8 APRIL 2003

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Richard

    Huddleston, David Okum, Tom Vanover,

    Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the minutes were approved unanimously.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that the only thing of interest is the public hearing scheduled for May 7th on the Zoning Code cleanup items. Also, the Springdale Veterans Memorial Committee now has an official logo and is moving forward.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė March 10, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė March 25, 2003
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė 18 February 2003
    6. 11/18/02 Letter from Robert Sherry to Kathy McNear, President of Council re recommended changes to the Zoning Code Post Secondary /Educational Uses
    1. CVS Pharmacy, 11601 Springfield Pike Final PUD Development Plan Ė tabled March 11, 2003
    2. Mr. Syfert said under New Business we have a Conditional Use Permit, which accompanies this, so I am going to move this item down to New Business after Item C.

    3. Zone Map Amendment for 1311 East Kemper Road Ė Office Building (OB) to General Business (GB) Ė tabled March 11, 2003. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if there had been any action on this and Mr. McErlane reported that he had faxed a note to the applicant indicating that if he had any additional submittals for this monthís meeting to submit them by the 28th of March and did not receive any response. So, we have no new submittals on this application. It is on the agenda because it was tabled last month. Mr. Galster moved to remove it from the agenda and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and the item was removed from the agenda.

      8 APRIL 2003

      PAGE TWO

    5. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike Ė Hearing continued March 11, 2003

Mr. Syfert reported that last month we opened the public hearing and suspended it until this month. I will reopen the public hearing now and ask if anyone wishes to speak for or against this item. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed.

Wayne Fan Architect reported that last time I did not have a chance to introduce my presentation board. I also have a sample of the exterior façade. It is an externally insulated finishing system, and we would screen any mechanical equipment on the rooftop. The bricks will be exposed and painted. In other areas, the fascia will be created by this external finishing system. This wall will cover all the mechanical rooftop units.

The store operator Mike Patel is here this evening and is very anxious to get permission for the drive through and he hopes with this remodeling project to create a 40% increase in the business.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business and is in Subarea D of the Route 4 Corridor and the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to develop a drive through pick up window. Along with the drive through there are exterior elevation changes that are proposed. Under our Zoning Code, both of these require corridor review requirements to be evaluated.

The applicant has indicated some landscaping on the plan, but no sizes are indicated.

The building today is non-conforming under our Subarea D Corridor Requirements, which would require a 100-foot building setback. However, the applicant is proposing some small additions to the building, which would decrease those setbacks even further, approximately two to three feet. We have asked that those setbacks be indicated on the plan primarily because a variance will be required and the Board of Zoning Appeals needs to know what those dimensions are.

There also will be setback variances required to the paving on the north side of the site. Although it is currently paved up to the right of way line, there are some modifications made to the pavement to the north side, which would require a variance.

The dumpster location is proposed to be the same that it is today. There is however a grease dumpster that is located outside the enclosure and we recommend that either the dumpster enclosure be enlarged or the dumpster size be decreased to accommodate the grease dumpster inside the enclosure.

The applicant is proposing some changes to the building elevations, and until tonight we did not have color samples to evaluate. It appears that the elevation changes include removing that false shake mansard and building an EIFS or stucco type finish on the outside for the fascia.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane added that the main EIFS colors are indicated as tan and gray and I donít know if both are shown on that sample or not. Mr. Fan responded we used the photograph to show that. Mr. McErlane added that there is a plum accent stripe along the bottom of that fascia that is being proposed, and I assume that the photographs represent the color.

There are a couple of exterior lights proposed directly over awnings, which are proposed over the entrance and the proposed drive through. Those awnings would be plum with an orange stripe across the bottom of the awning. Mr. Fan responded that has not been finalized yet.

Mr. McErlane added that there are lights that are affixed to the building over the top of those awnings, and we had asked if those awnings were illuminated, and the response was that they are. Are they intended to be internally or externally illuminated?

Mr. Fan answered that they will be internally illuminated but we put additional lights on to make them brighter. That is a waste of lights, but the project manager from Dunkin Donuts asked me to put the extra lights on.

Mr. McErlane reported that one addition to the building is the drive through window on the north side of the building. There is another addition, a 10í x 14í walk in cooler on the south side that is proposed to be enclosed in a brick screen wall. We are recommending that it be pushed back even with the rear of the building.

The applicant has some concerns about foundations for that relative to a retaining wall that runs along the back of the building. However, the rear of the building itself sets on top of that retaining wall, so it is not impossible to level up the retaining wall and actually build a brick wall on top of it. I think that would look better than it being located in the middle of the south elevation of the building.

Their proposed drive through lane is shown directly against the right of way on the north side, which would require a variance. Most of their directional signs are located five feet from the right of way line. However, the southernmost directional line is two feet from the right of way, and the question is whether that requires a variance or if it can be moved. Mr. Fan said I can move that sign to conform with no problem.

Mr. McErlane added that the front sign is 4.35í x 11.67í for 50.8 s.f. and an existing pole sign has a 4.5 x 9.4 face on it today and it is being proposed to add a reader board sign of 3í x 7í on that pole sign.

The total allowable sign area is 173.5 s.f. and what they are proposing is 114.2 s.f., so they meet code with respect to that. However, since the corridor district doesnít allow pole signs along Route 4, it would require a variance to add the 3.7 reader board sign to that pole sign, or expanding a non-conforming use.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane added that there would be variances required for front yard setbacks, for both Northland Boulevard and Route 4, and a pavement setback from Northland as well as an increase in the non-conforming pole sign area.

The major issue that caused this to be continued from last month was the fact that we had no ownerís affidavit or application signed by the owner of the property. We now have both those items signed by Mr. Zemsky, who is a principal for PZ Realty, the owner of the property.

Mr. Galster asked about the dumpster enclosure on SP-1. Mr. McErlane responded that since the dumpster enclosure will probably need to be enlarged, it probably could be incorporated with the same type structure. The back wall of the building is built on top of a retaining wall, which goes all the way out to Route 4 on the south and extends out 30-40 feet on the north.

Mr. Sherry wondered if the brick would match the existing brick. Mr. Fan indicated that it would. Mr. McErlane added that the applicant indicated tonight that they were going to paint the brick. Mr. Fan responded that they are not going to paint the brick but use a brick to match the existing. Mr. McErlane added that our recommendation would be that it match as closely as possible.

Mr. Sherry wondered about the equipment on top of the walk in box and Mr. Fan responded that the brick is very tall so any equipment on top of the walk in cooler will be screened. Nobody will see it.

Mr. Okum said if you couldnít match the brick, what would you do with the walk in cooler? Mr. Fan responded we will make it as similar as possible and the other alternative would be to use a brick that is a variation in color, but I think we can match it.

Mr. Okum said this is in the Corridor Review District, so we have to know all the colors that are going to be applied to the building now, or youíll have to come back for colors other than what we approve. He asked if the enclosure would be on three sides of the mechanical unit and will extend high enough to cover all mechanical devices. Mr. Fan confirmed this. Mr. Okum asked how the mechanical devices would be accessed for service, and Mr. Fan answered that there would be an opening on the roof. Or I can put it up against the backside, and Mr. Okum said if it is up against the retaining wall, you wonít be able to get one on the backside.

Mr. Fan commented I hesitate to put the walk in cooler and freezer toward the back. Mr. Okum said I think our building official has indicated that the existing building is resting on that retaining wall, and you could build your screen enclosure on top of that existing retaining wall. Mr. Fan said we need to build a foundation for the cooler. Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if it would be a problem supporting it.





8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane reported you donít want to excavate alongside that retaining wall on the backside. The difference between this walk in box and a lot of the other ones is that this one directly connects into the building. There is a door from the building into it, so they typically wouldnít want to see something that would move up and down when it has a rigid connection to the building. So, they probably will want to put it on a frost foundation.

Mr. Okum asked the size of the cooler, and Mr. Fan said 14í x 9í. Mr. Okum said so it is 9 feet wide. Could you make the unit the opposite way and have the door go into the side of it and hold it closer to the building instead of having it stick out 14 feet?

Mr. Fan responded we have four columns on this side. The walk in cooler and freezer are right between two columns. If I did this, it would have to be without columns, and the roof would not have enough support.

Mr. Okum responded if you would hold it out from the retaining wall but place the brick wall on the retaining wall, you still would be able o bring it more to the front but not as far to the front as what is exhibited on your drawing.

Mr. Fan said that the location of the walk in cooler and freezer is limited by the columns on the building. There are only three possible locations because of the four columns. I will have to study that.

Mr. Okum responded for purposes of moving along, I will stop on this issue, but I think something needs to be done on that walk in cooler. I am pleased to see that you are enclosing it, but I am concerned and the drawing doesnít show it projecting from the building. The only thing that is shown projecting from the building is this black outline. It is pretty hard for us to look at that. To the bottom of that EIFS, you are only talking 10 feet and arenít those mechanical units a little higher than that? Mr. Fan answered that they are lower than 10 feet. The box is only seven feet. Mr. Okum responded the box is seven and the mechanicals would be a couple of feet on top of that, so you would be nine feet. Would you still need that pass door for access to the business? Mr. Fan responded yes. Mr. Okum said so if that walk in box cooler were placed back on the retaining wall, there might be a situation where you couldnít have that doorway to get into the back of the business. Mr. Fan agreed. If I placed the walk in cooler back on the retaining wall, Mr. Okum interjected you would have to move that door forward and switch them, but they could be switched if the walk in cooler can have a doorway out of the business. Mr. Fan agreed, we could make it a flexible panel system.

Ms. McBride reported that the entire site needs to come up with what the existing Corridor Review District requirements are. The Commission needs to be aware of that.

Ms. McBride reported that the site plan doesnít label the right of way and the property lines, so we were making some assumptions. I think they were the correct assumptions but they were not labeled.



8 APRIL 2003



Ms. McBride added that our CRD Subarea D District allows for a maximum impervious surface area ratio of 70%, and there is a 60% impervious surface area ratio on these plans, so that is in compliance.

The applicant indicated that the existing building contains 1850 s.f., of which 575 is public area requiring 17 parking spaces. We need to have bumper blocks added to all the spaces that head into sidewalks or landscaping areas. Mr. Fan commented that is no problem.

There is a minimum drive aisle width for 90 degree parking of 24 feet and there is a point at the southern end of the main parking field where it is only 19 feet wide and it is a pretty key point so it needs to be increased to 24 feet. In doing so, they may lose a parking space or having to relocate a parking space. They need to maintain what they have and they also need to maintain 24 feet in the drive aisles.

One of our earlier comments was that we needed to have five stacking spaces that are 9í x 19í for the drive through window, beginning at the order point. They have indicated where the order point is and they have provided five stacking spaces without backing them out onto the street or blocking any parking spaces.

The City Engineer will comment on the radius for that turn.

They are proposing to leave the trash dumpster where it is, and staff would really like to see that moved to the other side, but I donít know if that can work given the location of the proposed drive through window. At a minimum, screening requirements of Section 153.489 need to be met. When I looked at the site, they had a dumpster outside of the dumpster enclosure. They werenít in the enclosure, and it was so small that the grease dumpster wouldnít fit. That needs to be removed, and the applicant has indicated in writing that they will remove it.

When we were out on the site, we noticed that they were having outside storage on the Springfield Pike side of the building, and that is not allowed in the CRD District. The applicant has indicated that they will remove the items currently stored outdoors.

The CRD District requires that curb cuts be a minimum of 200 feet from the main intersection. You will need to provide a waiver for that, given the dimensions and location of this site.

We received a landscape plan that indicated some landscape material; however, it does not comply with our requirements in terms of landscaping for the parking areas and for the streetscape both on Northland and Springfield Pike. In addition, the plan did not indicate the size of the plant material at the time of planting or the number of plant materials that were to be included, so we would need to have a correct landscape plan that complies with the Zoning Code requirements submitted, reviewed and approved by staff.


8 APRIL 2003



Ms. McBride added that there is a really large paved area on the east side of the building by where the drive through would be, and staff would like to suggest that there be some kind of turn island in there to help channel the cars toward the drive through window. That also could be used for landscaping.

The applicant submitted a photometric lighting plan but the plan itself didnít specify the fixtures or the poles that were utilized in preparing the plan. They supplied us with cut sheets that indicated that the pole height was going to be 20 feet, but it was unclear if that was the mounting height which typically would be a two foot concrete base with18 foot poles or if it was 20 foot poles with a two foot mounting base; we nee that clarified.

The information included both single and double-headed fixtures. The photometric lighting plan only used single headed fixtures so I want to make sure that we arenít getting any double headed fixtures because that would affect the photometric plan.

The proposed fixtures are flat lens metal halide. They did not indicate the color of the poles or the fixtures and the Corridor Review District requires that those be dark bronze. Also the photometric plan does not provide the minimum .5 foot candles throughout the parking lot, and the areas where the illumination falls below that are key areas Ė the drive through, the dumpster location, areas where people are likely to be either in early morning hours in the winter getting donuts or in the evening hours when employees are taking the trash out.

The Corridor District requires that blank facades on the rear of the buildings are to be avoided. There is a blank façade on the rear of the building now; it is somewhat difficult to see, and I something that the Commission may choose to waive, but it should be so noted.

There are a number of inconsistencies between the material schedule and the elevation drawings, and I am concerned about the commission acting on those drawings, because they donít match. Some of them have to do with striped awnings being indicated on the material schedule that arenít on the building schedule, colors that are indicated on the material schedule that arenít on the elevation color. The applicant has indicated in correspondence that the schedule is incorrect and that the elevations are correct but I do have some concerns about the commission acting on those as is.

The Corridor Review District also requires that buildings have a pitched roof for 50% of the site coverage. There was an old service station on that site, and it does have a pitched roof, but that ills something that the commission may choose to waive or you may choose to credit that old service station roof.






8 APRIL 2003



Ms. McBride added that building colors are generally the earthtones with one or two accent colors in the Corridor Review District. The building will be brick with grey and tan, but they are also proposing a host of pumpkin orange plum orange royal plum and jogging path (what color is that?) Mr. Fan answered that it is a tan or beige color. Ms. McBride reported that the commission needs to give some consideration to this variety of accent colors.

Previously we had indicated that there was no screening proposed for the HVAC equipment, and the applicant indicated on their correspondence that new façade boards would screen the HVAC equipment. We havenít seen any information on this or indication on the elevation and we need to see additional information on that.

They are including fabric awnings on both the north and east elevations and these are to be illuminated both internally and externally.

I mentioned the striped awning, plum and orange, which is on these photographs and on the material schedule, but is not going to be on this building.

On the walk in cooler, the brick screen wall is incorrectly identified a minor issue.

The applicant is proposing a sign on the north elevation, the main elevation of the building which would be 81.4 s.f. and internally illuminated. They are indicating that there will be no neon lighting on the sign or on the building, which is in conformance with the Corridor Review District requirements. They also indicate directional signage at the two access points. They meet all our requirements, except for the setback for one of the signs, and the applicant indicated that they could move the sign to meet that requirement.

The site plan indicates an existing pole sign and Sheet G-1 gives us the details for that new pole sign, indicating that the existing pole is going to be painted royal plum at an unspecified height. The existing 53.5" x 113" s.f. Dunkin Donuts panel is to be replaced, and they also would like to add a 7í x 3í reader board below that, increasing the free standing signage, so that the total sign area on the pylon is 62.9 s.f.

However, the applicant has indicated that the new sign designs will meet the Corridor Review District requirements, and the CRD does not permit pylon signs. All freestanding signs have to be ground mounted signs. That is what staff would prefer to see, and since they are adding onto the buildings and redoing the signage and site work, that is something you can require.

We have attached the standards for Conditional Use, which the commission needs to consider before they would approve the Conditional Use Permit for the drive through window




8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Shvegzda reported that in the initial submission, there was shown a bypass lane, another lane to the inside of the drive through lane. Now it is not shown, so we would believe that it is not an important feature.

As the drive through lane is shown now, it is just a field of asphalt without any delineation of that lane, so we would request that a curb would be placed n that area and that would lead into Anneís suggestion in terms of a landscaped area being provided which would delineate the drive through lane.

What is shown as the radius for the drive through lane is hard to follow. There is nothing submitted with it that verifies that would be the actual true travel path of the vehicle. We would request additional information to verify that.

The access point from Northland Boulevard is currently located approximately 90 feet from the intersection with Route 4. The proposed entrance would be one way in and would be moved about 30 feet to the west (closer to the intersection). As part of the Thoroughfare Plan and Corridor Review District, there is a requirement that it be 200 feet from the intersection. However, the dimensions of the site wouldnít permit that.

There is a catch basin noted within the area where the new driveway will be that will either cause the driveway to be moved or the catch basin relocated to make that work.

There has to be additional information on the radiuses on the new driveway. In particular, if someone entered and wanted to go into the parking field turning right, the way it is configured it would make a very difficult movement so that must be revised to accommodate that right turn.

Signage will be needed indicating Do Not Enter for any vehicles wanting to exit onto Northland Boulevard.

There was a concern about sight distance for vehicles leaving the drive through window and wanting to turn left. There is now shown some sort of division there, but it is not indicated if it is striped or landscaped Ė it needs to be clarified. It scales at approximately 6 Ĺ feet wide.

There is an area where the City is doing the streetscape program and one of the concept showed some additional improvements at the corner in front of the Dunkin Donuts building. We would request that the applicant provide an easement to allow some additional work to take place in that vicinity.

Just beyond the reader board, a part of the retaining wall exists. It starts out at almost 0í in height but does get to a greater extent in height and therefore some sort of provisions should be made to protect the vehicles in that area some type of guardrail or handrail.




8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum asked about the radiuses of the cars going around the loop to get to the drive up window, it seems awkward. This is different from most drive throughs. Is it functionally possible that this would work Ė would a car navigate that way without having problems for the drivers?

Mr. Shvegzda answered we placed a template on it to see in very broad terms if it would be possible, and insofar as the turning radius, it is possible. If you consider that you will make one continuous curve through there, you will have a tangent, a curve, a tangent, a curve Ė the vehicle will not travel in that path, and that is why we are asking for further documentation to show that it would work.

Mr. Okum asked if there wouldnít be conflicting traffic patterns where they exit that drive up window and they would be coming in on the right in only to get into the parking field? Wouldnít there be a conflict of cars at that point?

Mr. Shvegzda answered that in order to exit, they would have to turn left at that point and swing around the six-foot island. Mr. Okum commented that would put them sort of towards the cars that are going head on coming in. They would be face to face. Mr. Shvegzda added that is one of the other reasons why we wanted a bigger radius at the northland side so there would be further distance between them as they come in and the exiting vehicles from the drive through.

Mr. Okum said there is this type of entrance at the Shell at Route 4 and Crescentville, and it is functional. They would be coming into Dunkin Donuts a little bit faster, especially if they are turning left off Route 4. Itís a downhill slope and I would think you would have an increase in speed coming into that entrance. I would be a little bit concerned about that being so close to the intersection due to that, or theyíll just stop.

Mr. Shvegzda responded as far as the rate of speed into the driveway, there still would be a depressed curb there, so they had better slow down to a certain degree.

Mr. Okum said I am encouraged because I donít want the applicant to think that this is a situation of impossibilities, but this is a key corner in our community. I am thrilled that the applicant is trying to make an improvement on that site. If those things are going to happen, when we have recommendations from all three of our staff members, and Ms. McBrideís is 24 items, it makes it difficult to say okay, address those 24 items and you can move forward with the project. Iím going to have a real hard time voting positively with so many items still outstanding. I think it is important that the applicant make the improvement but those items are significant enough that I donít think they will be resolved in this meeting tonight. Do you see that, based on the reports you have heard tonight?

Mr. Fan answered I feel that a lot of the issues are related to design plus size of trees, relocation of directional signs. I feel that they are easy to deal with; I can revise it and meet the requirements. I feel great confidence Ė no problem.


8 APRIL 2003




Mr. Okum commented I am encouraged by the willingness of the applicant to make these improvements. The only thing is, based on all the staff reports it will be very difficult for me to structure a motion that would encompass all of those considerations. I tend to make the motions, and I would have a real hard time doing that. The one thing that I want to hear from the applicant is that the understanding is that you are willing to bring the pole sign down to a ground sign? Mr. Fan responded exactly, if we cannot get a variance for the pole sign. Mr. Okum added I think Board of Zoning Appeals would be more flexible with you if you would make an adjustment and bring the pole sign down to a ground mounted sign. They would give you more latitude with your development. Mr. Fan answered that is no problem.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said I also am enthused to see the project before us, and I am open to the drive through, but I also am wanting to make sure that there are a few other things that the applicant is willing to do so that we donít end up wasting your time. I donít know how much you are willing to do in order to have that drive through, and I want to clarify a few points.

One is the monument sign. Are you willing to look at a monument sign instead of the pole sign? Second, are you open to moving the dumpster and the cooler to the side of the building so that we can take that away from the main thoroughfare in front of your business? Third, I drew the landscape island in the middle of the parking lot to help direct that traffic around there. Otherwise everyone would pull in there and wonder what to do. If five cars stacking up is the requirement, Iíd even like to consider moving where you have your order location up one car length to get that fifth car away from the entrance. Mr. Fan said that is no problem. Mr. Galster added a lot of the other stuff is revising parking lots in order to make sure that everybody can get around okay, and I donít think those are major issues.

Mr. Fan said no problem. I can take pull all of the suggestions and revisions together, so everybody is satisfied.

Mr. Galster added that the color issue would be another issue that I will have. I have no problem with some of the accent colors, the plum seems to be a deep enough tone so it would be a good earthtone that will work. However, the pumpkin and those type colors when added on seem to me to be a little bit much, and I am afraid of that combination and too many different colors for trim. Also, I have a problem with lighting from the outside the awnings that are already lit. I would rather have a regular awning that is lit from the top; I think it will give a nice downcast on top of the awning.

Mr. Fan reported that the color material schedule is given by the Design Department of Dunkin Donuts Corporation. I put them on the drawing of my design here. We will use only part of their schedule; we can pick and choose. Mr. Galster said so there is some flexibility. Mr. Fan confirmed this.


8 APRIL 2003



Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said if you are comfortable with making those changes, I am much more inclined to be comfortable with the overall improvement of the site, and would be in favor of those improvements. However, I think there are enough of these issues, probably eight pages, but I think they can be addressed if the applicant is willing to do so, understanding that there will be some cost involved. Iíd like to see the improvement to the site, but I think there will need to be some additional work put forward in order for us to make a motion on the project.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. Shvegzda if the in-out movements on the Springfield Pike side are workable? How do you see that happening? I see that as a terribly unsafe condition, almost unworkable.

Mr. Shvegzda answered that it exists today. Mr. Huddleston responded but you also have an outlet to eastbound Northland Boulevard. Mr. Shvegzda responded that is true. If somebody wanted to take that, they would have to turn right out there and go through the light. Mr. Huddleston added that it seems like we are concentrating more traffic in there and it would be a difficult movement to make. Mr. Shvegzda answered that the most difficult movement to make would be the left turns in and out at that drive, because there isnít a protected lane for them. There is a left turn lane for the northbound to westbound Northland.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston stated I would share the comments that have been made by the commission members. I look favorably on the applicantís interest in upgrading the site and making improvements not only his facility but doing it in accordance with the Corridor Review District. However, with 24 points on one report and a number on the others, I would have very much difficulty approving this tonight.

If you come back next month, I would like to see a color pallet coordinated with the elevations so we can better understand. I also understand that you are working with a prototype design from Dunkin Donuts. What we want to see is what the design will be here, not the prototype design, because we canít interpolate between the two.

Mr. Sherry said I agree with all the comments. I am concerned about ingress and egress to the site. I heard about the 24-foot drive aisle width in the staff report; is that wide enough given the situation we have here? That is really tight in and out. You will come in and take an immediate right or left Ė an awkward situation.

On the dries through this reminds me of the drive through at Route 4 and Crescentville, which is awfully hard to get into. I would like to see some analysis of that to make sure that it is going to work.

Mr. Okum moved that the Conditional Use Hearing be continued in progress to May 13th. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion, and the item was continued to May 13, 2003.



8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Syfert commented that the commission wants the staff reports down to just nothing. Mr. Fan answered I tried to respond point to point but it kept going. Mr. Okum responded IL think the answer is to get those points onto your drawings so you donít have to respond point by point. Incorporate those comments into your plan and resolve those issues and then there will not be response issues.

Ms. McBride added that if he had questions about any of those, he could call any of the staff. Mr. Fan said that he would like to have a work session with the staff, and Ms. McBride told him to call Mr. McErlane to coordinate this.

    1. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Seating Area to be located at Graeterís Ice Cream, 11511 Princeton Pike

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing, asking anyone who wished to speak for or against this item to approach the commission. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Bob Graeter of the Graeter Family said I operate this facility. We want to put some seating on an outdoor terrace area so that customers can enjoy their ice cream in an outdoor setting at the back of our store.

Before the back end of the store was primarily a delivery zone and not in good shape. We have totally cleaned it up and put a new outdoor entrance in the back. As a part of that, we extended the existing terrace area about eight feet and we want to put seating in that area.

We acquired that property in the late Ď70ís, and have been operating it ever since, and actually had seating out front. It must have predated any zoning regulations, and when we came in with this plan, we did not know that a Conditional Use Permit was needed for outdoor seating. To meet our time schedule, we had to go ahead and finish it, since we needed to spruce up the place.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business and the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor seating. During remodeling, the applicant showed a patio on the plans for the interior remodeling and the change in access. Previously the public areas were accessed from the front door and from the side of the building. The current change put a public door on the rear of the building adjacent to where this outdoor seating area will be. That was shown on the drawings for permit, and we had indicated to the architect that it required a Conditional Use Permit from Planning Commission. They chose to hold off on that until now.

The proposed parking is shown at 56 spaces, but there are some issues relative to the parking layout. The aisle widths and the parking space dimensions are less than required by code.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane added that the current layout of the parking is less than what is required by code. The proposed layout shows some slight improvements at turning areas adjacent to the ends of parking bays. However, the proposed parking layout actually causes a worse condition by proposing some parallel parking along the north property line at the rear of the building, which shortens up those aisle widths even further than what it is today.

One issue that needs to be cleared up is that there is a section of the rear parking lot that has been constructed on the adjacent property. We would require a copy of an easement or purchase of that property before we can evaluate the parking provided on the site.

I pulled out the original drawings for the site, and the parking lot that was included in the original drawings did not encroach on the adjacent property. That particular parking plan showed 45 spaces, which is less than what would be required today if we evaluated that public seating area.

If we evaluated the original plan under todayís code it would have required 62 spaces. It was approved at that time with 45 spaces and when the City widened SR 747, six spaces were lost. Probably the most important thing would be to hear from the applicant as to what his parking needs are and then deal with the issue of the encroachment on the rear property line.

The requirement for parking spaces is 55, and that includes the additional seven that would be required for the outside seating area.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant about the rear property line. Mr. Graeter answered when I started this project, I did not realize that we had butted up against that. The fence back there where all the cars are parked has been there since before we acquired the property. Over the years, we have actually paved and striped that area. So, we have a situation where we have been on that property for great many years and have been using it.

We have been in contact with the Sweeney Family who owns that property and have proposed that some arrangement be made that we acquire it to accommodate the parking needs of our customers and the additional back entrance traffic that we have. They have not responded in the affirmative in any way at this point of time. I think they are waiting to see what happens.

Mr. Syfert asked how many parking spaces are really needed and Mr. .Graeter answered we probably need a lot more parking than we have. It is a crowded area, and we get a lot of traffic at certain times of the day. You can be there from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and we have four times the traffic we need. Between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. in the summer, we probably have half the parking we need. That is just the reality of our business.




8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Graeter added that I would like to make arrangements with the Sweeney family to acquire that property and provide additional parking and provide a better layout and traffic flow, but that remains to be seen. We are making every effort we can to do that.

Our neighbors, the tire store close at 6 p.m., and they have been very generous in letting our customers use the front of their area to park and walk over at night

Mr. Syfert commented what I am hearing is that even our code does not give you relief from what you need, is that correct? Mr. Graeter responded for all but about two or three hours of the day we have plenty of parking; it is underutilized. It is that peak time where we have the problem.

Mr. McErlane said with respect to utilization of the back parking area, until recently you didnít have a public access out to it. Mr. Graeter responded we used to have access on the north side of the building, and there was a three-foot walkway that ran along the side of the building. We took that out to widen the area to go back there. There always have been parking spaces on the north side; that was in the original plan. We have made it wider there to accommodate traffic.

We wanted to clean up the area, and we thought that because the widening of SR 747 took some of our parking and we were short in front, we would make it attractive for people to park in the back and actually provide more usable parking. People were afraid to go back there because it was a closed area, you had to walk over to the side of the building of the building to get in, and it was kind of dark at times, so we lit up the area.

Mr. McErlane said during the peak hours, have you found that the back parking area has been used? Mr. Graeter answered some, but not nearly enough. A lot of people wouldnít go back there so we lit it up, widened the access to it and made an attractive entrance back there to encourage people to go back there.

Mr. McErlane said so the fact that people might want to use that area might improve your parking situation. Mr. Graeter responded hopefully the seating would encourage the people to park back there.

Mr. Coleman wondered about the impact of deliveries. What time do you get your deliveries? Mr. Graeter answered that the store opens at 7 a.m. and delivery is 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday. The other time there is a delivery is Monday Wednesday and Friday around 11-12 p.m. (ice cream). The delivery situation doesnít impact the parking. The delivery entrance has not changed; it is still that aback area. We have put a wall to screen off the delivery area from the seating area. We have improved the access to it through a stairway and railing and made it safer.





8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Galster commented that you mentioned that the peak time was 7-10 p.m. and that the parking was pretty bad out front. When people are parking in your neighborís lot, is your back lot full or is it not utilized. Mr. Graeter answered that it is typically underutilized.

Mr. Galster said I go there a lot, and I have never not been able to park in your parking lot. You say you need more parking than what you have, but you just need them to use what you have better. Would that be a more accurate statement? Mr. Graeter answered I believe that is the case. Mr. Galster added Iím not one to like a lot of empty parking spaces. It is in your best interests to have adequate parking to support your business but I donít want to overpark the thing.

Ms. McBride reported that there are three issues here. One is we have an applicant with plans that show parking on someone elseís property and we donít have an application from that individual. We also donít have a plan that shows just the parking on his property, so we canít make a determination tonight whether he meets the code or meets his own requirements. We also donít have the ability to grant parking for Mr. Graeter on Mr. Sweeneyís property. I donít think the commission can do anything with this tonight.

The second issue would be the number of parking spaces code requires versus what Mr. Graeter feels he needs. That is an issue that can be resolved at the Board of Zoning Appeals. One of the issues we need to point out is the design of those spaces. Right now they donít meet the size of the spaces or the size of the drive aisles. I know this is a difficult tight site, but we need to make the best of the situation that we can. I might suggest that your employees park at the tire store and also you could put a sign on the lot and have signs inside the store saying additional parking available to the rear of the store.

In addition to that, the impervious surface ratio exceeds the 7.5% but they are not changing that. Signage and lighting will not change for the site. We would like to see some landscaping on the site in the form of pots on the patio and in front of the store or if the landscape island you have can be planted.

The existing dumpster is not screened, and it needs to be screened per our code.

Mr. Graeter said I noted in the report it said nine spaces for employees. We never would have more than six employees in the store at any one time, so there is some parking available there.

We do plan on putting some signage on the building to direct people to the back. I donít have a problem with screening the dumpster; it needs to be done especially since we are trying to encourage people to be back there.






8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Graeter added that in terms of landscaping, I hadnít planning on doing any. First, we donít own the property on the south side of the building, and everything else is either pavement or fence. We did not plan on potted plants in our seating area because they become a maintenance nightmare. So, we try not to landscape the outside of the area.

Mark Burgess his contractor said we are working on the parking. There is no way to get more than 39 to 40 spaces. We can reseal the lot and lay it out according to the standards, which we would do anyway. Mr. Graeter added that we had hoped to get through this and make some arrangements with the other property owner to accommodate our use through a lease or a purchase. We did not want to do one thing and then have to tear it all up and do another thing because of the timng issue.

It is a relatively small piece of property about 3800 s.f. and is fenced with the fencing they put up 25 or 30 years ago. We donít want to lose this property which we have been on for a number of years. We have paved and striped it.

Mr. Okum said I have to agree that I would be nice to see something green. That drive lane going to the back is pretty narrow if you have cars parking there. You also have people opening their doors into a drive lane, not too good safety wise. I would rather see fewer parking spaces and have control of the flow of parking in the area.

Also at the top of your parcel nearest 747, there is a big open area there that confuses people. It allows cars to come in and forces them to the south side of the parking lot, where you really want them coming in on the north side and swinging around.

I think you need a configuration of traffic patterns on your site. It needs to have a flow and there is a contradiction. If people are parking in the back and you have most of your cars coming into the Princeton Tire side, there is some confusion there with the traffic patterns.

I also park in Princeton Tire and do so frequently. The telephone poles laying across there are hazardous, and it is difficult for me to go across the gravel and the telephone poles.

Mr. Graeter responded that is not my property. Mr. Okum said the property owner seems to be agreeable so maybe you can work a cross easement arrangement between the sites and utilize that front area there, get some cross over there.

Mr. Graeter responded I am reluctant to encroach on anybody elseís property like that. They have been very kind and not given us any trouble about the parking, but it is not something I want to encourage people to do. We have actually widened the parking area by the building by taking out the three feet of walkway. Mr. Okum said but you are only talking about a 20 to 24 feet driveway. Mr. Graeter added that he would be willing to stripe it up so they are not parking areas and it could flow. That is not a problem.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum added I would rather see trees and grass there. Mr. Graeter responded that would be tough to do because that is right up against my neighborís building. There is a very large green hillside on the south side of our building that is covered with bushes and grass on the front part, but we donít own that either. We do try to cut the grass at the front and keep it nice. Those are the green areas that are under jour control.

Mr. Okum said I think Ms. McBride is right. Unless you resolve the issue with either the Sweeney property or a common usage with Princeton Tire, you canít get your numbers right anyway. Mr. Graeter answered and that is something that I have no control over. Whether I have outdoor seating area or not, that wonít change the number of people coming into the lot. I am limited by the dimensions of the property, which was built under a totally different code and requirements.

I would like to accommodate anybody who wants to park there and I hope to resolve the issue with the Sweeney family. That is the one thing I can do. As far as the Princeton Tire property, I donít think it would be right for me to tell them to change their parking configuration to accommodate my business. My hope is to get this Conditional Use Permit to put the seating on there and provide the customer benefit and resolve the property question in back and seal coat and stripe the lot to provide the most parking with the best access and flow.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston said one of the things proposed was trying to work with Princeton Tire, whether that is a legal agreement with cross easements, or a functional agreement, Mr. Okum was implying that we would like to see that improved, but that is your choice, not ours. You mentioned that it is are existing condition, and that is true. Your business has changed and the demographics have changed. What we canít encourage is further unsafe conditions, and thatís what we would do by permitting congested and non-functional parking area. You have increased your seating and you want to further increase it, and we would like to see that. All we are asking is that you pursue those avenues, and I think that is legitimate.

Mr. Graeter responded let me clarify that. What specifically are you asking me to do with the Princeton Tire situation? Mr. Huddleston answered he is saying there is a gravel area and telephone pole that is very inconvenient and unsafe. I donít know if you can legally address the situation or tactically address it with Princeton Tire. We canít act, and you are asking us to increase your seating.

You have a site that is very successful, but there are a lot of children in that parking lot, and I would be very reluctant to approve something with a very congested parking area. I think we have asked you to address that and come back with safe parking spaces whatever that number is.





8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Graeter responded if I cannot get control of the back property, what are my options? Mr. Huddleston answered you need to operate to the extent that you have, but I would be very reluctant to allow you to increase your seating. I donít say that to discourage you, because I want to encourage you.

Mr. Graeter commented my feeling about that is that I had seating on the front that is equivalent to what I propose to put in the back. Mr. Huddleston responded I donít know if the seating was ever approved. Mr. Graeter answered that is because it predated the Zoning Code. Mr. Huddleston responded your architect was advised that the new patio area, which I would like to see happen, could not be approved until you addressed the parking situation. Iím not trying to be difficult. Mr. Graeter answered I know you are not; I am just trying to understand exactly what you are asking me to do. Mr. Huddleston added certainly you need to get some control of the Sweeney situation before we can act on anything in terms of revising your parking situation. And then, whatever number of spaces you can get in there and the safest condition you can get them in there is what I would want to see. Weíre not going to put you out of business; we donít want to put you out of business.

Mr. Graeter answered I know that; it is not a question of that. I certainly want to keep supporting Springdale and the people in it. Mr. Huddleston added that if customers canít get in, they arenít going to come in, but your product is so good, they will fight to get in there, and that is to your credit. Mr. Graeter commented that is one benefit that we do have.

Ms. McBride added to hopefully clarify for Mr. Graeter, the problem that the commission has this evening is that we donít have a plan here tonight that we as staff can tell the commission to go ahead and approve this because we do not have anything that just shows your property. Mr. Graeter responded so you need a parking plan showing just our property to even act on this. Ms. McBride confirmed this, adding that if you can reach agreement with the Sweeneys or Princeton Tire that would be great. If you are not able to do any of that, in order to evaluate the request, we need to see a plan that just shows the property that you actually control with as safe a parking layout and as many spaces on it as you can get, which I think is what you want as well.

Mr. Graeter commented with respect to the Princeton Tire property, we have just had a gentlemanís agreement over the years that he didnít care if our customers parked there overnight as long as they didnít damage his property or become a hindrance to his business.

Mr. Vanover said the converse and protection for you is what happens if that changes and you have a new owner who may not be as accommodating? If you have an easement agreement or even a written agreement, you are protected. It sounds like we are picking on you, but we are trying to help you.




8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Graeter responded realistically I cannot see any way that I can go to Princeton Tire and say I need to encumber your property. Mr. Vanover answered I can agree with you. I would be more concerned with your getting a written agreement that they have no problem with your using their lot. Mr. Graeter added that I cannot see Princeton Tire being willing to encumber their property without some consideration. If you are looking at something ongoing and permanent, that is a very big impact on that piece of property that I as a businessman would not want to undertake in any way. The ownership could change tomorrow, and I am in business and have to operate no matter who is there.

Mr. Graeter added that the only other problem I have is the remedies that are open to me with respect to the Sweeney property are long and arduous. It could be years, depending on how it was handled. In the meantime I am trying to conduct business and provide the best environment that I can.

I could easily come back with a plan showing parking under my control if that is what will satisfy you with respect to this Conditional Use Permit. I certainly will provide that. Mr. Syfert said I think that is where we are coming from.

Mr. Galster asked if the two parking lots (Princeton Tire and Graeterís) on the same elevation, and Mr. Graeter indicated that they are. Mr. Galster said so it is just a problem of obstacles. If I was Princeton Tire and you wanted to straighten that out for me and even pave that part of my parking lot in exchange for me letting you use it when Iím closed and no hold me responsible for anybody who has an accident going to your place, Iíd sign it in a heartbeat. I think it is worth pursuing.

Mr. Graeter said I will tell you that part of the other issue with asking him to do anything, is that he has a very large fence bordering the property that has a gate in it, which comes onto our property. That is an issue that I have not wanted to approach because of that. He would want me to maintain his access to his property through his gate and encroaches on our property that may in fact bring semis onto our property

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride indicated that the striped out areas would be landscape spaces that you could utilize. Instead of painting them out, make them curb and mulch beds and trees would be the type of thing you could use. Then you wouldnít need to put pots on the site. You have one striped out area in the back and one in front and you could get some landscaped space where the existing sign is.

Mr. Graeter responded that the only concern I have about putting in paved curb areas with landscaping is that I have a small lot now and if I put those things in, ÖMr. Okum responded if they are there, people wonít do stupid things and drive directly across. Otherwise they will part whatever way they want to park. I think if you talk to our city engineer, he probably would say a curbed system in a parking lot is a lot more structured and people tend to follow the pattern a lot better than just yellow lines.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Graeter responded for me the other issue is the expense of putting that in and maintaining it; it is significant. I would have been much better off if I had known going in that I would have had to do that additional construction.

Mr. Okum said I understand your comment, but I think there is a win-win situation here. Obviously you are not going to meet the parking requirements, period. If you donít get that Sweeney property, and had to vacate the parallel parking on the side, the most I can find on here is 31 spaces. So there will have to be some give and take.

Mr. Galster said in the front parking lot if the striped out area becomes landscaped, for those first two spots that are closest to the front door, I would have to back into the incoming traffic. Iím a greenspace lover too, but in this situation with what is actually there, I donít know that is the better thing.

Mr. Shvegzda said there was a question I had about how the existing parking lot would be restriped, and I think I heard the applicant mention that the lot would be sealed and all new striping would go down. Mr. Graeter confirmed this.

Mr. Okum moved to continue the Conditional Use Permit hearing in progress until the next meeting. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion and by voice vote, all voted aye. The hearing will be continued on May 13, 2003

Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

B. Seasonal Deck Enclosure to be located 20í-4" from the property line of residence at 12178 Peak Drive

Mr. Vanover asked to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest because of the fact that I am employed by a competitor.

Steve Bell of Patio Enclosures, Inc. said Mr. Apke wishes to enclose his existing deck area on the rear of the home with a seasonal enclosure.

The color of the proposed siding on the screen between the condos will match the existing, which is a gray. Areas around there as close as next door, already have enclosures. The structure is made of aluminum and glass.

Ms. McBride reported that the property is PUD and it requires a 75-foot setback today (originally the development was approved with a 36-foot setback). Planning can determine if this is a minor departure from the approved plan.

The site plan indicates there is already an existing deck attached to the residence that is located less than 20 feet from the property line, and the patio enclosure would be adjacent to that, 20í-4" from the property line. The enclosure itself is to be 12í x 15í x 12í.


8 APRIL 2003



Ms. McBride stated that Planning Commission already has approved rear yard variances on adjacent buildings, one was for 24í-8" for the property at 12174 Peak Drive.

Mr. Okum said since this is a PUD, we are looking at an amendment to the plan. Is that the Fairfield property line? Mr. McErlane answered that is Springdale and the Glenmary Home Missions.

Mr. Sherry said we have a 36 foot requirement and you subtract 12í-6" from that; you should come up with 23í-6". Ms. McBride responded that the approved plan was for a 36-foot setback. The most recent submittal, which is not on the approved final development plan, requests a 20í-4" setback. Mr. Sherry responded so they built it not ion compliance with the original plan? Mr. McErlane responded possibly. There are no exact dimensions shown on the original plan. We are scaling 36 feet off the plan.

Mr. Galster asked about the clearing on the Glenmary property. Mr. Apke answered that it is overflow parking, the old tennis court that they turned into parking.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Galster if he considered this a major deviation from the original PUD and Mr. Galster indicated that he did not, and Mr. Vanover has abstained from the discussion.

Mr. Okum said I think for clarity, the motion should be structured to say that the enclosure shall be 12í-6" from the existing building and not refer to the setback from the property line since there is a discrepancy as to what that distance is.

So I would move that we approve the screen enclosure as presented that shall not exceed 12í-6" from the existing structure as an amendment to the PUD. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster asked about the other additions, stating that he only remembered one. Mr. McErlane reported that the majority of the other units are on the east side where the setbacks are 70 to 100 feet from the property line.

On the motion to approve all voted aye, and the enclosure was approved with six affirmative votes (Mr. Vanover did not participate).

C. Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Access Drive for the Proposed Commercial Development at 11601 Springfield Pike to Pass Over Residentially Zoned Property at 11649 Springfield Pike

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing.

Sue Eades, owner of the property at 11675 Springfield Pike said I donít know how I can ask a question when I havenít seen what has been proposed. You open the public hearing for about three minutes and then close it. Mr. Syfert reported that the public hearing would remain open as they make their presentation, and I will then ask again if there is anyone who wishes to speak.


8 APRIL 2003



Steve Kelley of Bear Creek Capital and representing CVS stated that the purpose of the hearing is for a Conditional Use Permit for a driveway crossing Bingís property. The driveway would cross this back portion and out onto State Route 4 facing the eastern portion of the site and is meant to serve the CVS.

There would be appropriate landscaping, and we feel that the access drive, although crossing a residential property, is actually going to service the Bing piece that is commercial and the CVS which is zoned PUD.

` Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is requesting this Conditional Use Permit to allow a residential zoned property to be used to access a non-residential zoned property.

They are proposing to build an access drive from the rear of the proposed CVS development through the property at 11649 Springfield Pike to Springfield Pike.

Referring to the aerial photo, Mr. McErlane indicated the only one residential portion of the property that the driveway crosses. Once you get closer to Springfield Pike, it is zoned General Business.

In addition to the driveway, there is a sign proposed where the drive intersects Springfield Pike. The sign is similar in construction to the two ground mounted signs that were approved in the preliminary plan for the CVS site itself. However, the overall sign is larger than those two signs at 58.5 s.f. and it includes a face in that sign for future tenant at 18 Ĺ square feet.

At previous Planning Commission meetings, we commented on that sign. Initially it indicated that if it were directional in nature it would need to be smaller than what was previously proposed. After that, we suggested combining that with an identification sign for the future development of the Bingís property. However, based on what is proposed, we donít believe that whoever develops Bingís would be interested in using that sign as a primary identification sign, considering the small face they have provided for it.

So, it is our recommendation that the sign be more directional in nature, a lot smaller and closer to what our maximum directional sign square footage should be, which is six square feet and four feet in height.

The drive lane widths on that driveway are 14 feet and the Zoning Code only allows 12 feet. I think the City Engineer will speak to the need for that as well.

There also is a requirement that driveways be a minimum of 10 feet from adjacent property lines, and the proposed driveway is approximately 6 Ĺ feet from the strip center property where Smyth and the alterations shop is located.





8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane reported that there will be variances required for: (1) an off-premise sign, and (2) that setback. There may be additional variances required for the off-premise sign with respect to size, depending on what is brought forward to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Ms. McBride stated that lighting for the access drive is proposed to be from high-pressure sodium fixtures mounted on 18-foot poles. We have been specific along the corridor in maintaining metal halide lighting so we would want to see that changed to metal halide.

Also, we have adopted lighting standards for the city, which indicates light heights in low intensity areas and we would consider this a low intensity area since it is back off the corridor behind that existing strip center. It dictates that it shall not exceed 15 feet in height and the actual mounting height of the figure needs to be revised accordingly.

They do indicate minimal landscaping for the access drive. One of Planning Commissionís concerns was that once the south end of that strip was exposed, to make sure it was adequately landscaped so that it was buffered from those people going northbound on Route 4. The same situation holds true for those people going southbound on Route 4. Once this access drive goes in, we would want to see landscaping along there to buffer the north end of that strip center. Also, that it rounds the corner from behind the strip center to make sure that there is no light spillage from any car lights, because there are adjacent residential properties to the northwest.

On the off-premise sign, we had hoped that there would be some kind of joint signage provided for any future redevelopment of the Bingís property. From the size and location of the panel proposed, I donít believe it would be of much use to any redevelopment of that parcel. In fact, it was the opinion of all staff that they be limited to directional signage at that location. We also would suggest that rather than being on a metal pole, it should be bricked in for aesthetics since this is the Route 4 Corridor.

We want to make sure that the covenants are very clear and that adequate provisions are provided for use of this access drive, not only by the owners of the Bingís property and its successors, but also by the owners of the adjacent strip center, Mr. Vitas.

Mr. Shvegzda said with the location of this drive on State Route 4, it would require approximately 100 feet of what is currently the southbound left turn lane for State Route 4 to be converted into a two way left turn lane, allowing the traffic northbound to be able to turn left into the proposed access drive.

Based on actual traffic counts for the peak hour, 325 feet is required for that southbound left turn lane. There currently is 400 feet of left turn lane existing on State Route 4.



8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Shvegzda added that since it is a two-way left turn lane, and we have seen this work in other locations in the City, if we do get a particular event that causes traffic to back up into the 325 feet and beyond it can queue up into that two way left turn lane to take care of that situation.

We need the applicant to verify the sight distance of southbound traffic coming from the left. The access drive is not only for the Bing property but also for the Vitas property (the strip center).

The drive is proposed at 28 feet and we recognize that this is in excess of what normally is allowed. However, looking at some of the truck turning templates on there, with the 90-degree curve in the back, that full width is necessary for the trucks to negotiate that.

The pavement section is now known and the vertical profile is now indicated. It currently shows the profile to start downward from the depressed curb on State Route 4 at 1.41%. To maintain the normal section through the walk apron section, it is a 6% slope up from the depressed curb. That maintains the consistent section through there and that needs to be adjusted.

We need additional details on the stationing and center line information on the plan. When you take into account the radius on either of the apron wings on State Route 4 at 110, put with the curb cut there, we think that taking into consideration that the truck normally turns left to make the right turn and can utilize the full width of the driveway, we can reduce the radiuses out on the apron and get that curb cut down to about 75 feet. We would like the applicant to investigate that further.

The access drive currently shows curbing only on the north or west side of the driveway, and we think it is important to have that on both sides.

On the drainage for the driveway, currently there is a proposed 12-inch culvert that goes from the southeast to the northwest and discharges upstream from the gravel parking area. We feel this will probably result in the deterioration of that gravel parking area and need to know if the property owner is aware of that and has any concerns or plans to modify that parking lot.

We need to have an agreement between the Bingís property owner and the applicant submitted so we can verify that there are provisions as to who will maintain the driveway and those types of issues.

In terms of the overall access permitted to the drive, it is our understanding that any redevelopment that may occur on the Eades and Biddle property would be via Cloverdale to the signalized access point on State Route 4. Therefore, this particular access point would not be a source of access for any redevelopment of those properties.

Mr. Okum said you are indicating that this would not be a primary drive for the redevelopment of the adjoining properties?


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, specifically the Eades and Biddle property. It wold be for redevelopment on the Bingís property, and it would allow access for the properties further to the west. Mr. Okum asked if it would provide access to the Vidas property and Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, it would provide that for the strip center as well as the Bingís property. Mr. Okum said so it would be for any property that touches this drive. Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, and even further than that, it would be for the properties to the west that are not adjacent to this drive.

Mr. Okum wondered how that would be handled; they would have to go across the back parcel of the Bingís property to get to that. Mr. Shvegzda answered that they would have to cross the CVS property to get to that. Mr. Okum said I see three parcels, Bingís, Vidas and CVS. Mr. Shvegzda responded if the properties to the west of the CVS property have access to CVS, once they are on CVS by rights they would have access to that north access drive.

Mr. Okum asked how the City would insure that would happen, and Mr. Shvegzda reported that it is included in the covenants in terms of access to the CVS property. Mr. Okum said but access to this driveway is not in the covenants, which is not on the CVS property.

Mr. Shvegzda said it says "CVS covenants agrees to enter into a shared access agreement to be approved by the City with the owners of such adjacent parcels provided the City causes access to be provided for the CVS across adjacent parcels."

Mr. Okum added I want to make sure that anybody that is attached to this driveway has cross access easement rights, and that should be in the covenants. That covenant was written for the PUD, excluding this conditional use driveway.

Mr. Shvegzda responded the point would be that once that traffic is allowed to enter onto the CVS property, CVS has rights to the access drive. We had initially considered that to be adequate to cover that additional driveway use.

Mr. Galster said for clarification, the next two properties to the west extend further, so it is possible that the drive could ess back to those properties and never get on CVS PUD property. He showed on the map how that could happen, adding that there is no guarantee that the cross traffic would necessarily run onto the PUD site of CVS, is there?

Mr. McErlane reported other than there is a commitment by CVS and we are going to try to extract a similar commitment to the developersí of those sites to provide cross access easements.

Mr. Galster said in the cross access agreement with the Bingís property owner, donít we have to allow not only for CVS but those other two properties?





8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane answered I donít know that we can force an agreement between Bingís and the adjacent property owners which is what you are talking about, but I think the property that accesses CVS from the western properties is covered by that covenant and agreements that we extract in the future development of those. Once the traffic is on CVSís property, they have rights to use that driveway, so we think we are covered from that standpoint.

Mr. Okum added getting back to my comment, some of them would never get on the CVS property. If they were on the Bingís property, they would access this driveway and go out onto Route 4. If they are on the Vidas property, and they have a cross access easement there, they never touch CVSís property. Mr. Shvegzda answered but we specifically addressed those. Mr. Okum said so if we have conditions set forth that they must give access to all traffic on the Bingís property and the Vidas property no matter where that traffic comes in, this driveway would have to allow that. So if the Bing's property decides they want to allow another development west of Bing's property to access into their property, they still would have access to that roadway.

Mr. McErlane said not directly and Mr. Galster added that they might have to be routed through CVS. Mr. McErlane added at this point I am not so sure that there is an agreement with the Vidas property. What the covenant says is that if the Vidas property is redeveloped there will be an effort made to cause cross access easements from that property with the CVS property as well. Mr. Galster added that still doesnít account for the drive. You are talking cross access to CVS, and not to this driveway. Mr. McErlane confirmed this. The rest of that property, the Bingís property is not a part of the PUD.

Mr. Okum added my feeling is that I want to make sure that adjacent properties to the Bingís property, if the Bingís property has access by cross access easement onto this driveway, those vehicles that are generated in that area may ultimately end up on this driveway.

Mr. Galster responded except for the fact that we are saying that we donít want to have the two to the north (Eades and Biddle property) to feed out on this road. We are excluding those two properties because, according to our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and our Corridor Review District, those are more residential long term in nature, and they would come out on Cloverdale and/or back through Smiley for their access.

Mr. Okum said on this drawing, we are showing a drive called light duty pavement going into that back parcel of the Bingís property. Mr. Galster responded only to the Bingís property and not any further than that.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said on your turning lanes off Route 4, if I am turning left to go north on Route 4, is there a merge lane for me to get into that doesnít force me into the two primary lanes? Mr. Shvegzda answered that there is the two-way left turn lane, which really isnít supposed to be used as a merge lane.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum said so if they come out there and people are coming out of the Bingís parking lot, they will fight for that two-way left turns lane. Mr. Shvegzda answered as much as they can fight since many of those parking spaces have to back directly out onto State Route 4.

Mr. Okum asked if restriping would be necessary there, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that we are looking at modifying the striping plan as part of the State Route 4 resurfacing that will occur this May. The striping can take place at that time, because it is thermoplastic, and we want it down right the first time.

Mr. Okum asked if there would be a dedicated north turn lane going northbound on Route 4 to get into this driveway? Mr. Shvegzda answered that it would be a length of the two-way left turn lane. There will not be an exclusive left turn lane for the northbound movement. Mr. Okum wondered why there would not be, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that because it is too close to a lot of other different areas for a sole left turn lane into that location. It also gives you the flexibility if the southbound left turn queue lane stacks up, it can utilize that to get out of the through lanes. That would be for the left turn onto Kemper Road.

Mr. Okum commented I see this as a primary access and exit point for this development. Do you see that as well? Mr. Shvegzda answered we hope so. The intent was that we could move that as far away from Kemper Road as physically possible to get out of the predominant queuing for the left turn traffic, and even the through traffic at Kemper Road.

Mr. Okum said the right turn in only access point that is closer to Kemper Road was originally to be vacated if this was granted. Is that right? Mr. Shvegzda answered that was the original comment, but we have since looked at it and had discussions, and feel that the right turn in is acceptable. We donít think it will be used that much since people mainly will utilize that first drive as they come in. Mr. Okum said if you can go around the corner, you turn right on red and turn right into the development, why bother to have it?

Mr. Shvegzda answered that from the applicantís standpoint, it was viewed as a secondary chance to enter the site if you missed the other location. Mr. Okum responded I would say turn right at the intersection and turn right at the entrance. I donít see a reason to continue to have that. I thought we were going to vacate it if we got the north driveway. We have four curb cuts into a single use development, possibly with the cross easements some additional uses. Vacating that was a part of the original PUD, wasnít it?

Mr. Kelley said we started to look at the entire intersection where other curb cuts were in the vicinity of Springfield Pike, and the right in seemed to be a movement that was permitted. It would not affect the traffic on Springfield Pike. Because of the removal and distance of CVS from the intersection, we think that is an important location for an access.



8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Kelley continued that the other thing that we did was come in here with CVSís comments and included a median on West Kemper Road to keep this a right in and right out access. It also prohibits the left turn very close to an intersection backup. We feel that this left turn into the site at the signal is the safer access. As you get closer to the intersection, you have a tendency to stop at that right in and it will prove to be a good access and a safe access. We have eliminated any of the conflicts that we would have long term. We really think this is a good improvement that will benefit the intersection. It is simpler and I think we studied that access onto State Route 4 quite well.

Mr. Okum said I understand what you are saying. I just donít see the need except that it gives you a place to put that second monument sign. I would prefer to see it vacated as was a part of the original PUD approval, but Iíll defer to the rest of the commission members.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Sherry said as I read your restriping plan, you are recommending no left turn access into the site northbound on Route 4 other than from the through lane. Mr. Shvegzda answered that traffic northbound at State Route 4 will not have an exclusive left turn lane, but they will have use of the two-way left turn lane to get out of the flow of through traffic for refuge to turn left.

Mr. Sherry said when you reduce the radius and width of the curb cut, will the trucks have to swing out into the second lane to access the site? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that realistically they probably would have had to do that to some extent even with the other radius that was in place. To have them turn into that particular drive without turning wide left to go right it would have to be considerably wider than shown here.

Mr. Sherry commented that there is a 7% vertical curve coming into this as part of the access drive. (Sheet C-4). Are you okay with that? Mr. Shvegzda responded that it would be at the point where you would be coming out at a low point, midway in the horizontal curve. It is 7%,m although on a major roadway you wouldnít have it that steep for a driveway. Mr. Sherry commented I think this is more than a driveway; this is a major access. That is why I was wondering if you were okay with it. Mr. Shvegzda answered that even if it were a roadway, it certainly would be at a lesser speed, 25 m.p.h. and with that particular grade it would be acceptable.

Mr. Sherry said I donít recall a wall along the east side of the property. Has that been added as part of this new access drive? Mr. Shvegzda answered without the access drive it wasnít there to that extent, but I think it was always there adjacent to the Vidas property. Mr. Kelley confirmed this. It has gone a little bit farther with this latest proposal.

Mr. Galster said we were talking about the monument sign on Kemper Road and one on the corner. Originally the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to move the one off the corner and closer to the access drive on Route 4.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Galster added that now that the actual main access drive is all the way back at the Bingís property, and I understand staffís comments about too many monument signs, it seems to me that the one at the corner needs to be moved down by that main access drive. And, if you want to have a small directional sign, it should be at this right in only. I think there are advantages to you and advantages to the City by doing that. I donít see who would benefit from this corner monument sign. If that corner monument sign is moved down by this access drive, I am more comfortable with that.

Mr. Kelley responded as far as the conditional use plan on the access drive, which we started to talk about, is that tied into the signage or the PUD? Mr. Galster responded it crosses both. I donít want to have a conditional use and allow the signage there as a monument sign to create three monument signs. I think the monument sign, if it is there as a part of the conditional use and you still would need to get a variance for an off-site sign, Iíd like to see it there rather than on the corner.

Mr. Kelley commented maybe it would be appropriate. I do have Charley Schalliol Skagnolli here with North American Signs to go through this identification sign that we think is appropriate at this full access, and the thought and logic behind for the signage at this entrance. We have worked for months with the PUD to try to get the signage to fit and complement the intersection.

Mr. Galster responded I agree with what he is going to say, and I agree with what you are saying that is where a decent size monument sign should be because it is one of your main and probably the main access point and is probably where it should be. My question is if in the Conditional Use, I approve the monument sign there, I donít want to have the monument sign at the corner, because I donít think that would attract anybody into your site. I think it just becomes a piece of advertising.

Mr. Kelley answered I agree with what you are saying too. My only issue with that is that we have spent a lot of time and energy with what White Castle has, and everything is going to balance. I think maybe there should be something there.

Mr. Galster responded I have no problem with a directional sign back at the right in only, but not a monument sign at the corner. The people coming southbound will catch it at the main entrance. Once you have passed it, you still will have a directional for your second entrance. There is nobody who will see that corner sign that will allow them to get into your site.

Mr. Kelley answered that we have a curve in the road and originally the thought was that it would add its angle. It wouldnít necessarily be a sign straight on the intersection, because we have signage on the building, but it would be signage that would attract your attention to get into the access. Mr. Galster said not if it is way down at the corner.




8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Galster said let me restate my question, and maybe you can give me a yes or no. Staff comments right now say put a directional sign up at your new entrance, and I agree with you that it should be a monument sign. But I think that the monument sign at the corner becomes nothing more than an advertisement, and it doesnít do anything to help the flow of the traffic, to identify the entrances or anything else. I believe if in fact we go against staffís wishes and put a monument sign out there, the monument sign that you show on the corner should be exchanged for a directional sign that is actually closer to the right in only entrance.

Mr. Kelley asked what he called a directional sign, and Mr. Galster answered the same thing that staff is recommending you have at your main entrance point.

Charley Schalliol of North American Signs said I understand that the signage has been a hot point. We are seeing the corner sign as more of an identification tool to the motorists who come to the intersection of Kemper and Route 4. It mirrors the design of the White Castle. If you are sitting at that corner, you will see the White Castle and their two monument signs. What we are trying to do is identify our property, not mark any entrances. It is a soft-lit sign to identify the property. If you are sitting at this intersection, you will not see the sign on Kemper Road. Mr. Galster said if I am sitting at that intersection, I am looking at your building. Mr. Schalliol agreed adding that you are not seeing the entrance.

Mr. Galster said maybe I should clarify. Iím not going to approve three monument signs for your site. My question is in order to put the monument sign where it should be, which is at your main entrance, and thatís one of them, where are you going to put the other one? Mr. Kelley indicated where on the drawing, and Mr. Galster said then that is where you would want to put the other one, and that means that the corner one goes away, because you are only going to get two monument signs.

Mr. Huddleston said I would like to eliminate the right in only off southbound Springfield Pike, which was part of our original discussion. Since we are tying a PUD to a Conditional Use Permit on a separate lot, at that point perhaps we could propose that the signage that the applicant would be given would be two monument signs, one at the westernmost Kemper Road entrance, and one at the northernmost Springfield Pike entrance, and eliminate the right in only.

Mr. Kelley responded when we looked at the corridor, there is a full access on Pear Street, there is access on Kemper Road in this direction. We started looking at these distances and where these accesses were. If you say we have four intersections, we have gone to great lengths to get an appropriate access, and we feel this is very appropriate. It is the least objectionable access that we can have, the right in.






8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Kelley added that the CVS building is a great distance off Springfield Pike, so this is a very important access. To say that this isnít an important access to this project is not correct Ė it is. It is not a square site and is very removed, so this is very important to the development and I think it is a good safe access to the property and to the parking fields.

Mr. Huddleston responded all that having been said, I differ with your opinion. I feel strongly that you are proposing four entrances into one development site. We are conceding that we will give you a Conditional Use Permit to do the northbound driveway off Springfield Pike. You have enough signage between the monument signs and the building signs that I could close my eyes and not miss the project, especially with the elevation changes. Again, I apologize, but I feel very strongly and I would like to see this project if we are prepared to grant the Conditional Use Permit, Iíd like to see a monument sign at your westernmost Kemper Road entrance and at your northernmost Springfield Pike entrance, and eliminate both the entrance sign as well as the entrance at the right turn only.

Mr. Schalliol said to respond to your comments, traditionally CVS likes to go into a community and put up the biggest and best sign package they can. However, they want this site so bad they can taste it. Itís not CBSís favorite sign anyway and would cost an arm and a leg to build, so I have no problem with the elimination of the sign on the corner. You are right Ė if you are sitting at the corner, you will see both our wall signs. They do have landscaping in the corner, but you still will be able to see the signs through the trees.

I do agree with your statement that we should have the monument sign on the Springfield Pike entrance. That is probably the best thing, considering the fact that people arenít going to turn into the corner. We want to keep people away from the corner if possible and keep them on Kemper Road, into that entrance or in the Springfield Pike entrance.

I have a copy of the sign we are proposing in color (you have a black and white copy in your packet) and we do have an agreement with the owner of Bingís saying that when that is redeveloped, the people who are redeveloping the property will not have their own free standing sign. They will be allowed to go on the sign that we are proposing. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. Galster said so we can move from the conditional use part and back into the actual plan, I want to clarify that on the signage there would be two monuments total, one would be on the west site, one would be on the north site and there wold be no corner monument. Mr. Schalliol confirmed this. Mr. Galster continued that I am okay with the signage issue in reference to the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Huddleston added my stipulation would be that the right in driveway also would be eliminated. Thatís not part of the Conditional Use Permit, but part of the PUD.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Galster commented I think what you are saying is that because they are so intertwined, you may not want to grant the Conditional Use Permit if in fact that other one is still open.

Mr. Kelley added we have studied this, and there is a similar right in drive going into the UDF that is even a little closer to the access. This location is not a full access, and we have brought it down, and I donít think there is any real impact on the right in only at that location. We have worked for months trying to bring this project together and I think it is a viable and safe access for this development, and we would like to keep it.

Mr. Vanover said I agree with Mr. Okum and Mr. Huddleston on that right in. You keep talking about the curb cut on the property across the street. . That property across the street is a multiple occupancy user. There will be three occupants on it, and you are a single user on this property, so you are not comparing apples to apples.

I appreciate the move that you made, but you realize as well as we do that the northern driveway is made for your property because with the elevation change and the way it sets, you are looking at your property right there.

I strongly feel that not only do we not need the right in as you head south into the Kemper intersection, but it also adds to complications, because you will get people who want to jump the curb coming across to cut into there instead of going to a safer approved entrance.

You have three entrances onto that property that will work perfectly, and I think that right in there actually compounds the traffic flow on the interior. Coming in you have a y and you are feeding three different directions into each other. The driveway could be done away with and the development wonít suffer at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with the two monument signs and as a matter of fact the way that the sign on the corner was angled, it was of no benefit.

Ms. McBride said if the commission is going to be swapping around signs, we need to be very clear what signs we are swapping around. Are you recommending to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they approve as an off premise sign the ground-mounted sign that the applicant submitted for that location, which exceeds the height requirements of our corridor district (eight feet) instead of the seven feet permitted with the additional tenant panel below the CVS? Or, are you recommending approval of the ground-mounted that we had at the intersection moved up to the north, with the inclusion/without the inclusion of an additional panel for a future tenant on the Bingís property? I want to make sure that your recommendation to the BZA is clear and if in fact you are going to eliminate that sign at the corner.




8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Schalliol responded for clarification, the only reason that it is eight-foot is because we added the panel underneath. The sign proposed at the corner originally would not work at the major access point and with the design of that sign we would have no way to encompass the tenant panel and that is the only way we are going to get the sign at that entrance anyway. So, we are respectfully requesting the opportunity to utilize this signage and eliminate the one at the corner.

Mr. Okum said the sign which has four information boards and a CVS sign meets our standards at seven feet high with a base, so there is no reason you canít do your tenant panel and a CVS Pharmacy sign at the alternate access drive. I donít care how you arrange it. If you fit that much information on a sign, you certainly should be able to do a tenant panel and CVS on the alternate access drive.

Since we are talking the Conditional Use Permit, I strongly would request that planning Commission hold to the original plan approval for the elimination of that driveway if the alternate access drive was granted. That was approved on the original plan, and for us to say it wonít traffic, it is still a curb cut, and it is not needed.

To allow them to move a primary monument sign to this access drive, which I think is a recommendation of Planning Commission to BZA, conditioned on Board of Zoning Appealís approval, they would eliminate a driveway that they were supposed to eliminate originally. So the applicant is getting more than they would have gotten, because our City Planner has recommended not to allow a monument sign at that access driveway.

In the spirit of making things work, Planning Commission has agreed that if you live up to the original agreement of the PUD, to eliminate that driveway and youíll get a monument sign, conditional on BZA approval, on that north entrance, that access drive. I think it is a win-win.

Mr. Kelley responded that it is not about trying to get more or less than we deserve. We are trying to redevelop a corner which was a towing station with a lot of cars on it, and we have had to deal with a ret ail building We are very far away from Springfield Pike. We think we have a very good site there, and we have worked with staff for months and I do believe this is important.

When we step back and look at it, you are right; we were supposed to eliminate it. We started looking at this access, this reality and the flow. We do think that the flow over here into this parking field is important, and that the right in to CVS and away from the access is going to be a good secondary safe access to the project.

I donít have a problem with moving this down, but I would tell Planning Commission that this is an important access. I wouldnít really say that if this were a normal site and we had an access along here somewhere. We have a building with a lot of landscaping that will look good, and this access will help the project and serve this development.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum said I understand your position, but first of all CVS is a destination business. It doesnít matter whether you have one huge 75-foot wide driveway that gets you into your business, or three. As long as a person can easily navigate into a parking field to get to the business, they are going to.

My feeling is that in exchange for allowing a monument sign on the north entrance, which is a benefit to CVS, you are living up to what you originally were going to do in vacating that driveway.

Mr. Kelley responded that this access comes into the back, and will benefit Springdale and the future development. Weíre going to build it and maintain it. Weíre going to do all that and it comes into the back of our building. We would like to have an access on State Route 4 that gets us into the parking field. Yes, it is a good access, and we think it helps the development, but it comes to the back of the site. It goes to the back of this building. If we had a better site plan to deal with, we would have it in a different location. This will supplement what this would have delivered to us on a typical site. There has been a lot of give and take on what we have done here and with this being very removed, coming back in between two buildings, we think it is valuable and important. Per the staff comments, and with the lights the grades and landscaping, weíre all for that, but I do think a safe right in would be appropriate for this development. I really do, and I would ask that Planning Commission consider that.

Mr. Huddleston commented that one of the main problems that I have with the right in only access is number one, that we agreed that if you got the northernmost access, it would be eliminated. Just as importantly, we are encircling the strip center property. We donít if when or how that would be redeveloped. Also, you are actually starting a turn movement in front of a property you donít even own or control, and I have a serious problem with that in addition to the fact that we have four access points to one lot. I would not vote for the Conditional Use Permit with the right in only.

Mr. Schalliol said in response to Mr. Okumís comment on the sign being too tall, I have no problem dropping down to the code allotted height and the 48 s.f. on the Kemper side. Do we have to have the tenant panel now, or can it be added later? As it was just stated, we donít know how long it will take to redevelop that property. Why have an empty panel at the bottom of a sign that I donít think is aesthetically pleasing and would not be utilized by anybody.

Instead of doing that, would it be in the Commissionís CVSí and the Cityís interests to approve a sign at the seven-foot height, and 48 s.f. Then when and if the Bingís site is redeveloped, we would be permitted to add a tenant panel to that.

The reason we are adding the tenant panel to the identification sign is because the tenant on the Bingís property would not have their own. By encompassing that tenant panel onto the CVS sign, we are eliminating a freestanding sign. It would raise the sign one-foot to eight feet, but it still would be eliminating seven feet of signage.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Schalliol added that we donít know how long it would take for the site to be redeveloped, and when it would come to be, I am sure that CVS would foot the bill for it, because they are footing the bill for the entire access.

Mr. Galster said if in fact you have an agreement with Bingís that they go on that sign, does that mean that they will not have a monument sign and eliminate their existing pole sign?

Mr. Schalliol responded that it is my understanding that if the site is redeveloped in anyway, the site has to come into conformity, is that correct? Mr. Galster confirmed this. Mr. Schalliol continued so by doing that, the pole sign would have to come down anyway. They would be allowed a monument sign, but it is my understanding that we have entered into an agreement with Bingís that they would not allow whoever purchases that land to have their own free standing sign. They would have to incorporate their freestanding identification into our sign.

Mr. Kelley reported that our agreement is one per access, we build the roads and we pay for the access easement and the sign easement, because of the feedback we got from the Planning Commission, we were to put a common sign at this location. We were going to put one in for CVS and they would have a channel for future development, and we would pay for it all. We received an easement from Bingís owners to place that sign. Bingís doesnít have any plans to do anything immediately, and I donít think they would have an issue with just the CVS there.

Mr. Galster said they havenít signed an agreement with you that if they have access on this sign, they wonít require any additional signage on this site, is that correct? In this agreement with you, they have not said, you provide us with access on your sign so that we donít have to have any other sign on this site. Mr. Kelley answered that this has been the sign panel that would be used for their redevelopment. That is proposedÖMr. Galster said in your agreement, that that is the complete and total signage for them.

Mr. Kelley added that this is the sign for CVS and this is the sign for whatever occurs here. There also is an identification sign.

Mr. Galster commented I am just debating the one-foot versus another monument sign if in fact it is tied down well enough in your agreement so it would in fact happen. I think you still have a major issue with your right in, however.

Mr. Okum said for clarification, you are saying fill the sign with CVS for now. Later on if they redevelop it, in your agreement with them, reface the existing size sign with the split panel.

Mr. Schalliol responded Iíd love to go bigger. Mr. Okum responded you would love to have that extra foot to add the tenant panel. Mr. Schalliol added that what we would like to do is raise the existing box that the CVS would be on, because the sign that we are proposing now at the north entrance, which is the same one that we were proposing, minus the extensive brickwork, at the corner.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Schalliol added that what we would like to do is when a tenant comes, raise the sign up and put the tenant panel under our existing. As you said, CVS is a destination orientation, and weíre going to be the economic survival of that corner.

Mr. Okum said your thinking is that you would want to add a panel and I think there would be an argument with a potential tenant who has a pretty significant space there that they would want more sign space than one foot by eight foot-five inches. I canít predetermine that, but we are talking three parcels here, the Bingís existing building parcel, the parcel between the two Bingís and the parcel behind Bingís. You only really have control of the parcel between Bingís and the back parcel. You are not involved with the Bingís building itself.

Mr. Kelley answered that the Conditional Use Permit is just for the part that is residential. Mr. Okum added so there still would be another monument sign for the Bingís parcel, whether they consolidate the parcels or not, no matter what.

Mr. Kelley commented that there are a lot of ways this could develop, and whatever we do, we probably need to have some flexibility. I think Springdale will forever impose restrictions on whatever is developed there.

Mr. Okum responded what I am saying is that the situation is whether you give Bingís the right for that one foot by eight foot five panel or not, they still have the right of a monument sign on their development in the future. For now, for you to full face that whole sign with the CVS and then later on reduce that CVS sign would be your option. I donít see the City saying you can kick the box up and add another foot to it. I donít see that happening. If you are going to put the sign there, it is a win for you. Moving it from the corner is a good decision, because I donít think you are going to get any real advantage by the placement on the corner. If we are going to be carrying this Conditional Use Permit forward, I would be making a motion to eliminate the driveway as part of the conditions, plus the additional items recommended by staff, and relocate the sign at Springfield Pike and Kemper Road (M-50) to this access drive, conditioned upon Board of Zoning Appeals approval.

Mr. Schalliol said so you are saying that we can have the whole sign right now but when the other tenant comes along we will have to split up the existing panels.

Mr. Okum answered right. Whatever way you want to divide that sign up is your decision.

Mr. Syfert said the public hearing is still open. Would anyone present wish to address Planning Commission?

Sue Eades, 11675 Springfield Pike said I have a list, which I have divided in two sections, questions and concerns as this relates to my property. Some of the questions already have been answered



8 APRIL 2003



Mrs. Eades said I donít mean my first question to be arrogant, but I would like to know how a project of this magnitude has reached this point before I as a resident of this community knew anything about it. The first I knew was when I received the letter last week informing me of this meeting. This is for my own information so that if anything else comes along in the community that would impact my property, and me I can be aware of it.

Mr. Galster said originally when the project came forward and was designated as a Planned Unit Development, it came to Planning Commission and then went to Council for preliminary plan review and to establish the PUD. That was advertised in the local papers.

There was a public hearing at Council, and adjacent property owners received a letter concerning the zoning change but you are not an adjacent property owner.

Mrs. Eades wondered why she got the letter this time, and Mr. Galster answered that you are an adjacent property owner to a piece of property that presently zoned residential that this is going to affect. Right now this will affect the lot behind Bingís that is zoned residential, and you are an adjacent property owner to that lot.

Mrs. Eades wondered if the drive was two way, and Mr. Syfert indicated that it was.

You keep talking about crossing residential property. Is residential property what is behind that strip mall? Mr. Galster said it is the lot behind the gravel parking lot.

Mrs. Eades commented that there is a small roadway that goes down by Bingís now. Will this access road be further north? Mr. Galster said yes, and the access road will replace that gravel area that goes out to Route 4. Mrs. Eades asked if the gravel area used for parking will remain, and Mr. Galster answered that there is nothing that says that the gravel will be changed. Mr. Vanover said the owner is the owner of Bingís and they use it. Mr. Okum commented they donít need it any more because there will be access to that gravel area off the new drive, but the gravel drive doesnít need to be there. Mrs. Eades commented that gravel area impacts my property big time.

Will the access road have lights? Mr. Galster said yes, and Mrs. Eades wondered if CVS were a 24-hour operation and Mr. Kelley answered that presently it will not be a 24-hour operation.

Mrs. Eades said is the access road absolutely necessary to do this project, other than the fact that CVS wants this. Is it imperative to have this in and out with what you have on Kemper Road and is there an entrance off Springfield Pike?

Mr. Galster answered that is what we are debating right now. Originally the site had right in-right out and different access points that werenít flowing real well. It is the desire of at least me as a Planning member and a Council member to try to relieve some of that congestion at the corner trying to enter that lot.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Galster added that there is a benefit to having that, yes, but not as big a benefit to some of the other members who think that because that access drive is permitted, there should have been additional closures of other access drives that would have continued to help it more and as it was agreed upon originally.

Mrs. Eades commented Iíd like to see the access road eliminated. Mr. Galster said there are major planning benefits to take all those curb cuts off that intersection. Mrs. Eades commented I can see the problem at the corner.

Where are your trucks going to make deliveries; are they going to be up and down this access road?

Mr. Kelley answered that they would access off State Route 4 using this access drive to come in and they would leave on Kemper Road or they could exit the same access road.

Is there any kind of buffer planned, a fencing or natural buffer? I am concerned about the lights. I own the property next to this access road.

Mr. Kelley said that what we are showing on the drawing and one of the things that staff has asked for is to have plantings and trees. Mrs. Eades said that is good, especially if we could do it in a natural way

My whole point of coming tonight was to gain information and to go on record with some of my concerns.

Ted Vidas said I own the Smyth property. The only concern I have with this access is that presently I have parking in the back of the building. Do you intend to close that private drive? Mr. Syfert answered no. Mr. Galster added my point was that the access drive would now provide the access into the gravel parking lot that is behind Bingís. Mr. Okum said for clarity, the gravel driveway that Mr. Vidas uses to get to the rear of his property will remain. Mr. Syfert answered yes.

Mr. Kelley said as I understand this access, one of the things we are talking about is the fact that this would also be a multi-use access in the future for Bingís and us.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Okum said there were some trees affected by this driveway. What about replacement? Mr. McErlane reported that as the plan shows now, they are not intending to impact that one 48-inch tree. Mr. Kelley confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said on the lighting issues, what type of fall could we expect? You were showing higher poles, and Ms. McBride has brought them down, but that doesnít change the intensity of the lights. Can we set a 0 fall at the property lines and non-glare?


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Kelley answered I think we can achieve that and we are more than willing to make it a 15 foot height. We will work with staff to achieve that and be sensitive to the neighbors. If we need to make sure that the fixtures are inside the box so there isnít any problem.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit on the specified property. This variance will have the following conditions:

    1. That all exterior lighting shall be non-glare type lighting to be designed so as not to adversely affect the adjoining property owners and/or the public right of way;
    2. All lighting shall have less than 0 fall at the property lines;
    3. Pole lights shall be downlit non glare type with flat lenses set within the case;
    4. Light fixtures and pole shall be the same color as the approved PUD, 15í high pole with metal halide lighting;
    5. Landscaping conditions shall include City Plannerís comments and recommendations and final approval for this specific area;
    6. Traffic and street improvements shall include the city engineerís recommendations for cross access easement rights to all connecting properties;
    7. The elimination of the second southernmost Springfield Pike entrance in the approved PUD area;
    8. The M-50 sign shall be relocated to the access drive conditional upon the Board of Zoning Appealsí approval for an off-premise sign at that location.
    9. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

      Ms. McBride asked if the commission wished to include anything about an additional tenant panel; what happens when that property develops?

      Mr. Okum responded that I think that is a condition that they have to live with under their agreement for rights. We couldnít control the other Bingís property anyway Ms. McBride responded but you can with this property and the property to the rear of that. Mr. McErlane and I have been looking, and believe that sign may actually be on the property with the Bingís building. You also need to be specific in terms of square footage and height of the sign.

      Mr. Okum said I will modify my motion to add:

    10. Sign shall include within its 40.5 s.f. per side future development space.
    11. Mr. McErlane added that the question would be whether or not that should be a condition of the variance, that the sign is the only sign available for redevelopment of that lot (in terms of freestanding signs).






      8 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Kelley asked if that were for the properties to the west? Ms. McBride responded that if there were properties to the west that were going to put a sign out there, that would be another off premise sign and would have to come back to the board for a variance.

      Mr. Okum added that we really are only talking about the Bingís parcels.

      Ms. McBride added that the other item you would want to include is that the sign base should be landscaped as was originally proposed and approved at the corner. Mr. Okum said one of my conditions was that all landscaping for this site must be approved by you.

      Mr. McErlane added that one more condition would be the requirement for a variance for the driveway width and the setback, so the motion should be conditional on their acquiring those variances.

      Mr. Okum said I will modify my motion to include:

    12. That setback and driveway width shall be conditioned upon BZA approval;
    13. The landscaping shall be maintained at all times, as per the original PUD.

Mr. Vanover seconded the modified motion.

All voted aye, and the Conditional Use Permit was approved with conditions.

    1. Final PUD Development Plan Ė CVS Pharmacy (tabled March 11, 2003

Mr. Shvegzda reported that one of the questions was how the detention overflow would work, and it now will be contained within the principal pipe that will discharge from the underground detention and discharge through that level spreader arrangement.

The volume modifications to the release rate have been added to compensate for the north access drive. We have a few details to work out with the applicant, but the basic issues are resolved.

On the storm sewer along Kemper Road to the southwest, it now graphically shows that as it crosses over it is within the 10-foot storm sewer easement along Kemper Road.

The plans further indicate that the modular retaining wall that will go underneath and remain in place will be reconstructed to the west of their site. The portion of it that is on their site will be removed.

There was a question regarding the drainage pattern that exists at the bottom of the proposed wall between the CVS site and the adjacent strip center. We needed clarification to insure that there was positive drainage from that area.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Shvegzda reported that with the elimination of the curb cuts on State Route 4, it modifies the condition that is there and we would look at some portion of the planned streetscape to be modified. Perhaps some of that could be constructed along with the development.

There was a sidewalk that paralleled that drive off State Route 4. We needed to insure that was all on their property and they indicated that it was by 1/10th of a foot. So, we now wonít have to parallel that driveway, but we still recommend that a pedestrian access point be provided in that location. It now can be moved further away from the north property line.

The east drive to Kemper Road is a right in right out. It always has been that, and it now has been modified because of the inclusion of a three-foot wide raised concrete median on Kemper Road that will physically prohibit the left turns into that location. The site plan now shows the basic plans for widening Kemper Road to allow for the inclusion of the three-foot median.

There is one concern, which involves the transition, the westbound movement flaring out to that additional width that is required for the three-foot median. It is insufficient; at least 80 foot is required which puts us into the radius at the corner. With that in mind we would request that the width remain constant, that we not transition out and redo a portion of that radius. That will mean reconfiguring part of the pavers that are already there, but we think it is worthwhile to have that uniform width.

The slope of the proposed drives is not indicated on the plans and we need to have that detail.

Future cross access easements will be provided for the properties in redevelopment to the west and to the north. The access drive to the north should provide access to the existing strip center.

We need clarification on maintenance which should be handled in the covenants or providing the actual agreement with the Bingís property owner.

The area at the southeast corner of the site (Kemper and State Route 4) which is indicated to provide a landscape easement to the city for further inclusion of the streetscape areas. It is our intent to put together the legal description and easement for that applicantís signature and the City will record it.

On Sheet LS-1 there is one tree that is in the landscape area, which will have to be moved. It is only within it by a couple of feet, so it should not be a problem. On LS-2 a sprinkler head is indicated in that same easement area which also will have to be moved out of that area.

Since we donít have all that finalized in terms of easement agreement, the covenants will need to include language committing the applicant to providing that easement.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Shvegzda reported that since that site consists of several lots, there would have to be a consolidation plan to eliminate the lot lines.

Mr. Okum said I am thinking of myself turning going northbound on Route 4 and turning left on Kemper. Does the throat of that wide barrier curb seem awfully narrow? I donít know the width of that pavement, but I see cars driving over the top of that barrier curb on Route 4. Three foot wide is awfully wide, and it seems if you look at this, you are narrowing down into an awfully small opening. Itís only a single lane.

Mr. Shvegzda responded first of all the three foot width on the median is the optimum width to allow the "Keep Right" sign to be placed on there so it has sufficient protection from the cars.

As far as to the east of where the median is, that was part of our comment, to continue the widening of Kemper Road, the same offset from the center line into the radius, so it will be wider there, and it will be at least 14 feet, because we have the median width of three feet plus at least 11 feet of the existing lane. Mr. Okum said so there will be a 14-foot wide lane for us to channel into to turn left.

So your recommendation is that where there was a right in only access that has been eliminated by the Conditional Use Permit, a pedestrian access point be there.

Mr. Sherry wondered if this median was like the one in front of the BP Station, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that it is very similar. The one at BP is narrower because we had to configure it within the width that was there. At that location it worked. Here they need to widen the road in order to accommodate the three feet. On the north side of the road, 95% of that curbing is all new as a part of this development.

Mr. McErlane said this property (1.71 acres) was rezoned Planned Unit Development October 2, 2002. The plan still shows the same square footages that we reviewed at the preliminary plan stage and the same number of parking spaces, 57 with three handicapped.

There are lighting fixture cut sheets that were submitted and they do show flat lens cutoff type fixtures.

The landscaping plan has been revised from the preliminary plan to show that they satisfactorily meet the tree replanting requirements.

There has been one change from the preliminary plan that has impacted some trees. Previously there were three walnut trees shown in the right of way on Kemper Road. At the request of the city engineer, the sidewalk will be placed in the right of way along the northern side of Kemper Road, which will impact two of the trees.





8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane added that one of the things we suggested was that the applicant work with the city engineer in configuring the alignment of the walk in the vicinity of those two trees to see if we could save at least one of them. We think one is far enough out of the sidewalk that it can still remain.

In the preliminary plan, Planning Commission indicated that all four elevations need to have an equal finish, including stucco treatment, and the current plans have been modified to reflect that.

In the preliminary plan, Planning Commission indicated that spandrel glass was required in the blanked out areas of windows at the main entrance and our recommendation is that the spandrel glass color should match the glazing system. It is really up to Planning Commission whether or not they feel it should be a dark color or lighter color. The typical blanked out areas that are shown on other locations are white, and I donít know that spandrel glass with a lighter background would look a whole lot different than the blanked out white areas.

There was a condition in the preliminary plan stage that the 20-foot distance and the buffer planting requirements be maintained along that west line. They have maintained it for a distance of 50 feet and then toward the south end of the site, it reduces down to 10 feet at the north end and where the drive through for the pharmacy is located it is reduced down to 6 Ĺ feet. In those reduced areas they show a six-foot high shadowbox fence. We have received a letter from the adjacent property owner indicating that he has no problem with the reduced setback, particularly since it doesnít occur where the existing residence is located on the adjacent site.

We do have a few comments on the covenants; they are cleanup items. Right now Exhibit, A which is attached to the property, is an illustration. We raised the question to our law director as to whether or not that should be a legal description of the property, which is typically what we would see as an exhibit. We also ant to make sure that paragraph 7 which deals with cross access easements includes the Vidas property, that if it were redeveloped in the future, it would be another property that we would encourage cross access easements for.

I have talked with the law director, and he has indicated that there probably are a few little cleanup items that are necessary in the covenants, and he suggests that any approval include working out those final issues with the law director. He asked that the applicant give him a contact person.

Mr. Okum commented that there is a wall on the west side where it narrows down to 6.5 feet. Are they going to build that fence on top of the wall where it narrows down? Mr. McErlane responded it would be on top of the wall. The fence is almost directly behind the curb. Mr. Okum added and that fence is like a broken fence Ė eight feet and then trees. Mr. Kelley said it is a shadowbox fence. Mr. Okum said I donít like a shadowbox fence that runs straight across the whole property in one solid wall.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. McErlane reported that it picks up in the area of the drive through. In the area where the 20 feet is maintained, there is no fence.

Mr. Okum said so from the parking lot you will see a solid fence all the way across. Ms. McBride added that if you have 6 Ĺ feet, you canít put plantings on both sides. Mr. Okum suggested evergreens between sections of fence to give you some type of break. Ms. McBride responded that you still would have gaps where the evergreens need the space to grow. The intent is if you are going to reduce that from 20 to 6 Ĺ feet, youíd better make sure you maintain the integrity of the buffer as best you can in that 6 Ĺ feet, and that includes the construction of a solid fence. Itís the only way you can do it.

Mr. Okum responded but donít we have a solid fence all the way along that property? Ms. McBride answered no. The other part of the fence on the southern part of the site is where it narrows down below the 20 feet.

Mr. Sherry said when we approved this in the preliminary stage, there was a discussion about their being short on parking. Now that this south entrance drive has been eliminated, how will that be reconfigured? Mr. McErlane responded that it appears that two to three spaces could be provided where that driveway is being eliminated. Fifty-seven is what Planning and Council approved, but that is a minimum. Mr. Sherry commented I think you can get more than two or three if you create a line along the north edge of the old drive; you might be able to create ten. Mr. Kelley stated I donít think we need any more parking spaces; 57 is a good number for this development.

Mr. Galster said to clarify the ground sign calculations, it is 40.6 per monument sign, and you are talking about two. Mr. McErlane reported that the one indicated on the Bingís property is the larger sign, but it only calculated the sign face that was shown. Mr. Galster added that your ground sign is now only at Kemper Road, and the sign on Bingís is not a part of this PUD so the ground sign is only 40.6. Mr. Galster said so the total is 245.4, for building signage and the ground sign. Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding if you donít count what is on Bingís property.

Mr. McErlane said Iím not sure where those building elevations came from, because those show additional wall signs. However, the ones in our packet donít show those.

Ms. McBride reported that the issue still remains about the west property line buffer area. Twenty feet is required and that was a condition of the approval so the Commission needs to determine that they should vary from that. We do have a letter from the property owner indicating that the 6.5 feet is all right, and the Commission needs to make the determination that it is acceptable.

They did revise the landscaping plan to address all the Cityís comments.



8 APRIL 2003



Ms. McBride said that with the actions that have happened tonight, I would like to add some recommendations. One is that the area where the sign was going to be at the corner should be landscaped. Secondly, you were talking about adding additional parking where that access drive was. The applicant has indicated that they donít need any more parking spaces, and I agree with him. I would suggest that those eight spaces be shifted to the north so that the increased green area appears at the corner of Route 4 and Kemper Road. Thirdly, we would suggest a continuation of the street treatment across the entire frontage on Springfield Pike, so that there is no break for where that curb cut was proposed.

Planning had asked for more details on that six foot solid wood fence and they provided photographs of the shadowbox fence that is proposed. They have a 42-foot section of fence on the southern part of the western property line. That is an area where it is below the required 20 feet. Staff would recommend that the 42-foot section of fence be taken away and replace it with additional landscaping.

We have asked for the materials on the gates on the dumpster and we havenít received them, so now we are just saying that it will be black metal.

The photometric lighting plan needs to be revised. The high-pressure sodium lights will be replaced with metal halide lighting at the same light levels as represented on the submitted plan.

Signage is approved for the sign without that M-50 sign on the corner, and that should be included in any motion.

The plans that you have been looking at also do not show one additional curb cut that exists today, the southern curb cut for the Vidas property.

Ms. McBride added that the City Administration wants to make sure that the easement language provides for us to locate street furniture or other features that we may feel appropriate within that area.

Mr. Okum said there has been a lot of discussion on the screening of the side of the Vidas building because it is basically a white wall. The trees that they have planted are sunset maples, which is a pretty tree but during the fall and winter when the leaves are down we will see that white wall again. I thought we talked about this at the last meeting.

Ms. McBride said we did, and we repeated similar type comments on the conditional use on the north side of the building. Mr. Okum said and I incorporated that into the motion, but that white wall is still untreated.

Mr. Kelley responded I donít know what to do about the white wall. It is a building that we will buffer it, but it is a commercial use and we are a commercial use. I donít think we are looking to buffer a building that Planning Commission doesnít like the appearance of.



8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum responded I understand what you are saying, but those were my original comments on the preliminary and final, that there needed to be some massing of some type of plantings against that side of that building. I havenít changed that position. I understand that you have done a fairly decent job on your landscaping, that the six-foot situation is something we will have to discuss and deal with.

I am glad Ms. McBride is recommending 42 feet of the solid fence being removed because there is nothing uglier than 172 feet of shadowbox fence along the property line.

I still think you could plant maybe eight vertical tree elements of something that would improve the looks. Ms. McBride suggested that the applicant take the 42 feet of fencing that is being removed from the west property line and break it into two or three parts to use as a backdrop to the maple trees. He had the fence in his budget anyway. Mr. Kelley said I donít disagree with that at all.

Mr. Okum asked about the color of the fence, and Ms. McBride reported that it would be pressure treated, not painted. Mr. Okum asked if it would be cedar and stained, and Ms. McBride responded that typically those are pressure treated. Mr. Kelley confirmed this and it will turn a gray color

Mr. Okum said they have referenced the light packs on the buildings and they say for washing the wall. I donít know what that means, but every one of the CVS Pharmacies that I have seen over the last year is a light pack on the building. It still is on the drawings, and I donít think we need it.

Mr. Kelley said we will need them. What we had before was the signage locations and it will help to accentuate these three elements on the building. It is not intended to be a wall pack. Mr. Okum responded that is what I am concerned bout. Mr. Kelley added that if you want to have it be downlit non-glare or sconce type that would be fine. Mr. Okum said I donít have any problem with that, but there is no detail on it.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the CVS Final PUD Development Plan incorporating A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4 etc., with the dates of the attachments and with the following conditions:

    1. To include all staff, engineer and city planner recommendations;
    2. To include all staff and law directorís approval on the final covenants;
    3. That all mechanical equipment shall be in a staff and Planning Commission approved enclosure
    4. All exterior lighting shall be non glare as submitted;
    5. All lighting shall be less than 0 fall at property lines;
    6. Wall wash lights shall be sconce type downlit non glare;
    7. All lighting shall be metal halide lighting;
    8. Street tree treatment where the right in only on the south portion of Route 4 shall be included;

      8 APRIL 2003



      Motion to Approve - continued

    10. The parking shall be shifted north where the right in was and increase the landscaping in the southwest corner where the sign was;
    11. The tree preservation conditions are to be as presented;
    12. The inclusion of a public walkway where the old right in access point was eliminated;
    13. The fencing shall be shadowbox pressure treated and approved by staff;
    14. The Conditional Use Permit that was granted this evening shall be included in this approval.
    15. Ms. McBride asked if the commission wanted to specifically state without the M-50 sign? Mr. Okum responded that he included the Conditional use conditions, which took that sign out and relocated

      it. Ms. McBride wondered about the 42 foot fencing that I am recommending to be removed and relocated to the east portion of the north property line

      Mr. Okum modified his motion to include:

    16. That 42 feet of the fencing shall be removed from the west property line and relocated to separate the adjoining property on the northeast corner of the site.

Mr. Galster suggested that we use staff comments except for as additionally herein modified.

Mr. Okum agreed adding that it should state "with the following exceptions as modified by the Conditional Use Variance." Mr. Galster added and "all staff comments are except for herein additionally modified".

Mr. Okum said he would so amend and Mr. Vanover seconded the amended motion.

Mr. Vanover said there was a concern about the spandrel glass color, the color we would prefer. Mr. McErlane asked if they use tinted glass, and Mr. Kelley indicated that they did and Mr. McErlane responded that a darker spandrel glass would be better. Mr. Galster suggested that we say that this would be subject to city review and approval. Mr. Okum so amended and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

    1. Right-of-Way Plat Ė Oak Hill Cemetery, 11200 Princeton Pike

Mr. Shvegzda reported that I n that area there is a highway easement that had existed for 747, and they are wanting to dedicate it. In addition to that, when we improved 747 and acquired some right of way, we acquired it by warranty deed so we have little parcels in an island and this will dedicate everything and clean everything up.


8 APRIL 2003



Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the plat was approved unanimously.


    1. 21st Century Printing, 245 A Northland Boulevard Ė Wall Sign
    2. Group Health Associates, 55 Progress Place Ė Ground Sign



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye and the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,



_____________________2003 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_____________________2003 _______________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary