM would like to have Mr. Sweeney have a straight facia and use the new corporate signage, which you will see on Page 2. The new corporate colors for Chevrolet are snow white and dark blue, which is quite dark and would be an accent band. The roofing on there is asphalt shingles, and we need to use structural design to build the facia and reroof the showroom building. The question would be to look at the used car building and the butterfly roof is totally rotted out. (Page E-2). Our suggestion to Mr. Sweeney was to possibly put as second floor on the building. The decision has not been finalized and I would ask you to consider the fact that if he would make the decision not to put a second floor on, we would mimic the facia on the main building. I know you normally donít like to do it this way, but if we could look at the circumstance and say if there would be any problem with the second floor, we would be back to you or Billís office.

Mr. Syfert said we currently have the tall building here which you will not change the footprint, only the facia. There also is the possibility of a second story on the used car building. Is the next building a two story now? Mr. Brennan answered that is the Chrysler building; we just did that two years ago; it is a high one-story. In all new corporate silgnage today, they like to see 30-36" letters. To do that on flat facia , you need to have a minimum of six to seven feet to house a letter that large. In all the manufacturers, they are trying to eliminate dealersí names and try to go by product identification.

Mr. Tiffany said in terms of signage, are you asking for what is here? Mr. Brennan answered no, signage is handled by corporate. They will have to come back in for that. I just wanted to show the board that there would be new signage.

Mr. Tiffany asked about the light bar. Mr. Brennan reported that is a decision that goes back to the owner. When corporate indicates they want them to do this, they will either go with the accent band in drivitt or the light bar. The question becomes if it is considered signage and if it is, Springdale might say no. Mr. Tiffany commented typically unless it has verbiage on it it wouldnít. Is it back lit panel with fluorescent tube? Mr. Brennan reported it is neon with plastic, a bright blue. Mr. Tiffany continued but it is a back lit panel, not an exposed neon tube. You are familiar with our feelings about flickering tubes.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. Tiffany asked if he were asking us to consider the light bar as it is pictured? Mr. Brennan responded personally I would much rather that be handled by the sign company. I am here to ask the Commission to okay the facia and we would like to put the second floor on. If the decision would not take place by the owner, we would put matching facia on. Mr. Tiffany continued if you go with the second story on that building, how does it match up with the height of the new car showroom? Mr. Brennan answered the new car showroom is about 22 feet, so we would be about 30 feet to the top of the facia from grade. It still probably would be eight or nine feet below the height of the facia. Mr. Tiffany commented so it will flow nicely.

Mr. Okum commented I have some concern about a two story building that is already 14 to 15 feet off the ground, adding another eight or nine feet on top of that. The Chrysler dealership is two story, but it is two story to the back and is also down 12 or 13 feet lower because of the staircase that goes between the properties. Before I feel comfortable about this second story on top of that building, I will have to walk the site. That site is graded up so much as it is, you are probably talking about 20 feet and the building already sets about 10 feet off the street higher. Did they consider moving that second story back over the service area, or is the service area building not capable of supporting it? Mr. Brennan answered that is the only reason why they didnít do that.

Mr. Okum asked if we need to act on all of this or part of it? Mr. Syfert responded he is asking us to act on all of it. Mr. .Brennan added I would like to ask that we could do the facia and if we could put a second floor on the building. If there are contingencies to that and we would have to do a study, we would be glad to do it. Mr. Syfert added the primary reason it is in here is because of the second story addition.

Mr. Wilson said all my questions have been addressed except one. You are saying snow white with dark blue letters. Are we talking about a glaring white like that building on Glensprings? How does it compare with the buildings there? Mr. Brennan answered the corporate colors for Chrysler and GM Saturn are almost identical. The Saturn is a little lighter, an almost off white or gray, and the new Chevrolet colors happen to be white. In this case the new color is white, itís not a blinding white and the facia is about seven feet tall and the dark blue will soften it. The Chrysler has light gray and blue signage and the Saturn store is red and light gray so it would blend in quite well. Everything from the Kemper Road side would appear to be in good taste.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve as submitted with the signage on there not being considered and the light band not being considered. Mr. Wilson asked if he agreed they could have a second floor as well and make that a part of your motion, and Mr. Tiffany indicated he did. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Syfert stated we have a motion to approve the second story addition and the change in the facias, with the understanding that the light bar and signage is not considered.

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Galster, Mr. Syfert, Mr. Young and Mr. Huddleston. Mr. Okum voted no, and the approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative vote.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Thirteen

VIII. NEW BUSINESS - continued

D. Final Plan Approval of Proposed Ethan Allen Store at 11285 Princeton Pike (Princeton Pike and Merchant Street

Tim Hershner of Tim Hershner Associates reported this site was known as the third parcel on the overall Pancero/OíCharleyís/Tumbleweed site. We are looking for a final plan approval on a building that was originally scheduled for 8,000 square feet. Ethan Allen is looking to construct a flagship building of 12,800 square feet. Because of the furniture use of the property, it does conform to parking requirements. It fits on the site reasonably well and the site plan itself is oriented with north to the top, Princeton Pike to your right and Merchant Street to the bottom. The large detention basin that has been existing is just south of the proposed building. You may be familiar with the main access point at the top of this plan and turn left to go to the front of Ethan Allen. The proposed entrance is in the middle of the front of the building. The building was increased frontwards towards Princeton Pike, the original layout called for parking on both sides of the drive aisle in the front a well as in the back. To accommodate the larger building, it took away those parking areas, but it still does conform to the code. One of the benefits is they have a building where the cars are not parked up against it. They are proposing a sidewalk that is continuous all the way around with landscaping in the front.

Mr. Hershner continued their water main extension for fire control comes from Princeton Pike. All utilities are accessed in the back southwest corner of the building. There is a hookup for fire engine in the rear of the building itself. That was a concern of the Fire Department. The building is completely sprinklered, but it is a furniture store so we have to consider fire access and water capability.

Mr. Hershner reported the immediate area of the parking lot provides 60 parking spaces; 71 are required. Out of those 60 spaces, there are four handicap spaces proposed. At the suggestion of the staff, we are proposing to flip those from the back to the front side of the building. That way the ramping would take you directly up on to the sidewalk and you could proceed to the front door. If you put one in any area of the front aisle, somebody in a wheelchair would have to go across the drive aisle.

Mr. Hershner added one of the big changes in the plan is the confirmation there would not be a drive through lane on the south side of the building. The original plan permitted that opportunity.

Mr. Hershner stated one of the issues was with the dumpster in the rear parking lot. We need to add landscaping, and we concur with that. On the original layout, we had a dumpster in that area, and there was a thought that we would be required to put a minimum eight foot white pines around it. We are open to that, but we can dress it up a little bit more with a plan that would be satisfactory.

Mr. Hershner reported the second sheet is on the landscaping. In addition to what has been shown here, we still have the landscaping that was approved and installed for the overall development, some of the items that might not be installed just yet are the evergreen trees proposed along the south side of the building. We would propose they still be planted even though it is not a drive through lane. It would break up the monotony of a long wall.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Fourteen


Mr. Hershner continued in addition to what has been approved in the overall site plan, they are proposing 384 plants consisting of hemlocks, magnolias, ,juniper trees and some ewes, and also 300 of a Japanese ground cover type plant. The hemlock would be planted on the front corners of the building. By the front door entrance on the north and south side is proposed to be the magnolias, and scattered throughout would be the ground cover. To the south of the building we are proposing junipers.

Mr. Hershner reported there is a minor warehouse of approximately 425 square feet. That brings up the issue raised by staff and reasonably so on the surface. The back southwest corner of the building is where the warehouse area is. It would have a garage door there for delivery of furniture. It is not big enough to store a lot of furniture for people to come in and buy and carry out. It is for people to come in, decide what they want and order it, so there would be very little shipping and delivery of products. That is why we felt comfortable with putting it in that corner where it would not intrude or be a problem, especially because the parking in back is primarily for employees.

Mr. Hershner added the dumpster is a basic enclosure. One of the issues raised by staff was that it is proposed to be a steel frame with drivitt on the outside. That raised the concern about it being structurally sound compared to brick or block. I talked with the architect about it today and he mentioned that if they were required to do that, it would be the only block or masonry item for the whole development, and it presents a little bit of hardship to bring in new trade person just for that itself. If I can equate it to the structure capability of an old wooden fence type, if it gets banged up, Ethan Allen would not put up with something that would be an eyesore back there. I believe Tumbleweed has a wooden fence enclosure that would be similar in terms of structure. While Ethan Allen is open to your suggestions, the architect would feel much more comfortable with that, but they do not want to hold up the project.

Mr. Hershner showed the elevations, stating that the east or front elevation is all drivitt. We do have a color photo which shows the colors. He passed it around, adding that the color scheme would be beige drivitt with white trim to the top and almost navy blue awnings with blue lettering. It is a conservative upscale design approach.

Continuing with the elevations, Mr. Hershner showed the south side toward the detention basin. There is a window to the front. However, the rest of the building is all drivitt, with the beige color, white trim at the top. One of the concerns raised by the staff is that the elevation of grade is approximately three feet lower than the building. What the architect is proposing is to actually carry that drivitt down onto the concrete surface so that it goes to grade. There is proposed a smaller Ethan Allen building mounted letter sign along that side for the people coming along Merchant and would be seen from the intersection of Merchant and Princeton Pike..

Mr. Hershner showed the rear elevation showing the overhead door as well as the access door for the employee entrance. One critical element that was raised is wanting reasonably high parapet walls to cover any HVAC mechanics on he roof line.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Fifteen


Mr. Hershner reported the north elevation is very similar to the south elevation. It has an additional window which operate as a storefront and people can walk up to with stepping stones in front of them. All the downspouts will be tied into the storm system.

Mr. Hershner added on the staffís comments, there were only a couple of them that we would like to discuss. All the others we feel comfortable that we can meet or resolve the engineering issues to your engineerís satisfaction. On Mr. McErlaneís Comment #6, there was a concern about the parking aisle width in the front as well as in the back. Typically the parking aisle would be 24 feet wide in front and back, and because it is a one bay parking aisle, we felt it appropriate to reduce it by four feet. We felt comfortable that with the low amount of pedestrian traffic here, it would not present a problem. The architect assures me that if we have to stand fast with 24 foot wide drive aisles, we will do that.

Mr. Hershner concluded I think we can and will address all the issues. The only one we were looking at is having approval for a variance if need be is the parking lot. We do not want to vary it if it will hold us up, if we have to go to the BZA or something like that..

Mr. Wilson stated you say you are assuming that cross parking easements exist between Tumbleweed and OíCharleyís. My concern is about the last issue we had on parking between Cookers and OíCharleyís. Did we get that resolved? Mr. Hershner reported those are separate easements from this. I just talked to the sellerís attorney, and he confirmed that he did record the cross easements for parking as well as utilities on the overall property, and it will be delivered to me tomorrow, and I will then deliver it to the city. Mr. Wilson continued we know what an assumption is, and I donít feel comfortable with assumptions, so I have a problem with that. When you talk about total parking spaces provided, assuming cross park easements exist, we want to make sure that is squared away. Secondly, you talked about signage. Does your allotted signage include the awnings? That is part of signage. Mr. Hershner responded I did not calculate that. Mr. Wilson added that whole awning should be considered signage. Mr. Okum commented not the whole awning; only the circle. Mr. Wilson said those are your corporate colors, blue and white so the whole awning should be considered signage shouldnít it? Mr. Hershner said not really; you take the outer limits of the sign, or the circle. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if there were any problems with the signage and Mr. McErlane reported that there were none.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the dumpster gates were of the same material and Mr. Hershner answered that the nature of drivitt, I donít know if it flexes. Mr. Tiffany commented not very well. Mr. Hershner continued you probably could get a drivitt texture look even on a wood gate. Mr. Tiffany said maybe an outside channeled steel frame around the drivitt panel, something like that. There is no specificity as to what material it is, and I am concerned with that because if it is not feasible to use the same material, I would like to know what the material is. Iím not real pleased with where the dumpster is. Especially since it is this same material, I would rather see it attached to the back side of the building if possible. It would be a little more contiguous to the site.

Mr. Tiffany continued concerning the letters on the north and south sides of the building, are those lit or stationery letters? Mr. Hershner answered they are internally lit blue letters.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Sixteen


Mr. Tiffany asked how they plan to address the south side door; are they fire doors? Mr. Hershner responded when I talked to the architect today, he will look into that, and if it is not absolutely necessary by code, he will remove it. If it is necessary by code, at a minimum we discussed putting haunches out on that concrete pad, and we would have to at least have a railing around it. Mr. Tiffany commented or steps, and Mr. Hershner continued if you open up that door and wheel a wheelchair out, the steps arenít going to do that person any good and in fact if they roll off, they will be down at the bottom of the detention basin. Mr. Tiffany said if you just put a pad with a railing on it, what is the purpose of the door? Mr. Hershner reported the purpose is to get them outside the building; itís like a fire escape on a building. Mr. Tiffany asked if the doors were necessary as far as the code is concerned.

Mr. McErlane reported in essence you would have to put stairs on it if you do put it out there. If it is above grade, it would need stairs. There are three other doors including the front door from the building, and if they are just three foot doors, they are probably good for about 660 occupants. That is probably more than what they need. I looked at the floor plan; there were no dead ends that led there that would necessitate a door. Mr. Tiffany commented so chances are they are not necessary. Are you amenable to get rid of them? Mr. Hershner responded if it is not necessary, we will take it out.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated Mr. Hershner has touched on some of the items. . The first item to point out is that the original concept plan we looked at was an 8,000 square foot building; this is 50-60% larger than that. We talked a little about signs and they do comply with code, including the 3 x 5 panel that was originally shown on a ground sign approved for the project.

Mr. McErlane continued only three handicap parking spaces are required; the plan currently shows handicap parking spaces in the northwest corner of the building which is not even near the front door and we are saying they need to be closer to the front door..

Mr. McErlane reported the total parking spaces meet code if cross parking access easements are in place for the entire three lot project, and Mr. Hershner said he would provide copies of the easements to us. We know that the easements were drawn up; we donít know that they have been recorded. Iíll defer to Mr. Shvegzda on the 20-foot aisle width; he probably can address that better than I can. In terms of the pavement at the southernmost parking space in front of the store, there is a parking space in this location and for that person to exit that parking space he would either have to back out here or there needs to be some pavement there for him to swing around to exit forward.

Mr. McErlane continued on the treatment of the dumpster enclosure, on the concept plan the dumpster enclosure was at the building, so it did not stand out as it does here. The concern is this is the main entrance drive for this office building, and that would be one of the first things you would see pulling in the driveway. My concern about using a drivitt on the dumpster enclosure is the susceptibility to damage. It may be a bit better to use plywood sub strata, but it still would be susceptible.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Seventeen


Mr. McErlane stated on the loading area, this plan shows parking all the way up to the back of the building. If that is to be used as parking at all, we do have to do loading and unloading and someone would have to move their car to utilize it.

On the number of trees, Mr. McErlane reported that during the original development of the pads for these sites, there was excessive grading that occurred, and one 14 inch oak tree lost its leaves one and one-half months before any of the oaks around there, so it is tentative at best if it will live. At this point we should monitor it, and if during construction it would need replacement, our replacement requirement would be seven caliper inches.

Mr. Tiffany asked the intention with the dumpster. Mr. Hershner responded we would specify plywood substrate. In terms of location if you permit, we would beef up the landscaping around it. There is no way to absolutely hide dumpster walls, but they will be relatively decorative and will match the exterior of the building. I would suggest we submit a detailed plan around that dumpster to the south side and to the west side that would buffer it from the drive aisle to the office building. Mr. Tiffany asked if attaching it to the building were an option, and Mr. Hershner answered the problem they have is the drive aisle is up against the building. We do not have the availability of parking bays against there. The only possibly location would be in this area where it was originally planned for, but the floor plan calls for a delivery door to be located there. If it were absolutely necessary, I would hope we could go back to them and argue that it has to go there. Given the few deliveries that this place gets, they do not see that as a major issue. If we could have the option that if they need to place it somewhere say 30 feet away from the building, we could have that because if it is right up against the delivery door, a truck could back right up against there. We basically would flip parking down here for the dumpster location up there. I do not know why they did not do it originally. Mr. Tiffany commented as far as the location inside with the designer study and the warehousing, if you flip-flopped the two, you could put the dock door at the north end and your dumpster at the south end. Mr. Hershner said if we could keep the option open; I could suggest that flipping and that way have it right up against the building. The worst case scenario would be the dumpster location would be no further than 30 feet from the rear wall. We might have two or three parking spaces back here and then the dumpster. That way we would get it closer, and there is already scheduled landscaping back there that would help buffer it. I think that is probably a good tradeoff. Mr. Tiffany asked about the access to it, and Mr. Hershner reported when we move it down here, this is a parking aisle, and you would not have a straight shot in. On something like this, it is not a restaurant with food products, just cardboard, so I do not know why it has to be to the back, other than for good access and keep this for deliveries and to keep that open for the garbage truck. We could make that a condition. Mr. Tiffany commented thatís where I would like to see it. Mr. Syfert commented thatís a very good suggestion.

Mr. Okum suggested pushing the dumpster into the top part of the retention basin, and carrying the facade of the building out a little bit so it maintains an elevation wall and you are looking at an extension of the drivitt finish. You could even carry the cornice across the top of it if you wished to. Then you have your access door for your warehouse, you have the access door for the people to go out and go directly into the dumpster.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Eighteen


Mr. Tiffany commented the question then would be with the grade there, you would have to have a pretty good depth to a pad where you would see an exposed wall coming out there also. It is three feet at the building; if we come out another 10 to 12 feet, what are we looking at; Itís pretty steep. Mr. Hershner commented it would have to be a straight line with that building. Mr. Okum continued I am agreeing with Mr. Tiffany; I think it needs to be attached somehow to the building, and of the same material that the building is treated with. I have the same concern about the drivitt surface holding up. Certainly block with drivitt works efficiently, and if you are going to do a steel frame, I donít have a problem with it, but I would suggest internal steel columns with concrete poured in them, because the dumpster people typically want to push it in as far as they can. Mr. Hershner responded your suggestion would be good to have steel bollards to the back. Mr. Okum added even along the inside of the opening where the gates are to prevent destruction to the gates. And I agree that the door should be the same type material.

Mr. Okum asked about the lighting plan, and Mr. Hershner reported that the lighting plan is the same as the original. There is site lighting for all three parcels. It does not change. The primary light for parking is a free standing light pole. Mr. Okum asked about light packs on the building, and Mr. Hershner indicated that there were none. Mr. Okum asked if there were any direct ground lighting on the building, and Mr. Hershner said not that I know of. There is a chance that some people might light up their awnings. Mr. Okum commented that there are two light fixtures listed for each awning on the electrical drawings. Mr. Tiffany added this is a picture of their store in Centerville, and it throws the light into the awning and it comes back down out of the awning. Mr. Young added it is a canopy effect lighting the ground in front of the building. Mr. Okum stated I want to make sure that these are not illuminated awnings. Mr. Galster stated Page A3.1 shows this.

Mr. Okum commented the building has increased from 8,000 to 12,800 square feet. What if Ethan Allen in five years decides to go out of the retail business. We would have a 12,800 square foot building that is very openly designed that could easily be a restaurant. Would they have to go through Planning Commission review to change it over to a restaurant, and would they then have to meet parking requirements? Mr. McErlane reported at a minimum, they would have to substantiate their parking numbers because of the change of use. I guess they could work with that facade and make a restaurant with minor changes, but more than likely most restaurants would have to come in and do some exterior elevation changes that would cause them to come to Planning Commission just because of that. As a minimum, they would have to review the parking requirements.

Mr. Okum stated in regards to the 24 foot aisle, I have a parking apron on my driveway that is 21 feet, and it does require going back and forward and back again. I would feel a lot more comfortable if we could get the 24 feet, according to Code.

Mr. Osborn stated Ms. McBride has some points on the issue that David raised about what would happen if. There is a driveway issue that I think is very critical.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Nineteen


Ms. McBride reported the first item in my report addresses some of the concerns Mr. Okum raised. To give you a little history, when this site first came in collectively, we had some concerns about the traffic that it would generate. At that time, it was proposed to have three restaurants on the site. We asked them to do a traffic impact analysis, which raised significant concerns from our firm about the access point on Princeton Pike, whether or not that should be limited to a right in right out access. We then asked them to do a gap analysis of that access point, and it concluded that the site could maintain two restaurants and a furniture store which they were proposing for the third location and still maintain sufficient gap time to get the cars to be able to turn left into and out of the site onto Princeton Pike. There were significant gaps on Princeton Pike to allow that turning movement to occur. We approved that, based on the fact that this would be a furniture store. I think it is important that any approval that comes from the Commission tonight include that should that use change to any other use, that gap analysis and traffic impact analysis would have to be reevaluated to make sure that the trip generator is either a lower generator than a furniture store, or if it were to become a restaurant as Mr. Okum suggested, that access point would become a right in right out based on our recommendations previously. I think that should be a condition of any approval the Commission is considering this evening.

Ms. McBride stated the second item is the loading door to the rear of the store. We figure it will block at least three parking spaces, so we need to look at that in terms of its location as it relates to the parking spaces.

On the third item, dealing with the dumpster enclosure, Ms. McBride reported we previously felt that the enclosure should not be located there, making the assumption that it would be best if it could be attached to the building. If it is not to be attached to the building, at the minimum, that enclosure needs to be a brick structure, and we feel it needs to be very well landscaped because it is a part of the office campus adjacent to it, and it is going to be viewed as such, so it needs to be properly screened and properly constructed. Concerning drive aisles and parking space sizes, they donít conform, and we would recommend that you hold to the code requirements, but that is certainly something that your engineer can discuss.

Ms. McBride continued we would also like to see some additional landscaping added to the western property line. That is the island that comes between the detention basin and the proposed Ethan Allen store and the office campus. There are some mature trees planted in there, but we would like to see that supplemented with some bushes, particularly along the rear of the store. Again, we donít want them to come into their main access drive looking to the right and into the rear of the store. On the required parking versus what is provided, Item #6, Mr. Hershner has indicated that the cross access and parking easement has been recorded; we would like to see that. The seventh item goes along to the south elevation to the building. They are showing landscaping for a small portion of the front elevation going toward the rear. We would like to see landscaping continue along that facade as opposed to just a blank drivitt facade. It doesnít have to be a continuous stretch, but something some type of grouping of repetitive landscaping; they can use some of the elements they used at the front of the building, but something to break up that facade. I think that is important as you are entering that development from Merchant Street.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Twenty


Ms. McBride reported the last item has to do with providing a backing area as Mr. McErlane indicated for that one parking space in front of the building.

Mr. Tiffany commented I think you have a problem with maneuvering room with the truck. Ms. McBride responded if a truck were to come in and back up to the rolled up door, if the parking lot were absolutely full, at least three of those cars would be blocked in by that truck. Mr. Tiffany asked if she saw a tractor/trailer maneuvering through this field. Ms. McBride answered I donít believe it is the intent of the applicant to use a tractor/trailer. It certainly wouldnít accommodate a tractor/trailer. Mr. Hershner added only initially there may be or when changing stock for some seasonal changeover. Mr. Tiffany added I donít see how they could maneuver through the field or how he would get in, except off Tri-County Parkway; that would be the only way. Mr. Hershner commented the only way would be at nighttime. If we flip the bay, they could come through here, back up and unload at nighttime. Ms. McBride added or just pull up alongside the building. Mr. Hershner said they almost would have to back up to get out. That whole site is not designed for a tractor/trailer. Mr. Okum asked if it were posted that way, and Mr. Hershner indicated that he doubted it, adding there was talk in the original approval that we could come back with site silgnage to direct people into the site. Mr. Okum added silence the site doesnít accommodate tractor/trailers, I think there needs to be notice.

Mr. Osborn commented we started out with one developer, and now we will have three owners. We have one access off Route 4 and easements back and forth. We do have one store that will control the level of access that will be allowed on that one entrance they all three share. Itís going to be tough enough for us to somehow memorialize this for future Planning Commissions and staff that this building will trigger a review of the entrances. Somehow we also have to convey to those other owners that they have a liability here in effect that if we allow a different use to come in it means that their entrance will be modified potentially. I donít have an answer; I am raising the point that somehow we need to develop documentation that is recorded so that future owners, Planning Commissions and staff have some way of knowing that this will happen and so we donít surprise the restaurant. OíCharleyís comes in one day and suddenly we are telling them that they can only go right in and right out. Somehow we need to let everybody know all this. The problem is that this isnít PUD; it is straight out General Business, and was developed by one person initially. We have this one condition here that runs with all three parcels and we need to let everyone know about it.

Mr. Tiffany suggested that it be in the covenants. Mr. Syfert commented you canít do that retroactively if they have been conveyed.

Mr. Hershner reported in the declarations that have been recorded, this drive area that proceeds from the main access point, turns left and turns right and even back in here is noted as common area that all three property owners have to maintain. My thought was even if those uses didnít change from two restaurants and a furniture store, and traffic got to a point on Princeton Pike that didnít allow the gaps, I was under the impression that the city, for any access off the roadways could come in if there is a liability or accidents happening. The city could come back and say you have a problem.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Osborn said I think at that point we would be faced with a taking, because we would be telling a property owner that they have less use of their property than they previously did, and we are saying this for public purpose. That is why I am suggesting that we need to document this right now, so that it is understood that the developers of the property agree going in, knowing that should this situation trigger in the future, the city can require this without a taking.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Hershner how he presented this to OíCharleyís and Tumbleweed as we went through the process. It was a factor all the way through; were they made aware of it?

Mr. Hershner reported I did not present anything to OíCharleyís or any of these end users. Mr. Katz is here who worked in the actual sales of all three parcels. Through the preliminary plans and their approval, I understood that it was a condition through that gap analysis and through those particular uses that was how we were permitted to have full access there. I canít say I know the exact wording, but if something triggered and those calculations didnít work any more, it could turn into a right in right out only. I am sure all three property owners will work to keep that full access if possible. What probably should happen is either we make it a condition of approval tonight, or at least the furniture store would have to maintain its use as a furniture store, especially in light of the increased floor area. I think that is a justification in and of itself. For OíCharleyís and Tumbleweed, we certainly need to pull out the original approval and hope there is a condition in there. Mr. Syfert commented itís somewhere in the Minutes, Iím sure, because we talked about it often enough.

Mr. Osborn added there are cross easements that apparently have been recorded. Maybe one method, while everybody is still first person, i.e. participated in this, would be to approach the other two parties to see if we could go back and add something to that cross easement document that would somehow record this particular issue as part of the document. Iíd be glad to get our law director involved; I think it is important that we get this done. If Mr. Hershner could communicate with us tomorrow or later this week, weíll work in that direction. We are working in an unusual situation; this is not a PUD; we donít have covenants; weíll have to go back and reconstruct this a little bit, and hopefully the other two parties will cooperate and we can get an agenda into the cross easement agreement.

Ms. McBride added I agree; I think we need to get this done while they are the original parties. If the access point was on the same site with Ethan Allen Store, I wouldnít be as nervous about it, because the next time somebody comes in for a different use, obviously it would be up to this Commission. The fact that the access point is not on the same property makes me nervous about your making the approval conditional to it at some point later reverting and it being an offsite change. I would suggest going with what Mr. Osborn is suggesting.

Mr. Shvegzda said for clarification, even though the building size is larger, there is no additional detention volume required because essentially the building footprint is taking up parking space area. In terms of the drainage, there are a couple of items that need to be clarified, and we have spoken with the consultant on that and he is working on that. There were no erosion control plans included, and that needs to be addressed.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Shvegzda continued we concur with the need for a turn around t in that location, that being a dead end, it is very necessary. We agree that the aisle width should be in accordance with the code from the standpoint of maneuverability, regardless of whether there is parking on either side of the drive aisle. We think it is important at this point to get a total agreement in writing that will be carried along with the land in regards to the change in usage of the Ethan Allen building and how that would key in to determine whether or not the driveway on State Route 747 would be a restricted movement type driveway.

Mr. McErlane added relative to Assistant Chief Shroyerís comments on the site, the Fire Department connection is shown on the back of the building. Contrary to what Mr. Hershner was saying, that Fire Department connection is used to pump water into the building and pressurize the sprinkler system. To do that they connect to the closest fire hydrant, which is out on Princeton Pike, lay a hose all the way to the Fire Department connection, and pressurize the building. So we are talking about having to lay hose from somewhere on Princeton Pike, run it up the drive and through the parking lot into the back of the building to make the connection. They are recommending that the Fire Department connection be out at the street where they can make that connection pressurized from there, which is not really a major item. It is a matter of putting the Fire Department connection out close to the meter pit instead of putting it in the back wall of the building. It is essentially running a riser up from the underground fire line at the pit instead of bringing it through the wall of the building. It is not even a major expense.

Mr. Okum commented I know it has phenomenal height on the parapet and the facade, but the office building will be looking down on this building, so the roof mechanical units will still be exposed to them. I think they should be painted out. Mr. Hershner responded that was a condition on the other two buildings.

Mr. Tiffany moved to grant final plan approval contingent upon:

1. The easements being in place;

2. That there be documentation in place between all three owners

as to the future possible restriction of the Princeton Pike

entrance (possibly add this to the easements);

3. Paint out the mechanical on the rooftop units;

4. The dumpster be attached to the rear of the building, and that it

be made of a durable material and maintained;

5. All other concerns mentioned this evening by the staff be met.

Mr. Okum commented like the 24 foot aisle width, and seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Okum commented one item that typically has come up before Planning Commission over the years is cross easements on properties. It seems to me that it always ends up that we have to be coercive between property owners of common properties to encourage cross easements. After our discussion on Cookers and OíCharleyís, I was wondering if there isnít a way we can look at some other communities that have a similar situation, and canít it be part of our code that cross easements are a requirement of the building standards for new developments so we can encourage it by law? Possibly there is something written in the law someplace that we can utilize.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Twenty-Three


Ms. McBride stated we can look at some of the other codes in the Cincinnati area. I know there are a lot of communities looking at that right now, like Union Township Claremont County in the Eastgate. It probably would require an amendment to your Zoning Code, but we could do a scan of some of the other codes in the area and do additional research to find out about that. Mr. Okum commented I am thinking about communities like Florence which had to be very proactive on their land use planning. Thereís got to be some template, letís find it, modify it and make it work for us. Ms. McBride reported Florence uses Boone County Planning Commission, and they have a very detailed thoroughfare study and a plan which by Kentucky law is updated every five years. That is a real strong hammer on them to do the cross access easements.

Mr. McErlane reported for those members who were not here prior to December 1st, Cellular I has come in on two occasions and asked for a cellular phone tower on the Perin property. If you look at the site plan attached to it, their earlier request was for a tower right up against the ramp off I-275 on the southwestern portion of the property. On both occasions they were denied a request by four affirmative and three negative votes. As you know, it takes five affirmative votes for any final action by Planning Commission. What the architect has asked before he goes through the process and we go through the process of legal advertisement, he has a site on the General Electric Employee Association property. Some of the comments made at the previous meetings were if it were on a different location than the Perin site it might be more acceptable, but there ware only a few comments to that effect. I am opening this up for discussion as to whether or not we should tell him to start looking somewhere else or that he might be able to come in and present this.

Mr. Galster stated not knowing exactly the layout of the GE property, I believe this location is much better than the previous one, so I would be open to considering the new location. I do not know the view when you come into the GE property, but it is a long enough distance from l-275 compared to where it was; I would be open to reconsidering based on that location.

Mr. Tiffany added without seeing the topography in terms of trees, I am hesitant. If you go on I-275 and head south on I-75, on the left is the exact same pole, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Mr. Syfert commented without any landscaping around it. Mr. Tiffany continued and it is absolutely horrible. If this thing is going to stick out like that, I will say no, but I canít say until I see the topography and where it will fit in. I welcome him back in with open arms and hesitant mind.

Mr. Young stated I agree with both comments with the exception that based on the first proposal, this certainly is a much better proposal. The other thing is I do not know how many people use the cellular phone in their businesses, but the problem they bring up is a valid one. It is becoming increasingly harder to use those phones. If this area is where I think it is looking at the map, I donít really see a problem with it. I donít think you can compare it with what is by Burbankís, because you are not going to drive by this like you do that every day of the week; it just wonít happen.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 January 1996

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Okum reported I agree that the cellular phone service in the I-275 corridor is terrible. If they need height, I donít understand why they donít go to the other side of Crescentville Road where that radio tower is, because it is 40-50 feet higher. I would think they would get much better coverage if they put the tower there. Mr. Tiffany commented it doesnít work that way. Mr. Syfert reported we recommended that, and it doesnít work that way. Mr. Okum added I would have to see the tree line. I would be a little bit concerned on how to get utilities back to this thing.

Mr. Galster stated I think it would have been similar to the Sharonville location if it had been in its original spot. This is a couple of hundred feet back, and without seeing exactly where it lays out, I would be more open to it than what I was.

Mr. Wilson stated I do not have a problem with it because it is not any different than having those outdoor lights that illuminate the baseball fields; it is another pole up there. I think that would blend in more in that area than where they originally proposed it. I donít see a problem with this location.

Mr. Huddleston commented I would agree with what the other members have said. If you are going to have one and they are needed, this is a much less obtrusive area, and subject to the final plan, I would agree with it.

Mr. McErlane stated I will suggest that they verify the topography, locate any trees and get photos.

Having completed the business for the evening, Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,1996 _________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



____________________,1996 __________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary