7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:09 P. M. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Councilwoman Peggy Manis,

Tim Sullivan, Barry Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson and Chairman William G. Syfert.

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Assistant City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

James Harrison, Attorney (arrived at 7:45 P.M.)


Ms Manis moved for adoption and Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, except Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert, who abstained,

and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.


Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative



A. Letter from William K. McErlane to Bryan Neltner re Sidewalk Sales

at Tri-County Commons

B. Letter from Steve Galster, Secretary of Planning Commission to Randy Danbury, President of Council re Recommended PUD Zoning for Pine

Garden (Landominium), 309 Princewood Court


A. Payless Shoes Requests a 20" x 21í9" Wall Sign at 80 West Kemper Road. Total signage Allowed is 160 Square Feet; 184.0 Square Feet is Requested (Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "..Maximum gross area of signs..") tabled 8 August 1995

Melody Wilson of Lackner Sign Company stated at the first meeting we requested a 44 square foot sign; at the second meeting we reduced it to a 36.25 square foot sign. At the last meeting we tabled it because there were only five people present for a vote. The situation remains the same; Payless feels that they need this additional signage on their side wall for motorist visibility. Because of the congestion coming up to the intersection, and traffic coming off Northland Boulevard, they are requesting you grant permission for this. This would put their total signage 24 square feet over what would be allowed under the code.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Two


Mr. Wilson said point of clarification. You mentioned that it was tabled because there were only five of us. The chairman tabled it because we had five people, and you werenít assured of getting five affirmative votes, and as such you felt it would be better to come back. Plus we had some suggestions as to how it could be rearranged to get more in line.

Mr. Wilson continued my question to you is did we do anything with that? We were talking about taking the Payless Kids and using some of that signage? We donít have a problem with the signage in terms of its need; my concern is the size.

Ms. Wilson responded you are correct, and I did go back to Payless after the last meeting and explained your concerns about switching square footage around to bring this to a smaller amount of overage. Payless feels very strongly that their signage on the front of their building is needed and identifies the childrenís line of shoes. They requested that I ask the board for the 36.25 square feet we asked for at the last meeting.

Mr. Syfert asked if the ownership is out of town? Ms. Wilson answered yes. Mr. Syfert commented they didnít feel it important enough to be here to plead for their signage, is that correct? Ms. Wilson responded I canít really answer that; they asked me to represent them.

Mr. Tiffany asked to see the pictures she had at the last meeting, adding I want to look at the pictures again to make sure I remember it correctly since itís been a few days since I drove by. We have a street tree planting program, and all along Kemper in front of Value City are trees that the city has put up and that we maintain. Those are moderate size now and theyíre going to get bigger. As they are right now, from the position that y youíve taken this photograph, there is no way you would see it anyhow because of the trees. Ms. Wilson responded as you go the smallest bit further on from the intersection of Northland Boulevard, it becomes more visible because you are out of this bend. We are talking from the corner. Mr. Tiffany continued when we get here, pointing to an other picture, we get to the front of the building and we start to see the sign out front. As we get closer yet, we can see both.

Mr. Tiffany stated personally I am not opposed to having signage on that back side of the plaza, it is a matter of square footage of signage. In the last minutes, Mr. Wilson stated that they didnít have the mall traffic like some other stores, and that was to their disadvantage. This is one of two Payless stores; they do have a mall store also. To me, I see it as a business decision. They have an advantage with the pole sign that a lot of other businesses donít have; they are grandfathered into that. I am not inclined to grant any additional signage over what they are allowed now. They are claiming hardship, but we have a very small section of Kemper Road that you will be able to see this sign from

and as these trees mature, Iím not sure youíll see that, so Iím opposed to it.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve the 36.75 square foot sign, and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Voting to approve were Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Blake and Ms. Manis. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Galster, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert voted no, and the sign was denied, 4 to 3.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Three


A. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Car Wash, 1333 East Kemper Road (former Blimpies)

Preston Watkins reported we would remove Blimpieís and put in a full service car wash. I donít have the final plans of the building at this point, but the site plan shows the dimensions of the building, and it would be 100 feet long and approximately 30 to 40 feet wide. Traffic would come in from Chesterdale and exit on Kemper Road.

Mr. Syfert said are you going to demolish Blimpieís? Mr. Watkins confirmed this, and Mr. Syfert questioned him if he is going to use the current access point off the Chesterdale extension, and Mr. Watkins answered yes. Mr. Syfert continued and also the same access point in the front off Kemper? Mr. Watkins answered in these plans I have the entrance and exit from Kemper Road, but I think Iíll just use that as an exit, not an entrance. I will use the stop light as an entrance only, and the exit onto Kemper Road from the existing parking lot. So you wouldnít enter from Kemper Road; you would enter the car wash at the light. Mr. Syfert said you mean the people going east on Kemper wouldnít come in that? Mr. Watkins answered unless that could be widened; if it were widened, that would be fine. At this point, I hadnít proposed to widen it. Mr. Syfert said so you plan to use it as it is right now, as an exit only. Mr. Watkins said yes, adding I think using the light would avoid a lot of problems.

Mr. Wilson asked how many people he plans to employ initially, and Mr. Watkins answered 10. Mr. Wilson asked full time or part time and Mr. Watkins responded there would be six full time and four part time. Mr. Wilson continued I assume they would be parking behind your car wash? Mr. Watkins answered yes.

Mr. Wilson stated I have a concern about your entrance; you say it will be exit only. If someone wants to come out and turn left to go west, we might have a problem. Have you thought of a traffic study or how you plan to deal with that? I know youíre not going to have a steady flow of cars all the time, but at some point youíll have a backlog. Mr. Watkins answered Iíd have a sign at the street, right turn only.

Mr. Sullivan asked if he has an estimate of how many vehicles would come through on an average day? Mr. Watkins answered based on studies in the car wash industry and with the traffic flow there, somewhere between 250 and 500 cars per day. Weekends, it would be 800 to 1,000.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane about limitations for conditional use permits, is it just for this business, or is it something that stays with the land? If this business goes out, can something else go in?

Mr. McErlane answered the conditional use permit is for an automotive use, but it can be for the specific use. If the car wash were to go out, it would not necessarily change into an automotive service building or something of that nature. However, it canít be limited to the particular owner, because it is a use situation not an owner situation.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Four


Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Watkins if he owned the land at this time, and Mr. Watkins answered it is contingent upon this being approved. Mr. Syfert reported we do have a letter from the owner that he has accepted a contract to sell the property to Mr. Watkins and gives permission for him to approach the commission.

Mr. Tiffany commented it was real confusing when I saw this, because Cincinnati Sub just opened up. How long is their lease for? Mr. Watkins responded he owns the property; he dropped Blimpieís. Mr. Tiffany continued as far as your entrance off the Chesterdale extension, is that an access point for the business offices next door also? Mr. Watkins confirmed it was and the day care. Mr. Tiffany asked if Chuck E. Cheese has a cross easement into your area for his overflow parking, it seems like Iíve seen it in the past. Mr. Watkins said I donít know that there is.

Mr. Tiffany continued I have a real concern with traffic backing up into that entrance lane to get into the car wash off the Chesterdale extension. Mr. Watkins stated what I would do in the rear of the car wash is extend the lot and the road around so the cars could stack back there. It would probably hold 40 cars back on the property. Mr. Tiffany said as they are coming towards the car wash, how do you stop the cars there so the people can get in and out from the business part? and out of the part? Ms. Manis stated they have their own street off the access point.

Mr. Wilson commented I am assuming you did some type of traffic study to determine the flow of traffic so this would help you determine if you could do an ingress and egress here, and that is why you decided to do an out only. Then you did another study, which I commend you on, you mentioned the number of cars.

Mr. Watkins stated it was based on the national average of car washes. Mr. Wilson asked if he were aware where the competition is relative to this location? Mr. Watkins answered the two closest are on Route 4 and the other is in Sharonville on Route 42. Mr. Wilson said so you feel you are located at a prime location. You obviously did some homework.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane. Mr. McErlane stated the only comment is there is a minimum of 50 foot setback from the right of way. It is shown at 45 feet so it would have to be adjusted or a variance granted. The other question is employee parking. There are only three or four parking spaces shown on the site. Mr. Watkins responded I will extend the parking.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Shvegzda stated our concern was mainly regarding the traffic circulation. We were concerned that traffic would be entering from West Kemper Road, and we are still concerned with the left turns exiting from that point, but as far as access via the signalized intersection, that is very good.

Mr. Wilson moved to grant the conditional use permit and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiffany and Mr. Syfert. Conditional use permit was granted with seven affirmative votes.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Five

B. Anchor Associates Requests Approval of Tree Removal Plan, Kroger Property

Doug Hynden Principal of Anchor Associates reported we made application to remove a number of trees along our property line which borders the Copaz property. We requested the removal of two different types of trees. CG&E over the years has trimmed 12 trees to where they are damaged. Only half the tree exists. Until such time as we actually developed our property, those trees were hidden from public view. After the development, those trees are fully visible and located along our west property line. We requested those trees be allowed to be removed under the section of the tree ordinance which allows trees which are damaged to be exempt from the tree ordinance and removed. Mr. McErlane denied our request for all the trees but one, and we are here before you to request an appeal of that decision.

Mr. Hynden continued in addition there is a second group of trees that we requested removal, and that is in the area immediately adjacent to Kemper Road. There is an area approximately 1800 square feet which is immediately in front of the existing propane gas tank that is utilized by Copaz for their packing facility. After completing our project, we realized those trees were not only unattractive and inconsistent with a first quality retail project, so we requested those be removed under the section of the ordinance which would allow us to replant trees that would be 50% of the caliper inches removed. We approached the Copaz people and Kroger and asked them if we could redevelop and relandscape the entire area because this is our front door and we would like to make it as attractive as possible for all the retailers there. We have invested approximately

$7 million in this project thus far, and we feel we need to put our best foot forward. Copaz was amenable to us relandscaping this area, and we would like to take these trees out of this small area right here, itís about 90 feet off the existing curb and relandscape that with ornamental trees and other plants and bushes that would more become a first quality retail project.

Mr. Hynden stated there is a third class of trees on the plan. Copaz asked us to approach you on removing those trees because they overhang the existing propane tank,. Copaz has been concerned with this that they might fall down and hit the valves. So we are here on their behalf to request the removal of those on a safety issue.

Mr. Hynden stated there are three classes of trees before you:

1. CG&E damaged trees;

2. Small scrub trees which have been overgrown for years and

now are exposed by our project;

3. Several trees that overhang the existing propane tank.

Mr. Hynden added Cincinnati Gas & Electric approached me yesterday in the field and said they would have their arborist out to look at these things. They have been out relocating the telephone lines and raising the level of the electrical lines. Those trees which have been damaged by CG&E might in act no fall within our jurisdiction because of CG&E easement rights.

Mr. Wilson stated I would like to address each of those classes one at a time. The last point you made about CG&E having an arborist come out, I donít think we should address that class yet. If they come in with their easement, my recommendation would be to put that on the back burner and letís concentrate on the other two.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Six


Mr. Wilson continued Copaz has asked you to be their representative.

You are saying they were cutting back their trees so they would not fall on the propane tank valves? Mr. Hynden stated they asked us to remove these three specific trees around the propane tank while we were doing our project. Mr. Wilson asked what they are proposing to do to replace those trees, if we go the 50%? Mr. Hynden answered they would be replaced with trees around the propane tank and other trees around their project, which we offered to plant for them. We feel the propane tank is not adequately screened as it is; we would like to come in with white pines or other evergreen material around the propane tank to screen them from view. To the extent there was additional caliper inches required, we would plant other trees around their project, which is relatively void of trees at this time.

Mr. Wilson commented with the ones you just mentioned, you are willing to adhere to the 50% guideline for the three trees around Copaz? Mr. Hynden answered yes. Mr. Wilson continued and for the scrub, you would use the 50% as well; Mr. Hynden responded that is correct. Mr. Wilson said and put the CG&E trees on the back burner. Mr. Hynden commented I was not aware that CG&E had the intent of having an arborist out until yesterday and we already had made our application.

Mr. Syfert asked if it would severely hamper this if we tabled it until we knew what CG&E was going to do? Mr. Hynden answered we are in the process of doing the road widening work on Kemper Road and to the extent we can get in and do that grading work today, it would be advantageous for the development and for the public at large, because to come back in with heavy equipment to do the work after the fact would be a little bit of a problem.

Mr. Tiffany asked about pictures. Mr. McErlane showed pictures of some of the trees, adding all of the trees are on Copaz property. None are on Anchor property. There are a number of trees that have been cut back by CG&E; I came up with about six that are oddly misshapen because of CG&Eís trimming. They are not damaged to the point that they are going to die; they are still fairly healthy, but misshapen, and I have photos of those. He passed them around. Mr. Syfert commented this is where I have a little trouble with the CG&E arborist coming out, because of what I see they do with trees. Mr. McErlane added Iíve circled on the plan those that are badly misshapen.

Mr. McErlane continued the balance of those, with the exception of the Tree of Heaven which I gave them permission to remove because it was in poor shape previously, have not even been trimmed back to the point where they are misshapen. There have been some limbs trimmed out of them, but they are not as severe as the photos that we have.

The three trees that Copaz has near their propane tank are not in poor health either. I guess there is always a potential that any one of those trees around that propane tank could come down, and if you replant additional trees, there is a potential in the future those might come down on the propane tank. The trees shown at the extreme north end of the site are to be removed for visibility purposes for the sign and the entrance to their development. It is not because they are in bad shape or pose a potential threat to anything. I also have some additional photos. The trees around the propane tank, and these are photos of the trees on the north end of the site, but it doesnít look that way any more because all the brush has been cut.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Harrison arrived at 7:45 P.M.

Mr. Blake asked if they have anything in writing from Copaz saying it is okay for you to do that? Mr. Hynden reported yes; it has been submitted to the Springdale officials. Mr. McErlane added it is a letter signed by a representative of Copaz.

Mr. Galster stated regarding CG&E cutting these trees, I had them come out and cut some trees around my power lines, and I donít know if nobody from your development was there, but it seemed like they cut everything on your side off. If proper supervision had been out there, we might have come up with a cut a little bit better. In my residence, I have to watch them every time they come out and cut. If we would have them look at it again, on these trees in the right of way, I would like to make sure that Bill McErlane is around to make sure that we are doing what is best for the tree and for the city. I wouldnít want to give them a free hand, because they would just cut them down.

Mr. Tiffany said as far as right of easement with CG&E, would they have the right to go in and take these trees down based on what they feel is right? Mr. McErlane responded I am not sure; as it stood initially, there was no easement there. At least it couldnít be found. I donít know if at this point of time they have found an easement for the power line. Mr. Hynden reported CG&E approached me and said they had the right to have the line there and the right to clear trees within 12 feet of the center line of any pole. They did mention to me that they were going to be talking with Mr. McErlane after they visited the site tomorrow or Thursday. I would agree with the idea of tabling the idea of the CG&E trees; if CG&E wants to do something different, thatís fine with me.

Mr. Tiffany commented there was no tree planting on this end of the lot when you came in for your review. Part of the reason was because we were going to have all these trees on this end of the lot. If we take these trees out, we are taking out a substantial piece of the trees at that end, especially the large group at Kemper Road. What are you going to do when you replace it? When you came in the first time we had so many trees on this lot that there was no way to replace according to the caliper inch of tree ordinance. What can we do at that end of the lot to improve that look?

Mr. Hynden reported there is one major change that occurred since we were here before. That is there were some plans regarding the Kemper Commons Drive across the street that were erroneous, and we had picked up an erroneous location. We originally had three lots. When the final engineering and surveying was done, our access drive was further west than originally anticipated. Before we thought we had a potentially buildable lot, so we couldnít see any landscaping per se in the middle of that lot. Now, if this variance is granted, we will be able to fully landscape this lot and incorporate it into the entire area. Right now it looks like an area that has been overgrown with trees and weeds. Copaz has no incentive to maintain an attractive front; they have let it overgrow for years. What we have done is go to Copaz and asked to landscape on their property and our property with these new trees and make an attractive entrance feature for the project. I want to make this as attractive as possible.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Tiffany asked about the west end of the parking lot. Mr. Hynden stated there are four trees there, but because of the big road on the other side, I donít know if we would have the ability to have that much landscaping. This is trees only; we are going to have a grassed area and other landscaping. Mr. Tiffany said in that area we are taking out approximately five trees. Is the concern more that the trees donít look good? Mr. Hynden responded CG&E trees are totally deformed. Mr. Tiffany continued and the ones up front it is a matter of visibility for the entrance. Mr. Hynden said itís not only the visibility to the entrance, but itís creating a first quality appearance with a landscaping plan. This will allow us to landscape on property that we donít currently own and do it in such a way that it can be maintained in a first quality manner. We actually trimmed out the honeysuckle and other weeds that were growing in the area; it was a thicket. Mr. Tiffany asked what is there now, and Mr. Hynden responded we are talking about 12 trees, mostly scrub trees that have grown up. There are trees of heaven, hawthorn; they are listed there. Itís a wild scenario; we would like to replace them with ornamental and other trees that would be subjected to the review of the building official through the tree plan. Mr. Tiffany said do you suppose Copaz would be amenable to taking out that group of trees and leaving the two black locusts and the cottonwood, the larger trees? Mr. Hynden answered they are not dead set on those trees. They asked me to see if they could get those things removed; they have a safety officer who is concerned about the trees around the propane tank. I donít think they are a real problem; I do believe that the ones towards Kemper Road are unattractive and take away from the nature of the investment we have made.

Ms. Manis commented I personally donít think it looks that bad when you drive up Kemper Road. I can understand why you want to take them off so you can see your entrance. After you tore out that lot and took everything out, my daughter said why did you let them take out all those trees; we need trees to live. I would like to see you keep as many of the big trees as possible, take these down and put some trees there that will be scrawny looking for years, I am sure. When we have trees put in, they all look that way. Iíd really like to see you keep some of the bigger ones there.

Mr. Hynden commented the area you referred to, where we cleared out the scrub underneath looks attractive today but without some comprehensive plan to remove those roots, it will be overgrown again.

Mr. Tiffany said personally Iím not opposed to a great deal of removing the group of trees because of the type they are, as long as they replace in accordance with the tree ordinance. The rest, I have a problem with. I hate to see us tear down any more large trees also, without some type of large replacement. Mr. Syfert said you mean the grouping up front? Mr. Tiffany said right, I understand his concern with the entrance, and it does encroach right upon Kemper Road so I understand the reason behind that. I also see his concerns with the misshapen trees. Some good plantings on his side of the lot line could do wonders for shielding that.

Mr. Sullivan commented I also share Mr. Tiffanyís feelings about having an attractive entrance, and we do need trees, but my main concern is the trees by the propane tank. Has the safety manager determined that there is a potential safety hazard there because of the trees?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Hynden answered he requested that we remove those trees if we have the opportunity to do so. Thatís as far as it went; there was no written report.

Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. McErlane if he had a feeling as to the safety hazard posed by the trees around the propane tank?

Mr. McErlane reported they are all healthy trees. The cottonwood is not on the hillside; itís not leaning over. Until it shows some kind of decay, I wouldnít normally allow them to remove that based on a potential hazard just because it is in the proximity of the tank. Itís not a case that the trees grew up around it; the tank has only been there for less than 10 years; it was moved over from the old Kroger candy plant across the road.

Mr. Hynden stated I would be amenable to approaching Copaz and letting them know that until such time as those trees would show decay or problems that would indicate a potential safety problem, they should stay. Thatís not a problem for me.

Mr. Syfert commented I donít see those trees presenting a problem with the propane tank. Mr. Galster added if one of those trees fell, it would either hit the propane tank or the fence; I donít think it will get down into the valves to be a safety hazard if the tree fell over. So I would like to see those trees stay.

Mr. Galster continued when we are talking about the group of trees, is there any possibility of thinning rather than taking it all out, and leave some of the tall mature trees there? This would be a compromise that you would still give us the trees and a nice mature look but still not be so distracting to your entrance. Also, even if we thin that and now that you donít have Lot 3 sellable, what about moving some of the trees from the back up to Lot 3 and decorating the whole front of that?

Mr. Hynden stated we are actually looking at that; thatís a good point. We can relocate some of the trees, and I think some will be relocated along the west side because there are fewer trees along there. Especially if CG&E takes out some of the disfigured trees, it will allow us to put in some larger trees and look more attractive. As far. as thinning those out, youíll notice that there is a group of four relatively large trees, probably 12 to 18 inches that are remaining that are just north of that propane tank. Those trees are very very large and very attractive, and those would provide the mature look that you are talking about. The trees in that grouping are more or less scrub trees that canít work into an attractive plan. They are limbless and leafless up to a certain level because all of the undergrowth has grown up underneath them.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if we were to clear that front scrub group out, keeping the large ones in there, would you have any opposition to that? Would that be good overall for that area in your opinion? Mr. McErlane responded from the standpoint of what the tree preservation ordinance tries to do, to preserve trees taking into consideration that there is some removal necessary to adequately develop a site. Requests for removal of trees for strictly aesthetic visibility purposes, I have said no

This board has the authority to deviate from that; that is your decision and not mine as to whether or not that can come out.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Tiffany said you are talking a nonreplacement issue? Mr. McErlane responded no, the intent of the tree preservation ordinance is to keep trees. It is understood to reasonably develop a site you will have to remove trees. This is the first actual application we have had to remove trees on somebody elseís property to improve the aesthetics of a site.

Mr. Syfert commented I think there is some validity in removing some of what appears to be nice and green but is really scrub stuff, and blend it in with other plantings and really come out with better aesthetically. Mr. McErlane added and in this case there really are no sizable trees; they are fairly small trees. It is really the balance of the overgrowth that was on the Anchor site that either crept over or wasnít cleared out when they developed the Copaz site.

Mr. Wilson said your objection initially was to all three classifications? Mr. McErlane answered there were trees on Anchorís property that were actually almost directly under the line and had really been butchered badly by CG&E. One of the photographs might show that. There is a 20 inch ash that the roots are on Anchorís property but the balance has shifted over onto Copazí property, and that one doesnít make any sense to maintain either. The only objection on the other trees that are misshapen was that they arenít unhealthy; they have been trimmed severely, but they arenít unhealthy. They arenít good looking trees; ;you can see that in the photographs, and I left that more for your call as to whether you felt those should come down because of the way they look. Personally I think they will be butchered more over time.

Mr. Wilson continued with us eliminating the CG&E trees and leaving the trees around the propane tanks, all we are dealing with is the so called scrub trees. If we go with 50% of that and it is nicely landscaped, then you would withdraw your objection? Mr. McErlane reported I do not know that we really have a replanting plan as to what is going back in to replace those trees. Do you expect there will be ornamental and hardwoods?

Mr. Hynden answered yes, there will be ornamental and hardwoods, and our landscaper is intending to meet with you to talk about relocating some of the trees that were previously on other parts of the property more towards this area to beef that part up. In addition there is an area that is an landscape island that was changed by Mr. Shvegzdaís office so now we have a large landscape island in the middle which will be an attractive area where we can plant additional trees. We are planning to take the trees previously in other locations and move them up front and adding about 30" of additional trees.

Mr. Blake said since your original request contained three sections and two of them weíve decided to wait on, would there be something we could look at later when you get the landscaping plans and we can see what you really want to take out and what you want to replace? I do not feel comfortable voting on something I cannot see or understand. Would you be willing to come back before the board, or would that hinder you?

Mr. Hynden answered timing wise it would hinder me somewhat, only from the standpoint that we have met with out landscape architect and they did not see that those sections of trees worked well into their landscape plan. Until we know that we can take out those trees, it is hard to determine that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Eleven


Mr. Hynden stated we also are planning on opening in mid-October, and we are hoping to get that all landscaped during that month. We certainly intend to file a revised landscape plan for this particular area of the project. We always intended to maintain the same number of caliper inches, and include other things than trees. The tree replacement ordinance requires us to show the tree replacement and new trees, and doesnít include the ornamental bushes and a lot of the other things that would be incorporated in that landscaping.

Mr. Syfert commented I believe that is the same question I asked about tabling it, that what we are calling the clump up front is key to your continuing on down the road. Mr. Hynden answered from a grading standpoint. Currently there is a significant grade change between our property and the Copaz property. Our hope was to be able to grade it out more evenly and relandscape that whole area so it looks like it is one continuous project despite the fact that Copaz owns that property. Mr. .Syfert responded so the clump would be the key right now. Mr. Hynden answered yes. CG&E may come back and say I want these heavily damaged trees removed and we are going to remove them, which is fine. Mr. Syfert stated we all have agreed that we will hold off on this CG&E section. Mr. Hynden continued as far as Copaz is concerned, I will be glad to approach them and tell them what was discussed this evening and I donít think they will have any great objection to that. They are concerned about being a good neighbor as well. They are a manufacturing plant located immediately adjacent to a large retail project, and they want to make sure that it is nice. They donít want to have to be weeding all the time so we selected an area that visually is a good breaking point where we can leave it go the way it has gone in the past from this point on back. From that point forward, they would like for us to make sure it all looks nice, because they donít want to have that obligation to come in and take out all the weeds. They want to be good neighbors, and we are offering our landscaping services.

Mr. Tiffany said if you remove the clump of trees, it will be better from a grading standpoint, but we have three CG&E trees that are in that clump. Mr. Hynden added those are three of the most damaged trees. Mr. Tiffany continued if we are putting the CG&E issue on a back burner from the standpoint that we are waiting to hear from the CG&E arborist, Mr. McErlane has something to say. Mr. McErlane said I wouldnít take a hard line on the ones that are misshapen at least; there are six of those, and the ones in the front are pretty severely misshapen. Mr. Tiffany continued I was concerned that we were putting this CG&E issue on the back burner but that is a direct impact on what we decide with this clump. I think it would be tough to grade the land between the clump and the Anchor property with those three trees between; it wouldnít make much sense. It wouldnít be cost effective to go back and do it again once we hear from CG&E.

Mr. Hynden said as Bill said, those are three of the most severely damaged trees. I would obviously save money if CG&E would remove them, but I would be more than accommodating to removing them at the same time that the clump is taken out.

Mr. Tiffany said you mentioned 30 inches of additional trees on your site. Mr. Hynden said there are 55 total inches in that clump. Mr. Tiffany said we are not considering anything for the CG&E trees? Mr. Hynden answered as far as I am concerned we can add those to it as well, that is fine if you want to include those in the calculations.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Tiffany continued letís talk again about the clump. It is 55 inches and we come down to 30 inches of replacement. You are talking about on your site; what do you propose to do on the Copaz site? Mr. Hynden answered it would be a comprehensive plan so the property would have these additional trees added to it, the majority on Copaz, and we would supplement on the front.

Mr. Tiffany commented if we are going to take out CG&E trees in that line of trees, one of my concerns is shielding the view of rooftop units. Obviously from the west end of your parking lot it will be a beautiful view, and we want to make sure we maintain that integrity and keep that nice and shielded. I want to make sure the trees go back in this line. There are ornamentals that you can get that will stay below this power line.

Mr. Hynden responded so you are asking us to add additional trees in that area. Mr. Tiffany responded I would like to see some of these inches that we take out go into that area so we maintain the integrity, especially of your property. Mr. Hynden said we are as concerned as you are. Our parking lot is 20 feet above the finished floor of Copaz, and there is not much we can do other than a solid fence of some sort. And that may be the ultimate answer.

Mr. Blake said I hope we can come to some conclusion. I felt a little uneasy, but I do have confidence in the chair and Bill McErlane, so I would like to suggest that since we are only talking about the scrubs, I would like to move that we go along with the program since it would impede their progress if we waited another meeting. I move that we put this in the hands of the chairman and Mr. McErlane. We have discussed it, and the chair knows what we are looking for, so I move that we grant this with the contingency of approval of the chairman and Mr. McErlane. Mr. Tiffany said are you making it their responsibility? The motion was unclear as to what you want to do with the trees as far as which ones. Should we be specific as to the trees? Mr. Blake said we are just dealing with the scrubs. Mr. Tiffany asked about the first three CG&E trees? I donít think it is fair to Mr. McErlane and Mr. Syfert to say you know what we want, do it, because there has been a lot of discussion but not a general consensus. I think we have to have a general consensus in the motion. Mr. Blake said we talked about Copaz trees around the propane tank. We are not going to bother those. The next group was the CG&E trees and CG&E is bringing somebody out to look at them, so we eliminated the CG&E trees and are down to the scrubs. They talked about moving other trees from the other section and putting in a replacement trees that you suggested. I heard the gentleman say they were in the process of getting this together and would be getting with Mr. McErlane. We have a long agenda, and Iím not going to sit here and try to pinpoint every tree. I think we have a general idea, and all I am saying is we should allow them to move forward.

Mr. Tiffany responded we had talked about the group of trees, and my point was it would be very difficult and prohibitive cost wise to remove the group of trees without removing the three CG&E trees. I wanted to bring that about so if we were going to allow them to take those down, and Mr. McErlane indicated they are misshapen and probably would get worse. That is why I brought that out so those three would be included with the motion to remove the clump. Thatís why I asked for clarification on the motion. Mr. Blake responded thatís clear now.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirteen


Mr. Wilson said you are stating you have the authority to take down the CG&E trees, even though the arborist is coming out tomorrow to take a look. If he says donít cut them down, what happens? Mr. Hynden responded CG&E is only proactive; they donít care whether or not you take down the trees, they only care that their lines are in a safe situation.

Mr. Syfert said I believe the motion is we deal with the clump, including the three CG&E trees at this point, and that the 50% replacement will be there. We had a second by Ms. Manis. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Ms. Manis, Mr. Galster, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Motion was approved with seven affirmative votes.

C. CB Commercial Requests 400 Square Foot Sign for IDIís Northwest Business Center

Bruce McConnell of CB Commercial said IDI, the owners and builders of Northwest Business Center wish to put a banner sign on a building until we lease it. The building is just about completed. It is fully enclosed and is about to be painted, so we will be ready for occupancy probably in the middle of the month. IDIís concern is we do have several signs in the area, but they arenít very visible when you consider the location and the size of the sign from I-275. You have a proposal of the sign , and I brought a brochure for everybody to see the building we are talking about. The building will be off-white with a red band around the top. Currently our leasing activity is good; we do have some proposals out on the building, but they are also looking at other cities and locations around our area. What IDI would like us to do is put up the sign until the building is leased. Our sign is 8í x 50í and is being designed by Meyer Sign Company. It will be a vinyl sign. Art work will be painted on it. It will be white, with red and the numbers will be in black and CB Commercial will be white on a green background.

Mr. McConnell continued we plan on placing the sign on the southwest corner of the building. If you open your brochure, you can get an idea. Building A is in blue. Mr. Syfert said located there, would it be visible from Route 4 and I-275, and Mr. McConnell said yes, it is the back side of the building, where the loading docks are, the long side. It would give us visibility if you are headed eastbound on I-275 and if you are on Route 4.

Mr. Syfert asked the total length of the building, 550 to 580 feet? Mr. McConnell said it is approximately that. Mr. Syfert continued so the sign you are talking about is 50 feet of 580 feet down on the end. Mr. McConnell added it would be from the corner back, heading in the northwest direction. The building is 220 feet deep.

Ms. Manis asked how long they would leave it up, until it I fully occupied or 75% occupied? Mr. McConnell answered I can answer from a contractual obligation with the developer, and we only have a six month listing.

Mr. Tiffany asked what the code says in terms of occupation. Mr. McErlane reported in commercial districts, if you are 90% leased, you have to reduce it to a standard real estate sign. The code requirement for this particular property is 50 square feet.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. Syfert commented it is back off the road quite a ways; 50 square feet wouldnít show up very well at all. Mr. McErlane responded not from Route 4.

Mr. Wilson said you have a six month agreement with them. With an option to go another six months if necessary? Mr. McConnell answered we donít have an option; it is based on our activity, whether they feel we are doing a good job. Mr. Wilson continued so if it is extended another six months, youíre looking at possibly a year for the sign. Mr. McConnell responded weíd like to think we wouldnít need it. We are in negotiations with two tenants right now, but I canít guarantee that.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the temporary 50í x 8í banner for a period not to exceed six months. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Blake, Ms. Manis, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Motion was granted with seven affirmative votes.

D. Boston Market, 810 Kemper Commons Circle, Tri-County Commons Requests Final Site Approval

Ms. Manis asked why this is final plan approval, and Mr. Syfert responded it is part of the PUD over there, and the lot itself has been approved previously, so we donít have to go through the preliminary plan approval.

Lonnie Smith of Formfield Architects, introduced Gerry Gattas representing Boston Market. We are proposing to develop the remaining lot for a Boston Market restaurant with drive through. This site is encircled by roads and drives, and is very sloping from one side to the other. For the Boston Market to develop the site, we decided the location of the building and parking layout is just about the only way they feel they can develop this. Because of the access from the rear, we have proposed a right turn only exit onto Commons Drive. One of the comments we were given was about that, and we are willing to discuss that tonight. It was an option that we were proposing to help the traffic flow within the site. It was not intended as an enter/exit, but an exit only.

Mr. Smith continued the grading of the site is such that the location of the building with the parking is about the only feasible location where we can position the building and the retaining wall issue and some of the other items that have been mentioned are almost a necessity to develop the site. I think this site slopes approximately 10 feet from Commons Drive to the other side of the site.

Mr. Smith stated both myself and Mr. Gattas are here to address any issues with the staff. Their construction schedule is 90 days, so we need to move forward with this. We are willing to work with staff on some of the detail issues. We would like approval tonight to continue with this; to come back another month would pretty much create a problem from a real estate and construction standpoint.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda for his report. Mr. Shvegzda stated one of the issues is the drive through at Commons Circle. On the original PUD there was a point of access noted that was on the east-west connector drive. There was nothing shown at this location here, and there were reasons for that. One is that the thoroughfare plan indicates as far as driveway, the recommended distance is 200 feet away from an intersection.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Fifteen


Mr. Shvegzda continued that drive would only be about 30 feet from the stop bar at the intersection of Commons Circle and Kemper Road. As traffic queued up at the intersection, it would more than likely block that intersection a significant number of times. The driveway as it is configured here would allow illegally them to enter from northbound Commons Circle. They attempted to do that and they may tend to block the one lane that is northbound on Commons Circle. Those were a number of reasons why we were very much opposed to that particular driveway location.

Mr. Shvegzda reported on storm water regarding these outlots, although there is a regional detention basin on the site, it was an option of the developer at the time to size the storm sewers leading away from these locations at something less than the major storm that would be handled by the detention basin. Consequently as was the case with Don Pabloís, they had to provide some detention that would be basically the difference between the major storm and what the capacity of that storm sewer on the site was. That probably will be the case on this location also.

Mr. Shvegzda continued another concern regarding the access on the site is that the speaker post is located only about 55 feet from the center line of the drive. There is a concern that this might block the flow of the drive. However, in the same vein, we would not want to see this drive moved further out towards Commons Circle because of the possibility of people turning left into the site and blocking out into the intersection of this connector road and Commons Circle.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there are some issues regarding storm water pickup on the site; there appears to be some locations where there might be some ponding water. The applicant mentioned a retaining wall. It does go over an existing public storm sewer in that area, so we will have to have details on how the storm sewer will be protected. There may be some replacement of the storm sewer with more maintenance free material. Also, there were no sediment control plans included with the submittal.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane, who reported the second item has to do with the dumpster location and I know this is a difficult site because there are four front yards. The location that is shown is on the corner of Commons Drive and the connector drive, and there are limited places that it can go. The only alternative would be the possibility of putting it to the rear of the building. That is an issue that the applicants will have to take a look at and see if they physically place it at that location. That means one of those parking spaces would end up moving.

Mr. McErlane continued the next item had to do with the parking setback from right of way. It encroaches on the five foot requirement written in the covenants at two locations. This parking space is closer as is the one where the dumpster is located. Mr. Syfert asked if those were the only two spots with that problem and Mr. McErlane indicated that they were. The zoning code requires 38 spaces and there are 43 shown. From a zoning standpoint, they can lose those two spaces or modify if the dumpster stays in this location, possibly shift it. If this exit only drive disappears, they could have a couple of more spaces.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Sixteen


Mr. McErlane continued as far as signage goes, the pole sign that is shown in the drawings exceeds the 50 square feet permitted by the zoning code. It is an oval shaped sign and probably is physically less than 50 square feet but it also has a drive through sign at the bottom that totals even more square footage. The total is 62.9 square feet. On the architectural drawings, there is a statement that this would be worked out with the local authorities as to the size of signs. The size of the signs shown on the drawing is a 2í high letter for Boston Markets and a 5í high logo sign. If you use those square footages, they would have 270.4 square feet total, and the code allows 198 square feet. That is taking into consideration the side street frontages on two sides of the building. Directional signs shown on either side of this drive are probably within two feet of the right of way. We are recommending that they be moved back to at least five feet. That still doesnít comply with code, but if they were placed 10 feet, theyíd be back in this area and wouldnít serve as much of a function for the site, so we are recommending five feet.

Mr. Smith stated we got these comments yesterday and reviewed them. As to the issue of the exit onto Commons Drive, we feel there is no problem eliminating that. When that goes, that allows us to modify the parking as was recommended and modify the dumpster location to accommodate those issues. Mr. Syfert asked if they still feel that is the place for the dumpster, adding I am thinking of it from a functional standpoint, and would it be better if it were closer to the building. It has to be screened regardless of where it is. Mr. Smith responded it is an enclosed dumpster and youíll have entrance to the lot, entrance to the drive through lane and the back of the building and the dumpster all there at one point. Thatís not the most desirable location for the owner either, but we are trying that corner up as much as we can from the standpoint of traffic visibility. Mr. Syfert commented the one who picks up the dumpster would be there early in the morning or late at night wouldnít he. Mr. Smith responded we are looking at more of the customer entering the lot with these enclosures so close to these various directions that they will take.

Mr. Smith continued the issue about the speaker posts being close, this is located at a five car stack from the window, and that can be moved to a four car stack, which is basically 20 more feet around the drive through lane. Mr. Syfert asked if it would be on the curve, and Mr. Smith answered it would come pretty close to the curve.

Mr. Smith stated concerning signage, we feel we can work within what is allowed by the city because we do have various sign sizes. The actual surface area of some of these signs may be less than what is called for, and we would like to work that out with staff with the actual sign submittals and the owner has agreed to work within the allowable square footages.

Mr. Syfert asked if there was any problem with moving the directional signs back a few feet off the right of way, and Mr. Smith answered no, we have located them in aisles and areas so we have basically 24 feet from the existing curb. Mr. Syfert commented as Mr. McErlane said, if you move them back too far they lose their effectiveness, but if we could move them back five feet as he suggested, I think that would probably work. Mr. Smith said thatís not a problem.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Smith stated on the drainage issue, if we eliminate that entrance that starts affecting some of the drainage grades on site, and we can modify those to hopefully resolve some of those issues. Again, there is almost a 10 foot drop from this corner to the other corner and if we eliminate that entrance we can lower it down and hopefully decrease the size of the retaining wall. There is no problem with providing some additional protection of the storm line and replace a section of it. WE have done under parking lot detention ponds before. Mr. .Syfert said you donít envision any problem with the detention? Mr. Smith responded I donít know what the quantities will be, but we have done it before.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda if he envisioned any problem with the sewer line in the retaining wall. Is this something that can be worked out without any great problem? Mr. Shvegzda answered it should not be a problem. In regards to the detention, it is merely a matter of having the underground pipe to convey the volume. In regards to the retaining wall, about the most it would be would be replacing the segment of the storm sewer underneath the retaining wall. One other thing is there were no photometrics submitted with this. Mr. Smith answered thatís not a problem; we can submit that. Mr. Syfert stated are you aware that we work with a one-half foot candle; ;you probably exceed that. Of course where you are, you have to be careful with the direction of the lights that you are not putting them out into the traffic. Mr. Smith stated the type of lights they use come optional with shielding; they are the shoebox down direction type.

Mr. Tiffany said I think all these other problems can be worked out, but I am a little concerned with the pole sign. We have a 30 foot pole sign proposed, and for several years, we have been pushing to get the ground signs. With Cookers, Tumbleweeds and everything that has come in recently we have pushed for ground signs. This site is at a higher elevation than the rest of the plaza to begin with so you have pretty good exposure there. I am concerned about a pole sign in a city that is in a direction towards ground signs.

Mr. Smith responded this lot as it exists is quite a few feet below Kemper Road, and the top of a monument type sign probably would not come up level with Kemper Road so that is why we proposed a pole sign at this location. If you are coming from the west, you have the shopping center sign on the corner also.

Mr. Tiffany said if I read this correctly on your plans, it is 696 coming into the back of the island where the sign is and Kemper Road would be around 698 feet. There is not a great difference. Mr. Smith answered it would be about four feet below Kemper Road. If we eliminate this entrance, we would probably lower the site across here. Mr. Tiffany asked which lines are their finished grade, the 695 and 696? Mr. Smith answered those are the finished grades relative to installing the new entrance, and this would lower the site about two feet. The elevation at Commons Drive and East Kemper is 703 feet. People would be looking down at the site. Mr. Tiffany commented when you are above and looking down, you will be able to see it. Itís when you are below it looking up that you wonít be able to see it. Thirty feet seems extreme to me when our direction has been towards ground signs in this city. personally I am not comfortable with that. Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else has a problem with this and the remaining members of the Commission indicated that they did.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Eighteen


Mr. Tiffany asked if the front elevation were the east side of the building, and Mr. Smith stated the front is the south. We have two entrances to the building. The major access will be from the east, but the actual flow of the restaurant is on the south side.

Mr. Syfert asked if the sign is at 30 or 25 feet? On the plan it shows 25 feet. Mr. Tiffany said on Page SD3, it says 30 feet. Mr. Syfert commented I was looking at the front, where it says 25 feet. Mr. Smith said 25 feet is acceptable. Mr. Syfert continued the statement said they would work within the local jurisdiction and their rules. Mr. Tiffany said you have one dimension there, on SD3 you have another dimension and on SD 4 it shows it as almost 36 feet high. Mr. Smith asked what is actually allowed, and Mr. McErlane reported the total maximum is 50 square feet; the height is 30 feet.

Mr. Tiffany said our concern is that as a city we have been heading in the direction of ground signs. Now, we have a 30 foot pole sign coming in, and I did not feel comfortable with it. Because it is a PUD< what is our position on it? Is it something we have to allow, or because it is a PUD, can we recommend that they go to a ground sign?

Mr. McErlane responded it is something Planning has to agree on. There is not a Board of Zoning Appeals appeal process to it, because it is PUD.

Mr. Galster said the plaza pole sign is located to the west of your pole sign. If you are traveling eastbound, it interferes with that pole sign; I donít know how much visibility you would get. Mr. Smith responded we have tried to locate it in the middle of the lots. Mr. Galster said what about having a monument sign there and maybe getting on the big pole sign for the whole plaza? Mr. Smith said Iím not sure if they would exceed their allowance. Ms. Manis said weíd let them know. Mr. Galster continued If I understand this correctly, the building is quite a bit lower than the Kemper Road surface, and by the time you have the signage that will be on your building, that will be at eye level as you are driving by. I think they will get a lot of exposure for signage without a pole sign.

Mr. Gattas stated when you are coming this side of the trees, this will not be visible until you get almost to the intersection. The pole sign will allow us visibility. As people are driving the height of the road here, you will not see our building until you reach that ridge and start going down.

Mr. Galster said what if you move that monument sign more up to where that entrance is? That would catch the people coming out. Mr. Smith responded even then, with the trees, that line of sight . We want to give people enough time to identify us and turn in. Mr. Galster responded but there will be all the signs on this building. I have a problem with the pole sign. I think there is already one for the plaza. You are on top of one of the higher points in Springdale. You can see that spot from almost Kerry Ford. If you put a 30 foot pole sign up, itís just a lot of signage up high. I think that can become a monument; sign; I almost think it can be moved up to this corner. I think thereís a lot of exposure to the signage on the building. Considering the fact that it is a lower grade than Kemper Road, it will be almost eye level anywhere. Then you have signs on three if not four sides of the building. A monument sign can be up to seven foot tall. If you miss them coming down here, there is another entrance, probably the preferred entrance anyway.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Nineteen


Mr. Galster stated I think we need to look at the dumpster location a little bit more. I was looking at the layout of your building, and if that freezer can be moved back beyond those doors and shift around to the other side, maybe the dumpster can be included in the whole structure of your building. I understand why you want it to be by your entrance, but I donít like it setting out in the middle of that island.

Mr. Sullivan said on the parking at the northeast corner, did you agree to lose those two parking spots? Mr. Smith answered that they did.

Mr. Wilson commented I listened to what you said about having the pole sign and visibility for vehicles traveling west on Kemper. With the speed limit the way it is, by the time they see that sign, they would have passed the street. If they were slowing down and going through the intersection, and you have it on the corner there, they will have time to respond and turn in. It really doesnít matter where you have the sign; by the time they recognize the sign and start to turn in, they already have passed it, so I do not agree with your rationale about needing a pole sign for vehicles traveling west. I agree with signage. I have a problem with pole signs. I think a ground sign put on the corner with them hopefully slowing down at that intersection, they should see your sign in time to make the turn. If they miss the turn, they could get the main entrance. So why have a pole sign?

Mr. Gattas responded I can understand your rationale, but I do not necessarily agree with it. The other thing I would like to mention is if you put the monument sign over here, Iíll need to check the grades, for you are not going to see it because of cars parking there. I would also like to look at the corner of Commons Drive and East Kemper to make sure there is enough setback that we are not so far that the sign is not visible and it is a waste. We need a little bit of latitude to make sure there is a visible sign and work within the ordinance in terms of the location of the monument sign. Unless itís not visible; then I would request a pole sign of 30 feet, which is allowed. If we can have the visibility, we will go with the monument sign. As long as we can work that out so we can have visibility, we can go with the monument sign, but I donít want to be tied to the monument sign and find out that it will not be visible. Mr. Wilson commented there could be a grade there where you could put it up a little higher; then you have to deal with your engineer to make sure that the grading is such that you can put your sign in.

Mr. Smith commented there are easements with that corner that will dictate where this thing sets. You may have to put it on a pole just to get it away from an easement. Mr. Wilson added if he chooses that location; he may want to move back further.

Ms. Manis commented on the landscaping, you show these trees to be removed. Are the existing trees to be relocated, and where? Mr. Smith said yes, because they are so close to that entrance. Ms. Manis asked where they would be relocated, and Mr. Smith indicated that the two trees within the lot that would be in the parking paved area so we propose they be relocated closer to the right of way. Mr. Galster added there are six trees that are shown to be relocated. Mr. Gattas stated those are inside the designated parking area or the entrance area. Mr. Smith added there are five trees existing from the corner around to the proposed entrance, and they would be in the paved area. We are not eliminating them; we are moving them to the grassed area closer to the right of way.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty


Ms. Manis asked if they would be the same trees that you would move, and if they die, what will happen? Mr. Smith answered we will replace them. Ms. Manis asked if they would be the same size trees, and Mr. Smith indicated that they would be. Ms. Manis asked what these little things are by the stacking lane? Mr. Smith answered they are hedges, burning bush type hedge. They mature to car light level; that is what their purpose is. We are trying to shield that whole drive through lane from lights. Ms. Manis commented if it is below the street, there should not be a problem. Mr. Smith stated it is probably a little above the street there. Ms. Manis commented so the building would be above the street and you would be able to see the silgnage on the building. When the lights come through, they will be coming towards Kemper Road. Mr. Smith stated Kemper Road will be above the lights at the back.

Mr. Syfert stated I believe the preponderance of issues have been addressed in terms of taking out the drive and working with the setback. There is a little openness left with the pole versus a monument sign, and we have to have a lighting plan and sediment plan, but I think the majority of the items can be worked out. What is the Commissionís pleasure?

Mr. Tiffany said on the rooftop mechanicals, screening is a big issue. Coming westbound, you will be above the restaurant, and they will be visible, especially from the plaza across the street. Can you screen those? Is that a parapet wall? Mr. Smith said it was and we can increase the height of the parapet if necessary. Mr. Gattas added it depends on the height; we may not be able to increase it enough. Mr. Tiffany responded I understand, but you could paint out the units with the same color as the roofing materials. Mr. Gattas responded that is not a problem.

Mr. Sullivan moved to approve the final site based on submission of the photometric plan, that at the northeast corner of the parking lot, two slots be eliminated, the directional signs be moved, the storm sewer calculations be submitted, that the speaker posts be moved and that in the course of constructing the retaining wall if it is required that the section of storm sewer be replaced; a sediment control plan and the lighting question be resolved with the engineer and a monument sign if possible to be worked out with the city. Mr. Blake seconded the motion.

Mr. Tiffany commented when we say if possible on the monument sign, if it is not possible, will we have a pole sign? Personally, I will vote no if that is the contingency.

Mr. Sullivan said so you are saying visibility or not, it is a monument sign. Mr. Syfert commented how about a modified pole sign, just not 25 feet high? The applicant is saying there are some line of sight issues he would like to address, and he would like flexibility with it, and I believe that is the reason Tim made his motion that way.

Mr. Tiffany commented in my opinion, I will not be held to a pole sign as submitted if the monument does not work. I am not comfortable with it.

Mr. Syfert asked if they want to leave the sign issue out of it? Ms. Manis commented I would like to leave the signage out of it if possible, until we know more detail. Mr. Syfert stated I think we have worked everything else out, but we have a real hang-up on the signs.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Sullivan stated we are talking about final approval. Then I will amend my motion so everything remains the same except for signage so the applicant will come back to Planning with the signage. Ms. Manis seconded the amended motion. Voting aye were Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Manis, Mr. Blake, Mr. Glaster, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Final site approval was granted without signage.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 PM.

Planning Commission reconvened at 9:38 P.M.

E. Longhorn Steak House, 11530 Princeton Pike Requests Final Approval of Proposed Addition

Hope Hudson representing the architectural firm RDM Design stated we are adding some interior and exterior waiting to the restaurant as well as updating it with the latest prototypical look which would be the gables on the front. We are just trying to update it.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane, who reported I have minimal comments. The expansion changes the curb line a little bit in front of the restaurant. It looks like they have adequate aisle width to accommodate their parking lot changes that will be created. The other item is regarding parking spaces required for the additional waiting area. It creates a need for 22 additional spaces. If you recall, when Cassinelli came through and evaluated the parking based on shared parking requirements, at that time Planning approved 89% of the code requirement for parking based on the shared uses. Overall this will change that number to 88%. The only other item I have was apparently there is a new logo change for Longhorn, and it includes a line drawing of a bull head. Is that a new sign they want to place on the building?

Ms. Hudson responded they do have a new logo, and as I understand it, there is a problem with the actual bull head being above the parapet. Mr. McErlane stated the concern previously had to do with the channel letters that are on the roof, and we maintained that they couldnít project above the roof ridge line. There is apparently a new logo that is not currently on the building. There is existing a painted sign on the building and there was a variance or deviation granted by this board to do that previously. The real question was whether or not the new logo will be an additional sign. Ms. Hudson responded from my understanding, it will be painted on the building like the previous sign. Mr. McErlane continued so there would be an additional sign which would require a further variance by this board. Just scaling it off the drawing, by the way we measure it it comes to an additional 60 square feet.

Mr. Syfert said you say you donít know anything about signs? Ms. Hudson responded I donít do signs, but this isnít what we consider a sign because it is not done by the sign contractor. If itís considered a sign, we will have to deal with it. There was a variance for the previous logo. Mr. Syfert said so this basically replaces the last one? Mr. McErlane answered Iím not sure. The other one is on a different face of the building. I donít know if t his one replaces it or is an additional sign. I donít think it shows up on your plans. As an alternative, Planning could consider approving it with the exception of that until something is squared away on signage.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Two


Ms. Hudson said we would have to go through and get another variance to have that logo placed on the side again, correct? Mr. McErlane responded it is this commission that addresses it, because it is a Planned Unit Development.

Mr. Tiffany said assuming we are removing the other one and replacing it with this one, are they approximately the same size? Mr. McErlane reported I think the other one is actually larger. It reads Longhorn Steaks and has part of the old logo on it. Mr. Tiffany continued so if they were taking that one off and putting this on, it would be less signage.

Ms. Manis asked if there werenít something recently done over there. Ms. Hudson responded there is a new color scheme and this new addition. Meanwhile the owners have repainted the building so the old logo has been painted over. Longhorn looks different now than it did two weeks ago. Ms. Manis asked if there were plans now to repaint the other logo? Ms. Hudson said no, right now it does not exist. We would like to put this new logo on instead.

Ms. Manis commented so there will be outside waiting; with seats and music? Ms. Hudson stated there will be rocking chairs and benches, and I think there is usually music. Ms. Manis asked if you would be served drinks outside, and Ms. Hudson answered no, and Ms. Manis continued you could get one inside and bring it out. Ms. Hudson confirmed this.

Mr. Tiffany stated I have your color scheme, and I notice on this awning with the windows, you have a couple of panels blocked out with this iron gate color. Ms. Hudson said it is black. Mr. Tiffany continued is that the only piece on the whole property that will be like that? Ms. Hudson said that is just on the awnings. It does also match the baseboard of the building.

Mr. Blake asked if the music will be in the outside waiting area? Ms. Hudson said that is typical, yes. Mr. Blake continued will it be country western, and Ms. Hudson responded we have music throughout the restaurant, and it is outside as well. It is not exceptionally loud; we can deal with that if you like. Mr. Blake responded I can understand inside, but outside it might be a little much.

Ms. Manis moved to approve the proposed addition without the old signage (old logo). Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion.

Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. McErlane if there were a need for consultation between you and the applicant about this sign? Mr. McErlane responded if the previous painted sign is gone, I donít think there is a problem with this sign.

On the motion to approve, voting aye were Ms. Manis, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Three

F. Tri-County Mall Requests Approval of Proposed Modification to Entrance A of Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike

Neil Kenig of KLOA from Rosemont, Illinois stated I find myself in a peculiar position tonight. I donít know where my client is, but I am prepared to proceed. Mr. Syfert asked if the client was supposed to be here. Mr. Kenig answered I thought she was. Mr. Syfert said you heard one of my comments earlier that they werenít interested enough to be here. Mr. Kenig I talked to your staff people and they had heard that the manager of the shopping center is no longer at Tri-County, but I also am representing the owners of the shopping center which is Equitable and Compass who manages the center, so I am prepared to proceed.

Mr. Kenig continued I was the traffic and parking consultant involved in all the expansion at Tri-County Mall in the past six to seven years, so I am intimately familiar with everything that has occurred within that center as well as the external street improvements.

Mr. Kenig reported the center is asking for an opening. As you come into the shopping center, there is a long unbroken area until you reach the parking structure behind the Lazarus store, and you canít get into the front parking area directly. According to management and ownership of the center, that parking lot is not being used to its maximum and they are having trouble leasing the area right inside the mall entrance. The only way you can get into that parking area is go all the way around to the back of the garage , come underneath the parking structure and back out to the front parking lot. That is not something people readily understand at all. The other choice is to come in the middle entrance and work your way back into the parking.

Mr. Kenig stated the primary concerns with staff involve the traffic entering the center at that entrance and not leaving any traffic setting out on Princeton Pike while they are trying to get into the parking lot. We did studies there as to the capacity of the turning phase. Ninety-six to 98% of the traffic into that entrance comes from the north making a left turn. There are dual turning lanes on the street. Every cycle gets a certain amount of green time; they donít get any more than 30 seconds. In that period of time, you can only turn so many vehicles, and it is about 15 cars in each lane. Our concern was to design something and locate the access under a worst case situation, that all 15 cars in the outside lane would not be left on the street when the light changed. That we have done. The design, Scheme B accommodates those 15 cars. We all know that there is never going to be a time that all 15 cars will desire to go into that parking lot. Our parking lot in the front is about 500 cars. Entrance A shows almost 4,000 cars in the back of the shopping center, so when you think of the number of cars coming into that entrance split to the available parking, we can only accommodate so many cars in the front, so there is no way that cycle after a cycle would we ever generate all those cars coming in.

Mr. Kenig continued the other major problem of concern is that some people in the inside lane would try to cross over into the outside lane seeing the opening into the parking lot. After we presented the first plan to staff, they raised that issue again. They are concerned about it. In the second goal, we said there was enough room to separate the two lanes, to put a median separator in there and keep the people from the inside lane from cutting into the other lane.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Kenig stated I brought a couple of colored illustrations to help. This is the existing two lanes. This green area is the solid concrete median and the red area is a small cross hatched painted area. There is about six feet and it narrows as you come around the curve until it is only a double yellow pigment. In here Iíve shown the internal ring road running along the front of the store. What you have in your report is a reduced version of this drawing which is the same situation except we have cut an opening in through the parking area to connect this entrance road to the internal ring road which then allows the traffic to come in and flow in both directions to get to that parking area which they canít get to now.

Mr. Kenig continued in this drawing, I have responded to staffís concern about the inside lane traffic trying to cut across to get into that entrance. I have moved that red line between the two lanes. We have recommended to the staff a stepped procedure. I donít like putting in a concrete median between the two lanes until I am sure I have a problem. We can use bollards like on Springfield Pike by the BP Station, and if this became a serious problem, we could then put in the raised median. All of our analysis indicates that we have no problem here. With the cars I drew on here showing worst case scenario, looking at how far the cars would stand before they reach the edge of the Princeton Pike pavement, and we are up to 20 cars at this point backed up. We canít get 20 in there; the signal cycle timing will allow a maximum of 15 cars. There is no way that 15 cars in one cycle will want to go in at any time of the year. So I think I have shown you that we can readily accommodate that traffic coming into the center at that point. Weíve provided the signing that is necessary to keep people from going the wrong way, and this will cost a few parking spaces to do it, but the shopping center is willing to give up those spaces in order to get use of that parking area in order to try and lease the space. My client was going to come here tonight and share the problems they have had in leasing that space. They only have two major restaurant clients that want to come into that mall space, and they said until you solve that access problem, they are not signing a lease.

Ms. Manis commented I was at the mall yesterday, and I only noticed one open spot, at least on the bottom level, but I think this needed to be done for a long time. I never liked it the old way, and I think it is probably a good thing that it can hold 20 cars because at least five cars will come through on the yellow and the red lights. Mr. Kenig responded I counted the cars and from my observation and based on the counts given me during peak times, the ability to handle 15 vehicles per cycle in each lane is still in excess of any count theyíve ever given me, so they havenít reached that maximum yet.

Ms. Manis continued I have a question about the median between them. I know it is a safety concern, but I would not like to see concrete at first. Mr. Kenig said I donít either; I find it is a lot easier to do a little testing first, move step by step. It is something you donít normally see.

Mr. Galster said when you were showing the 20-car stack, were you showing the right turn lane only once you get into the new area? Were those cars included in the 20 cars that you show on the left turn only at the bottom? Mr. Kenig answered yes. Mr. Galster continued my worst case scenario would be if everybody wanted to go to the right, to the main entrance to the mall.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Kenig responded you are right, the multitude of people will turn right, but I am showing a situation where every car would stop, and thatís not going to happen. Mr. Galster asked how many cars are in that left turn only lane, and Mr. Kenig answered five.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the middle lane permitted to make a right turn into the left lane? As it shows, it seems to me that is wide open for it and we might have another safety issue. Mr. Kenig responded this is typical at most intersections where you suddenly put in a left turn lane. You donít find people in the second lane making a right turn. Mr. Tiffany said typically it is a 90, as opposed to this angle. Theyíll see the opening. Mr. Syfert commented at Christmastime they will do anything. Mr. Kenig responded if this were a street, it could be two or three or four lanes wide, and you could turn into any one of those lanes. Mr. Tiffany said weíre talking about shoppers at Christmastime, and they will do it. Itís a safety concern. Mr. Kenig responded we could extend the line in here. Mr. Tiffany said I donít have a problem if they both turn, as long as there is something in place to keep that right lane in the right lane once he makes that turn. I donít want someone criss crossing through there and causing problems. Mr. Kenig stated that is why I only want one lane turning.

Mr. Tiffany continued as far as the outbound traffic leaving the site, a concern I would have is if we put up the stripping with the bollards, people see that as a boundary. We have someone coming out and slipping over into the other lane, because he doesnít want to make a right turn. Mr. Tiffany commented I donít know what the statistics are, but I would venture to say that a majority of the traffic that comes to Tri-County Mall is repeat business. Once this is there, I do see an increase in this entrance because once they know it is there, people will go to the first entrance, unless it is backed up.

Mr. Kenig responded I would disagree a little bit, because 70% to 90% of the shoppers turn into the first entrance to the center, even if theyíre going to the far end of the center; they donít change their habits.

Mr. Tiffany asked what doesnít work about it now that this is necessary? Mr. Kenig answered there is no connection. Mr. Tiffany said there is; itís just a long way around. I understand you have clients that want this done before they come into the shopping center. Mr. Kenig responded normally at every entrance to a shopping center you are in a parking area within 200 to 300 feet. Mr. Tiffany said so why not move that down further around the corner? My thought is the simpler the better as far as getting people into the center and this complicates it. I can see cars going all over the place with these traffic patterns; youíll slow the traffic down, especially at Christmastime. Mr. Kenig answered it might, but first of all they are driving very slowly.

Mr. Tiffany said you were part of this process when it was done years ago. Why doesnít it work right now? Is it a real estate issue? Mr. Kenig said yes; it is a marketing issue. They have a considerable number of vacancies at this end. I am heard from Cecil and other people that traffic patterns around this center are better than they ever have been before. Mr. Tiffany responded absolutely, and that is why I am wondering what doesnít work. Mr. Kenig commented you canít get into this parking area because it is so isolated. The restaurants want their parking at the front door.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Syfert commented I have been dealing with this traffic pattern 25 of the 30 years it has been there, and what we have right now we dealt with long and hard, which you were a part of, and we have over a million square feet that is being serviced as well as it ever has been. I am having an awful lot of trouble in my own mind for the benefit of one or two restaurants upsetting something that works now. Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda.

Mr. Shvegzda reported many of the initial concerns have been addressed in regards to isolating the one lane so you donít have the outbound traffic turning left, in terms of closing off some of the driveways from the parking fields on the inner ring road so traffic coming in could access on the ring road without being blocked. Our concern would be is there enough length distance from the point of 747 to the point where they have to make a decision to turn into the right turn only lane. At the staff meeting, Mr. Osborn was vocal in this too, that this connection between Access A and the inner ring road should be pushed further to the north, wherever would be practical. That is our primary concern. Mr. Syfert responded you donít like it where it is, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding it is because it is so close to the intersection. Mr. Syfert continued if it were pushed on down, you wouldnít have the same concerns, and Mr. Shvegzda said no.

Mr. Kenig stated we met with CDS and staff on this issue. They were the ones that recommended the changes I brought to you tonight. This change in what they are saying is totally different from anything I had in any meetings with them before. You have an alternative to this location; it is called D, and they recommended that if B alone would not be adequate to accommodate the traffic, that the people in the second lane were feeling disenfranchised by everything we were doing, we would come back with that D access point in addition to the B access point and pay for all that additional work to provide for the second opportunity to turn into the center. The last time I talked to my client, they were willing to consider that, but on a staged process. They are willing to pay for that and lose more parking spaces, but they hope that will not be the case.

Mr. Tiffany said so two access drives is a possibility here? Mr. Shvegzda reported I canít attest to that because I wasnít at those meetings, but that was not relayed to me. Mr. Syfert added that is the first I knew of it. Mr. Kenig said itís in your packets. Mr. Syfert responded I saw the alternate plan, but Id didnít know that staff had recommended this as primary. Mr. Kenig said they havenít recommended it as primary; we have said give us the opportunity to this and if this presents a problem, weíll go to B and D. Now staff could say we would prefer you to do B and D right now; they apparently havenít said that. They are all of a sudden saying they only want to see D, which is a total turnaround from the last comments I received from them. If they werenít accepting what is shown here, why were they making all the comments and then all of sudden say they donít want the entrance there?

Mr. Shvegzda stated a lot of those comments would apply to either entrance as far as different precautions necessary.

Ms. Manis said from where I live, this is the entrance I have used a lot, and do occasionally more than others on the panel. We currently have the same problems that you are bringing up now. Regardless how long it has been this way, people come through here and put on their brakes because they have to turn into the parking garage.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Seven


Ms. Manis continued I think opening it up will only help. I do like it down a little further or make both lanes turn into it. This was the cityís plan when it was done five years ago, wasnít it? Mr. Syfert responded I donít know where it all came from. Mr. Shvegzda stated that is something that came out of the report and was approved by the city. Ms. Manis asked if the city was pushing for this more? I see this as a north one way; we tried to do something better, and it didnít work that well. It does work to get traffic back off the road. Mr. Shvegzda responded there was a connection in the vicinity of where the entrance to the garage was, and it was provisioned at that time to enter the inner ring road. Ms. Manis continued I think if there was one down there it would help the flow also. You get down there and you have to go into that garage; people put on their brakes and try to change lanes in the middle the way it is now.

Mr. Kenig said I am not objecting to moving the entrance down; that is not my decision. The owners asked us to look at a number of alternatives; we looked at five and gave them the pros and cons of each. This one was acceptable to them because it was the closet to the parking area and the mall entrance that gave them what they needed, and as long as they felt it would not create safety and capacity problems, they would like to have this. If you decide this is the only solution, I would ask that this be continued and let them have the opportunity to come before you and voice their concerns.

Mr. Galster commented that was my point. Looking at the map and B and D, if we eliminate B and make it D and have it not so close to the parking garage entrance for Lazarus, it would make that a lot better. It would eliminate a lot of the problems and you could make that a two lane back as far as you want and have all kinds of time to move in; that would be my preference.

Mr. Tiffany said on your sketch where the number 30 would be the logical place for this lane to be. It gives time for the people to get around the turn. Mr. Kenig responded there is one minor problem; you sever that parking lot into two pieces, with medians on both sides, and then both parking lots get isolated and we could end up losing a lot of parking spaces and have a little dead pocket of parking there. Iíd have to talk to the owners, but if you are going to move as far north as where the 30 is, we probably would rather move all the way down. Then when we come in, we can continue right in front of Lazarus or go down the ring road. Mr. Tiffany continued to me that is farther away from the channel and it makes a lot more sense in terms of safety. Mr. Kenig commented it was the engineerís recommendation to do this, separate the lanes. The decision is gone when you put that separator in. Mr. Tiffany responded it really isnít; it can cause confusion, slow things down and possibly accidents. We have something effective at this point; to my knowledge, we donít have accidents to a great extent. I would like to see it down a little further. If it is the concurrence to move this down the road, you would have to go back to the owner? Mr. Kenig answered yes. Mr. Wilson moved to table this until Mr. Kenig and Tri-County can meet and come back with a final proposal, having heard our comments. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Mr. Kenig asked if the entire Planning Commission felt that B was not acceptable. Mr. Syfert responded I believe all but one member talked that way. Mr. Wilson said I can withdraw my motion and Mr. Syfert responded I believe your motion is in order since the applicant isnít here and I donít think weíll gain another thing by continuing talking. By voice vote, all voted aye, and this will be on the agenda October 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Eight

G. Extended Stay America Inc. Requests Preliminary Approval of Proposed Hotel at I-275 and Glensprings Drive (Storable Property)

Rick Horn of Woolpert indicated we are representing Extended stay America, an extended stay hotel. We are requesting preliminary site plan approval for three 3-story buildings under one roofline. They will be separated by a 13-foot mezzanine type walkway. We will have a bituminous pavement parking lot with six inch concrete curbing around it.

Mr. Horn continued the exterior finish would be stucco drivitt type. In the final plan we will have a color board that you can look at, so you can comment about color. We are asking that this site plan be approved with pole sign and with no detention requirement. This is a unique site, The I-275 ramp is to the north, Cross Country Inn is to the east and residential property zoned for multi-family is to the south and to the west.

Mr. Horn stated there is a stream running through, and it has been ascertained that this is wide enough to handle the storm. One of the requests of the city is that we redo the FEMA map. All of our buildings will be above the flood plain, so I do not see the necessity for that.

Mr. Horn continued we are impacting on the site; there are four to five trees, one 24" cottonwood, a 15" butternut, a 6" hackberry and a 6" elm.. We are not touching the 6" elm, the 6" hackberry or the 15" butternut. We may impact the 24" cottonwood. The 20" cottonwood is dead. If we have to, we will replace 50% as indicated in the code.

Mr. Horn stated this is the layout of the buildings, and there will be three buildings under one roof line. We are out of the floodway of the stream. We have the necessary parking, and we have maintained correct setbacks for that zoning. It is a MS (Motor Service) zoning. We are looking for preliminary site plan approval with the pole sign and no detention requirement. We will be outside the flood plain, so we will not have to worry about the FEMA requirement.

Mr. Syfert asked about the Extended Stay America hotel; do people stay for weeks? Mr. Horn answered it is a hotel where businessmen have to stay a week or so. It is set up for that purpose, a suite type hotel where you have a room and a sitting and study area and bathroom.

Mr. Horn stated what I have passed around is a color rendering of what the site would look like, but it would not be exactly like that because of the uniqueness of the site.

Mr. Galster commented I wanted the applicant to know that the Route 4 Corridor Study requires that 40% of at least two facades should be brick or stone. Do you have a problem with doing that? Mr. Horn answered we are aware of that, and I do not think that will be a problem. From the audience, Mark Haeger of Extended Stay asked if there were any chance of a variance? Is it pretty much set in stone? If it is set in stone, it is not a problem. We look at it in terms of cost.

Mr. Galster stated it is not the code, but it is highly recommended to follow. We can make exceptions to that; I personally wouldnít, but I canít speak for everybody else. Mr. Syfert added we have tried not to deviate from that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Twenty-Nine


Mr. Horn commented our proposed building is 40í1" tall, and we probably would need a variance for that. If it comes down to that, we may need a variance for the facade. We have a lot of windows and openings, and to put the stone or brick on 40%, may make this not very good looking. At that point, maybe we would not be doing something the commission would like.

Mr. Horn continued this is screened by trees and will be as a part of landscaping for headlights by Cross Country Innís landscaping and by a tree line that runs along the top of the bank on this creek. There are trees all along the top of this bank to effectively screen this. You cannot see this area unless you go in the back yards and look through the bushes. There would not be headlight intrusion into the residential area. There is a 25 foot vertical difference between the top of the site and the ramp coming off I-275. If you look at the eastbound ramp from I-275 into the site, you cannot see it. The only way you can see the site is if you are on the ramp; once you get on I-275, you are looking at Lawnview Avenue. That is one of the reasons for the request for the pole sign. If you donít have a sign there, there is no way anyone would know that the site is there. Since our building is 40 feet tall, you will be able to see it from I-275, but youíll see part of the upper floor.

I-275, part of the upper floor.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his report, and Mr. McErlane stated my comments are based on a pretty preliminary plan, and there will be a number of modifications that will need to be made before we are at the final planning stage. There is no detention facility shown on the plan. Parking totaled 120 spaces, and one hundred twenty units are shown, Typically we have a requirement of one per unit, plus one per employee. We do not require one per housekeeping employees because of their work schedules. There are more than five handicapped spaces provided, which is more than what is required, but none are van accessible. No dumpster location is shown. Since the lot is located in the Route 4 Corridor District, the maximum height for a building is 36 feet, and their building is 40í1". The site is low compared to I-275. However, the grading plan shows the elevations on Lawnview Avenue are not that much higher than the elevations on the site. Even though it looks depressed, it is not relative to Lawnview Avenue. Another requirement of the Corridor District is 40% of two facades have to contain brick or stone. It is a code requirement, but the way it is written in the code it allows Planning Commission to deviate from that requirement. Pole signs are prohibited in the Route 4 Corridor District, and it is a requirement to landscape and screen adjacent properties from headlight glare.

Mr. Shvegzda reported regarding the existing channel, there are a couple of areas of the proposed parking lot that appear to be encroaching on the channel. We do not have detailed calculations right now to see how that affects the water surface elevation, but it is important to this location.

Mr. Shvegzda continued on the detention Bill mentioned this, there is a proposed drive from Cross Country Inn. There is an existing utility pole that is part of the line, and needs to be relocated and approved by CG&E. There may be some effect on the other poles too.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty


Mr. Shvegzda stated there was work on this channel which reduced flood elevations down to what it was previous to the expansion of the channel. We recommended that the channel be widened to accommodate the same results so we requested the developer pursue the calculations with FEMA to clean up the flood map we have right now. We also are asking that a right of entry be granted so they can complete their widening of the channel.

Mr. Shvegzda continued the sediment that has built up in the channel needs to be cleaned out. They also need MSD approval for the relocation of the sanitary sewer.

Mr. Tiffany asked if he is saying they are not in the flood plain? Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, based on the past calculations and analysis that were done as part of the Cross Country development. Mr. Tiffany said you say the sediment needs to be cleaned out. When was this widened? Mr. Shvegzda answered when Cross Country was built, probably in 1988. Mr. Tiffany said if he needs to take the sediment out now, does he need to maintain it? Mr. Shvegzda answered ultimately yes, maintenance of the channel is the individual property ownerís responsibility.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda to explain FEMA to me. Mr. Horn felt they should not do the FEMA map. Mr. Shvegzda reported this was a study done based on flood records. They have come up with a particular elevation in this area, and we are looking to have that revised based on the new channel sections. Mr. Syfert asked if that is normally done by the applicant, and Mr. Shvegzda answered it can be, particularly since the map shows it above the elevation they really need. Mr. Syfert commented so it is to their benefit also. Mr. Shvegzda answered it can be, particularly with letters to loaning institutions and flood insurance.

Mr. Tiffany commented the applicant is asking that no detention be required. Is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda reported as far as I can recall, I do not think Planning has ever exempted anybody from that. Maybe one exception when Franks added on to Value City, and they had to widen a section of the channel behind Value City. Mr. Tiffany said so underground detention would be the logical thing? Mr. Shvegzda responded it is true that generally the closer the detention basin gets to the major water course, the less effect it has. Mr. Tiffany said his discharge would be into the creek, not into a storm sewer? Mr. Shvegzda answered that is correct. Mr. Tiffany continued looking at the topography, it seems like the site falls more against I-275. Will everything be channeled into the creek, or are you just going to let it run?

Mr. Horn stated I do not disagree with what Don is saying. All our buildings will be at elevation 691, and the 100 year flood elevation is 688. I have plotted from the FEMA map, and it shows a flood plain that encompasses Applebees, Cross Country Inn and this site. It shows elevations of what the critical flood would be, at this point 691, 690, 689 and 688 to the back of the site. Our topography is flowing this way. The water flow at stream is this way. The reason detention became a requirement is because we had flooding problems. What contributed to these problems was that the properties upstream in the water shed; intense storms would release their water into the stream, and in 20 or 30 minutes that volume would build until there would be a flash flood downstream.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-One


Mr. Horn stated the reason for detention is to detain that water for a period of time to let that first flash flood go on through. What we have here is a unique piece of property in that we have the stream alongside the property here, and to detain the water what would happen is we would be detaining the water for that peak flood, that flood would come up and that would be when we were trying to get our water out; that would be when it would be overflowing, so we would be adding to the problem instead of taking away. Usually when you have a blue stream, you would discharge straight to the stream, because any one of the intense storms that we would be detaining would flow off the site and be gone downstream before the flood waters ever hit. That way you would be helping the flood problem by letting it go offsite. Mr. Tiffany asked if it would flow off site, or would it be channeled to the stream? Mr. Horn answered we would have some kind of storm system; the outflow site probably would be at the end of the property. If we had to concentrate somewhere else, it would be out into the stream.

Mr. Horn continued one of the other reasons that detention would be a problem would be because it would have to be underground detention. It is covered by pavement or building except for 5% that we can use for landscaping. We could put some kind of swale around there, but it wouldnít meet the detention requirements. If we put underground detention, we would have a three or four foot diameter pipe and cover over that of two feet, so we are down six feet, and that is where the stream is. Even if it is a minimal flow, we would be backing up into our site, so it makes sense not to have detention on this site.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda if he agreed with that. Mr. Shvegzda stated the problem I have with that is at what point does that become not a valid argument; how far away from the main creek this would be? In general, the closer you are to the main channel, the less benefit you have from the detention.

Mr. Tiffany asked if he would agree that if you put in an underground detention, it will stay wet? Mr. Shvegzda answered basically, unless you would come up with some way to make it much shallower and not have a cover on it aside from the pavement surface. It wouldnít work it would have to be an open basin. Mr. Tiffany commented that is not an option with this use.

Mr. Horn stated this plan has been revised from the plan you have in front of you. I met your parking requirement; I pushed the site up to the left, and got everything away from the top of the bank on the stream.
We have 123 units and 128 parking spaces, nine handicapped and two of those van accessible. We have a dumpster location in the upper left hand corner. It is out of the way and by the corner where the pole sign would probably be located. We have enough area for the caliper trees we need. We intend to screen headlight sight distance on the east side abutting Cross Country; we will add to whatever landscaping they have to handle that. As far as headlight sight distance on the other side, we have existing vegetation in the back yards which probably will adequately screen that. To the north, the elevation difference would negate any headlights shining on I-275. As far as approvals from CG&E and MSD, a sewer runs through the site and will be realigned to go around the building site. The easement to the Hitchcock property to the south will be right of entry; there is no problem there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Two

Mr. Horn continued on our site we widened the creek before at the request of the city as part of the Cross Country Inn approval. It meets all the criteria of the city and will work.

Mr. Horn stated the only thing I have some concerns about is the FEMA map. Don was saying maybe FEMA revision was required. It was not required for Cross Country Inn or Applebees, and they show in the same area as we do. We are building above the flood plain, so there is no real requirement from FEMA to revise that map. The only time I have been aware that FEMA maps have been revised is when you create a damming situation, or you cross a stream or put a culvert pipe in. At that point you create a different situation than when the FEMA map was formulated, and that is when you are required to make a revision to the map. We are requesting that we not be held to that because neither Applebees nor Cross Country Inn were required to do that. when they were developed, and they have been developed in the interim period. The FEMA map was prepared in 1990 and they should have showed that developed area, and it is not shown on the map.

Mr. Horn added we will have a lighting plan as part of the final submission. Concerning the sediment in the creek, this is a sticky situation, and we will work with Don and Bill on this, When you work in the stream, and it has more than a 4 cfs flow, you are working in waters of the United States, and you have to go through the Army Corps of Engineers. You create more problems than you help by trying to clear out that silt. When you go in the stream with any kind of equipment, you are churning more silt up than you are removing. That silt has to go somewhere, and it will go downstream. As the stream exists, there is vegetation on both sides of the banks that is holding the banks in place. There is vegetation growing in the middle of the stream and that is probably where the situation is coming from. To strip that out is to create more erosion problems than you are helping. We are not trying to avoid work; we are trying to avoid potential problem and potential pollution of the stream downstream from where we are. We will take special precautions with our erosion control when we do work on the site so that no erosion goes into the stream, or as little as possible does.

Mr. Horn reported we are looking for preliminary site plan approval. I knew these issues would arise, and I wanted to address them before I did a final site plan. We are asking for approval with a pole sign and without detention and without the FEMA map being required. MSD and CG&E approvals will have to be part of the approval process for us to get the site underway.

Mr. Wilson stated you talked about increasing the parking spaces from 123 to 128. Where will the employees be parking, and how many will be allocated for them? Mr. Horn responded at the furthest point on the site. There will be pretty many open spaces when they are there. We do have sufficient parking spaces for 123 units, plus five extra for employees. Mr. Wilson commented you indicated that you had two van accessible parking spots; can you identify those? Mr. Horn showed him on the drawing. between. We have nine by 19 foot spaces with an eight foot strip between.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Three


Mr. Wilson commented you said that Applebees and Cross Country were not required to do something so you feel you should not be required either. We take each developer as a separate issue. Sometimes a concession is made for one that is not made for another. I want to caution you when you come for final approval that you not say you did this for one person and not for us because we deal with this on an individual basis.

Mr. Wilson stated we need to address the facade; that may well be a problem with this Commission. Most of us are pretty locked into that percentage of brick and stone. I have mixed feelings on the pole sign. Where you are, you probably need a pole or some kind of signage that will identify you as a motel-hotel. That may be the only concession we will give you at this point, I canít speak for the other members, but at this point that is the only one I am somewhat leaning to, because most of your customers are going to come off the interstate, and they are going to need to have some signage there. We need to address the brick or stone issue.

Mr. Haeger said it said 40% on two facades; which two facades? We do not have a problem; I just need to know. Mr. Tiffany said the Route 4 Corridor Study spells it out.

Mr. Horn added the FEMA map requirement is not something the city approved or required because there was no FEMA map when these others were approved. I am saying in the FEMA map study, it included the areas of Apples and Cross Country Inn, and the sites are shown all the same; there is no difference. The reason is, I believe, because the buildings are built above the flood plain. There was no requirement for a map change. I am not asking for any special concessions. I am saying there is no real requirement if our buildings are out of the flood plain for a FEMA map change. I wouldnít presume that we should get something because someone else did. I work as an engineer, and thatís where my criteria is; I try to do the best design under the criteria of the city.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Shvegzda if he had a problem with the exclusion of the FEMA map in view of the way the area is sloped? Mr. Shvegzda responded right now there is a map that indicates flood elevations that are not correct. It will have to be changed sooner or later. The city could initiate the process.

Mr. Wilson said his contention is that it is not necessary because of the elevations. Mr. Horn stated what Don has seen is the site plan; we have not completed a grading plan. That will be part of the final construction plans. What I am saying is the buildings will be held at the elevation 691, which is at least a foot higher than the flood elevation shown in the FEMA map. Mr. Shvegzda commented that is correct; that would be above the flood elevation shown on the FEMA map as it exists currently. Mr. Wilson asked if he would have a problem with that? Mr. Shvegzda answered no.

Mr. Horn added one of the other criteria is the detention requirement that will be a hardship, something hard to design engineering wise. That is something I would like to have in the minutes so I can go ahead with the final design, because that will impact the final design.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Four


Mr. Wilson commented you selected this site so you were aware that detention was going to be a problem. Mr. Horn responded we were with the understanding that detention would not be required because of the proximity of the stream. Mr. Tiffany asked if the dumpster is enclosed and Mr. Horn answered yes. He asked what is involved with updating the FEMA map, and Mr. Horn answered it is more than a two month process and involves paperwork at a cost of $7-8,000, which is not a great cost, but it is a delay that I donít know we can afford to have.

Mr. Tiffany commented based on the existing map, he says he will build above the flood plain. With the updated map the level should be even lower, so we are not at risk of his being in the flood plain if we allow him to go ahead with the building of the structure and file for the FEMA map.

Mr. Horn said my contention is FEMA is a federal agency and the map is prepared for the city. If it is going to be revised, we do not mind if the city initiates it and does it concurrently with us building this project. To us it is useful, but it is not a requirement of our development of the site.

Mr. Tiffany said regarding sediment, does it need to be taken out? Mr. Shvegzda answered the problem is there are several sand bars that dam up portions near the area where Princewood comes across. We have a pool of maybe three feet. Mr. Tiffany responded I understand we are going to move sediment downstream in the process, but I can see that something has to be done here. Mr. Shvegzda stated upstream we would require them to modify the channel at that location regardless. When they do this, precautions will have to be taken to minimize that.

Mr. Horn said if they are going to do widening further upstream on the Hitchcock property, maybe that is when we clean out the sediment. I do not disagree with anything Don Shvegzda said. We do not want pooling water there with mosquitoes. If we can hand dig a small channel and let it flow on out, that may be the solution, and if any of the mechanized equipment has to go down there, we could do that as a part of the Hitchcock property widening.

. Mr. Tiffany stated as long as we have an agreement that it will be taken care of. Mr. Horn reported according to Mr. Strebel, the present owner of the property, there is an agreement with Cross County Inn that they are responsible for that sediment removal. Maybe we can do that as a part of the stream widening on the Hitchcock property. Mr. Tiffany said I do not see that we should make an exception on this. Mr. Horn responded I would like to make that a condition of when the widening occurs; we can do that as part of the whole process, so there is no damage to the creek.

Mr. Tiffany commented it sounds like it will be timed about the same as far as development, so it should work out well. Mr. Shvegzda said in that statement is that assuming who is going to be responsible for actually doing that? Mr. Horn answered if you are requiring it as part of the development of the site, we can do it. It is not a labor intensive job; it is a matter of timing.

Ms. Manis said my only concern is for the houses across the stream from you. Mr. Horn answered that is a valid concern. There are a lot of trees and vegetation growing along the property line along the back of those yards and a lot of those fences have trees along them. Ms. Manis said I am worried about the water going off the property. When it comes off your property, where now it soaks in and goes into the creek. Mdr. Tiffany added you are going to impervious surfaces.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Five


Mr. Horn said the only difference between what is happening now and the impervious surface would be that the water flows off faster and would be downstream before any flood condition would hit. Now it percolates through the soil and into the stream; it is its own natural detention. We would be making it a faster runoff, but it should not impact the flooding condition in that channel. In fact that is the reason for the channel widening before. That water is constricted through the Hitchcock property, and when it hits the Strebel property, it widens out and dissipates and the flood level goes down at that point. Where it is constricted that is where the flooding occurs. It comes up in that constricted channel and flows out. When it gets to our channel it is wider and flows back in and goes on out.

Mr. Wilson said the maximum height for a building is 36 feet, and you are going with 40í1" at the peak of the gable. Is there no way to play with that a little bit? Mr. Horn responded we are asking for three stories to get the number of units required by the developer. If we cut out a level, it would not be economically feasible. These buildings are prototypes, so any changes we would make would be major. That is why we are asking for that four foot variance. This site is 25 feet depressed in elevation, so I would think that might be a special circumstance that may allow that variance.

Mr. McErlane reported the 36 foot height requirement for the building as well as the pole sign are Zoning Code requirements. In the past we have had corridor requirements that also went into transitional districts that were handled strictly by Planning Commission, but since this is MS (Motor Service) zoning with a corridor overlay, any deviations from this would have to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A variance to allow a pole sign would have to be approved by BZA, as well as the height of the building.

Ms. Manis asked how high they wanted the pole sign, and Mr. Horn answered we would like to have 65 feet. Ms. Manis asked how much that would be over the top of your property would that be? Mr. Horn answered that would probably be about 40 feet over the highway, and would look something like what Cross Country Inn has right now.

Mr. Syfert commented this is preliminary plan and a couple of the items would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Ms. Manis stated I do not have a problem with the height requirement of the building and of the pole sign. I think they are needed, and if I were assured that the detention problem was satisfied, I would not have a problem with the development. I move to grant preliminary approval and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Ms. Manis, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiffany and Mr. Syfert. Preliminary approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 11:40 P.M. Ms. Manis left the meeting. Planning reconvened at Midnight.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Six

I. Barycenter Properties Requests a Modification to the Preliminary PUD Plan for Northwest Business Center for "Pictoria Island"

Mr. Steven King said as you know, the concept approval you granted in May covered the concept of the 23 acres. We have come back in with the eight acres. We want to go forward with the development on the eight acres. We have expressions of interest from tenants who are represented here tonight to fill this first building. We would like to proceed with this first building, and we are working with interested users for the second building and the third building. expressions of interest that. We have taken the detailing to the next level where you can see what the development proceeds as. I will turn this over to Dick.

Dick Morris, Ram FX stated to me this is just about the process. There is a real side to get the business done, based on the fact that we have real people here. I want to introduce some of the people who have come here this evening. I have Steve King whom you already know; this is Tim King who is the engineer/surveyor; Derek Howard, Architect with his own firm and he will be collaborating on the job. I have worked with him before, and I have asked both Tim and Derek to be here this evening so you will know that it is not only me, it is a whole group of talented individuals that make this whole thing work,. Mr. Morris introduced his design team of Larry Lovelace, Marvin Spradling, Jim Tomlin, and Ron Slimmer. He also acknowledged John Smith a lawyer from Reisenfeld and Statman who is handling the legal documents. We have people here from Renaissance, we have Murray and Mark Evans from Bradenton Florida, who are one of the potential users in terms of the first phase. They are all about the 89th Street Grill, which is a new definition. This project is about as many new things and the latest things that we could possibly put in that satisfy the consumer. The Evans have allowed me to do 89th Street, so I know that will be a good one in here. Mr. Morris introduced his wife Donna, and Dan Hanna from Italiannus, part of the Fridays group; they are interested in this site as well. Their questions would be when can I move in? We have this thing phased, and I need some recognition along the line so I can continue to pursue along a design line that I have.

Mr. Morris showed the brochures they put out. You will find Pictoria Island which refers to the original concept model. There is a layout. This is a part of what was approved prior to the last meeting. Since that time I have named the buildings planets. I have the walk of the planets; the concept is this is people oriented; it will have bike trails walking trails and probably the walking trails will originate in the shoe department of the sports store. The idea is to integrate as many of the different kinds of human aspirations as possible. This is where flower shows and concerts for children would happen. This is a new community; this is a town, in this case a city gate. On the back we have an aerial of the property.

Mr. Morris introduced Bruce Crutcher, who has been a part of this process for some time. Do I need to introduce Bill McErlane? He is a very wonderful guy to work with. The other person that couldnít be here tonight was Johnny Rockets; Johnny Rockets wants to commit to be here. Itís a fun place; wonderful place for kids. Once I designed this, they thought this could be part of the prototype for the national chain; they didnít have an identify they were satisfied with,



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Seven


Mr. Morris reported we have our sign up, and we have had a wonderful reaction to the sign. Weíre getting the kind of response that we thought the sign would bring. The design itself is an extension that was there on the original plan. These are real buildings; this is an integrated structure that has four restaurants in it. Johnny Rockets is in here, Italiannus is in here, and a brew pub and 89th Street, so in this general area here, we have enough power with these people coming into the project to execute the balance of some of the options we have to make the project whole. The money we make here allows us to buy the ground from 5th/3rd, because they own the next five acres.

Mr. Morris reported we have been talking to a bookstore person. All the bookstores look alike; you canít tell the difference. The individual who is a part of Joseph Beth is an independent and very progressive, and I told him I wanted to do something library like and vertical which had a tree of knowledge that you were able to walk up to and which read you poetry. It would be a part of this entertainment dynamic that retailing is heading for. This complex has a 300-year life expectancy so you donít want to build anything obsolete.

Mr. Morris continued the idea of the buildings as they are spaced; they have individual identity. They break every rule you have, and we have to figure out how to get them built. I think theyíre a little bit too high. One of the comments Bill had was concerning the height limitation of 48 feet. The first time we talked I said it would be about 65 feet. I think the Sheraton is 120 feet. This building right here is 75 feet. I can get down underneath the rules if I make it all flat roofs, but then I think you have what you already have. So, I need some kind of consideration. Part of the dynamics and the wonderful quality of this is in the roof lines. They cost more to build and Iíve convinced guys that they need to spend more for them.

Mr. Morris added this is conceived as a sports store. It has a mountain inside it. Buying sports gear in that kind of environment is where it is heading. There is room in this arena for another restaurant. We think it is about activities that complement each other.

Mr. Morris stated I said I wanted to make sure it wasnít parking garage and little catwalks over to buildings. One of the questions Bill had was about the parking dynamics of the unit itself. We originally said we were thinking of 2,000 parking spaces. In this phase, we will let the parking garages grow with the buildings so when you build this first one, the parking required for that would take care of what the parking represents on the first level. So we donít have to get into the parking garage dynamics straight away. As we build this building, it requires another couple of hundred more parking places. Then the deck starts to grow. This building needs another 300+ spaces, so there is this multi-tiered parking garage, which is all in the original concept.

Mr. Morris continued the idea of the parking garage is not being these forbidden caverns that no one likes to be in. They have these huge openings and trees that go all the way down to the base. Actually the buildings go all the way down and penetrate the entire parking levels. The rationale here is that people would understand wherever they are going inside this facility.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Eight


Mr. Morris continued the sports store starts at the bottom; you donít really park under it; you park in it. The same thing goes for the bookstore. There are no stairs in this whole thing; there are ramps so it is completely barrier free for the handicapped. This place is designed so people can come and enjoy the whole place, and you have to allow me to take the room in order to do it.

Mr. Morris stated when we are talking about an amphitheater which is right here and is part of the retention basin, that ramp goes from one level all the way down to the bottom of that. This is an open amphitheater. In the plan you will find the Pool of the Night Sky. The pool comes across here and cascades down into the main basin. One of the issues on the engineering report was that some of the calculations that we had done didnít match up to the quantity of water for the 300-year storm. We think there is a little confusion, because what we have designed these units to be is so that these walks can be flooded when the 300-year storm comes. We want to keep the walk line close to the water so there isnít a big differential between the water and the walk line. This whole area is able to come up with the extra foot or two, plus the safety factor is in there too.

Mr. Morris continued this piece is a whimsical piece, my gift to the project. This is a vertical balloon takeoff port, meaning that you can put a real balloon in there and blow it up instead of the usual blowing balloons up laying down. This is the mechanism to do that, and when there is not a balloon there, this is a timepiece that resets itself, a great big garden clock. These kinds of things become an integrated part of the whole idea that make it a wonderful place to go. When I go out to eat, I like to look at something other than cars parked outside the window. The views become paramount to the restaurants, and the view is about the interpersonal relationship that make it a good place to go. Thatís the whole idea of why these various things take place.

Mr. Morris continued from a technical perspective, I had the fire department come out, and there is a way for trucks to navigate all the way to the base of this; I have a ramp that comes all the way down to get a fire truck down to almost anyplace in the site. The thing they need access more than anything else is the life squad, so it is a life squad issue more than a fire truck issue. He wanted to know if the parking deck would be heavy enough to hold a 40,000 pound fire truck, and it is.

Mr. Morris stated if you look at the layout, it is the first three buildings; they are called Neptune, Jupiter and Venus. The starport is where the center of the sun is, and each of these buildings are a distance from the sun. Mercury would be closest, Venus would be next, etc. This needs to be an educational place, about introducing the general population to a lot of things they passed by and never stopped to understand.

Mr. Morris continued there was another question on the engineering report, a concern about coming down the drive, and there was a split drive coming around. I agree that by the time you make a right hand turn and a left hand turn, it was too clumsy. I concur; it should be a straight shot, and thatís already on this model. There was another point which was a misunderstanding. We had an entrance to the parking down here on that one way street, so that entrance needs to be located to a two-way street. Because of the complexity of the project, there will be things that need to be pointed out to us as we are going through it and we adjust accordingly, so I have been letting you know where we are rather than asking for anything definite.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Thirty-Nine


Mr. Morris stated there is only one thing we need from you definitely tonight, and this has to do with the gentlemen who are here tonight who would like to occupy this building. We would like to start the first phase , so there is this activity happening on the site. The idea here would be if we could get a general acceptance that with this first eight acres that is already zoned general business, we be allowed to proceed much like what was on the original plan that we presented to you. It is the same square footage and configuration. Since that time we have submitted engineering drawings that need to be refined, questions need to be resolved. Actually in the first eight acres, there arenít any trees other than what I bring to it, so I am not taking any trees down. We need to be able to begin the final engineering drawings. Isnít that right Bill?

Mr. McErlane stated there are two issues that Planning Commission needs to look at. One is the change in the overall PUD plan because the initial PUD plan did not include this much retail as the overall development goes. The other thing that Mr. Morris is alluding to is the first phase is in a piece of property originally slated for general business. The old Cantina Del Rio site was general business, restaurants, and the other parcel was GB was an allowable use in it. So the first item is the change in the overall PUD plan to include all the 23 acres. The other is to get a feel from Planning Commission as to whether or not they can proceed with final plans on the first phase, since the properties involved in the first phase included GB type uses if that is not considered a major departure from the original plan, they can go ahead and move forward on the final plan documentation and bring that in to Planning Commission for approval. That second part probably doesnít require a formal vote by Planning; it is probably for discussion and the councilmembersí decision on that. The other part would require an approval and referral to Council for an amendment to the preliminary plan for the entire 23 acres.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Shvegzda reported some of the items were already mentioned. There was the item that Northwest Boulevard, the north-south roadway, came into the one leg of the development. There were two drives on either side the intersection, and our recommendation would be to have that act as the fourth leg of the intersection. Also, where the North Commerce Boulevard one way section becomes a two way section, at the end of that two way section, we need a driveway into the development to act as a left turn only. There was a question on the plan, some delineation between pedestrian ways and vehicular ways; I donít know if there are separate ones or are they common?

Mr. Morris responded there is definitely divisions between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. You see these ramp situations; you donít as much walk around the outside of these buildings, although you can, as much as you can walk through the buildings. Part of this retailing is that you are asked to actually participate through the building. This one I have taken to another level; you can go up and down and around and through. What you are asking is where are the sidewalks and where are the streets, and that is coming in that next level plan. What I wanted to do is integrate some of these other kinds of pedestrian places and spaces and blend that in with the pedestrian walkways. Itís a blended whole pedestrian scheme, rather than thereís the streets and thereís the sidewalks. Each time we come back here in that planning process we would get all the regular questions answered.

Mr. Blake left at 12:35 a.m.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Forty


Mr. Shvegzda stated there was concern in the far eastern area about the length of the parking area. It is conceptual at this point, but there is a rather large length with only one axis. Mr. Morris responded that is on the hotel site we originally had talked about. It comes to an end and we probably would connect this up to this road system right here. It is a matter of connecting that end parking, to come on around and make it a complete circle.

Mr. Shvegzda reported on the detention basin, there was some misunderstanding as far as what was indicated there. The actual volume is really three times the amount I had interpreted, so it is in excess of what is available right now as part of the original plan for the development of that area, so detention looks like it is on line.

Mr. Shvegzda continued in general, we have the different phases. We need a clarification of what might be needed to support phase one that wouldnít necessarily be within that eight acres. We need to delineate that. All we are looking for is some things that will be temporary in nature.

Mr. Morris stated I think the first eight acres as we have it planned can actually stand on its own. The entrance would be temporarily offset. With this phasing dynamic, Mdr. Hanna is asking for a site for Italiannus, and heíd like to see himself there at the end of 1996. That means weíd better start the planning right now, and thatís what Iím asking for. Weíll uncover every little detail as we go through the process, by staff evaluation and then it is brought here for clarification.

Mr. Shvegzda stated all we are looking for is an acknowledgment that there may be some things that are temporary in nature. Mr. Morris responded we have to put a temporary entrance into the first eight acres. If we get permission to move ahead with this, if that happens, this piece of land happens. These are the financial dynamics; this will be a whole city event. What we need is that concept to continue on - that spirit of cooperation. We have brought something as real as I can get it; the next step is plans. Derek is here and has done plans on some of the other projects we have worked on; he is doing all the Hotel Mexico plans, so I have real people doing real things, and we would like to go to the next real level, and that is what we are asking for.

Mr. Shvegzda continued the remainder of the items are items that need to be looked at as the development becomes more final.

Mr. Syfert called on the law director Jim Harrison. Mr. Harrison stated we will need the covenants to see the actual language. Some will have to include and incorporate some of the suggestions of the engineers. It doesnít have to be part of the final plan approval; it doesnít have to be here tonight. Anything you do tonight should be subject to any amendments being approved by our office.

Mr. Morris stated we went through the existing covenants on the site, and made some suggestions of what we thought would incorporate some of the things related to Pictoria Island. We are doing what you wanted to do in the beginning, plus what you wanted to do when you approved it in May. We are moving this PUD around. This is the project; this will be built and there will be no deviations from it, over my dead body.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Forty-One


Mr. McErlane added in terms of height limitations, I think we need to determine what your maximum height might be. Mr. Morris responded it is 75 feet. Mr. McErlane commented I donít know if we want to covenant that or what. I donít think there is a resistance to going beyond 48 feet; it was just a matter of trying to tie it down. Mr. Morris added it doesnít include the ball, and these balls are 10 or 12 feet high, so if you would allow me to stay below the Sheraton I would be happy. You have to clarify that for me. Mr. McErlane stated if the Commission says itís fine, itís fine. Mr. Morris said then I want 90 feet if I can have it.

Mr. McErlane continued I did have some comments on the modifications to the covenants that were submitted. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that those covenants regulate the balance of the park. If we have specific requirements for Pictoria Island, we need to make them specific with respect to building materials and those types of things. If we can state that without giving a general allowance for roof signs and a general allowance for metal building panels, just say as approved by Planning Commission in final plan stage, we can probably handle anything that comes in with the final plan.

Mr. Morris responded my thing is that everything goes through this Commission, and if you donít like it, we donít do it. We added canvas; I think canvas and awnings are a part of this building dynamic. I want to put stone around the face of the detention basin, but all those things will become more evident and clear as we move toward the final plan. That will all be in the final plan.

Mr. McErlane stated I had a comment relative to defining proposed uses. I think everybody has somewhat of a handle as to what general uses are going to be, and after talking with the city engineer, he didnít seem to think that the uses are going to make much difference in traffic analysis anyway. The Crescentville Road intersection will be a problem no matter what happens on this site.

Mr. McErlane continued to get back to the process, we were under the impression that the initial request was for a change in preliminary plan. The plans indicate the entire 23 acres. Just to get that process working; it definitely has to go through Council. I havenít heard any big hurdles as to saying no we need additional information before we can send it on to Council.

Mr. Steve King said I was under the impression that we could just ask to proceed on the eight acres. Because this is zoned General Business now, that we could get approval of this piece to allow it to go forward and let the overlay for the whole 23 acres move forward to Council.

Mdr. McErlane responded there were those two issues. The other one was can they proceed forward on the first phase without going through the public hearing process for the first phase, because it initially showed general business uses. Obviously it didnít show this, but they were general business uses, and it is not a change in the use of that property. There are two issues involved, the major departure from the original preliminary plan issue with respect to the first phase, and thatís as determined by the councilmembers, one of whom is not here any more. The first phase issue is determined by Mr. Wilson and Ms. Manis. The other issue is whether or not you want to recommend the change in the preliminary plan to go forward to Council as well.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Forty-Two


Mr. Tiffany said when it is said that this is a big deviation, as I remember we had retail and restaurants proposed for these buildings with the preliminary plan. Mr. McErlane responded there was a restaurant and a stipulation GB. Mr. Tiffany continued so Phase 1 is really not a deviation. Mr. McErlane said from a use standpoint it is not. Mr. Tiffany asked where the deviation occurs, and Mr. McErlane stated there are some changes that will have to occur in the covenants. Whether or not they are considered a major departure, the changes would have to do with heights and land coverage and those type issues. It is not a use change. Mr. Tiffany asked if we are changing the rest of the site as far as the use? Are we still going with the hotel down here and office? Mr. McErlane responded the PUD plan that is on file right now says office or general industry as part of the Northwest Business Center. Mr. Tiffany said if I remember correctly, the last time we looked at this it was proposed as hotel down here. Mr. McErlane said when you went to his studio and had a concept approval and discussion, it is not a PUD plan change. It has to go through Council. Mr. Tiffany responded so we never amended that. Conceptwise, what we are looking at and what he is proposing weíve already approved. Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany continued so the issue is to send this to Council for a PUD change. The other issue is whether or not this first phase is a departure from the original PUD. So Mr. Wilson has to determine whether it is or not.

Mr. Tiffany asked what the Starship Enterprise is proposed to be, and Mr. Morris answered that is the end of the rail system. We are talking with some of the users about sponsoring some of these things. They see this as a kind of community contribution. Mr. Tiffany asked if this were proposed in Phase 1, and Mr. Morris responded no, we wanted to show it completed as part of the whole thing, so when that takes place, there is a place for it. I think in the end this thing will go up and connect with Tri-County, and people will only have to park once.

Mr. Tiffany said Iíve had a lot of people ask where the fish are on the sign. Mr. Morris answered the fish are being made as we speak; they are custom fish being made in Oakland California.

Mr. Wilson stated overall I am in favor of it. I like it and I liked it before. I do, however feel my fellow councilmembers should be involved in it. I do not think you will have a problem getting it approved, because all seven of us were in favor of it in the past.

Mr. Morris asked how soon this can be done. Mr. Wilson responded I think you probably need to discuss more things with Bill and Don so when you come in you have everything you need and there will be no surprises. Mr. Morris said we would like to start the real planning so it is a time issue for us. Mr. Wilson said knowing my fellow councilmembers, I do not think you will have a problem moving forward, and I think you will want their input as well so there are no surprises later on.

Mr. .Syfert said are you recommending we forward it on to Council as a major departure? Mr. Wilson answered yes, we see enough developments that I feel no two individuals should make a decision for the whole city; we need the concurrence of the majority of Council.

Mr. Syfert asked if we needed a motion for this, and Mr. Harrison answered that is not a matter for a motion; that is his determination, and you are bound by his determination.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 September 1995

Page Forty-Three

Mr. Syfert commented the only thing we have to decide is whether we want to allow them to go ahead with the approval of the preliminary plan for the entire 23 acres.

Mr. Tiffany moved to grant preliminary approval for the entire project and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Mr. Syfert added this includes getting all the covenants in place and everything we have discussed this evening.

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Galster, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert (Mr. Blake and Ms. Manis had already left the meeting). Approval was granted with five affirmative votes.


A. Hamilton County Regional Planning Dues

Mr. Tiffany moved to pay these dues, and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the motion was passed with five affirmative votes.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were anything from Charter Commission on the change to simple majority in Planning Commission votes? Mr. Sullivan reported we discussed it last night, and I think there were three of five members present. They need to know why it was five in the first place. I told everyone I would get hold of someone who was around when it was decided. Probably by the October meeting we should have something on it.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were anything on the recommended changes in terms of window signage, and Mr. McErlane reported it went to Rules and Laws.

Mr. Tiffany stated we should take into consideration some language referring to hotel and motel parking. We do not have anything in the code for that, and I would like to see us address that.

Mr. Syfert polled Commission members to make sure everyone would be present at the October 10th meeting. All stated they would be, and Planning Commission adjourned at 1:10 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,1995 _________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



___________________,1995 _________________________

Wilton Blake, Secretary