11 JULY 2000

7:00 P.M.




  2. Mr. Syfert called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

  4. Members Present: Don Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Dave Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover, Dave Whitaker and Chairman William Syfert

    Members Absent: Richard Huddleston

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Wayne Shuler, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved for adoption and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported Council approved the land use plan study with Ms. McBrideís firm. We expect it to be about a 12-month process with the committee which we anticipate will be put together in the next month.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė June 10, 2000
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė June 25, 2000
    5. 6/14/00 Letter to Kathy McNear, President of Council from Dave Whitaker re recommendation of Sears The Great Indoors


    1. Samís Club, 800 Kemper Commons Circle requests approval of their proposed expansion (tabled 6/13/00)

David Oakes of CESO Engineers, Doug Hurley of Perry Butcher the Consulting Architect and Mark Bemis, the in-house Wal-Mart architect.

Mr. Oakes stated that they have received all the comments and responded with revised plans. We feel we have addressed all the issues that were discussed at the last meeting. Some of those issues included screening of both the existing and proposed mechanical units and we are prepared to do that.





11 JULY 2000



Mr. Oakes added that the aesthetic issues related to the view of the expansion area from Kemper Road. We have proposed to do substantial landscaping to soften the look from Kemper. The battery tire storage area had a chain link fence shown, and we propose to construct it out of a masonry split face material and reorient the gate so it does not face that view vantage point. Shopping cart storage will be inside the store. Wal-Mart has been put on notice that there is only allowed a maximum of 3 vending machines. There was a concern about the maintenance of traffic during construction phasing and we are prepared to address those.

Ms. McBride reported that there were concerns about the parking ratios for the entire overall center and the applicant has indicated that they are providing 5.67 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of sales area. Our new code requires 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area and it is tough to compare sales area to net floor area, but they are providing more parking than what we would require.

We had asked about the calculations regarding increasing the impervious surface area (we require 20% of the site to remain open space). This entire PUD contains 115.52 acres and 22.7% of that site will remain open space.

Right now they have shopping carts stored in front and at the side of the building, and we would want a condition that there would be no outdoor storage of shopping carts. There are six vending machines outside and our new code permits three.

Right now they have four services bays that are oriented toward Kemper Road on the south elevation of the building. The commission has looked at other very similar uses recently, in the Costco development particularly, and asked them to reorient those service bays. I think it would be a sincere hardship to ask this applicant to do that since they are on the Kemper Road frontage. They will be locating 70 feet closer to Kemper Road, and some of that is mitigated by the fact that they are doing some landscaping.

They have two outdoor storage areas for batteries and tires, which are located on the rear of the building, the east elevation. They are proposing to relocate those to the south elevation and will go along with our recommendation that they be solid masonry block enclosures that would match the building and would have solid wood gates on it.

In terms of signage on prior applications the applicant indicated that the signage would remain consistent with what was there. Now there are 982 s.f. of sign area on the building, including two Samís Membership Warehouses on the front and a Samís Club on the front and some tire and battery installation signs on the south side of the building.




11 JULY 2000



Ms. McBride said that based on our calculations from blurry drawings, 1,159 s.f. of sign area is proposed on the building. The building is entitled to 659.5 s.f. The Commission has looked at buildings this size before land granted variances. I would ask if we really need the Optical, Pharmacy, One-Hour Photo and Tires on the front of the building. If there is signage to be reduced or eliminated, I think those are items that could be removed.

In previous submittals they were not planning on doing any landscaping. There is an area south of the proposed building expansion going toward Kemper that we had asked for landscaping, and they are proposing 34 eight foot white spruce evergreen trees. We have asked that they mix that up so they are not all white spruce; we are suggesting a mixture of white spruce and Colorado blue spruce, in addition to the eight burning bush shrubs that they are proposing, and that should be a significant improvement to that area and help to soften the fact that the service bays will be closer to Kemper.

They will be continuing the same building materials, but they are taking the building from grey to beige. One of the previous comments was that they were proposing to have the band only on the front, and we had asked that it be continued on the south and east sides of the building as well because all three sides are visible from streets; they have done that.

They are indicating that they will screen all existing and proposed mechanical equipment. That was a requirement of the initial approval.

We asked for existing and proposed lighting conditions, and their submittal indicates that the minimums and maximums on the site are within acceptable levels. They will continue to use the 42-foot mounting height for fixtures, which matches the balance of the development.

Mr. Okum asked the overall size of the tire sign on the front of the building, and Ms. McBride answered 40.5 square feet. Mr. Hurley checked and reported that it was 38.8 square feet.

Mr. McErlane reported the original PUD provided for an expansion for Samís. This is slightly smaller than the original plan shown. We asked about the retaining wall in the southeast corner of the site, and they have responded with a couple of different materials, which appear to be a modular type with a stone type face.

We had pointed out the screening requirements for the mechanical units and when the original plan came in several years ago, there were requirements for the ground mounted units at the back of the building, and we would recommend that they screen those as well.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if he had any problem with screening the third unit in the back, and Mr. Oakes indicated that he did not.



11 JULY 2000



Mr. McErlane added I noticed on the color rendering on the board in front of us differs a little bit from what was submitted in a reduced form. It is a little darker. Which colors would be the main colors? Mr. Oakes answered these (on the board) are the actual paint samples from the paint supplier.

Mr. Shuler said since this expansion was part of the original PUD, the area was covered in the original calculations for traffic issues and storm water detention.

On the site itself, where the entrance drive comes off the public right of way and transitions to the driveway across the front of the building, the grade in that area is being increased from 5% to over 8%. It is steeper but is within acceptable standards so we do not have an objection to that. We did have a number of comments on proper and safe traffic flow in that area during construction and made a number of suggestions on signage. Safety is our biggest concern.

There is some modification to the storm sewer system along with the new parking lot to the south of the new building, which ties into the existing system and is satisfactory. With these few comments, we are satisfied with the applicantís submission.

Mr. Vanover commented that area concerns me; the intermix of human bodies and steel is continual. I donít know what we can do because it is existing, but that is a dangerous mix. The only thing we might do is move that entrance further west and bring it into the parking lot in a different area.

Mr. Okum said we have an enormous number of cars that stop across the front of the building, narrowing that entranceway. We have two landscaped islands that I think are an issue. I agree that the area seems to be very tight and even if it meant doing a little parking lot shifting for broader width, and maybe some transition in that change in pavement, going to a paver or some material with different texture, may help.

Mr. Oakes responded I think to try to get the traffic away from the front door a little bit might be a good option to look at. Right now I am pretty sure there is a 30-foot drive through there which is a two-lane situation. Maybe we could add 5 feet for people to be able to get out the door and look both ways.

Mr. Oakes added the striping shows up very well on the asphalt, so Iím not sure I would like to change the texture, but to stripe it so that the traveled lane stays away from that door. I would have an area of approximately 8 feet so that the customer could come out and look both ways before they enter the traveled traffic.

Mr. Okum responded I think between you and Mr. Shulerís office, you could come up with a solution.





11 JULY 2000



Mr. Okum added many people stop at the intersection of the continuous right hand turn into the development. The left turn out of there is very close to the continuous right turn in; maybe you could widen that continuous right turn. I think it is valuable to the development in that it moves cars in, but the problem is if one out of three decides to stop. There are some plantings that could be moved to widen the right turn in at the lower corner. I donít know what you would do with the lane that goes to the west. It seems to be a problem, because if you make a left turn out of there, you are turning into a continuous right turn, and if there is nobody turning right, you are going to where cars are always stacked to turn left out of the development.

Mr. Oakes responded I understand your concern. We can look at closing that off and making that access internal so that they would have to travel to the next. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shuler and his staff to work with them on that.

Mr. Galster said on the signage, I donít know that I see the need for the tires in the right hand corner. I understand the one-hour photo and the pharmacy being in the red band and I donít have a problem with that. Do we have a copy of the actual chips?

Mr. McErlane reported that we donít have a copy of the chips, and Mr. Oakes offered to leave the board, which has the actual color samples on it.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he had any problem with Mr. Okumís suggestions on the parking lot changes. Mr. Oakes responded that they would work with Mr. Shuler to have an acceptable traffic pattern.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if 2-inch caliper sunset maples are the standard size. Ms. McBride responded typically we ask for 2 Ĺ to 3-inch caliper trees. Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had a problem with 2 Ĺ to 3 inch, and Mr. Oakes indicated that he did not. Mr. Okum added I would like staff to be involved in placement approval for the trees. He asked if the retaining wall would be beige to tie in with the building colors and Mr. Oakes indicated that it would be.

Mr. Okum commented that the mechanical equipment enclosure is lower than the refrigerated coolers. Mr. Oakes responded that is a six foot fence, but it comes in 12-foot sections so we can take that down and come all the way over, plus we have added another unit in the expansion plans to have the same fencing material. Mr. Okum added I think what doesnít get covered by fencing needs to be painted out. Mr. Oakes said we could paint them to match the building color; there is no problem with that.

Mr. Galster commented the only problem I have is the front building tire sign, but it is not that big a deal if no one else has a problem. Mark Bemis responded that the tire sign is to identify where it is located on our building. In this situation, we can remove it, itís not that big a deal since it is an existing building.


11 JULY 2000



Mr. Okum moved to grant approval with the following conditions:

    1. That all items included in the city planner, the city engineer and the building officialís recommendations be included;
    2. That the building is to be constructed with the signage presented with the exclusion of the Tires and Arrow (sign 6);
    3. That the mechanical units are to be screened and enclosures approved by staff;
    4. That the mechanical units on the east side which are not screened are to be painted out;
    5. That the sunset maple trees and others on the site are to be 2 Ĺ to 3 inch caliper;
    6. That the parking lot reconfiguration and design is to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer, which includes the furthest west continuous right turn lane entrance;
    7. That the area across the building should be widened from 30 feet to 38 feet for customer safety;
    8. That all the existing light packs and new light packs on the building shall be shielded and downlit.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert stated that for a final approval it takes five affirmative votes, so since we have six members present this evening, a simple majority of four would not be adequate.


    1. McSwain Mfg. Corporation, 189 Container Place requests approval of the placement of a modular office trailer on their property

Robert Hoppenjans of McSwain Manufacturing said we are having consultants come in to help us change over our accounting software and data base software for job management. This trailer would be for them to do the training on the new software.

Mr. Syfert asked how many consultants were involved, and Mr. Hoppenjans answered six to nine.

Ms. McBride reported that the structure is needed for six to nine months, and we would recommend that a specific time limit be placed on any approval. It meets all the requirements for setbacks within the GI District. We didnít receive any information on how the unit would be finished, and that has been a concern of the commission. We would want to see skirting around the base of the unit so it would have somewhat of a finished appearance. No existing vegetation should be removed or damaged as part of the location of this temporary building.




11 JULY 2000



Mr. Hoppenjans responded the skirting is no problem, and there is no vegetation being removed. Mr. Syfert asked if they would need it six or nine months, and Mr. Hoppenjans answered that he would prefer the nine months if possible. They are projecting six to nine months, depending on what glitches they run into. Ernst & Young Technologies is handling this.

Mr. Okum asked the color of the trailer and Mr. Hoppenjans answered that it would be a beigey off white. Mr. Okum asked if they had a problem going with the wood type or gray or beige? Mr. Hoppenjans answered no, which type would you like Ė gray or beige. Mr. Okum responded earthtone, something other than white.

Mr. Galster wondered where the six to nine people would park, adding that there is a parking problem there now. Mr. Hoppenjans answered the consultants would be coming in as a group in one or two cars. Mr. Galster commented I donít know if there is room for one or two more cars on that site.

Mr. Galster moved to grant approval of a temporary trailer to be earthtone in color located as shown on the drawing and without disturbing vegetation. All existing landscaping is to be put in like new condition once the trailer is removed, that the trailer be skirted and be there for a period not to exceed nine months.

Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Approval granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Northking Properties requests rough grading approval for Pictoria Tower I (Pictoria Corporate Center PUD)

Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests said with me tonight is my partner David Tipton and Lanie Wess the site engineer with Woolpert.

Tonight we are here to take the first step in the construction of the first office building, asking permission for a grading plan for Pictoria Tower I. Next month we hope to be back here again for a final site plan approval for the first office tower.

We have officially closed our deal with MEPT a multi-employer property trust, one of the largest pension funds in the country, and they will be the owners of the first building. They have hired us to be the developers to get the building started.

In addition, Cooper Carey has been retained as the architect and design is well underway. I would like to show you what it would look like. We think it will be one of the most significant buildings in suburban Cincinnati. We believe it will be the largest suburban office building built in Cincinnati in one phase, 272,0000 square feet.



11 JULY 2000



Mr. Woodward stated that at the termination of North Commerce Way, we plan to put a significant plaza in place with your approval, and we will give you more details next month. Mr. Woodward showed the landscape plan for Pictoria Tower I, which is a five-acre site. It is a good visual to talk about some of the changes taking place between the preliminary plan approval and the final plan approval.

We believe we are in substantial accordance with the preliminary set of plans. Some of the differences between preliminary and final are in the shape and size of the office building. The original depictions were not well studied in terms of specific floor plans. When you design an office building, you take into consideration the distance from corridors to the outside glass, so the office building got a little longer and a little narrower. It also improved the visibility from the interstate and lessened the view of the garage from the interstate. We also look at the structural bays, and if you go longer than 40 feet with structural steel it gets costs prohibitive. A building 120 feet wide is as wide as you want to build, and this building is 120 feet wide and 270 feet long. It gives the tenants maximum exposure to outside glass.

The garage is rectangular in shape and fairly long and a little wider than the office building. IT is 173 feet wide with slanted parking spaces and one way circulation around the perimeter.

The other thing that controlled the size of the garage and made it a little longer and reduced some of the setbacks is the middle section, the ramp that goes from level to level. That ramp is at 4-Ĺ%, which is a standard slope for a garage ramp. When your floors are 10 foot from floor to floor and you have a certain slope, that dictates how long the garage will be.

Some of the setbacks are changed. We donít think they are a significant departure or all that bad. We have asked our architects to produce some photographs of other garages of a similar size that are as close to the streets as this one would be. He passed out photographs. On this project, the shortest spot would be 15 feet off the right of way or 30 feet off the street itself, so weíre within five feet of that one. We donít think North Commerce Way right of way will ever be needed for expansion of the roadway. We donít think Northwest Boulevard will ever be needed; they are both cul de sacs, so I donít think these streets will ever be expanded beyond where they are now.

The amount of greenspace on this five acres is 40% and your code requires 20%. On replacement of caliper inches, the standard we have established together is 52 caliper inches, so the landscaping is considerable.

Mr. Syfert commented the primary reason you are here tonight is for primary grading, but I am glad you brought this in because staff noticed that there are quite a few changes. From the color rendering they look very nice.



11 JULY 2000



Mr. Shuler reported a few of the issues that we are working with the applicantís engineer on that we will be discussing at the next meeting.

On Detention Basin B to the south of the plaza area, in the original preliminary plan it was to be a wet lake pond area water feature and now it is proposed to be a dry landscaped detention area.

For final approval, we will review all the calculations for the detention area to make sure they meet the Commissionís approval and the city regulations. Please note that the detention area is somewhat different in the rough-grading plan than it will be in the final plan, and we donít have a concern with that. It will function satisfactorily to meet our needs during the rough grading time.

We also are working on the traffic flow in the plaza area, and have concern about the flexibility of that area for safety service vehicles; we will confirm that before final plan approval. We also are looking at the area of transition between the public street entering from the north and transitioning into the plaza area to make sure it is safe with an easy flow.

There was one driveway off the plaza, the northwest corner of the plaza into a small parking lot that we are recommending be eliminated. There is another drive into that parking area off the entrance to the garage which we thought would be a better entrance and would keep the plaza area a little safer.

We also have some concern about the existing retention pond A. There is a significant erosion taking place on the north bank of this pond. This is to be a wet retention water feature, and the water surface elevation in that area has never reached its designed level. It is below the rock channel protection that lines the border of that lake which is to be that water surface area.

As part of the grading approval, we would ask that these two issues be dealt with, the erosion by regrading that area and placing the rock channel protection and ground cover that was called for in the original plan approval, and that the applicant to get a geotechnic consultant to determine why that pond is not holding the water and come up with a solution.

This rough grading plan would require some grading out on the interstate right of way area and an ODOT permit would be required for that work. We do not have any objection to this rough grading approval. These issues will be dealt with at the next meeting.

Mr. Woodward reported as design for the second basin was underway, we discovered that we couldnít build a wet pond because there is a large existing sanitary line that wraps that area in the north and west. If we excavated any more we would cause problems with that sanitary line. The water level was so deep in that pond, it wouldnít have been an effective visual stimulus from anywhere except maybe the top of the building. So, we elected to go with the dry pond heavily landscaped in a parklike setting that we feel would be better for the project.


11 JULY 2000



Mr. Woodward added that on the other pond, we have had three separate firms look at it. The reason it hasnít filled up is because there is a temporary standpipe that was installed and there is a severe leak at the joint. That was fixed late last week, so we should see the water levels going up.

On the erosion, we plan to use the top soil that we are taking off for the office project and put it around the lake, seed it and prevent the erosion, and also to use that top soil to do both sides of the sidewalk beds.

Ms. McBride reported the plan before you shows two free standing signs. The one had considerable discussion by this commission in January when the final development plan was approved, and it was a400 s.f. sign 50 feet in height and was to list the project identification and 100 square feet for each of the four restaurants.

There is a second sign labeled as office identification ground mounted sign. That is to contain 400 square feet with an unspecified height. The Commission was not specific regarding this sign; actually they were silent on the sign. So if it is your intent to move forward with that, I suggest you offer a height restriction and confirm that the 400 s.f. is acceptable before the applicant designs the sign or give him some guidance as to what you would like to see in that location.

We have talked abort the retention basin becoming a detention basin and we will want to take a close look at the landscaping plan in that area.

The setbacks have been significantly reduced. Originally there was a five level parking garage adjacent to office building number 1, which had 50 foot setbacks from Northwest Boulevard and North Commerce Way. That is now a seven level parking garage that will be just over 15 feet from Northwest Boulevard and about 23 feet from North Commerce Way. That is something you need to give careful consideration.

The pictures show the distance but this garage is not the height of the one we are getting. Mr. Woodward confirmed that the proposed garage is one story higher.

One of our concerns had to do with location of parking spaces and access points going into the parking garage and into the plaza. We met with the applicant and discussed that and they are doing some redesign of those areas. I want to say that the applicant has come in and worked with us on a number of occasions to try to get this to a good stage, and that is why we are bringing these item up tonight as part of the rough grading plan. We would ask that the commission provide some guidance to the applicants for their final submittal.

Mr. Okum said you arenít going to see much of that eight-story building through that garage. I would assume you are treating that garage with the same basic building materials. Mr. Woodward indicated that it would complement the building.


11 JULY 2000



Mr. Okum suggested notching the corners of the building as you did on the garage. If you notch those in and treat your landscaping vertically, it would have the same character as the building. If you are moving earth and you need to get the building deeper to make it work, we need to discuss it at a grading level more than at a final plan level.

I still would like to see the water feature in there. Is that a storm sewer easement? Mr. Woodward answered it is a sanitary sewer. Ms. Wess added it is a 12 inch sanitary main. I have been told by MSD that to relocate that would be a long drawn out process and OEPA has to approve it.

Ms. Wess reported that the idea for a retention pond is to have the storage volume over the top of the water. Originally we showed this water level but when we analyzed this site, we realized there is a 12 to 13 foot grade difference between the intersection and the end of the road. We had to raise this up 4 feet to have t his site to balance. When you do that, you are a t a certain elevation and the water feature becomes even lower. If you are trying to get volume over the top of your water level, you have to bring your water level down.

Mr. Okum asked if the detention facility would handle the other office buildings, and Ms. Wess answered part of it. There will be another future detention pond. There will be a water feature in the plaza area. Mr. Woodward added the other lake in the front of the restaurant is much bigger and more significant.

Ms. Wess added we tried to make it larger and that was the most we could do without reducing parking. The alternative was the water feature in the plaza area; there will be a fountain there.

Mr. Okum said Showcaseís dry pond is ugly; it has trees that are dying around it and it looks like nothing. I am very concerned that this will be the same. Every time you put a depression in the ground, you canít plant trees in it; all you can have is grass. Ms. Wess responded there are types of trees that can stand the fluctuation of water. There is a sidewalk around the pond and grading is at 4 to 1 which is walkable. There are no storm pipes coming into the pond. We have everything going into a control catch basin and there will be a pipe that will let everything backflow into the detention area. They will be able to maintain that a lot better than a regular detention area.

Mr. Galster said I think it is shaping up just fine. I donít mind losing the water there; I didnít see any of it from the interstate and with the other water features there, I think it will be adequate.

Is there a reason for moving and turning the building so the garage actually has frontage on I-275? Mr. Woodward responded one of the reasons we turned it was because the tenants would have views over the rest of the park and back toward Avon. Also, I believe the building would be more significant on I-275 as a building and as a park. You will be able to see it from a longer distance than the narrow side of the building.


11 JULY 2000



Mr. Woodward added that there are lots of trees on the Avon property. You really wonít see that garage until you are almost right there looking up at it. Mr. Galster added I like the fountain in the middle. If you notch that corner and get it back to 30 feet, Iím okay with it.

Mr. Okum asked the length of the building and Mr. Woodward answered it is 290 feet long and 124 feet wide. The garage is 327 feet long and 171 feet wide. Mr. Okum commented I am interested in how building one will play out. We have a big parking field in front of it. At this point, I donít have real problems with it, but I think we will have to look at it when we look at the view, as well as the view you see from Northwest Boulevard.

On the ground sign, Mr. Galster commented that he thought the commission was going to wait and see what the buildings would look like, how many tenants would be there and I would be comfortable to leave the sign off for now and not deal with it. Not knowing who the tenants will be, I donít know that I want to commit to another sign out there for that office building.

Mr. Galster said right now you have the entrance to Building 1 facing the courtyard. Is there any way to make the part that looks toward 275 to have the same kind of feel so it seems like every part of the building is the front of the building. Mr. Woodward indicated that they could.

Mr. Okum said I agree with Mr. Galster. I think the importance of corporate identification on buildings is very common. That building doesnít lend itself to a lot of signage. I think the ground sign is elevated there and will get some vision. I would not have a problem with an eight foot high monument sign, but at this point, we donít know if you will have tenants that will want building identification, so I think we need to hold off on that ground sign until we know if we are going to have building signage.

Mr. Woodward responded our vision for the ground sign was for identification of the park. Also we are changing the name of Pictoria Island to Pictoria Corporate Center.

Mr. Okum responded I donít have a problem with that, but I still felt that the one sign was an identification sign for the development, with those four signs to identify. My vision was that maybe we would have a ground sign to identify the corporate office section, but then we didnít know if we would have building signs in addition.

Mr. Woodward commented we all want to make sure that we bring employers and people into the city to occupy the buildings. If Bank One comes along and wants an entire building with a sign on the building, we need to know if that is something we can address. Mr. Okum responded I think the buildings in themselves identify the development. They are icons in themselves.





11 JULY 2000



Mr. Woodward responded we havenít done a sign package yet, but what we are looking for is something out front that is very well done maybe precast concrete or marble, some kind of low ground mounted sign that says Pictoria Corporate Center with very nice letters. We want something very high class.

Mr. Galster added maybe a sign in the detention area with the landscaping as opposed to the one shown along the interstate. I am open to it; I donít want to commit to it or have it as part of this approval at this point but IL think it is something that we can be pretty flexible about.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the rough grading plan for Pictoria Corporate Center with the following conditions: that the items brought forward by the city planner, city engineer and building official are incorporated; and that the ground mounted sign is to be excluded from consideration at this time

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Approval of Color Change Ė Sears Ė 300 East Kemper Road (Tri-County Mall PUD)

Dan Buckless of Sears Construction Department said I am the

general contractor for the project. The requested color change is

very similar to what is there now; it is to update and refresh their look because it is a little weathered.

There is a section of the building facing East Kemper Road that is dark in color. The lighter of the two chips is the color that will be on that dark area. The other chip will be the building all the way around as well as the auto center.

Mr. Okum asked if this were a new material going over the brick, and Mr. Buckless answered it is a waterproofing exterior colored coating which Sears has been using for quite a while; it is a paint. The canopy underneath the package pickup area will be done as well in the same color.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said to clarify, we discussed it earlier, and you were indicating that the lighter color were the mechanical screens at the top and the columns and the trim along the canopy area. The darker shade was the balance of the building. The applicant confirmed that.

Mr. Vanover moved to grant approval of the color change per the color samples and presentation and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.





11 JULY 2000



Voting aye were Mr. Vanover, Mr. Okum, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Approval of Color Change Ė Longhorn Steakhouse Ė 11530 Princeton Pike (Cassinelli Square PUD)

Billy Mole, the general contractor came forward with Dan

Cummings representative of Longhorn Steakhouse. He presented

pictures of the existing building, the areas that will be painted and

includes the color chips mounted on the board. We are trying to

convert the existing colors to the Longhorn prototypical colors for

new restaurants.

Mr. Galster commented the red looks rusty, but in the picture it

looks like a barn red. Those pictures show the difference in the

sunlight. The chips show the actual color.

Mr. McErlane stated that the building has a wainscoting around

the lower half of it, which the drawings showed to be an olive gray.

Mr. Mole said that should be crossed out. Mr. Okum asked if the

Changes could be made on the color board and it could stay as a

point of reference and the applicant indicated that it could.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the colors as presented and as

modified by the applicant in reference to the wainscoting. Mr.

Vanover seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum,

M r. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Color was approved with six

affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert added that a memo was phoned in today from Marianne

at Kimco (owner of the property) who indicated they had no

problem with Longhornís proposed color changes.

E. Approval of Dedication Plats Ė Tri-County Parkway

Mr. Shuler reported at the time that Tri-County Parkway was built,

the city acquired all the right of way either through purchase or

donation. This is a clean up item to officially approve the dedication

of that property to public right of way. City Council has already

passed an ordinance approving the dedication and acceptance of

public improvements. Normally this comes through the developer

at the time the development goes in. In this case since the City

purchased that property, technically it could stay the way it is.

However, the feeling is that this would clarify the specific use for

the property, and we recommend that you approve the dedication

plat of Tri-County Parkway.

Mr. Vanover moved to approve the dedication plat of Tri-County

Parkway and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Vanover, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum,

Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six

affirmative votes.


11 JULY 2000


Mr. Darby left the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

  2. A. Buffer Lighting Zones (tabled 6/13/00)

    Ms. McBride said the commission had asked the difference between 32-foot high light standards and 22 foot high light standards in terms of the number of fixtures. We found that in a parking area that would serve 100 cars, you would have 12 22-foot high fixtures versus 11 32-foot high fixtures. In a parking area for 300 cars, you would have 37 22-foot high fixtures and 32 32-foot high fixtures.

    I know you are anxious to get this in place but there will be one more minor text amendment to the code next month, and I would suggest that the commission defer this one more time and put the two together so Council and the Commission donít hear about the code every month.

    Mr. Syfert commented I was surprised at the little difference between the 22-foot high and 32-foot high standards. Mr. Okum said so you would recommend that we keep the light standards at 22-foot high. Ms. McBride responded that would be my recommendation. I donít think it imposes a sincere hardship on any of the developers or retailers. In my private business, the developers are routinely restricted to 22 or 24 feet, and the Walgreens arenít walking from deals as a result.

    Mr. Okum commented I think the terminology on cut off fixtures needs to be very clear so everybody understands what that is.

    Mr. Syfert commented I see no problem with tabling this until next month. Members agreed and voted to table.

    B. Regional Planning Commission Ė Dues for the Year 2000

    Mr. Syfert stated I added this to the agenda because they are soliciting our dues for the year 2000.

    Mr. Galster said move to decline. Mr. Vanover added if Mr. Okum is chosen a voting member, weíll pay it. Otherwise, not. Ms. McBride said they usually wait until two days before the election and send it regular mail. That is why the same people have been on it for at least 20 years.

    Mr. Syfert commented we are still on their stationery even though we didnít choose to join in recent years.

    Mr. Galster said I think we should stand by what we said two years ago. If it is the same practice, we should decline to participate until there is an election process that opens it up to other candidates. Mr. Syfert responded so are you recommending not to pay this and have Mr. Whitaker send a letter to that effect. Mr. Okum commented Iíd like to see all the communities copied on that letter. Mr. Galster added before we send it to the other communities, Iíd like to reread that letter. By voice vote, all present voted aye.




    11 JULY 2000


    VII DISCUSSION Ė continued

    Mr. Okum reported that it appears that the Baymont Inn is using the same light fixtures that Best Western did. Mr. McErlane reported that Mr. Lohbeck was dealing with Best Western on the problem and Mr. Okum added that it looks like the Best Western lights have been adjusted.

    1. Charleyís Steakery Ė 11409 Princeton Pike Ė Wall Sign
    2. Wells Fargo Ė 11808 Springfield Pike (Wimbledons) Ė Wall Sign
    3. Harmon Ė 12021 Centron Place Ė Ground Sign
    4. The Colony Ė 1 Kenilworth Ė Ground Sign

Mr. Galster commented I think Chi Chiís ended up great and I thank staff for their efforts. The only thing is that the green material still looks like it is a residential material. Mr. McErlane reported that they sent me information on it showing it as an industrial grade material. I really didnít expect to say anything different from that. Mr. Vanover added the colors look good.


Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,2000 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



___________________,2000 _______________________

David Whitaker, Secretary