11 MAY 2004

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Robert Galster, Lawrence Hawkins, David

    Okum, Tom Vanover, Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: Steve Galster (arrived at 7:01 p.m.)

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved to approve and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that Council passed the cleanup issues on the Zoning Code at the last meeting in May, and at our next meeting will be a public hearing on the identification sign.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė April 10, 2004
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė April 25, 2004
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė March 16, 2004
    6. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Spring 2004
    1. Steak N Shake, 11470 Princeton Pike requests approval of landscaping and lighting
    2. No one was present representing Steak N Shake, and Mr. Galster moved to put this item at the end of the agenda and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye and this was moved to the end of the agenda.

    3. Provident Bank requests relief from the condition to paint the roof of their facility at 11525 Springfield Pike (Approved 2/10/04)

Joe Trauth representing Provident Bank reported we were here on February 10th to appeal one issue, which was the color of the ATM for the Provident Bank changeover. As we informed you, all the branch banks throughout Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky were going to a corporate logo changeover on February 9th. We indicated that the colors would be changed from red white and blue to blue and gold. There was a request to make the ATM a white color rather than blue, and that is what we appealed. By a 5 to 2 vote that was approved by your commission.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Trauth said subsequently we received a letter from Bill McErlane dated February 23rd after a meeting attended by Holthaus Sign our sign representative. The letter indicated that the sign shall be individual channel letters which we agreed to, that the west side sign on the building would be located at the center of the building, which we agreed to.

Thirdly it said that the roof of the building which is a metal roof and is painted a copper color, was requested to be painted a light blue-gray earth tone color. That was something had never come up before and had not been agreed to by us. We were out of town on April 13th, so we requested to come back to this meeting.

I donít see anything in your code that would require that and it is a financial burden. Between February and now it was announced that Provident would merge with National City Bank, so all this changeover that Provident has spent hundreds of thousands on many be all for naught next year. I think the logos will stay the same for now, but once National City merger is complete, I believe they will want their identity to be on all Provident branches. It is our understanding that it wonít happen until 2005.

We are saying that it would be a hardship to change what we have in other areas, and there is a logical good reason for us to have a green copper colored roof. To change it to light gray or blue would be a financial hardship and we ask to be excused from that requirement.

Mr. Trauth said that condition was not raised the evening of February 10th. Mr. Galster said for sure it was. As a matter of fact the applicant told us that they had painted some of the roofs blue to match the new blue color they were putting up in other locations.

Mr. Trauth answered the day I was there was February 10th. Mr. Galster said you were at Council, and Council didnít meet on February 10th; Planning Commission did. It was in December or January that you appealed the Planning Commissionís decision regarding the Kemper Road location and you were granted relief from that from Council.

Given the fact that you may be changing colors again the first of the year, I would have no problem with giving you relief until that time to see what your new color scheme is. If that is acceptable to you, that is one thing. If in fact that blue band goes to a green band and goes with the green roof, I probably would not request that the roof be painted. But if your request tonight is that we eliminate our condition of approval to paint that roof, I am not willing to do that tonight. I donít have any problem with addressing this say by March 1st of next year and debate at that time the need to repaint the roof.

Mr. Trauth commented that certainly is acceptable. One of my concerns is a lot of people go to great expense to put copper on their residential homes and that almost seems to be a more residential look.


11 MAY 2004



Lisa Sammons from Provident Bank indicated that National Cityís colors are green and white, adding that returning March of next year would be acceptable.

Mr. Okum said if you are concerned about cost, why put a blue band on it at all. There are other Providents that donít have the blue band.

Ms. Sammons reported we have four different types of architecture on our stores. If it is what we call the white store it will have a blue band on it. All the stores with the same look will have the blue banding.

Mr. Okum said this isnít a white store. The white store is near the mall and has blue banding because Planning Commissionís decision was overturned by City Council.

We are speaking about the brick building with the green roof. Ms. Sammons said they do have blue banding. Mr. Okum responded they donít have blue banding on all of them, do they. Ms. Sammons answered if there was banding there before, there will be blue banding there now.

Mr. Okum said there was no blue banding originally; it was an off white. Ms. Sammons said that is because it was a white banding and it will be changed out to a blue banding.

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride if there were other Provident Banks with brick on them that do not have the blue band. Ms. McBride reported that the store we looked at in terms of signage was in Deerfield Township, and I can check that out for you. Mr. Okum asked Ms. Sammons if it had the blue band, and Ms. Sammons said we have 65 stores, and I donít know; Iíll have to check on that.

I donít mind suspending the restriction of painting the roof, but I donít see a reason to put the blue band on it unless all the Provident Banks that are brick have the blue band. If you show us that evidence, I have no problem with it. But if there are other Provident facilities that do not have the blue band on them then there are adaptations to that. Ms. Sammons responded I would have to verify that.

Mr. Coleman added I think it is not unreasonable to defer this matter since we may be addressing this whole issue with someone other than you.

Mr. Vanover said Number 5 on the conditions states that if another location of the bank uses a color scheme different from that presented for this location, Springdale shall have the option to require that scheme for this location. This would be invoking our right to review it if that option is out there. That was one of the original conditions.

Mr. Syfert said the request is for some relief from the condition to paint the roof; we got off on a tangent. Letís focus on the roof.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Okum commented it appears that Holthaus Sign Company, representing Provident Bank agreed to and understood this motion, but it is not clear to Mr. Trauth. Mr. Syfert commented it is primarily because the representative from Provident wasnít here, and thatís not our problem.

Mr. Trauth said I think #5 came up at Council. We said we have applications in all these other jurisdictions for the change. They said if any one turns you down and requires you to do something else, we would reserve the right to require you to do something else, and we agreed to that.

Mr. Okum said that what you are saying is if you were turned down for the blue someplace else, you would allow Springdale that same option. Mr. Trauth confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said if Mr. Trauth is accepting of that and Ms. Sammons can provide the information to our staff of those locations of that design and the color scheme used on those that supports the blue band, I will bow to Mr. Galsterís recommendation to hold on the roof issue and see what happens in March of 2005.

Mr. Galster said if you end up with a building on Springfield Pike that is similar in design and construction to this building and you put up the new sign package and leave the white band at another location, then you are to leave this location as a white band as well. Basically if you approve another color scheme in a different location, we should have that option here.

Mr. Galster moved to allow Provident Bank to delay the painting of the roof of the building at their Springfield Pike location until March of 2005, at which time they will come before Planning Commission to either show the new sign package or to address the repainting of that roof. In addition as previously approved, if they have any similar locations to the building on Springfield Pike, where they do not replace the white band with the blue band, they should not replace the white band with the blue band at this location.

Ms. Sammons asked if they had a similar location that never had a white band, and Mr. Galster said if it never had a white band before, it doesnít qualify.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

All voted aye, and the approval with conditions was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Addressing Ms Sammons, Mr. Galster said at your location on Kemper Road at the north elevation, the gold part of your logo is extremely crooked. It looks like it was installed improperly and is leaning into the blue part of the box. It looks like it is falling off.






11 MAY 2004


V. OLD BUSINESS - continued

C Approval of Tri-County Mall Interstate Identification Sign

Mr. Syfert said you have a copy of the letter indicating that they would like to have this considered next month. Mr. Galster moved to continue this until the June meeting and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the matter was continued to June 8th.

D. Approval of Final Development Plan, Retail Building to be constructed in Cassinelli Square (former cinema site)

John Petersen from Woolpert said we also have representatives from Kimco here to answer any questions. We were before you last month and there were issues. We resubmitted plans and I believe most of the issues have been taken care of to the satisfaction of the staff. The plans were altered to address the comments, including the engineering issues.

Additional landscaping was added to the plans and there was a request for some planter areas in the front sidewalk to break up some of the facades and they were added.

There was a lengthy discussion about the elevations, and the elevations were changed. There were some additional vertical accents added, some banding in the split face block was added, and the elevations were modified to reflect the new landscaping.

There were a comment of minor comments about wrapping the accents around to the back of the building, and the east elevation wasnít quite accurate, so those changes were made, and I have some reduced copies of those to hand out...

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned PUD and is part of the Cassinelli PUD. Planning Commission had previously approved a plan for a retail building in this location on 1/9/2001. That approval expired, and what is before you is a slightly smaller square foot building that is designed to be a single tenant building. We did have a color pallet last month. The applicant took it with him to work on it and it never came back. Mr. Peterson said we didnít make any changes to it; it is essentially the same. Mr. McErlane commented I think you introduced some colors that werenít there last month, particularly on the front façade. Mr. Peterson responded I think it is similar.

There were no sign details submitted, so Planning should exclude sign approval from their consideration. We pointed this out in 2001 that on the two pylon signs there are two message boards that were added to the signs after the PUD plan was approved in 1994. They were added because the cinemas were going to remain in operation for some period of time. So, the Planning Commission Chairman permitted them to add those as temporary signs until the cinema building discontinued operation, and then they were to b removed. Those changeable message sign boards are still in place. In the 2001 application it was a condition by Planning Commission that those be removed, and I would suggest that also be a condition of this approval.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. McErlane reported that the required parking for the center is 1708 spaces. On the plans recently submitted it indicates square footage for a Building H but it is not graphically shown on the plan. In 2001 on the original PUD plan there was a potential out lot adjacent to TGI Fridays, and Planning required that it be taken off the plan so it was not construed as approved as part of the 2001 plan. Square footage is shown on this plan but the building is not shown, so it should be made clear that this is not a part of an approval on this plan as well.

In 1994 prior to the PUD redevelopment there were 1546 parking spaces on the site. When Planning and Council approved the preliminary plan for the PUD, it was approved at 1487 spaces. The parking shown on the 2001 plan for this location was shown at 1424. Last monthís plan indicated that there would be 1480 spaces on site. However, this plan didnít include a count, so I assume we are talking the same number. Mr. Peterson indicated that they were.

In 2001 we were operating under an old Tree Preservation Ordinance that didnít address redevelopment sites. Because it was primarily addressing Greenfield sites, it didnít require replacement for trees that were within the footprint or within a 10-foot radius of the footprint of the building. It also only required 50% of the caliper inches removed for those trees that were not exempt. At that time it only required 50-something caliper inches of plantings.

Todayís code would require total replacement at 182 caliper inches, and the applicant proposes 60 caliper inches, 27 deciduous over story hardwoods and 33 inches of ornamentals. Planning needs to make some decision as to what we will hold the applicant to.

To look at the center as a whole, there are some deteriorated conditions in the shared access drive between the main buildings on the Cassinelli property, particularly toward the south end of that access drive, and they should be repaired or repaved.

Ms. McBride said the proposed use would require 102 parking spaces and they are showing 49 in that vicinity. Planning needs to make sure that the parking field immediately in front of the store would adequately serve the end user, although there is overflow parking available.

The proposed development would include 10.7% open space of 3.07 acres for the PUD with this proposed development.

We still do not have any indication on the screening of the compactor or the recycling dumpster. That will be very visible on that east elevation, particularly as you exit other uses within Cassinelli Square, so that is a concern.

The applicant revised the building elevations. Staff offered suggestions for some conditioned improvements. The east elevation still needs additional details and that elevation does not indicate the compactor enclosure.


11 MAY 2004



Ms. McBride reported that the south elevation includes the retaining wall, the fencing and landscaping to match the landscape plan. However, that elevation does not include the same level of finish as the other three elevations. Staff would suggest that since that will be the front door as you enter the development from 747, that needs to have a higher level of finish.

The landscaping plan submitted has addressed all staffís concerns. At the last meeting I raised the issue of the dead material at Cassinelli Square, and they have been very busy planting new plant material. The only problem is the plant material does not match in size the material that was removed, so commission needs to decide if the material needs to be replaced at a like size and that material removed, or if you want to ask for additional material or let it go as is. That is up to the commission.

They switched the lighting to a flat lens 1,000 watt metal halide fixture which will be mounted at a height of 37 feet and that appears to be the height of the fixtures today. However, we have not gotten any information on building security and light fixtures on the building and I believe they are indicated on the building elevations.

Mr. Galster said the planting material is smaller than what died there, but is it smaller than what we would have required originally? Ms. McBride reported that the majority of the material replaced as approved as original part of the PUD, so I donít know what size was required. However, I believe that they are responsible for replacing plant material in kind when it dies. That pertains not to just site. We are going to be doing a review of all the PUDs in the city in the next few weeks and presenting a list of dead and damaged plant material that will have to be replaced.

Mr. Galster asked if the material that is planted there would meet the PUD requirements today. Ms. McBride responded the material out there is noticeably smaller than the other material. Mr. Galster commented and something you probably would like to see larger. Ms. McBride confirmed this.

Mr. Vanover asked if the new lighting was compatible with the existing fixtures throughout the center. Mr. Peterson reported we matched what was out there with the exception of the lighting fixtures that are out there with drop lens.

Mr. Okum said you will need light packs on the building, especially in the truck dock area. How will you deal with that? Mr. Peterson answered probably wall packs. Mr. Okum said we require non-glare lighting, and youíll need to get that area lit for safety.

Mr. Okum said I have a little concern about the truck dock area. Looking at your section showing the floor level at the rear of that building, that cut shows a 101 elevation. When you place a truck at 101 and the top of the wall at 108, trucks are 12í-8" off the ground and we would only make up seven feet of the side of that truck. When a truck is parked there, unless the landscaping is so dense youíll still see the side panels and roof of that truck coming in the main entrance.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Peterson responded the wall there is almost 10 feet tall. Mr. Okum answered the wall goes from 101 to 109 according to Page C-702. Mr. Peterson answered at the shortest height, the wall is about six feet, if you look at the retaining wall.

Mr. Okum said what I am saying is that the truck setting in the docks will be above your wall, an obvious element parked alongside the building. How will you deal with that; it is the main entrance into this mall.

Mr. Peterson said if you look at the plan and how the truck would be setting in that dock area, The front of the truck will be visible, but it will set back into the site. I donít think it will be that obvious.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if they are adequately screened by the landscaping so that the trucks parked in that location would not be visible as you drive in the main entrance. Ms. McBride responded I donít disagree, but if that is a concern of the commission there is some other material that we could swap out to more adequately screen it.

Mr. Peterson added that the four-foot wrought iron railing will help and Mr. Okum agreed that it would help but it still is a concern.

Mr. Okum said on the building elevations, I am a little concerned because I see a red mix. Mr. Peterson responded we revised these and the red is no longer there (he passed out the revised elevations). We added the brick to the building and deleted the red banding. It is very similar to what was submitted two weeks ago,

except some of the vertical elements were carried around to the rear and the doors to the dumpster are shown on the east elevation.

Mr. Okum commented the color pallet needs to be complete if the red brick is going to be part of it. I think the red helps the project. Mr. Peterson said on the original submittal, the red was the banding around the signage and that has been deleted. Now we have the brick accent around the sign.

Mr. Peterson said the trash enclosure is surrounded on three sides by walls, the loading dock and the retaining wall. In order to access you have to go through the front, so what we have shown is wooden gates painted to match the building.

Ms. McBride said I researched the code on replacement sizes, Section 153.603(C) deals with this and it says "All unhealthy or dead plant material shall be replaced within one year/by the next planting period whichever comes first by plant material similar in size and type to that which was removed."

Mr. Sherry said I agree with Mr. Okum; I think you are going to see the trailer. When you look at the canopy, the trailer will be underneath it and the grade from the road is from 110 to 101. So when you drive down that entrance road, the trailer will be right in front of you. The vibernums will not do the job; something other than that needs to be planted.


11 MAY 2004



The representative from Kimco said it will be a delicate balance because the tenants in the back want visibility. We are trying to screen it and not block the visibility from the other tenants in the back. We will try to work with Planning however we can and have a marketable building to encourage businesses to come in. The building is in a hole so it is not obtrusive as seen from the street. But on the negative side, there are elements such as screening of the HVAC units and looking down on the trailer that will become increasingly more difficult to hide. I donít know how to get around that, because if we plant too many big trees, we will have a problem with the tenants not being seen and they all want to be seen.

Mr. Okum said I would like to see the red treatment carried around on the other four corners so the building is treated the same on all four corners.

Mr. Shvegzda reported part of the reason that the wall would be higher than the surrounding grade on the upper side of the wall was to act in combination with the offset distance between the roadway and the wall and the railing to combine and be a barrier for vehicles. There is a set height there that needs to be maintained to act as a barrier for vehicles.

Mr. Okum said so there is going to be exposed concrete on that side; what height? Mr. Shvegzda answered it is probably more in the range of six inches. Mr. Peterson commented if there is a concern about it, we can call for a form liner on both sides. Mr. Okum said I would prefer to see less concrete and more landscaping.

Mr. Shvegzda said the calculations for detention and storm sewers were submitted and addressed all the questions from the initial review. For clarity, the plans need to indicate that the entire roof area of the building will drain to the south detention basin that was part of the calculations but it is not evident on the plans. The other issue is there is a swale on the west side of the building and a fairly small amount of flow that goes through it but additional dimensions need to be coordinated between the grading plan and the landscaping plan to assure that the mulch material is not placed too far down into the swale and washed down the drain.

On the retaining wall, the plans have noted that the particular form liner panel will be utilized. I recently received the paint speck that was used on the Reed Hartman Highway wall, and we will forward that to the applicant for use on this project.

The other wall section which is to be utilized between the north parking field and the west common drive has a two-foot elevation difference above the common drive pavement elevation. We need clarification as to the extent of that wall section.

We would recommend limiting the truck deliveries to specific non peak hours because of the concern of them backing into the loading dock area from that fairly heavily utilized common drive and perhaps even from the main drive coming in from 747.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Sherry said I didnít see a note that the retaining wall on the north side will have a form liner. Mr. Shvegzda responded I donít think that came up on that one. How much is exposed on the low side? The Kimco representative answered that there is two foot sticking above grade, so it would be about four feet. Mr. Shvegzda commented it is a fairly short wall. That is one of the clarifications we needed, the length of that wall. It is not a large area. Mr. Sherry added it is the front door of the building, and it might be appropriate to have it with a form liner or possibly brick it. It looks like the type you would see in the rear of the building where the service area is.

Mr. Shvegzda answered it certainly would be reasonable to have the form liner to continue that pattern on that side. Mr. Sherry responded Iím not suggesting that the form liner is the answer, perhaps another method of treatment, but it is the front door of the building.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant had any problem with installing the form liner or brick. The Kimco representative said I would prefer the form liner rather than the brick because it would last longer. Mr. Peterson said we have wheel stops and everything else, but if somebody pulls up sharp, the brick breaks up.

Mr. Okum said your overhead door needs to be painted out along with your ingress/egress emergency doors to blend with the rest of the building.

You indicated that you will work with staff in the review of the landscape buffering for the truck screening along that south exposure, is that correct? Mr. Peterson indicated that it was.

Mr. McErlane said Mr. Hoffman the Chief Fire Inspector did ask they replace the antiquated fire hydrants that are there with more up to date hydrants with the steamer connection. The Kimco representative responded we do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Peterson said the question came up about the parapet wall at the last meeting. We had not shown a parapet wall on the rear elevation, and there is now a four foot parapet wall around the whole top of the building which will screen all the roof top units.

There was also a request to add cross walk markings along the west drive, and that was added to the plans.

Mr. Peterson asked if we could get some sort of approval for signage on a retail building, nothing outside normal for a building this size. It certainly would help us market the space. Mr. Syfert answered the building is entitled to signage and if it is within code, there would be no problem. This commission would like to approve the colors of the sign, and if it is over code, we have the prerogative to permit oversized signage. No signage has been submitted with this application, so we are not rendering any opinion on any signage.



11 MAY 2004



Mr. Sherry asked the material of the long rectangular insets and Mr. Peterson answered that they are metal. Mr. Sherry asked if the block was painted and Mr. Peterson answered that it would be an integral color.

Mr. Sherry said at the last meeting I requested that you take a look at the lighting between you and Steak N Shake. I see that wasnít addressed. Mr. Peterson answered that it was. I talked to Bill about that and went out and checked it and I believe the concern was what Steak N Shake was going to do with the lighting. What Bill conveyed to me was that the lighting in the driveway is on our main, and we are supplementing it with our one lighting structure.

Mr. McErlane added I also pointed out that it looked like your fixtures were in the driveway, so Iím not sure that we got the right lighting levels. One of the issues on the Steak N Shake project was the lighting, so weíll end up addressing that as well. I think the Steak N Shake plan does show adequate lighting for that driveway so it is covered one way or another.

Mr. Galster said it might be covered, but we still have light poles in the driveway. Mr. McErlane said I think they are represented wrong on that plan.

Mr. Galster said even though signage isnít here yet, I assume you will allow them space on the two pole signs that are there and I would have no problem with the front elevation having a proportionate sized sign in the EIFS matched paint area. Iím a little concerned about other exposures, and if you are talking about putting a sign on every side of this building that would be something I would have a problem with. The representative from Kimco said retailers want all kind of signage, but we will do the best we can and try to limit that as much as possible.

Mr. Okum said staff sees the west side, the right elevation as the front elevation. Mr. McErlane responded for determining the square footage of the allowable signage that is true. There wouldnít be any limitation on what sides the signs could go on as long as it fits within the allowable square footage.

Mr. Vanover asked the applicant if there were any problem with the removal of the message boards that are still out there. The representative from Kimco answered there is no problem. We tore down the theater because it was not usable. However in assessing the shopping center with the number of large anchor tenants that are accustomed to having pylon signage, I think we are one short. If there is a way to add a panel in that message that would be professionally done like the rest of the panels that could help us out tremendously. We will have the Office Depot building, in addition to that we will have this building and we have another tenant coming in that we have given rights to have pylon signage. So I agree that this should be taken off, but I would certainly like the ability to add additional anchor tenant pylon panels if we can.




11 MAY 2004



Mr. Syfert said I would suggest that on behalf of the center you put together what you want to do and submit it as a separate application. Let us consider that on its own merit.

Mr. Galster said so you donít have a problem taking the message boards out at this time. The Kimco representative answered they are all going to be used. Mr. Galster responded once they are all used thatís fine and we can consider additional if you have additional tenants. In terms of the message board, you donít have any problem getting rid of the changeable copy material.

He responded it would be nice if we could do it all the time. Maybe we could get in here next month and present to you what we would like to do. I believe once we take the message board down, there will be additional work to cover up the inside of those legs so it looks nice. If we could put in sign panels at that time that would help us. Mr. Galster added I think you could have the sign company make it so that you could add a panel in the future, rather than putting a blank panel up there when you donít have a use for it at this time.

The Kimco representative responded whatever you want us to do weíll do, but I think that we are going to be close to using all those panels and be short one in the very near future. We have a tenant very close to taking the space next to Hobby Lobby and you have an applicant in front of you this evening for the Service Merchandise space. I am not positive, but I think we might be short with just these tenants coming in.

Mr. Galster said so you think you will be back in the next month or so, so if we say that they are removed prior to the occupancy of this building that should be okay.

Mr. Galster said the other issue is on the plantings; the trees that we are short and the replanting done throughout the facility. Mr. McErlane reported that they are 122 caliper inches short.

Mr. Galster said so this is not taking into account the whole PUD, just this site. Mr. McErlane reported yes, adding that there was a new planting plan submitted with the next applicant that shows additional trees.

Mr. Galster asked if there was additional space to put the trees on this site. Ms. McBride answered you are not going to get that many on there, but there are other places in the PUD that they can go, but I would be surprised if you could get 122 on the entire PUD, but I can try.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he was opposed to moving the trees from this location and putting them throughout the PUD as may be directed by our landscape architect. The Kimco representative answered we brought our landscape architect. It is not a cost issue. We donít want to block the trees too much, and there are certainly other areas. Most of our landscape islands have deciduous trees, so we might have a hard time in our existing islands.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Galster said if in fact we are short on the number of trees that are planted, do we have any objection to using the city tree fund to get this off and moved on to the next part of it?

Ms. McBride suggested allowing the applicant the latitude to work with staff and accommodate as many as they can on the site, and whatever the balance is.

Mr. Galster said so we would attempt to tree this site as best as we can to meet the staffís approval, and for any shortfall goes to the Cityís tree program and they get planted somewhere else in the City.

Mr. Okum said if they could get 50% of that burden on that site I would be a lot happier rather than that much going to the tree preservation fund. Couldnít they add a vertical element, trees, to the north façade against the front of the building?

Ms. McBride answered we had suggested that, but they really donít have much space in there. Mr. Petersen said if I put any more in there I would start losing parking spaces. Ms. McBride suggested that they work with our landscape architect and come up with as much as we can.

Mr. Okum moved to approve to include specifications and designs contained in the exhibits as submitted for this date, including that building elevation submitted May 11, 2004. This shall also include:

      1. All staff, city engineer and city planner recommendations;
      2. All lighting shall conform to the existing zoning code;
      3. Light fixtures and pole colors shall be as presented;
      4. Additional staff approved plantings shall be required to adequately screen parked trucks in the truck bay area;
      5. Tree preservation replacement conditions to include those identified by staff as required for the site per code, and shortfall shall be applied to the Tree Fund;
      6. Dumpster and refuge container enclosures to include steel framed wood gates which shall remain closed at all times;
      7. Retaining walls shall consist of form liner treatment material and the city approved color;
      8. Railings and fences shall meet staffís recommendations and approval;
      9. All four building elevations shall be masonry;
      10. Exterior color palette shall be per those submitted with the addition of red brick corners on all four elevations;
      11. The overhead doors and access and emergency doors shall be painted out to blend in with the rest of the building;
      12. Form liner treatment shall be used on all exposed concrete walls above six inches;
      13. The three fire hydrants mentioned by the Fire Department shall be replaced with current connections

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.




11 MAY 2004



Mr. Sherry said I believe there are actually five corners, but I wonder how that would look. I guess staff can work that out with the applicant.

Mr. McErlane stated if you look at that back elevation as a whole and look at placing a corner treatment right there, it will look a little odd in the middle of the building.

Mr. Okum said I will amend my motion to say all four main corners.

On the motion to approve, all voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Approval of Havertyís Furniture, Cassinelli Square (former Service Merchandise) 11444 Princeton Pike

Chris Holt of R. J. Griffin & Company representing Havertyís said we request approval to begin construction of the store. We have submitted the color pallet for the building, and we have available renderings of the elevation.

We received the comments and we would ask for a conditional approval. If there needs to be conditions on that approval, we would be more than acceptable to that.

Mr. McErlane reported that this is the Cassinelli Square PUD development. The applicant is proposing to make exterior elevation changes to part of the building formerly occupied by Service Merchandise.

Those changes include the relocation of the store entrance to the northwest corner of the building and some changes to the cornice material along the upper part of the exterior walls.

On a preliminary plan we received, the applicant showed the removal of two 15-inch sycamore trees where the proposed new entrance was to be. It is assumed that these are still planned to be removed although it is not indicated on the most recent plan.

They are proposing to plant 10 three-inch columnar maples on the north side and four skyline locusts for a total of 42 inches. I noticed today that even the previous plan neglected to point out that there are three crabapples on the north side of the building that will be removed, which are approximately eight inches in diameter. So we are looking at another approximate 24 inches in diameter that would need to be replaced for a total of 54 caliper inches.

There is an overall landscaping plan that was shown for the north end of the shopping center. It does show some additional plantings, but because it conflicts with the site that was just approved by Planning, we are not sure what is proposed to be planted, and that needs to be clarified.



11 MAY 2004



Mr. McErlane reported that the improvements that are proposed do not impact the parking layout or change the parking requirements. On the exterior of the building, there are two new exit stairs, one on the north and one on the east side at the back of the building.

The signs that are shown are on the west side, 170 square feet, on the north side 170 at the entrance and on the east corner 185 square feet for a total of 525 s.f. The actual dimensions need to be indicated for those signs so that we can verify that area. That area was taken from areas that were indicated on the plans. It is assumed that there will be panels on the existing two center pylon signs.

The allowable sign area for the store is 542.5 s.f. Under the Zoning Code, the maximum allowable wall sign area is 150 s.f. and all three of the wall signs exceed that. However, Planning Commission has reviewed those signs with respect to scale on larger buildings to determine whether or not it is appropriate.

Ms. McBride stated that we have asked the applicant how they will handle waste for the new facility. Right now there is an unscreened compactor with a chute on the east elevation of the building. If that is the system that will be used, we would like to see it screened

If it is not going to be used, it needs to be removed and we need to see where the new facility will be and how it will be screened.

We also have asked whether or not there will be new mechanical equipment installed and how it will be screened from view.

The building elevations submitted do not indicate the building material color information.

In terms of signage, they are proposing three different Haverty Furniture signs, but they did not give the dimensions of those signs. They simply said that the signage equals 525 s.f. and we need to see those dimensions to make sure they were calculated according to our requirements.

We did receive a cut sheet for the wall-mounted light fixtures, but they indicated which of the fixtures is going to be installed on the store. We need to know which fixture and at what wattage.

The existing sycamore trees currently on the west elevation arenít indicated on the revised landscape plan. The earlier landscape plan included six red sunset maples in an existing landscape island. They have been removed and some additional lower landscaping installed in that island. The maple trees need to be added back into that plan. The bed in which the sign is proposed needs to be revised to indicate the base of the sign. We have asked that the landscape beds be identified on the plan, that the mulch be three inches in depth, that additional plant material be added to some of the landscape islands. On the two building elevations, we have asked how the area is going to be treated between some of the trees that are being proposed.



11 MAY 2004



Ms. McBride reported that there was landscape plan submitted by Centerville Landscaping that pertained to both this site and the site that the Commission just heard in other parts of the center. However, it doesnít reflect existing plant material or correspond with the landscaping plan you reviewed for the new building, so weíre setting that aside for now.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there are no site layout issues. The 1993 PUD approved for this overall site called for 33,394 cubic feet of detention. With the cinema site, the total now provided would be 31,434 cubic feet which leaves a differential of 1,960. That was the amount proposed for Building H. I am not saying that this should go in with this development, but it is still a viable part of the detention that will have to be built one day.

On the access drive between the applicantís property and the Springdale Plaza property, when the Springdale Plaza site was redeveloped, they repaired their half of the common drive area. Now that half of the common drive that is on the applicantís property is in disrepair (a number of potholes) it needs to be repaired as a part of this redevelopment.

Mr. Holt said we would like your approval so that we can move forward. If there are issues, we would like to try to work those out with staff.

Mr. Syfert commented it looks like the landscaping will need to be worked out. Mr. Holt reported that plan is forthcoming. Our design team is working on it.

Mr. Okum said these light packs do not appear to be non-glare, and our code does not allow that. I would like to see the color palette and hear where the materials are being used. Mr. Holt showed the color pallet and said they would like to add the EIFS cornice and set the building off. Progressing down the building, it will go from lighter to darker colors, and the colors were chosen to match the existing brick.

Mr. Galster said they are individual channel letters and neon inside plus backlighting onto the building. What is the color and sizes? Mr. Holt confirmed this adding that they use blue letter with a backlight. We can bring pictures so that you can see the We do have some rough dimensions, and weíll try to submit a signage package next month.

Mr. Sherry asked if there was a pattern in the storefront where the front door is. Mr. Holt answered they use the blue in the glass, and the square set off the storefront. It is not an opaque; you can see through the glass and it has a blue effect on the front and side door.

Mr. McErlane reported that in the previous submittal that was not resubmitted we had details on the largest of the three signs. The dimensions did match up with the 185 s.f. so hopefully the 170ís are calculated correctly too but we donít have the detail.



11 MAY 2004



Mr. Okum asked if they have a method of dealing with the trash compactor enclosure. Mr. Holt answered I have not seen the finalized site plan. I believe we are removing the existing trash compactor and would create some type of dumpster screen, similar to what is in place. It would be a three-sided wall type structure with some operable doors so you could get to it.

Mr. Okum asked if they would have a problem with painting out the ingress or emergency doors to the same finish as the building and Mr. Holt indicated that would not be a problem Mr. Okum asked if all the glass would have a color tone to it, and Mr. Holt reported that only the smaller squares on the main entrance.

Mr. Syfert asked what they would do with the drive back there, and Mr. Holt answered that has not been addressed. That is something that Havertyís and the property owner will have to discuss. I am sure that we can come to terms on that. Mr. Syfert added it is a major concern and a major hazard. Mr. Holt responded we realize that, and I believe it will be dealt with in our site plan.

Mr. Okum said Iím not sure what to put in the motion since there are items and issues outstanding. We can allow staff to work it out, but there are still items that need to come back to us. Iíd like to poll the commission on what needs to come back to us for final review. Obviously you want to start the project, but there are landscape issues, dumpster enclosures, and lighting. Conceptually, looking at everything that the applicant has presented, I think it will be a great feature for that corner. How do we handle the motion?

Mr. Galster responded I think the landscaping is something that can be worked out. I donít think there are major issues with the dumpster. On the lighting, we want a non-glare down lit only. We need to have them submit the size and wattage they are using, but I donít see any major hang-ups. As Mr. McErlane has explained, he believes that the calculation is similar. I would like to have them submit the dimensions to make sure that the signage is calculated properly, but I donít have any problem with the above-150 square foot issue, or the square footage that they have represented, providing that is per our calculation. .

I donít see that the applicant has had any problem with any of the staff comments. They are all pretty generic. Probably the biggest expense is the rear drive repaving, and it seems like they have the ability to get that worked out.

Mr. Okum said what about the 54 caliper inches of trees. Mr. McErlane reported that they are showing 42 caliper inches but there are other plantings on the site. It is almost going to have to meld with what was approved in the previous plan.

Mr. Galster said if we say that it needs to be treed as best possible and meet staff approval, with the understanding that we are trying to get as many trees back on the site as we can.




11 MAY 2004



Mr. McErlane reported I think the only place the plan shows new lighting is directly above the exit doors, so as long as they do a shield on those, they should be okay. Mr. Okum said the code would protect that anyway.

Mr. Okum moved to approve Havertyís Furniture, 11444 Princeton Pike with the following conditions:

      1. To include staff, city planner and city engineerís recommendations;
      2. Landscaping to be approved by staff;
      3. Tree preservation replacement conditions shall be treated as practical based on staffís review. The balance of the tree requirements would go to the tree fund;
      4. Dumpster and refuse enclosures shall be of masonry material and have steel framed wood fence gates that shall remain closed at all times;
      5. Signage shall be allowed based on the quantity requested by the applicant.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

On the motion, all voted aye, and the approval was granted 7-0.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:02 p.m.

    1. Approval of Cingular Wireless co-location on existing monopole and equipment, 525 Kemper Commons Drive

Tim Sturm of Burgess & Niple, representing Cingular Wireless said we have adjusted the site plan so that the wooden fence has been extended around the proposed industrialized unit building. The evergreens are being moved as well as we are replacing the ones that have died.

An executed ownerís affidavit is a requirement. Typically in the industry, the original lease the landowner signs grants subletting, in this case co-locating. He signed this and it has been notarized and he also grants authority to do permits and apply with all government entities to do what we are doing, requesting permission to co-locate. The tower was designed to co-locate, and in the lease the owner has agreed to allow co-location

Mr. McErlane reported we discussed a similar issue with the law director in terms of a lease agreement, actually on the Steak N Shake property. The law director agreed that it was not necessarily our responsibility to try to determine if lease agreement language permits or does not permit the applicant to do this.

Someone who has signed the lease is probably going to be reluctant to sign our ownerís affidavit, which typically says that they are responsible for all the costs incurred. So, as we did in Steak N Shake, we have asked the landlord to sign a statement that says their lease agreement does allow what is being proposed by the applicant.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Syfert said and we donít have it. Mr. McErlane responded no we donít, but since there is lease language, and I donít want to try to interpret the lease language, I think it would be within Planning Commissionís power to be able to approve this contingent upon getting a statement from the landlord.

Mr. Vanover said I think I will remain silent on this issue as Cingular is my carrier provider. Mr. Syfert said you are saying you have a conflict of interest.

Mr. Galster said this area has expanded to put this second building in there, so wouldnít the original owner have granted the lease to the first cellular tower people to a certain area? How do you sublease and get bigger?

Mr. McErlane responded it has been expanded, which is part of the reason why we would like the landlord to agree with it to make sure that they are living within the lease agreement requirements.

Within the lease there is a defined area that is spelled. It does reflect an area at least as large as what they are expanding it to.

Mr. Galster asked who the owner of the property is, and Mr. McErlane reported that it is Springdale Kemper Associates, and I believe Cingular is subleasing from the main lessee.

Mr. McErlane added that this is part of the Tri-County Commons PUD property and they are proposing to co-locate on the antenna which was part of the approval for the tower in the first place, that it be designed to accommodate co-location.

The equipment enclosure proposed to be at the base of the tower is within the proposed expanded fence compound. As we indicated, we still need some indication from the property owner that they agree with what is being done.

Ms. McBride stated that the applicant is proposing to locate the 230 square foot building west of the existing service building and west of the existing pole location. At the staffís request, they have agreed that any landscape material removed as a part of the co-location would be replaced with 10-foot evergreens and in kind with a board on board wood fence. There are a number of dead trees, and if they are not removed as part of the co-location, they also would also be replaced with the 10-foot evergreens.

The only other issue in addition to the ownerís affidavit is the finish on the service building. When you approved the original cell tower in 1996, you said that the service building would either have a fluted concrete or stone finish. The existing service building has a brick finish, and staff is suggesting that the proposed service building match the existing service building. However, you will not see the proposed building so staff doesnít feel very very strongly about it. Mr. McErlane said the finish that is on the existing enclosure is a simulated limestone type brick; it is more of a gray color.


11 MAY 2004



Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said that first building may be taken down at one point, and the proposed building would be exposed, so I would request that this building be the same type of material or brick. He asked the applicant what he preferred.

Mr. Sturm responded that the building is a brown prefab stone cobble finish. I was out at the site, and their building is outside of the fenced compound area. Apparently they didnít want their building inside the wood fence, so you must have required them to match the building colors of the shopping center. Mr. Okum said I donít recall any discussion that they were going to paint it the same color as the mall.

Our building will be placed totally inside a solid wooden fence and surrounded with 10-foot pine trees, so it will be difficult to see anything.

Mr. Okum said so you are going to put a brown aggregate stone. Mr. Sturm confirmed this, adding that these buildings are placed in every location in Ohio. They are standard in the cellular industry.

Mr. Galster said pending the ability of the applicant to satisfy Mr. McErlane in terms of getting the consent, I would move to approve this co-location and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr. Sturm said in one Planning Commission meeting that I attended, we had a very irate landowner show up saying that he did not know anything about it, and he did. But he would have the capability in your instance to deny the right to co-locate on the tower. Not knowing the background of this site, we potentially could have that scenario.

Mr. Galster responded I remember the originally application coming in because it was one of the first monopoles proposed in the area. We were pretty adamant about making sure we didnít have poles all over the place, so we spent a lot of time on it. I think that three is the number and youíre not going to have a problem with this owner if you just phone him. It shouldnít be a problem, but I would definitely recommend that phone call.

On the motion, all voted aye and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes and one abstention (Mr. Vanover).

Planning moved back up to Item a under Old Business.

A. Steak N Shake, 11470 Princeton Pike requests approval of landscaping and lighting

Joe Scott said we received staff comments and contacted our engineering firm. They immediately made the changes requested to the landscaping, and we will bring that back to staff.

The only other item that seems to be coming up is the fact that there are two yard lights that Cassinelli Square controls, and they are on Steak N Shake property. We are leaving those in place.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Scott added that between us and Cassinelli we will get something drafted so they have the right to be there.

Our photometric plan does not reflect that. It only shows the lights that we are putting in so that street will be adequately lit.

Mr. Scott said staff commented that we would need to get a variance from the east property line because we exceed the light level. We would ask that we not have to get another variance because we need that street between us and the building as lit as possible.

Ms. McBride reported the only sticking point is that they do exceed the .5 foot candles at the eastern property line. Staff doesnít object to that; we think it is important that they do maintain more than .5 foot candles, but we do have a concern that the letter of the code says that you cannot exceed that at the property line so that is why we made the recommendation that they should get a variance.

The last landscaping plan that was submitted addressed all our comments, but we are now back to square one. In the table they label three shrubs to screen the dumpster; they are showing five and they need to have the five. We are concerned about the visibility with the plant material they are proposing at the northern access point so we are suggesting other plant material. They need to install additional trees in the landscape island along the east side of the drive-thru. Right now they are not showing anything in there.

They have a new parking lot that they have added along the Princeton Road frontage, and they are not showing any landscaping in that and they need to show some in there.

From prior reviews, we need additional plantings surrounding their sign foundation bed. They need to define their mulch beds on the landscaping plan. They have two landscape islands in the northern part of the parking lot that are identified, but there are no landscape features in those islands and that needs to be added. They need toe extend the landscape plantings to the eastern end of the southern perimeter island on the site, and they also need to add parking blocks in the spaces that are adjacent to the building sidewalks or landscaped areas.

One of the concerns we had at the April 13th meeting was whether or not there was adequate stacking on the site from the order point for the drive through window. They did indicate where the order point was to be located, and there are five stacking spaces from the order point back without blocking any through traffic or parking spaces.

Part of the approval at the April 13th meeting also included the incorporation of a stone veneer waste enclosure with steel enforced wood gates that will remain closed except when servicing. That was not a revision on the site plan.

Mr. Okum said we are looking at the lighting levels on the east side. Isnít that where the Cassinelli light is also, and itís not in their calculations, so it will be even brighter.


11 MAY 2004



Mr. Okum said I am not overly happy with that. If the Cassinelli lights are working as well, it will be awfully bright. .Ms. McBride said it is an access road, so we donít want it to be dark.

Mr. Okum said I think the applicant should at least provide staff with that level of lighting calculating that into it, because it is a light fixture on that site. It sounds like it needs to go to Board of Zoning Appeals. Is it going to the board?

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said your lighting plan does not include the Cassinelli lights. Mr. Scott confirmed this, adding that he canít incorporate them in with theirs because they are not putting them in. I did hear tonight for the first time that they are 1,000 watts and 37 feet tall. Mr. McErlane asked if they were removing one of the Cassinelli lights, and Mr. Scott indicated that they were not. He said there are actually two there, one by the dumpster and one halfway back on our building.

Mr. McErlane said if we rely on Cassinelliís lights, do we have adequate lighting on the driveway? Mr. Scott said no, unless it was a part of their previous submittal. They had them in the middle of their street. Mr. McErlane said they showed three light fixtures along that driveway. Mr. Scott said there are only two there. We have one old one facing Steak N Shake which is coming down, and there are two Cassinelli fixtures, both on Steak N Shake property.

Mr. McErlane commented the only reason I was asking is if their lights are adequate to light their driveway, can you put shields on yours to reduce the spillage? Mr. Scott said we could do that, and then you would allow them to be the one responsible for lighting the street. Iíd be happy to adjust it whichever way you wish.

Mr. Okum said if he shields the light, he wonít have to go to BZA. Mr. Scott said Iíll put my shields on. Mr. Okum said the shields would bring you down on your property, but since the poles are on your property, my opinion would be that you are still over the lighting. Mr. Sherry said it is not his pole, and Mr. Okum responded it doesnít matter; itís on his property; itís his site.

Mr. Scott reported we are reducing the lighting from what are now 30- foot thousand watters to 22-foot 400 watters. Our parking lot lights have gone down dramatically. Weíve gone back to Springdale Code, only 22 foot high and 400 watt. I have two lights on that side of the building.

Mr. Okum said letís say they say you put your light fixture on my pole. Mr. Scott responded we hadnít planned on doing that, primarily because it is wired through his shopping center

Mr. Galster said I have no problem with letting him shield what he has. Mr. Okum said I want to make sure that if we do it, we do it legally. If the light is on his property, it doesnít matter who owns it, it still provides light that is exceeding the levels according to the code.



11 MAY 2004



Mr. Galster said so what you want is a lighting plan that is revised to reflect the lighting that he does not have. Mr. Okum said he is responsible for maintaining it.

Mr. McErlane reported if we are talking existing lights that are providing a lighting level that exceeds that required by the code that was adopted in 2000, they are legal non-conforming if they are not changed.

Mr. Okum said so they wonít have to go to BZA. Mr. Galster said you still need to have the landscaping approved. Mr. Scott said landscaping will be corrected and that can be a part of the conditions.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the landscaping and lighting plan as revised to meet staff approval. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

  2. Ms. McBride reported we are trying to work out possible dates for training and we probably will make a date in the middle of June or at the beginning of July. Mr. Galster asked her to coordinate the date with Mr. Schneider as well.

    Mr. Syfert said this is Mr. Sherryís last meeting and I would like to thank him for his contributions. You have been a real asset; good luck to you.

    1. Campus Outfitters, 75 Tri-County Parkway Ė Wall Sign

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,2004 ______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_____________________,2004 _______________________ Secretary