8 AUGUST 2000

7:00 P.M.



  2. Chairman William Syfert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

  4. Members Present: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover,

    Dave Whitaker Richard Huddleston and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Darby moved to approve and Mr. Okum seconded. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council Ė no report
    2. 7/13 letter to Regional Planning Commission re Springdale dues for the Year 2000
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė July 10, 2000
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė July 25, 2000

E. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Summer 2000

    1. Northking Properties requests final plan approval for Pictoria Tower I (Pictoria Corporate Center PUD)

Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests said with me are David Tipton, Lanie Wess of Woolpert LLP and Steve Smith, of Cooper Carrey Architectural firm from Atlanta Georgia

Mr. Woodward stated we are seeking site plan approval on the first office tower at Pictoria Corporate Center, so we will be looking at the site plan, the landscaping plan, lighting plan, signage plan and the color pallet building plans and floor plans of the building.

Steve Smith reported that this is a Class A office building, a high quality development. It is an eight-story office building with an architectural precast concrete skin (he showed the concrete of the main body of the building. It has a limestone beige feel to it but it has a nice texture and granite feel and will give you the permanent look of stone.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Two


Mr. Smith added we have three different finishes on that building; the one I just held up is the majority. An accent would occur as a frame around ĺ of that tower which has a lighter sandblast to it for contrast. At the base of the building, we have granite on the column bases. The granite is at the entry portico with a polish finish and will frame the two story opening as well as the bases. We are using a different finish that will emulate the granite on the baseboard around the perimeter of the building. It is an exposed aggregate and from a distance this granite picks up some of the beiges and grays that is in that finish. The glass is tinted, high performance insulated unit.

The building is off the plaza, which will be a people space, and the parking deck is located behind that. We have tried to create a space with the buildings and the plaza together. These offices will begin to rise from the landscaping and a fountain in the plaza. There will be a trellised area that is paved and ready for pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Okum said I want to make sure that the Phase II is not being considered tonight. That was confirmed. Mr. Okum said I have a set dated July 10 and plans dated August 1st. Ms. Wess responded that we submitted July 10th, received staff comments and the plans dated August 1st are the latest.

Mr. Huddleston asked if the precast being shown what would be called architectural precast material, not a synthetic material. Mr. Woodward answered that it was. Mr. Huddleston added even though it is important that we represent the concept for Phase II, it will not be a part of our consideration this evening.

Mr. McErlane reported the new color pallet for the building materials were submitted tonight. There are least 3 types of precast concrete one type of stone and one type of EIFS on the office building, and the parking garage has a couple of different precast concrete types. I donít know if we have samples of all those things tonight. Mr. Smith stated that there are samples of everything, except the EIFS. Mr. McErlane responded so the colors are the same; they just have a different texture.

We were not supplied with the right of way plat for the proposed right of way, but Mr. Shvegzda will have some comments on the proposed right of way.

Although there were a number of signs indicated on a sign layout plan, we were not provided with any details of the free standing signs that were shown.

A couple of the setbacks have changed since last month. The setback to the office building from the south property line has been increased to 20.1 feet (previously it was 12+ feet). The parking garage was 15.1 feet and is now 17.42 feet off the right of way to the west, which is Northwest Boulevard. That resulted from that additional notch in the parking garage.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Three


Mr. McErlane said that the parking garage now is shown at 1146 spaces, 1132 in the garage and 14 surface parking spaces. That is a reduction from what was shown on the last plan and Iím not sure the cause of that. The applicant indicated last month that the notch in the parking garage wouldnít really impact that because with the parking spaces being 19 feet, a 15-foot notch in the corner wouldnít impact any of them.

Mr. Woodward reported we had a stairwell in the corner and by putting the notch there we had to move the stairwell adjacent to the notch so we lost parking places.

Mr. McErlane stated that building heights are as they were shown last month. One of the concerns that we have is in the future, when the parking garage is sold to the office property, the properties should either be consolidated into one property or a deed restriction occur on the parking garage or the office building or probably both that would state that one could not be sold without the other because the parking requirements are met by the parking garage for the office building. Also, the second office building and garage are not a part of this approved plan.

Ms. McBride reported that the parking exceeds the parking requirements. Our code also requires a minimum open space of 20% and 42% will remain open. There are eight parking spaces located on the front or east side of the parking garage and they are 60 degree parking spaces and 18í5" in length; this does not meet our code design requirements so they need to be redesigned.

Additionally we had discussed with the applicant that that area would have only one point of access, and that is something Planning needs to consider from a safety standpoint.

We do have a requirement of 75-foot setback for buildings from property that is not contained within the PUD and they meet and exceed that. However, there are a number of instances (parking garage 17.42 feet to the right of way line and the office building is 37í5" to the edge of the street curb). Planning needs to give consideration to the visual impact of that eight-story office building and parking garage from those public streets.

The corners of the parking garage have been notched 15 x 15 as Planning requested. There has been a lot of discussion concerning the proposed plaza area. It is to include the water feature, streets, office identification sign and a portion of the off street parking spaces, as well as the landscaped plaza area. All of this is proposed to be located within the public right of way. It is our recommendation that the plaza not be included in the public right of way for a variety of maintenance and liability issues.

On the landscape plan, the applicant will be irrigating all the planting areas, including the roadway medians. We have not seen any details for the proposed water feature or fountain as well as the landscape feature that is being included as part of that plaza area and we would need to see them.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Four


Ms. McBride added that all the plant massings are to be incorporated in mulch beds. The applicant indicated that the evergreen material would be planted at 8 to 10 feet and that needs to be 10-foot minimum at time of planting. The landscape plans do not reflect any of the proposed freestanding signage, so they will need to be revised to include the signage as well as the appropriate landscape material at the base of each sign.

On the signage, they are proposing a number of free standing signs. The one Planning discussed a little bit last month is Sign B, their office identification sign oriented out on I-275. That sign is proposed to contain 400 s.f. in area, and I am assuming that is per side. We do not have a height on that sign or any details in terms of design, materials color and how it will be illuminated or landscaped.

They are proposing Sign C, which would be an office identification sign incorporated at the north end of the plaza. That sign is 200 s.f. and we donít have any details on that sign or how it would fit into the plaza landscaping.

Sign D is proposed for the southwest corner of North Commerce Way/ Northwest Boulevard. That is an identification monument type sign that is to be 50 square feet and we donít know the height or details etc.

There is a Sign E which I believe to be a part of the Bahama Breeze site. It is in that portion of the overall development and is indicated to be a 200 square foot sign and is not indicated what is to be on that sign, Bahama Breeze or Pictoria Towers or whatever. There is no height, design, and materials etc. information included. I would suggest that sign location not be part of the plan before you this evening and not be considered.

There is a Sign F, 50 square feet, but we donít have the details we need.

My recommendation on the freestanding signage would be that you consider withholding approval of that until we have the details.

In terms of on building signage, they are proposing signage on the east south and west elevations and no signage on the parking garage. On the east side wold be a 356 s.f. sign, on the south there would be two 356 s.f. signs and the west would have 1 356 square foot sign for a total of 1,424 square feet on the three sides of the building.

If the property were contained within our OB district based on the size of the building it would be entitled to 373.8 square feet of sign area, with none of the on building signs exceeding 150 square feet. The total sign area requested with all the freestanding signs except the one by Bahama Breeze, is 2,124 square feet. I am not suggesting that the 373.8 square feet is sufficient for this development; I only give you that as a reference.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Five


Ms. McBride added that the office building is to be at a height of 129.2 feet and the parking structure is to be 78 feet in height. Our maximum permitted height within a regular district would be 48 feet but this is a PUD and we can make allowances for building height.

One of the comments made at the July Planning meeting was that Ĺ of the level of the parking garage would be below grade. That does not appear to be the case either from the parking garage elevations or the grading plan. We would ask for clarification on that. We had thought that a good idea and the Commission might want to make that a requirement.

The applicant has revised the lighting plan to include the free standing lighting on poles, which would be the high pressure sodium we had required throughout the Pictoria Island. The only metal halide will be the balusters located around the plaza area which will be 43 inches in height. The pole-mounted fixtures will be at a height of 35 feet and both fixtures and poles are to be dark bronze in color. They will be supplying the minimum .5 foot-candles with a maximum of 3.2-foot candles provided on the plaza.

I would ask that the Planning Commission indicate in any motion that this doesnít include or consider any portion of Phase II of the Pictoria Island development.

Mr. Okum there is no mention for vertical trees against the garage, which is closest to the public right of way. We have a vertical treatment on the parking garage at Tri-County Mall that seemed to be effective and break the massive concrete. Would that type of tree application be appropriate for this as well?

Ms. McBride answered we could look at something like that. They do have the street trees both on North Commerce Way and Northwest Boulevard and they are supplementing those with additional tree material between the street trees and the parking garage. In the area where the garage is the closest they do have some planting beds, but they donít have a lot of vertical height. As part of the motion, you may want to ask them to go back and reconsider that area, and we can certainly work with them on that.

Mr. Okum wondered if the signage board was considered this evening, if Ms. McBride had a recommendation on the height. Ms. McBride responded that would depend on how big the sign would be. Four hundred square feet and 10 feet in height would not work. Mr. Okum commented maybe we need to work out the signs separately.

Does the applicant have a problem with dealing with the signs separately? Mr. Rusty Myers of Cincinnati Capital Properties said we were trying to come up with a conceptual plan of what the signs for the project would be. Mr. Okum responded we donít have enough information on the signs to really consider them.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Six


Mr. Myers responded the signs we really would like to try to consider tonight are both the onbuilding sign and the monument sign on the interstate in particular. We clearly donít have any detail on design yet, but that is all part of our process, and we obviously could come back and get approval for the signs. We have tried to come up with a sign package of monument signs, directional signs and identification signs that we were hoping to conceptually agree to tonight with final design approval at another Planning Commission meeting.

Approaching the Pictoria Tower I drawing, Mr. Myers stated there is a sign easement for the first sign, which is not a part of Bahama Breeze. Sign E would be an identification sign for the entire project, a monument sign as you enter the project. As you approach the building, As you approach the building, this would be an identification sign Pictoria Towers, and would probably direct you to the garage and the office towers and would be 50 square feet. As you approach the front of the building, in the plaza area there would be another identification sign (Pictoria Towers) and in front of the building would be a Tower I sign with tenant identification (Sign F). On Sign B with the interstate exposure we need to identify this project for people. This is the Pictoria Tower or Pictoria Corporate Center sign.

On the building itself, we are proposing one sign on the east side, two on the south and one on the west face. Because of the scale and size of this building, an eight story building 129 feet up in the air, the signs need to be visible from the interstate.

As the leasing agent for the project, what we are hoping to do is attract tenants to this building. A lot of other buildings in the market have significant signage opportunities for tenants. This building is the largest single faced building ever built in the Greater Cincinnati suburban office market. We are trying to provide opportunities for tenants to take advantage of the interstate exposure that we have and attract them to Springdale. We will be fighting Blue Ash and the I-71 corridor for a lot of these tenants.

Mr. Huddleston commented I think what the applicant is representing here tonight is a Class A project, first class all way. The building itself is beautiful, but the issues that we see on signage tonight are gong to be insurmountable, if they expect any kind of a site plan approval on which to proceed. Unless the applicant is willing to come back on signage, we have some pretty insurmountable issues tonight. I would ask the applicant if that is possible.

Mr. Woodward responded I donít think we are looking for blanket approval of any of the signs, and we fully intend to do a professional first rate total signage package and bring it back. There wasnít time to get that job done. We are out marketing the building, and we conceptually wanted to show you what we had in mind so you could give us some reaction as to whether we are on the right track or not.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Seven


Mr. Woodward continued I know that the 400-foot monument sign along the interstate is an issue. When we got preliminary plan approval, there was a pylon sign that was agreed to 50 feet high and 400 square feet. We didnít talk much about it, but it is shown on the preliminary plan approval as the 400-foot monument sign. If we want to put some parameters on that and say it canít be more than eight feet tall or something that makes you comfortable, weíd like to have that kind of feedback. When we talk to tenants in the marketplace, the first question is the kind of signage opportunities that we have. We will be out of the marketplace if we donít know what we can offer people.

Mr. Syfert responded I know you have been working hard at this and there has been a lot of time put in on it, but we donít have one thing to work with. I donít believe anyone on this board would feel comfortable going ahead with the concept because we donít know what you want. To say you want 400 feet of sign two places on the building doesnít tell me a whole lot. I for one think you would spoil a very beautiful building by putting a lot of signs on it. For you to proceed as quickly as possible, you probably should take the signs out of the submission tonight.

Mr. Galster commented I donít think anybody here has a problem with having a Sign B according to your drawing, whether it be ground mounted, the shape or the exact location Originally we were talking about having it in the water feature, so I donít think anybody has a problem with having some type of identification out at the interstate for the building. As far as your main entryway is concerned, I donít think anybody would have a problem with a sign identifying the development. Until we see a detail of how that island will look, it will be difficult to determine how the signage will fit in. I donít think anybody has problems with signs on the building until we know what they are going to look like and the exact size. So, to ask us to say that you can have this amount of square footage in these locations is tough to do. In general the locations of the signs and what you are trying to accomplish I have no problem with, but there is no way I can say it is okay for 1600 square feet of signs without having more details.

Mr. Okum said I have reservations on the signage size and maybe volume of signage, four signs on a building are a lot. This would be the first office building with four signs, and they are very large.

Mr. Okum added I have concerns about the garage setback setback proximity to the right of way. Also, I was understanding that the building would be lowered into the ground at least half a floor, and I donít see any reason why it canít be. Have there been changes to the plan that have brought it up?

Mr. Woodward responded there probably was a misunderstanding about what exactly I was trying to say about the garage floor being lowered. The garage floor is about four feet lower than the intersection of North Commerce Way and Northwest Boulevard. When we excavate that site to level it out, we will be digging that corner of the site out to fill on the other side of the property.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Eight


Mr. Okum asked why they could not set the garage down in Ĺ a floor or one floor, and Mr. Woodward answered then you have a ramp down into the garage, and I donít think that is very aesthetically pleasing, or a ramp back out on the other end of the garage. We could probably save three feet around the garage. Mr. Okum commented we are seeing a very nice office building with cornices and so forth and the garage, although of the same material, doesnít have the same look.

Mr. Smith stated that they are trying to create a look of depth, to look more vertical rather than just a box. From a grading standpoint we have an entry point here and here and in that area we are trying to accommodate the two entry points and get the grading on that site to work. To recess this down an additional four or five feet, there would be a lot of road that would have to be ripped up as well. We wonder if four feet would make a difference on a 78-foot high structure. At the last meeting, there may have been a misunderstanding as to what was buried into the ground and what wasnít.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum asked if this is pretty common with parking garages. Mr. Shvegzda responded I understand that the concern is in placing that first floor of the garage further down, due to the closeness of the garage on the west side to Northwest Boulevard and the cul de sac area, and because of the short distance between the two, it would be difficult to transition the driveway down to the first level of the garage. Mr. Okum responded unless that went into the second level and the other side went into the lower level. Mr. Shvegzda answered it would be that or if you wanted to continue on the first level, you probably would have to lose some parking spaces in order to transition it down in.

Mr. Okum said if that building were lowered I thought you could go into the second level from North Commerce Way, and the other entrance went into the lower level. Mr. Smith responded that they would have to slope up to go into the second level right now. And if you lower the building, you create a lot more grading and reworking the words. Mr. Okum responded I donít see why you are reworking the roads. If you lower the building and leave the roads where they are, you could transition into the second floor from that west elevation and go into the lower floor from the east where you have more depth and distance. Mr. Smith (pointing to the drawing) said at this point the elevation is 701 and this point it is 698, and 701 is the ideal level of the typical type of parking deck. What we have done is create additional height by sloping the bottom floor to be able to get in, and utilize the road as it is designed today. If we are going to lower that deck and push it down to be able to get from here to the second floor which is another 10 feet, Mr. Woodward added that it would create some dead end aisles at the lower level and make it a subterranean level which needs ventilation. Mr. Smith added you are building retaining walls all the way around and would have to ventilate the deck as well. That means coming back, ripping up the road here and recreating it steeper to be able to get down.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Nine


Mr. Okum responded unless everything went in on the second level and the first level was below grade. Mr. Smith answered the problem would be that you never would get out of the first level because we have one way directional parking.

Mr. Okum said I thought about dropping that one floor to have basement parking. I donít think youíll fill that garage, but you are just a little over our code.

Ms. Wess added the detention area has a high elevation of 693.3 and you canít bring that garage level down lower than 693.3. Actually it needs to be higher because you have to make sure the water doesnít back up into the garage.

Ms. McBride wondered if the rendering the commission is looking at shows the five or seven level parking garage, and Mr. Smith answered it is the seven level.

Mr. Okum asked about the height of the lighting fixtures, and Ms. McBride answered the ones in this location are primarily used around the plaza and are more as street type lights, so we donít have a problem with the 35 foot height in those locations. They are not within parking fields.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that they have received the storm sewer system calculations and they are acceptable. We do have some minor comments that we are working with the consultant on.

We have received the information on where the major storm routing is and the depths to which certain sag areas will pond with water, but we have not had a chance to go through it.

Due to the arrangement of the pavement drainage, we need to have the drive aprons on the driveways that come out into the public right of way to be concrete.

We had utility questions on North Commerce Way, and the applicant has indicated that both the water main extension and the sanitary sewer modification plans have been submitted to the respective utilities for their approval.

There is a modification, the widening of North Commerce Way as it comes around the radius in that location, so there will be additional right of way required. In order to accommodate utility signage, etc. we are looking at a minimum of eight feet to be conveyed from back of curb.

Concerning the plaza area, the plans had indicated it to be public right of way, and we do have many private features of parking and various landscaping features. To further complicate the issue, the parking areas are shown half within and half outside what is indicated as the public right of way. So, we would strongly recommend that not be public right of way.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Ten


Mr. Shvegzda added that the streetlights proposed for Northwest Boulevard should be in compliance with the Cynergy requirements, and Cynergy will be the maintaining agency. There is a proposed landscaped median located within the public right of way that we will need a licensed agreement for. I am assuming at this point that it will be maintained by the owner of the development, so we would need a license agreement to allow that to take place.

On the railway geometrics for the North Commerce Way modifications, basically that widens out to accommodate that landscape island and left turn lane that would go into the office tower II and begins to transition to the plaza landscape area. We had looked at it and feel the transition length provided on the plans is not sufficient. Approximately 175 feet of transition is required.

In order to eliminate potential hazards and make it a more easy transition into the left turn lane that will go into the parking garage for Pictoria Tower II, that whole landscape median should be a consistent length. If we want to create something to protect the end of that left turn bay, we can put in a striped median. It would be a much simpler arrangement, and a lot less confusing to the motoring public.

On the landscaped median, as we approach the plaza area we have a four-way intersection that is there. We have the north-south movement that angles into the turnaround area, and we have a drive on either side of that. So, it is a considerable width and dimension of pavement area through there. We would suggest that the landscape median be extended further to the south to more delineate this area. Right now a lot of area is open and could lead to confusion.

It was indicated by the consultant that this was arranged this way due to the allowing of trucks into the driveway. Our point was that this entrance is into the parking garage area only and there shouldnít be any large trucks that would make this left turn movement.

On the alignment of the public roadway to the turn around, right now if you are in the through lane you are directed into the head of the landscaped island. We feel this isnít a good situation, particularly in light of the fact that we have an intersection at this location. We really need a tapering of that landscaped area to provide a better alignment of that through movement.

The consultant has now indicated that the paver color and patterns of this area around the turnaround area is to be similar to the cul de sac area of North Commerce Way that has been constructed. We have received pavement markings, signage plans and upon addressing these particular issues, we will perform the final review of that.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Eleven


Mr. Shvegzda reported that the width of the turnaround pavement in the plaza area has been modified so those fire vehicles are able to turn around there. We have confirmed that with our fire department, and it is sufficient for our fire truck to maneuver.

One concern is the catch basins are located on the inside curb area. There is a curb and gutter shown for both inside and outside. The normal section for the curb and gutter is that it drains back from edge of pavement to the face of curb. There is no catch basin there, so unless there is a modification, it will pond water back in that area.

At the last meeting we had with the applicant, there was a discussion concerning the west leg of that four way intersection just to the north of the landscaped plaza area. I thought we had concluded that we needed to eliminate that drive to help remedy the various traffic movements that could occur there and have the entrance to that park area be consolidated with the entrance into the parking garage, so it would be both the entrance and exit for that area. What has been revised has become an angled parking area so that it is entrance at that location only.

The one drawing shows a driveway at the far south end of the turnaround drive (the drive to the service area of Office Tower II). Since we are not dealing with any final plan approval of Office Tower II, it is our understanding that this driveway would be constructed at a later date.

Mr. Smith showed the drawing of the plaza area saying that coming down North Commerce Way, we are creating a plaza area, defining it with concrete pavers. The idea is that anybody coming down North Commerce to enter the deck would do so before they approach the plaza area, so there would be a minimal number of people entering this area. The plaza has one way traffic going through it, and as people approach the plaza, the change in the material makes it inherent for them to slow down realizing this is more of a pedestrian area. We envision this as an area that has bushes around the perimeter to form a type of enclosure within the space. There is a trellis with wisteria and flowering trees behind that. Large shade trees are around the perimeter and the fountain is a focal point and there are several areas of benches.

We tried to address this parking area and we have shown two curb cuts, one being the entrance to the deck and the other a curb cut off the movement to the plaza. With that curb cut, it allows the visitor coming through here and not parking in the deck to see where he is going and the parking available. If that space were cut off, they might miss the entrance point have to circulate all the way around again and cut back across. If they came in and found there was no spot they would have to back out, so we would ask for reconsideration on keeping that curb cut.

Mr. Woodward added before when we were talking about congestion, we were looking at traffic coming back out of the parking lot causing some concerns, but now that is a right in only those concerns should be removed.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twelve


Mr. Woodward added we agree with all of Donís comments except for three of them, allowing the light for this parking, which I think is important for the project. We also have to allow the delivery trucks to turn in here, because site II has not been designed yet and I believe there will be some desire to move that service area to the back side of this project, and we need to have that flexibility. We can move it down as far as possible, but we still need to allow the trucks to make that left hand turn. Mr. Smith added the third point is that we would like to maintain the shape.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they would post a lower speed in the area. Mr. Woodward answered we could; I think it will be natural when you drive onto the brick pavers from the asphalt, but we could post it. Mr. Smith added a lot of the people who will be using it will be visitors who are slowing down to figure out where they are going. They are beyond the major traffic movement thatís into the deck.

Mr. Woodward added one of the major comments was that this shouldnít be right of way and it will not be right of way. It will simply be an easement in favor of the city, and the developer will sign an agreement to maintain it in perpetuity.

Mr. Parham commented the originally the detention ponds were gong to be owned by the developer and leased back to the city so they could be included under the TIF. The lake will continue to be a part of the TIF; the goal is to include the plaza as part of the TIF and the developer will own it. They will be responsible for the maintenance of it. One of the things we would like to see is that it be designated to a specific owner or individual, someone we can go to and say you are responsible for maintaining the site.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Parham to explain TIF. Mr. Parham reported that under the Tax Increment Financing (TIF), there is a process by which a developer will make improvements to the infrastructure, the roads, the sewers, in this instance the parking garages and detention ponds and the plaza. Those things typically have to be owned by the public entity. In this instance, we are told that we can meet that criterion through a lease process. Normally when you construct a building on the premise, the taxes would go through their normal process, through the schools through the county and so forth. However when you incorporate them under a TIF, the property improvements go to pay off the debt that the City borrows. With this program, the developer has some other process in place to handle the long-term debt.

Mr. Vanover said I would highly recommend and would like to see a posted reduced speed limit through there. The residential areas are 25 miles per hour, but you look at the traffic through there. I also have some concerns with that angled parking. Trees are nice, but there is a line of sight question with some of these. Any time you are blindly backing up into head on traffic, I have to question it. The reduced speed limit will help some, but that situation needs to be addressed.

Mr. Smith wondered if it would be better served with a perpendicular space. In either case, you would be backing out.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Thirteen


Mr. Vanover answered no; the perpendicular there is off the beaten path. Mr. Woodward commented we could have a tree canopy four or five feet. Mr. Vanover responded I would hope the tree canopy would be a little higher than that, definitely above five feet. It is a beautiful feature and looks nice, but that is one of the problems I see.

Approaching the drawing, Mr. Shvegzda said our concern is that this be one way but you have a left turn that will be the main access to the parking garage. Then you have this considerable offset so you would have this movement, and there is nothing to delineate any lanes or indicate what is going on. We need something that more properly aligns, and allows everybody to know where they are going. Widening this out and bringing the through lanes further out has done some of this. In addition we w0ould narrow this down to better direct these through lanes out onto the public right of way. The problem is dealing with this left turn. I know ideally if this property over here was part of the development, we would somehow put that in over here where it is a narrower pavement area to deal with and everything is defined to direct the lanes out.

Mr. Woodward suggested a stop sign, wondering if that would help. Mr. Shvegzda answered because of the offset there, and I assume we would allow the incoming traffic to not be stopped, it is hard for them to tell who is going to be making the left turn before they decide to proceed after they have stooped.

Mr. Smith commented we want to address that as well. There is a left turn arrow to accommodate this, and we want to direct the traffic through the banding that is on the pavement. It would help

to delineate the lanes.

Ms. Wess added most of the tenants will make a left turn into the garage during two peak hours, 8 in the morning and 5 at night. There will not be a lot of traffic coming around that plaza as they are making a left hand turn. It is not a typical intersection.

I can see Donís point to try to align the drives and make it a smooth transition. However, I feel that people are going to be slowing down just because of the difference in the pavement sections. For those people who donít know the area, they will be slowing down even more. I donít think there will be lost and confused when they get to this point because this skew to the right is not that big of a skew.

Mr. Shvegzda responded the problem is with the offset there, it is not a standard alignment and would be difficult for those people to know when they would be yielding.

Mr. Woodward commented we think the architectural solution of the plaza is superior. Donís engineering solution might be a slight bit better, but this is a real special place, and we think people will recognize that. I donít think engineering concerns outweighs the architectural solution we are looking at.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Fourteen


Mr. Okum said I understand what you are saying, but I think if you come around the circle, if there was a stop bar change in pavement and a stop sign, the cars that go around would have to stop before they hit that intersection. I think that would help. I think that also would help Mr. Vanoverís suggestion to lower the speed limit to 20 or 15 m.p.h.

On the entry into the garage off the loop road, why isnít that a right in right out function? The left out of there will have a very difficult line of sight. You have some grade issues and you also have to turn into a radius, and it is always difficult to turn left into a radius when cars are coming around it. I think the other of the garage is the ideal location to go out. If that opening on the west side of the garage was wide enough to accommodate it, you could even do a double right if you had to on the west side. It would be neat if they would go into the garage one way and out the other.

Mr. Okum said the only other comment I have is on the northwest corner of the parking garage where we put the 15 foot notch, that needs to have some ornamentation, some cornicing to tie to the office building.

Mr. Galster wondered if they make the garage a right in and you canít get out and have to go back through the garage, how high are the garages? I know to avoid parking garages. Mr. Smith said it would be 6í8" and we would reserve a certain number of spaces for high top vans. Mr. Vanover added even if you made that right in and right out, you could still circle the loop and get back out.

Ms. Wess added when you limit that to a right in right out, and you have a lot of people exiting this garage, you are adding more entry into the plaza area.

Mr. Vanover said if you donít address that now, when that second tower goes in, youíve added an other headache for that left hand turn exiting on that side that they have to negotiate. If you set it up now and get everybody used to it, they are ready for the future.

Mr. Syfert wondered if the bar would be at 6í8" and Mr. Smith answered that would be the worst case. Mr. Syfert added with a normal van, 6í8" wonít work, and if you are going to put it at 6í8", I wonít vote for it because I couldnít get my van in there. Seven feet is easy. Iím just saying that you should look at it.

Mr. Galster suggested moving the plaza south. Can we reconfigure it so the left turn into the service road or parking garage is happening away from the plaza. Mr. Smith said that would make the space larger, which we are trying to avoid. Mr. Galster said donít make it larger; bring it down and make that left turn lane through that first island.

Mr. Syfert commented I believe the traffic control device is the better suggestion on that northbound side.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Fifteen


Mr. Shvegzda added the bottom line of our concern is that the geometric arrangement promotes right turn, and within that same area, all of a sudden you have one left turn occurring.

Mr. Darby said I agree that the left turn could create a problem, although I also will agree that over at the village square in Glendale, traffic tends to be very slow and people tend to be very carefully just because of the nature of that configuration. However, if the concern is that the delivery trucks need to be able to make a left turn, didnít you say that this configuration was such that it could handle fire trucks? Then why canít it handle delivery trucks? Why canít they take the right turn, go around and go back into that area?

Mr. Smith answered then we would be increasing the traffic flow. Mr. Darby responded so what you are saying is that at certain parts of the day the left turn would be the rule rather than the exception.

Ms. McBride said I would like to recommend that all the parking spaces, both within the garage and those on the site itself, meet the design requirements of Section 153.502 in terms of space and aisle width. The ninety degree parking spaces are 9í x 19í and the sixty degree are 9í x 20í11" and the aisle widths depend on one way/two way.

Ms. Wess commented there was some confusion with your Code, and we will revise this to show the 20í11". This plan shows 21.42 feet from the face of curb to the end of the diagonal stripe perpendicular. Then we are showing here 20.5 feet from the end of that striping lane to the back of curb.

Ms. McBride added there is a diagram in the old code that you can refer to, but in addition to the surface parking, we are saying that the spaces in the garage have to conform. Mr. McErlane added those dimensions impact the garage more than they do the surface parking. The 55.4 dimension is if you could overlap the front of one car on an angled bay to the front of another car nose to nose. It doesnít take into account the full front of the car. That dimension would be more like 59í10". Mr. Smith commented you could have 60-foot bays, which is traditional, and Mr. McErlane added that is less than what our code requires, 62 feet.

Mr. Woodward asked about other parking garages around Springdale, and Mr. McErlane reported that the Tri-County Mall parking garage has a variance for width of the space itself at 8 Ĺ feet rather than nine feet.

Mr. Smith reported this is typical of what we have laid out all over the country. Mr. Woodward added we would ask for consideration on that issue as well.

Mr. Whitaker said I know we are not considering the future office building, but what are some ideas of making the future parking for garage number two. If we made the south side of the parking garage in only off that plaza and make the exit at the north side, and eliminate that left in, we would have good traffic flow.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Sixteen


Mr. Smith said it would bring everybody through the plaza. It could be done but we were trying to avoid that. It is a very good solution. The only concern I would have is that people are out there at lunchtime.

Mr. Okum said I am really not convinced that the garage will look like anything more than a garage with some flat panels. Mr. Syfert commented that the relief that they mentioned with the columns might make it different than most of your parking garages. Mr. Woodward stated that a couple of the columns there every 30 feet and we are adding secondary architectural columns every 15 feet to get more versatility. Mr. Okum said it needs something; the building is spectacular and the garage looks like a garage with vertical columns on it, and the garage is so close to the public right of way that it makes it even worse.

Mr. Woodward stated that a good portion of the garage could be handled with landscaping. Mr. Okum responded it takes a while for the trees to grow. You have street trees along that section that help. Something is needed to take care of that corner. The rest I donít have any real problems with.

Mr. Okum said I donít want to delay this any more than we have to, but we have an engineering issue with the lane depth that is required, and I think Mr. Shvegzda needs to report if it is a safety issue; something is not right on the depth issue and the parking spaces and width and length. That needs to be resolved. I donít want this building 12 feet wider. Right now, if I add all the setback requirements in our Code, you are required to be 124 feet total off the right of ways. If I take your proposal, you are 132 feet, so you are 8.5 feet off for the building. When I look at the parking garage, the Code requires 162 feet and you are at 102 feet, which is a 60-foot variance. That is quite a bit. We need to come up with something. At this point, with those issues of setback, the issues of the parking requirements, I canít make a positive vote on the issue. I would like to see those issues resolved. Unless we excluded the parking garage from consideration along with the signage, and that wonít help you.

Mr. Smith said I donít think that would do us any good. The parking deck here is laid out to standards that are accepted by the industry nationwide. If we have to abide by zoning, that would mean the deck would get wider and cause us a problem with the right of way. If we have to abide by the right of way, the only way to do that is to reduce that so that instead of having three structural bays, go to two, and the deck would be a lot taller than the office building, and not feasible to build.

Mr. Okum responded the other option would have been to move the whole thing further south, and not leave so much space for restaurant number four. We have 163 parking spaces in that one field for restaurant 4. Frankly, I would vote against the parking that was originally configured along that border, because of traffic and cars pulling directly out into the lanes. You could have another 14 or 16 feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Seventeen


Mr. Woodward said the property lines have already been purchased by the client. The 163 spaces are not shared parking.

I know you like to go back and look at what the office zoning requirements are, but one of the reasons to have the PUD is to promote the efficient use of land, particularly land like this. Mr. Okum said when you put a box on the public right of way, I have difficulty when the box is not treated with something that ties to the building.

Mr. Woodward showed photographs of a comparable deck that had the same setback from the curb. Mr. McErlane added it was a shorter parking garage and was 35 feet from the curb, 25 feet from the right of way. Mr. Smith showed a picture of a garage which is one level lower and 29 feet from the back of curb and with columns to bring it forward. We are talking about right of way, which is a perceived line through that space. Mr. Okum said these are 30-foot spans, and there are plenty of vertical elements here, here and here that are projecting out 12 inches or so. Mr. Smith said it would be projecting out so there will be a much more vertical feel to help break that up. As Bill tried to point out, the purpose of trying to create these suburban office parks and these PUDs is to help to try to accommodate.

Mr. Okum asked how some of the building elements could be carried to the garage besides the materials. Mr. Smith answered the only other element that we have, and the office is part of that, is glass. We could try to get those verticals to come over the top to break that up. We have a tower element that houses the elevators so we could possibly to use some parking spaces back here.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said this is an issue of the depth requirements and parking spaces. Mr. Shvegzda wondered if there had been any discussion as to other parking garages in the city and their dimensions. The applicant said we are leasing the new Rookwood Tower in Hyde Park, and those width of spaces are 8í6" and I believe it is the same exact layout as this garage. It is a high quality class A building commanding some of the top rents in the city. That is the only parking garage I am familiar with that exists for a Class A office building in town, but it is very typical.

Mr. Okum responded I certainly would not be comfortable with 8í6". I think 9 feet is necessary. In most instances the depth would be okay, but when you change your angle it affects it more. Mr. Smith answered the spaces on the ramp portion of this is 18 feet deep.

Mr. Shvegzda said as to whether or not they are safe, it is a matter of how often those are utilized. They are indicating that they are, but I am not familiar with those usages and have

Ms. McBride stated I understand that the architect used architectural graphic standards but there are other sources that we can look at if the Commission wishes us to,. There is the Urban Land Institute, the American Planning Association, the International Council of Shopping Centers and a number of other sources which may be more on point with this issue than Architectural Graphic Standards in terms of parking space sizes and so forth.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Eighteen


Ms. McBride added a lot of those publications are updated very frequently. I donít know that they include things like the Ford Excursion, but most certainly there will be Ford Excursions in that parking garage and we have to plan for that.

Mr. Smith responded this plan has been approved by the Graphic Standards group for the 1970 Cadillac, a big car. Ms. McBride answered you are talking about a book that covers designing tennis courts and everything. I am saying that maybe we need to look at publications that deal specifically with parking issues. Weíll be happy to do that if the Commission wants to have that research done.

Mr. Okum commented if it doesnít meet some type of the balance of all those resources that Ms. McBride has referenced, then we have a bigger garage. Itís either a bigger garage or it meets the average of the standards she outlined.

Mr. Smith said we do work for Duke this side of the Mississippi and that plan is a Duke deck that we have done in several places, including our headquarters.

Mr. McErlane stated that Architectural Graphic Standards are a great standard primarily for architectural work and not necessarily for parking layouts. They include anything from how far apart to space your toilet and sink, the height of your chair rails and t hose type of things. It probably would behoove the applicant to take a look at some references that deal primarily with parking, like the Urban Land Institute, ITE and some of the others. If it turns out that there are standards that are less than what our code is,

Planning Commission can take a look at that.

Mr. Woodward commented the fact of the matter is that these garages designed the way we have them designed absolutely must work, because they are all over the country. Mr. Smith added we are doing work for Duke in Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Tampa, and Nashville. In most of those cities we have decks that have that exact plan.

Mr. Huddleston said as much as I appreciate the value of what the city does with all our codes and trying to keep them updated and the good job they have done, it is apparent to me that our code doesnít necessarily address multi level parking garages very well. To get this issue off dead center, maybe we could establish some mutual standard here tonight. They have made some very strong references that in fact this does work. If they can satisfy staff with some standard, whether practical experience or some design standard, perhaps we could move on this subject to the three staff membersí approval. That would be my suggestion relative to the parking garage.

I think it is apparent from what the applicant has told us that this will work for an office parking lot. Maybe we need to take exception to our code in this case if that is the case.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Nineteen


Mr. Huddleston added addressing Mr. Okumís legitimate concerns of trying to tie in this parking garage in some manner with the office structure itself, it is a beautiful edifice. I donít believe the parking structure is very deficient. I think what they have done is pretty quality, but I donít think necessarily it ties into the office building. Whether you need corner elements which shouldnít severely impact your costs, or something like that I donít know, but I would like us to defer to some expertise other than our own code, if you can satisfy our professionals.

Mr. Galster commented I have no problem at all with Mr. Huddlestonís comments regarding determining the norm and go from there. I wanted to comment on the materials on the garage. The only difference from the office building is that it has some marble around some of the columns and the arcade goes all the way around all three sides. Looking at the notches, Mr. Galster suggested putting the opaque window material in the openings to give it a glass look in the corners. I assume that the long panes that are three stories high are opaque glass. Mr. Smith answered you can see a little band, and that is the glass you canít see through. Mr. Galster commented I donít know if one is cheaper than the other, but possibly you could fill in the three corners that donít have the elevator to give a window look. Otherwise, I think we have to be really strong with some very high landscaping. Ins5tesad of starting out with 8 or 10 foot trees, it is so close to that right of way, maybe we need to find a fast growing 12 14 or 16 foot tree. I think those things could work as long as we are making sure we are tying in architecturally the same material as much as we can.

I like the idea of the fake elevator in the other corner, except for the fact that it also will be closer to the public right of way. Mr. Smith said if we could square off that corner to make it more of a tower element.

Mr. Galster added the other thing was the cap around it. Maybe it is just to bring it level; maybe it is to add the lighter color accent tone. I understand the more solid sand color is pretty much around the top and between the windows. So if we are going to put the windows in there, put that around them as well. Just try to be as consistent as possible, and landscape it properly with some height. I would be comfortable with that.

Mr. Okum said I donít have a problem with that corner going out 15 feet; itís not going to make a difference if there is a corner element that resembles some of the edifice on the front. I donít care about rounding at the top, but I would like to see the cornicing carried across directly on the top of that garage. At the diagonal corners, it would be elevated somewhat above to give it dimension and separation, similar to the way you do with a penthouse on an existing building.

Mr. Woodward responded we can live with that.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone was opposed to that, and no one was.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twenty


Mr. Huddleston commented the fact is that we are working with a PUD here. It is a very intensely developed site and the applicant has done a quality job. The bigger concern I have is with the traffic circulation. What I am trying to say is I think we need to go out of the box a little bit here and we have done that in trying to accommodate. Hopefully we can find a parking garage standard that says this works and go forward.

Mr. Okum wondered if CG&E does the same lighting on the private part of the roadway that they do on the public. Mr. Shvegzda answered not necessarily; they would have to have an agreement with the city to do the maintenance on the street lights, and that being private property, they wouldnít be able to enter into that agreement. Mr. Okum commented so the street lights would go to the public right of way line, and this light would not apply. Mr. Shvegzda responded we would have to verify if it does or does not. Mr. Okum commented it doesnít meet our standards in terms of shielding. I can include the shielding in the motion. Mr. Shvegzda added the lights on North Commerce Way are existing street lights that are to be relocated back to accommodate the widening. The only new street lighting on the public right of way is for the Northwest Boulevard cul de sac area. Ms. Wess added that SB light that you were referring to is what exists on North Commerce Way, the Cinergy light.

Mr. Okum commented had the plaza area been dedicated, then the SB light would have carried into the plaza area and we are saying that all lights on your site shall be shielded.

Mr. Okum moved to grant approval of the final development plan for Pictoria Tower I. This motion does not include any reference to Pictoria Tower II or the parking garage for Pictoria Tower II. It shall include the North Commerce Way Improvements Pictoria Island PUD Construction Drawings C000 through C700, the Pictoria Tower I Drawings A 2.1 to A 4.1P and Pictoria Tower I Pictoria Island PUD C000 to C700, the construction timeline that was presented with the following conditions:

    1. That references by our city planner, city engineer, and city building official be incorporated in the motion;
    2. That all signage shall not be included at this time;

3. That the area of the plaza at the end of North Commerce Way is not to be included as public right of way;

4. That the applicant shall include vertical trees and landscaping on the northwest corner of the parking garage;

5. That the 15í x 15í recess on the northwest corner of the parking garage is to be eliminated, and a vertical feature is to be added, which is the same vertical treatment on the southeast corner of the building;

6. That the cornicing on the office building is to be carried onto the parking garage;

7. That all site parking meets city specifications of Section 153.502 with the exception of the garage, which shall meet staff approval upon review of submissions from the applicant;

    1. That all lights on the site shall be shielded;


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twenty-One


9. That the city engineer shall approve all final items listed in his report;

10. That there be added to the covenants items of landscaping maintenance in non-improved areas;

11. That all landscaping shall be irrigated;

12. That all mechanical units shall be screened from view from the public right of way;

13. That there shall be a stop bar added into the plaza level on the east side of the circle going north with a stop sign;

14. That the garage entry on the east side shall be right in and right out;

15. That all dumpsters shall be enclosed according to our zoning code.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if there was anything else and Mr. Shvegzda wondered if the motion should include anything concerning the geometric situation on the turn around plaza area. Is there anything we want to direct the applicant to do to address that situation. We talked about a number of things.

Mr. Okum responded you are still referencing the island moving forward? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that Mr. Whitaker suggested arranging it so that the southernmost drive would be into the garage, and the northernmost drive would be an exit from the garage. The whole idea would be to close off that left turn area. Would that be something that could be tried, evaluated and if it was a problem.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if he were referring to Phase II and Mr. Shvegzda answered that ultimately it would affect Phase II. Mr. Galster commented we are not considering Phase II so we could keep it at no left turn at this point.

Mr. Okum said we can do that in the motion.

16. That there shall be no left turn into the Phase II area until such time as the final plans are submitted for that area.

Mr. Shvegzda wondered if there would be a physical barrier there to prevent a left turn. Mr. Okum said there would be no curb there and this would be evaluated at the time of Phase II submission. That keeps Phase II totally out of consideration at this time.

Ms. Wess wondered about the signage for the left turn, and Mr. Shvegzda added we would have to stripe that out to direct traffic that it is not a left turn for any consideration. Mr. Okum added they could leave it landscaped and grassed temporarily where that left turn would be.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster said the stop bar on the east side going north would not be needed since there is no left turn. If they make the entrance into the south side of the building and the exit out on the north side with no left turn there, you really donít need a stop bar. Mr. Vanover said the stop helps control and enforce the traffic speed in the circle and you will have people that will miss that western parking lot. I still think the stop sign and stop bar are viable.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twenty-Two


Commission members agreed to leave the stop bar in.

Ms. Wess said for clarification, you are not considering any signage, even on the building? No.

Mr. Tipton added I would like to support my colleague, who has the job of leasing this building. It is a tough job and this is a pioneering effort. A lot of people think we are not too smart to be doing this building in this location. We are in the heat of battle for a major tenant right now. One of the critical issues is that the tenant must know that they can put signage on the building or on the monument sign. So we need to at least have a feel from this commission. I am assuming you are saying that at some point of time when we come back with the sign designed it will get approved, but we donít want to talk to this tenant and telling them that they can have signage and have it turned down. Are you saying that when we come in with a sign package that we can have the monument sign and the sign on the building? We can live with that, but we just need to be able to say to them that they can put their signage there.

Mr. Syfert responded we all realize that signage is very important to you, but you have to understand that we saw nothing on signage tonight, and I donít believe that is a person on this commission that would feel comfortable with what was presented to us. We donít have anything to work with and our planner had absolutely nothing to work with. I donít believe anyone on this commission would say that you arenít going to have any signage on that building, and we talked about a monument sign from the start. We figured probably one pylon sign and one monument sign.

Mr. Tipton responded we can live with that; just so we are not out telling somebody something that we canít deliver. Thank you.

Voting aye ware M r. Okum, Mr Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m.

B. Concept Discussion Ė Proposed alterations to Steak Ďní Shake, Princeton Road (Applicant has requested to be tabled to September)

C. Approval of Revised Building Elevations Ė Tri-Centre, Princeton Road

Scott Brinker of Henkle Schueler stated for 17 years we have managed and been leasing partners in the Gentry Tri-Centre. About 11 or 12 years ago we redid the front fascia of the building and installed the awning that is there now.

The awning is in need of major repairs and feedback from current and prospective tenants and other prominent retail leasing brokers in the market indicate that this center is getting a little dated in its appearance. Based on that, we have developed a redo of the front fascia. I would like to have Chad Nahrup the manager of our operations and our architect, Paul Rabinowitz explain what we have in mind.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Nahrup said I believe you have drawings indicating the different color schemes that we are gong to use in this project and we also have some drawings that show a general scheme of what we are gong to do to the front of the building and a couple of the details as well.

Mr. Rabinowitz reported we are doing exterior remodeling, removing the current awning. We are concentrating on the front of the building. This detail will wrap around the side of the building a few feet at each end.

There were some digital photos, and the highest point is at Gentry and the top by Gentry is about six inches higher than what is there now. The rest of this band keeps pretty much in the same height as the current awning.

The design is such that instead of the awning with the names, there will be internally lit signs on bus bars, so it will be a little fancier sign than what is there now. The entire surface area will be a synthetic stucco EIFS. The columns there currently, the exposed surface steel will be wrapped in EIFS. There are little planters around the columns and they will be removed. The overall plan is to lighten up the appearance in a green color with some accent colors. There will be a standing seamed metal roof, a copper color similar to Forest Fair Mall.

Mr. Huddleston said you mentioned the signage on bus bars; are they internally lilt box letters and will you have a covenant on all your leases stating they are internally lit? Mr. Nahrup confirmed this.

Mr. Darby said with this major renovation, are you planning to do any treatment on the sides of the building? Mr. Nahrup answered on the north side, we plan to wrap it all the way back to the north corner. On the south side, because there is not much visibility, we will wrap this diagonal section here and dress this side up, paint it to match the rest.

Ms. McBride reported I apologize that these comments have not been shared with the applicant; we just received these a few days ago and made a quick turn around. They have described what they are proposing to do, and I think this is a significant improvement to the center. The proposed building elevation is 28í8" at the highest point after the remodeling, and we allow a maximum of 48 feet so there is no problem there.

There are five planters with evergreen shrubs and I didnít know if you were planning on reinstalling those or adding additional landscaping.

Mr. Nahrup responded we could consider it. It would be out in front if we did additional landscaping.

Ms. McBride added we didnít see details on signage but whatever is proposed would have to meet the code and permits issued.

I would add that Half Price Books (which is a marvelous tenant) routinely puts books on carts outside, and that is outside display of products which requires a conditional use permit. They could come in and apply for that or take the books inside.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Syfert commented Ms. McBride brought up a good point regarding the vegetation. Mr. Nahrup responded we would rather not have that specified; we would like to see it when it is up. Mr. Syfert said she is saying we would like to see a little more. Mr. Brinker said if it could be kept away from the building; the plants tend to block the storefronts now, so we are trying to open that up as much as possible. If we have to we will, but that wasnít a part of the proposal.

Mr. Okum said I would suggest maybe three landscaped islands in the middle of the field. You have some light poles in the field and you could utilize those locations for some landscaped islands. Put some small two inch caliper trees on the islands and mulch beds. That would be further away from the building and wouldnít block the view. Mr. Syfert commented I think it would enhance your location there quite a bit.

Mr. Brinker said we would lose some parking spaces, which is a concern. Mr. Okum commented I donít think your parking field has ever been 1/3 full. Mr. Brinker responded weíve done parking studies and are aware of that. If we came in for a building extension, it might be a little tight. Mr. Okum answered if you came in for a building extension you would be required to put landscaped islands there. I would ask the applicant to consider two to three breaks in your field with some landscaped islands. Mr. .Syfert added at least look at it.

Mr. Huddleston said based on Mr. Okumís comments, requesting three 10í x 38í fields, is that something you could logically do in conjunction with something like this? Could you live with it? Mr. Brinker said we could live with it if we had to.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the redevelopment of the front elevation of Tri-Centre in accordance with the documents submitted, the applicantís statement that the building that is not refaced (the sides) will be painted and that the applicant will add three parking islands in the middle of the parking field around existing lights to be 10í x 38í with appropriate plantings. That is not part of the motion, but on behalf of the commission I would appreciate that.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Huddleston amended his motion to state that they will cover the whole north side of the building, the front side of the building and wrap the south side for some 10 feet on the diagonal per their stated plans.

Mr. Huddleston added if I understand the applicant, they are saying they will replace the existing signage with interior lit box letters not to be increased in size to the existing. Mr. Galster seconded the modified motion

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.





Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 2000

Page Twenty-Five

    1. Buffer Lighting Zones (Tabled 7/11/00)
    2. Mr. McErlane reported we had this in the form it needed to be at the last meeting. We just held off on it because we had another change coming through. Subsequent to that we found some other changes that need to be adopted. We could consider these tonight, but we would have an other group of them at the next meeting, I would suggest we table it again. Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

    3. Proposed Zoning Code Change Ė Definition of "Area Building"

Mr. McErlane said I can explain why this change came about and what it does. The only place in the code that the area of the building is used is relatives to accessory buildings in residential districts. We refer to impervious surface ratio with respect to commercial districts, and donít take into consideration building area for any other use within the code. We use floor area for parking requirements which is a different definition.

The reason this came into play is there was an application before the BZA relative to a shed, which had an open porch on the front of it. The question came up as to whether or not that open porch was part of the square footage of the shed. In the Building Department, we would typically consider it part of the square footage, but by this definition as it exists today, it wouldnít be. We think for the purposes of determining an accessory building size, it should include covered porches and this would make that change.

Mr. McErlane suggested this also be tabled and considered at the next meeting. Commission members voted to table until next month.

    1. Neal, Kuhn & Huffsteder Inc. Ė 255 Northland Boulevard Ė wall sign
    2. Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 East Tri-County Parkway Ė ground sign


The business having been concluded, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


_______________________, 2000 ______________________

William Syfert, Chairman


_______________________, 2000 _______________________

David Whitaker, Secretary