9 OCTOBER 2001

7:00 P.M.


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

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

    David Whitaker and Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: Richard Huddleston (arrived at 7:04 p.m.)

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

    1. Report from Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that the Zoning Code changes were approved by City Council, as were the modifications to the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – September 18, 2001
    4. Zoning Bulletin – August 25, 2001
    5. Zoning Bulletin – September 10, 2001

E. Zoning Bulletin – September 25, 2001

    1. Site Development Plan Approval of Proposed Addition, Service Parts Supply Corporation, 11345 Century Circle West (tabled 9/11/01)

Mike Simon, owner of SPS Corporation and the building said we are proposing a 37,500 s.f. addition to our 62,500 s.f. warehouse because of increase in business. The addition will be for warehousing of raw material and finish product to support our packaging operation. We now are renting two or three outside facilities and want to consolidate under one roof.

Gina Carozza, Construction Manager showed the site drawing, saying that we are adding a 150’x 250 s.f. building to the south of the existing warehouse space.

We are adding a 20,000 cubic foot detention basin, which will take 2/3 of the water off the site and leave the existing sewers for 1/3 of the site. A revision was submitted last week because we added another catch basin.



9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned GI General Industrial District and contains a 62,500 s.f. warehouse and approximately 6,000 square feet of office use. In researching the files we found that in 1979 Planning approved a 37,250 s.f. warehouse addition as well as a 2,666 square foot office addition and an expansion of the parking lot and loading area. It appears that the owner decided to only do the office addition and the parking lot and loading area pavement.

The applicant is proposing a 37,500 s.f. addition to the warehouse with is approximately the same type addition proposed in 1979. The one addition to the previous plan is the detention basin, which is now a current requirement that had not been in place in 1979.

The required parking is 74 spaces and the plan shows 66 existing parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that the expansion will not generate a need for additional personnel so they won’t need additional parking.

There was no real tree tally indicated on the plans, but it appears that because of the detention basin construction, a total of 229 caliper inches of trees will be removed. We assume the majority of those will be hardwoods and the required replacement would be 114.5 caliper inches and the landscaping plan shows only 16 inches being planted.

Along the front of the building, there are a number of fairly large ornamental trees and there is not a lot of area to plant those in the front of the building. There may be some potential for planting some along the north property line, and possibly in some areas immediately adjacent to the detention basin or around the detention basin, and then maybe a few along the south side of the building. It still may be difficult to come up with 114.5 caliper inches.

Ms. Carozza said we did ask for a waiver to add the additional parking, because we will not need additional parking and at no time is our current parking lot ever full. We are putting in three handicap spaces and one van accessible space and restriping it to make adjustments to the nine-foot widths.

The comments about the tree tally are correct. At this time we found it very difficult to isolate and identify all the different breeds of the trees we will be taking down until we get in there to build that detention basin. We have to see where we can put it back along there. There are also utility poles along the whole back of the site that make it difficult to put a tree back. But there are dense woods at the back of the site and up to the church’s property.

Mr. Simon added the building expansion itself is a cleared area and it pretty much goes to the tree line at the south end of the property so it is not removing any trees to speak of. It will just be the retention basin, and it is at the back of the property away from the street, which is not easily viewed. Ms. Carozza added that the detention basin wouldn’t be visible from the Century Circle West or from any of the properties facing it from the other side.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Syfert said what I am hearing is that you wold like to work with the Tree Preservation Ordinance after the fact. Mr. Carozza answered yes, if that is possible.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the storm water management, the detention basin is providing for 62% of the site, which is the front half of the existing building, the front parking lot and the new portion of the expanded building. With that 62% of the site, approximately 16,000 cubic feet would be required. With the grading of the detention basin approximately 21,000 is actually being provided. The basin is just under 4 feet deep and has a control outlet structure and a fairly sizeable overflow that discharges into an existing ditch off the property. The major storm routing is conveyed through the storm sewer, so there is no concern about the overlay and routing of the major storm.

The only question we had was that the additional catch basin has been added to the site, but to the far south end of the existing parking lot there is a turn around t that angles back to the south away from the main part of the parking lot. The catch basin is proposed to be beyond that t, and it has to build up about a half foot ahead to accept that major storm flow, so it is a question of how the basin would be able to get that head on it. It might be more appropriate to move it within that turnaround t so it has a curving around. We also need a sequence of events in terms of the stripping and the rough grading and those kinds of issues, so we can get into the proper ground cover as soon as possible.

Ms. Carozza said in terms of the timetable, we have had that slated for two weeks to complete that work.

Ms. McBride said I visited the site on two different occasions and concur that at least 50% of that parking field is not used. They would have sufficient area on the site should parking ever become an issue, so staff would support their request to reduces the number of parking spaces that are required at this time with the right that the Commission can come back and revisit that should parking become a problem in the future.

The proposed building addition meets all the setback requirements of the GI District, which allows for a maximum of 70% of the site to be impervious surface and 64% of the site will be

We received a photometric lighting plan and cut sheets for the proposed fixtures. There is one small portion of the parking area that doesn’t meet our minimum .5 foot-candles, and we would ask that they increase that to .5 foot. The fixtures themselves will be down directional, metal halide fixtures on 25-foot poles. We need to know the color of the poles and fixtures.

They submitted a landscaping plan that included both existing and proposed plant materials. They are proposing to break up the expanse of that building addition, using vibernum and maple. They are proposing to plant the vibernum at 2-3 feet in height, and we would suggest they be planted at 3-4 feet in height.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Some of the existing landscaping is in rather rough condition, and we would suggest that the approval be contingent that both proposed and existing landscape material be kept in good condition.

Mr. Okum said there was some wall guard light packs provided in the cut sheets, which will go on the south side of the building. Ms. Carozza responded actually along the new building. Mr. Okum asked what properties might be able to see those. Ms. McBride answered the church, through the trees if they could see them. A few of those trees may be removed for the detention basin, but the majority of them will remain. Mr. Okum asked if they would change those to downlit only or shielded, and Ms. Carozza answered that they would.

Mr. Syfert said there is one parking spot that is less than .5 foot-candles. Ms. Carozza said there is one parking spot that is .4 foot-candles, and we changed the lamp on that pole and they now are .5 foot-candles.

Mr. Huddleston asked if there was consideration given to carrying the masonry wainscot around the addition of the building. Mr. Simon said it was a cost consideration. From an internal standpoint and protecting the outside wall, we are putting a concrete section there so if we pushed pallet it would not go through the wall to cause damage. Mr. Huddleston commented that would protect the inside, but doesn’t do much for the outside in terms of exterior maintenance. That would be my concern over time.

Mr. Okum wondered if there were areas of the building subject to denting and abuse by equipment or trucks? Mr. Huddleston responded the applicant is more familiar with the operation of the building than I am, but you have a truck dock added elevation with various types of materials. Even lawn maintenance equipment can deteriorate the panel pretty quickly. I certainly would like to see it from the standpoint of wall protection and see it carried across the dock elevation and their exposed wall elevation. The one back into the trees would be less obvious. Mr. Okum said I would like to hear comments from the applicant in that regard.

Mr. Simon said operationally to me the only feasible damage I could see would be in the dock area, which is on the west side at the back. In that case, we are installing the normal dock equipment that is bumpers and guards to prevent trucks from backing into where it shouldn’t be. In terms of the exterior to the east or south sides, which would be close to the tree line, I don’t see any reason why there would be damage to it, nothing I could foresee at least.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if there were a developable site between the church property and this site? Mr. McErlane answered once you get past that tree line to the south it is church property. The public right of way stops about halfway down Mr. Simon’s site, so they would have to extend the public street to develop another lot. It’s not totally conducive to redevelopment, but certainly we have seen harder sites developed so it could happen.



9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Syfert commented that the developmental costs would be pretty high. Mr. McErlane answered that it wouldn’t be something that you could split off and sell without having to address those issues.

Mr. Okum said you didn’t have a problem with Ms. McBride’s recommendations. What would be your solution to the problem of the tree caliper inches requirement? Ms. Carozza answered at the time we took the survey, it would have cost us a lot of money to have them mark every single tree. On the drawing, it just shows some of the bigger trees. At this point now that we know where the exact detention basin is going, I would like to go out there with my landscaper and have him mark what every tree is that will be affected by that and categorize it. Then we can do a tree tally. I would like to think we can put some trees back along the detention basin, but I also need to be careful because that is where some of the trucks are going to come in. There also is some potential on the north side. There is some landscaping in there but it is more shrub and not tree, and we could plant some nice trees on that mound.

Mr. Okum said usually we have a tree survey in hand as part of the submission. Is what they have said adequate for us to move forward? Mr. McErlane said on the tree survey that we have, the types were not identified but the sizes were and I assume that is fairly accurate. The question is where are there areas that trees can be planted on and whether or not there will be a shortfall. One of the things Planning could consider would be a contribution to the Tree Fund for the shortfall as we have done on other sites. Typically the dollar amount for the Target Costco and Lowe’s sites was $44 per caliper inch of shortfall. If there was an agreement on that, that would leave the opportunity to plant where they could be planted and make up the shortfall with a contribution. Mr. Okum said I think we could say that they should work it out with staff up to 50%, and over that they could contribute to the fund. I would like to hear from commission members in that regard.

Mr. Syfert said I for one think it might be a proper approach, but I don’t know if we want to put 50% on it; I think it is whatever staff and the applicant decides. I don’t want to stick a tree in just to stick a tree in. You talked about some on the north side; it seems to me that a viable solution might be that we put in what seems to be reasonable and the rest would go towards a contribution to the fund.

Mr. Darby answered I agree. I think we are operating with incomplete information and I think the spirit is there to comply. As you assess the site right now, you think you probably won’t be able to do that, so the goal should be compliance with the requirements as much as possible and if it is determined that it can’t be done, the contribution would kick in. That seems to be the reasonable thing to do.





9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Vanover asked Mr. Shvegzda if he felt that the catch basin situation could be handled and Mr. Shvegzda answered that it was no problem, just a matter of changing location of about five feet.

Mr. Galster asked about the color of the poles and fixtures. Ms. Carozza answered that they would match the paint of the new building, which is brown. It would be the same color as the pole on the property line now.

Mr. Okum said there was no indication of dumpster enclosures. Mr. Simon answered that there is one dumpster that is a pick up and dump and an enclosure on one of our existing dock doors that is a compactor, but there is nothing in terms of the new development that would be added onto the building.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the building addition and renovations, including all the plans attached, staff comments and recommendations. The approval includes the requirements that all lighting shall maintain a minimum .5 foot candles, pole lighting is to be downlit non glare type of flat lenses as submitted in the cut sheets; wall mount light packs shall be shielded and downlit only so as not to affect the adjoining property owners or the public right of way; light fixtures and pole towers shall be brown similar to the existing; the tree preservation conditions shall include meeting the standards of the current Tree Preservation Ordinance and is to be reviewed after the detention basin is built. A tree survey shall be submitted and if a shortfall shall occur, a contribution to the Tree Preservation Fund shall be acceptable. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

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

B. Final Plan Approval of Karlo’s Bistro Italia – Pictoria Island (tabled 9/11/01)

Art Harden and Jim Smith approached Planning. Mr. Harden said I want to go over some of the items we changed on the plans. One concern was not having enough greenspace along Pictoria Drive and we have increased it 10 feet by moving the building and parking field to the south. Another concern was that the site was less than 1-˝ acres, and we have worked with the developer and now have 1-˝ acres.

There was a concern about potential access into Pappadeaux on the east. That has been coordinated with Pappadeaux and is in the plan.

Mr. Smith reported that the rendering of the building now shows the exact size of what we are proposing for the site. We will use large Roman stone for the building with precast sealed to transition up to the drivitt on the top of the building. He showed the exterior and interior finish board. The colors on the rendering are exactly what are on the board.



9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Smith said we are proposing green and white awnings. The Karlo’s signs were originally approved with two on the tower. In addition we looked at adding a sign on the south elevation and three smaller signs on the west elevation. Initially we did not include a detail on the signs but I do have a plan tonight for the signs.

We went through a lot of scenarios on how to make the north elevation more pleasant for that side of the building. We worked with our kitchen consultants on how to move the service court. We all agreed that we could move that service court back three feet to add the landscaping against the drive area. They wanted to break up the building and service court, so that is why we changed the material from the big Roman brick wall.

There is landscaping on the landscape plan, but we didn’t know what the landscaping was and there will be landscaping along this elevation. The last time Mr. Okum stated that you understood the restaurant needed service court area but that you would have liked to see the door on the other side. We put the service door down on the side you requested.

Ms. McBride said they have increased the lot size to 1.5 acres, which is required by their covenants. In doing so, they have increased the amount of open space on the site. Their covenants require 20% and they indicate they have 21.6%. We have asked them number of times for a copy of a plan that indicates where that 21.6% comes from. We have yet to receive that, so any approval should be contingent upon the receipt of that so the staff can verify that there is 21.6% open space.

The applicant has a 10-foot setback for the parking area on both Northwest Boulevard and Pictoria Drive as we require. The parking lot is set back 9.13 feet from the south property line and 10 feet from the west property line. We require 10 feet, but staff doesn’t have any problem with the reduction to the south property line; it is up against the Pappadeaux parking lot.

They are required to have a total of 115 parking spaces and they have 92 on their current plan. Obviously there is additional parking available in the Pictoria Island garage but we will need a signed parking agreement as required by our Zoning Code.

They have indicated the property lines more clearly on the most recent submittal, and the majority of the buildings parking lines are taken from the property lines.

The required setback for the rear yard for the outdoor patio area, which is to the south, is 30 feet and they are indicating 13.26 feet from the property line. Staff doesn’t have an objection to that since it is oriented toward that Pappadeaux parking lot. Per our discussions at last month’s meeting, they have added a pedestrian walkway across the East Side of their parking field. That was to facilitate the use of the parking garage and to make a better designated pathway for pedestrians.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Ms. McBride said that they have added the common access point to Pappadeaux to the south. However, in doing so the three parking spaces there have a real conflict problem with regards to the access point from Northwest Boulevard as well as the joint access point with Pappadeaux. We would recommend the removal of those three spaces.

We would like to see Karlo’s commit to employee parking in the Pictoria Tower garage only. They are indicating signage saying additional parking to be available in the Pictoria Island Garage. However, the signage is very small and we would like to see that increased. Also it is oriented as you are coming into the parking field and we feel it might be more appropriate when you are existing the parking field after you can’t find a parking space.

On the landscape plan, the mulch beds need to be defined. We need to have some additional screening for the parking field in the southwest corner of the site. As we have commented before, the landscape plan is very basic. We asked for additional perennials or annuals and they put in five Stella dora plants. It is not up to the quality we see with Bahama Breeze or Pappadeaux. We set a certain standard for landscaping and I know the developer is putting in a lot of landscaping as well. I would ask the commission to look at that.

They indicate on all their sheets that their lighting will be high pressure sodium fixture which is required in Pictoria Island and they indicate that the poles and fixtures will be bronze as they are throughout the development.

On the building elevations, they have shifted those service gates on the east elevation to the south side of that, and it works better in terms of accessing the delivery point and the waste removal services. There is no information regarding colors on the elevations and until tonight we had not seen a color pallet so we haven’t had a chance to look at that. They are showing a roof ladder with a cage around it on the plans they originally submitted and we had requested that the cage be removed, and both the ladder and cage are gone.

At last month’s meeting, I think we gave a pretty good indication that we needed to see that north elevation and the landscaping revised. We have not seen any revisions.

They are permitted a total of 281 s.f. of sign area. They indicated on prior submittals a Karlo’s sign for 21.75 s.f. on both the west and north elevations for a total of 43.5 s.f. with no freestanding signage. On this submittal, they indicated a sign on the south elevation. However, we have no information about the size of that so we can’t evaluate it or make a recommendation. The inclusion of three additional signs this evening is also new information and we don’t know square footage so we can’t make recommendations on those either.

Staff would have some problems with sitting here tonight trying to design that north elevation.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Smith said on the roof ladder and cage, the initial elevation drawing showed them and once we finished the perspective, we felt it was necessary to remove them and they will be on the inside of the building.

We have made changes to the north elevation in terms of adding the awning along the outdoor patio area. We have changed the pole fixtures to a classic column. The two EIFS window areas are a little larger, and we changed the appearances of the service court to try to separate those two parts of the building. We added what I call eyelids to the standing seamed roof to give it a little more definition. The doors in that area are nine foot tall with two foot transoms above to give them a little more height and clearance. We have made tries to make it work. One of the biggest issues was that it was bland and without landscaping. Are you concerned about the landscaping in front of this portion of the building?

Ms. McBride answered I am concerned with the whole appearance of the eastern portion of the north elevation. And to clarify, that has been staff’s concerns. We are not concerned about the western portion of the north elevation. It is the eastern portion. Also when I said they hadn’t made changes to the landscape plan on the north elevation that is not true. They had reduced the plant material on the north elevation.

Mr. Smith said the elevation plans show a new sign on the south elevation and it also showed three smaller signs above on the west elevation. We are not trying to get in more signs. It was that after we looked at the redesign, we wanted to add those three signs. The total signage would be 125.45 s.f. of signage on the building, and we are allowed 281 s.f. That is something we will need to work with staff and get approved.

Mr. Okum asked if the mechanical units were concealed and Ms. McBride reported that they are completely screened from view.

Mr. Galster said I have a problem with the architectural features of that north elevation, and I sketched a few things out myself and would like to throw them out for consideration. I don’t know that the brick across the bottom would need to be continued out because you have new landscaping in front of that elevation. I think the cornice and the tile should be continued around that service court. He showed his sketch to the applicant, adding that he then wouldn’t have a problem with the overall look providing that the landscaping is of a height to take care of the bottom of the structure.

Mr. Vanover said are the medallions on the north and south elevations true windows or architectural features? Mr. Smith indicated that they were architectural features. Mr. Galster said the step down pillars need to be tied in all the way around. It would show on the north and south elevations. Also, that back east elevation, because it is just too plain. Mr. Okum questioned Mr. Galster about the details of his suggestions and Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride if she were comfortable with those changes.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Ms. McBride answered that I would suggest that until we see it incorporated with the landscaping, this part of the staff isn’t going to make any recommendation on that. They have had several opportunities to make these revisions, and they haven’t been made. If the commission wants to redesign the building, that is fine but we can’t comment on that.

Mr. Shvegzda said the north south cross access drive has been added. The drive to Northwest Boulevard has been moved to the south, which causes it to be offset from the parking garage driveway. The way they are offset is not necessarily a bad thing because they are offset so there is no opposing head on traffic situation. The only time that the cross traffic would be that heavy would be when the subject parking lot is full and you have people going back to seek parking spaces in the garage.

The three spaces opposite the drive to Northwest Boulevard need to be eliminated. We have two driveways coming in at that location. There will be type 6 curbing throughout the parking lot and driveway so that takes care of the dimension issue we talked about the last time.

There has been a more direct pedestrian routing from the vicinity of the parking garage. Now we will need a mid block crossing at Northwest and the inclusion of a handicap ramp from the sidewalk on the opposite side of Northwest Boulevard where the sidewalk comes from the parking garage and the proper pavement markings on Northwest Boulevard itself for the mid block crossing.

There is a question at the west side of the building where the handicap spaces are. Is the standard handicap ramp shown on the plans to be used there? Also there will have to be the inclusion of the handicap ramps at the new pedestrian access point on either side of the eastern parking field.

There is a sidewalk on the south side of the one driveway to the common drive at the west side of the lot immediately on the back of the curb. As you come to the driveway it is offset about 9 feet. The question is why that occurs, because if you are walking up there you would have to go diagonally across the driveway, an awkward situation.

We have most of the information on storm water management. We will need some clarification on some additional spot elevations at the point on the west-parking field where it crosses over the landscaped area into the Pappadeaux site.

We understood that the modifications to the striping on Pictoria Drive would be done as part of the overall site development. We have plans today indicating the modifications; so long as it is done, is our concern.







9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Harden said we understand the comments concerning the handicap ramps and sidewalks and we would put those on. I need clarification on the parking bays. Generally in the past we have had a curb light with ramps going out. It is much easier for anyone exiting to be able to walk directly onto the concrete. We would like to make that area flush; we already have the curb stops which will s top traffic and allow easier access for the handicapped.

The other question as to why we had a jog in this area is that there is a transformer in the corner that dictated where the sidewalk would go. Mr. Syfert suggested that they put a bend in the sidewalk and Mr. Harden responded we can make that adjustment.

Mr. McErlane reported that on the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the required replacement is 59.3 caliper inches and the landscape plan shows a total of 79 caliper inches being planted.

The Fire Department commented that on the plan it shows in the landscaped corner on the northeast corner of the site, it almost as if it is oriented towards the parking lot. The actual use of the Storz connection will be from the street, so it needs to be in front of the landscaping. Hopefully you can do some landscaping on either side to screen it, but you won’t be able to do landscaping in front of it.

Mr. Syfert asked if it were in that corner for a specific reason, and Mr. Harden responded that NFPA requirements say that the fire connector must be within 75 feet of a fire hydrant, and the closest one is in that corner. Mr. Syfert asked if it couldn’t be back up a bit and Mr. Harden answered that they could do that. Mr. Syfert said I wondered why you put it where you did. Mr. Harden answered that there is an existing ca p connection in that area and we are trying to maintain all of this in one specific area. The Storz connection is about 30 inches high and six inches in diameter. Mr. McErlane said it could be moved closer to where the PIV is shown which is a little further south along the street. From the standpoint of its visibility, it probably would be better at that location.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Syfert said Mr. McErlane reported that they are exceeding the amount they are required to replant of trees. Where is their landscaping plant so short?

Ms. McBride responded that it goes more to the mixture of the plant material than it does the actual number or size of the material. They are short in that southwest corner; we asked for additional plant material down there in the parking field. The north and east elevations, since they are both on public streets, are a concern and we wanted to see landscaping added in those areas, particularly on the north since there is none proposed. It is just a boring plan, and it wouldn’t be so obvious except for the fact that Bahama Breeze and Pappadeaux have gone overboard. I think the Commission would notice a big difference if this goes in as submitted.



9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Syfert asked if there were any coordination with the developmental streets? Ms. McBride answered one of our earlier comments was that the trees they were showing on Pictoria and Northwest were not the street trees that the developers of the individual lots had been putting in. We wanted those all the same, and they did make that switch.

Mr. Okum wondered if the trees along Pictoria are the street trees that match the other developments’ trees. Ms. McBride responded that there are two sets of street trees. The street trees that Karlo’s is proposing match the street trees that Pictoria Island put in. There is a second set that are required as part of the covenant that the overall developer is to put in.

Mr. Okum said the trees that the developer is responsible for are not shown on this drawing. Are they going to be in conflict with the placement of those developer’s trees? Everything looks balanced across the front, and I’m having difficulty understanding that it could be that balanced. Ms. McBride answered I’m sure that when the developer puts them in, I’m sure they will take into account the landscape plan or in some cases what is actually out in the field and will stagger those trees accordingly.

Mr. Okum commented we understand what the applicant’s requirements were for this site. Does that take in the overall blend for the entire development?

Mr. McErlane said the concern at the last meeting was about the area of the pond that is not going to be developed by anyone at this point. That piece of property also has a burden for tree replanting and our concern was when and where that would happen, and that question still needs to be answered.

Today I received a tree summary from Woolpert. I haven’t had time to go through it and see where things are. I think Bahama Breeze and maybe even Pappadeaux have planted in excess of what they are required and the developer wants to use that as a credit to what needs to be planted in terms of the lake property.

Bill Woodward the developer said it looked like every lot was exceeding the requirements by a considerable amount. I think there will be plenty of trees in excess when you take the whole 38 acres as a unit.

Mr. Okum said along Northwest Boulevard those lights are pretty significant. If we are hitting at 23 along these property lines, that means that the same amount of light will be transferred into the public right of way. It seems like an awful lot to be going outward instead of lighting your site. Do you have any resolutions to that? I would prefer to stay at ,5-foot candles, but it would be hard at the driveway entrances.

Mr. Harden answered if that presents that much of a concern to the commission, we could put a residential shield on the backside of the light which would give you almost a vertical cutoff. Ms. McBride said if they are shielded, that should be fine.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Okum said it makes me uncomfortable having our planner sit here and we’re doing planning instead of planning review. Some of the suggestions brought forward this evening do appear to be somewhat adjusting to the issue. I know you gentlemen want to move forward on this, but without those landscaping elements tiled into that and the service area wall being set back would probably help. Basically you would leave that north elevation fairly stark unless it is heavily treated. You didn’t get your color pallet in until tonight and this looks to me like a motion that would come forward with a lot of conditions. We don’t have signage calculations, building elevations tied down, and there is the concern about the north elevation. I think you have done a fairly decent job adapting to some of the other issues, but that north elevation was a pretty big issue. Everybody would be able to see that coming down the street. We are being asked to consider this tonight, and the planner doesn’t feel comfortable without final submission and I’m not overly comfortable without the landscaping issues being tied down along with the review of the color pallet.

Mr. Huddleston said on the overflow parking situation that we discussed at an earlier meeting, where does that stand? In each of these outlot developments, we have overflow parking being referred to the parking garage.

Ms. McBride answered that was submitted today along with the tree calculations and we haven’t had a chance to look at them.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant their projected start date and Mr. Smith answered we would like to start immediately. The construction documents are well along and we would like to order the steel as soon as possible.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant what he wanted the commission to do about the outstanding issues. Mr. Smith answered I am not sure. I would hope in terms of the elevations and architectural portion of the building that we could work with staff to get them more comfortable with that as quickly as possible. I did not come here expecting anybody to redesign the building, but for the design portion of the project, it is very difficult for me to make decisions without recommendations that staff would be comfortable with. In order for me to design something that staff will be comfortable with, I am going to have to understand staff’s problems. There is a broad range of architectural features. In terms of the north elevation, with the landscaping we talked about tonight, I am hoping that staff can feel a little more comfortable with it. I would hope that we could work through that relatively quickly.

Mr. Galster said the ideas I was throwing out were to give you an idea of what I was looking for as architectural changes. I don’t know if you are more comfortable with having this board review whatever you come up with, or trying to satisfy Ms. McBride with the overall look and landscaping on an individual basis, or if you are more comfortable bringing it back to this board.





9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Smith said the owners have hired a design firm to come up with a concept for the restaurant. We have taken that concept and made it real. For some reason staff is not comfortable with the concept. I am not asking anyone to redesign the building. All I am saying is I need to have an idea of what problems staff has with the building in terms of going back and redesigning the elevation.

I heard a number of points tonight, pulling the courtyard back and adding landscaping to that side to try to soften those areas. I received the staff comments yesterday after noon at 4 p.m. and left Pittsburgh this morning at 7 so I couldn’t change the elevations overnight. We thought we would come here and give some ideas on how we would try to make the elevations acceptable.

Mr. Galster said in general, I have been comfortable with granting approval subject to signage at a future date, but what we have here is signage coming in at a future date, building elevations coming back in at a future date, landscaping, etc. First of all, I don’t think it would be fair to Ms. McBride to put that on her shoulders. That is what this commission is supposed to do. How do you want us to evaluate that? Are you looking for final approval based on what we are able to view now, or are you willing to come back in and bring these things together?

Mr. Smith responded when we left here last month, the comment was made that no one on this board can give approval for something that they don’t know what they are approving, the drawings floor plan etc. What we have done is brought the building to you to match the floor plan. When we talk about the west elevation, the courtyard and the north elevation, in my mind we are talking about one little area of the building itself.

Mr. Galster responded I don’t think there is any commission member that in general, other than the court yard issue, has a problem with the concept of your building in terms of the restaurant site itself. Unfortunately, that courtyard is a pretty main structure to your building.

Mr. Syfert asked if he felt comfortable with the fact that he would pull that back three feet and landscape? Mr. Galster responded l think that is what is needed to happen, but I don’t know what landscaping he plans on putting there, I don’t know what architectural changes he plans on putting in there.

Mr. Syfert commented we know for a fact that no one on this commission would approve any landscaping or signs tonight. It is up to the commission what they want to do with it.

Mr. Smith responded with all due respect, the owner is looking at a $20,000 bill for landscaping. We can change plant names and add plants to the exterior, but in terms of the planting itself, Art has walked the Pappadeaux site and we will try to incorporate what is there. I don’t expect this board to necessarily approve the landscaping tonight, but I think working with staff is a relatively simple thing to do.


9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Smith added that what I am trying to avoid is another 30 days or another 15 day wait. You are uncomfortable with what to me is a small portion of the building. The courtyard is a small portion, even though it is on a main thoroughfare. We are giving you the things we are proposing to do. In terms of landscaping, I think it is a staff issue that can be worked out. I have the drawing here, and I don’t expect it to be done tonight, but I can run 10 copies and get it to the staff tomorrow.

In terms of the building itself, we were here last month and everyone said we can’t approve what we can’t see. This is what we are proposing on that site. It is a building that will upgrade that development immensely and help the development along. It complements Pappadeaux and Bahama Breeze.

Mr. Galster said I would ask if this commission is comfortable with assigning the task of pulling these things together to Ms. McBride and is Ms. McBride comfortable with doing that?

Ms. McBride responded I understand that to the applicant this might seem like an insignificant portion of their building, but it is about 50% of the building on our main frontage, and that is very significant to this city.

The second thing is I don’t think a three foot setback will create any kind of a visual change in that elevation that will be seen from Pictoria, and I don’t think three feet will give you enough room to plant anything of any significance that will grow up to break that elevation.

In terms of staff not giving you direction, I think you heard a lot of comments and a lot of direction from the commission. Staff is available to work with the applicants as we have done with both Pappadeaux and Bahama Breeze in between meetings, and we were certainly available to meet with you.

On the question if staff feels comfortable making a decision with regards to the revisions on the elevation and landscaping, yes, but no comments from the commission on the decision. If you want to have that kind of input, you need to ask them to come back.

Mr. Okum said I don’t think it is an issue at all. I think the applicant has done a good job dealing with a number of the issues, but I don’t recall at the last meeting it not being perfectly clear that the north elevation was a critical element of that building. To wait until the other night when you thought you might move that wall back three feet really doesn’t hit the target at all.

We have to consider that maybe 80% of the people coming down Northwest Boulevard will view the complete opposite of what we are seeing in that corner view on that drawing. We are looking at Northwest Boulevard, a main corridor into that development, and we are talking the back end of the building and a service court area.




9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Okum added I think it would be unfair to Ms. McBride as a planner to put it on her shoulders The applicant has had a month and a half of comments regarding that north elevation, and we still have the same north elevation. Northwest Boulevard is a main entryway into that development. Take a look at that back corner of the service court, and that’s what you will see coming down Northwest Boulevard. I can’t agree with that. I agree with some of Mr. Galster’s suggestions, but on the other hand, this is a key development corner site that everyone will see. It would be unfair to Ms. McBride without this coming back to us with an elevation, north side, seeing it from both points of view, both Pictoria and Northwest Boulevard.

Mr. Smith said I didn’t mean it to be that we were coming in with a solution for the north elevation. We were working with kitchen designers to see if we could move that wall back, and last night was the time that we figured that we could move it back three feet. I didn’t want it to seem that we were trying to pull one over on you.

Mr. Darby said I agree with Mr. Okum in terms of the kinds of advice that was given last month. It wasn’t a blind siding. I am more concerned about this east elevation. In Spring Grove Cemetery, we have a lot of buildings there that look just like that. They are called mausoleums.

In the past we have set lots of precedence with motions with lots of conditions on them and also in the past we have relied on Ms. McBride and the other administrators as having big shoulders. We have put trust in them to work with the developers to come up with plans that would be satisfactory. Personally, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the current appearance of the elevations we have been discussing. I know this is a timely issue and I would have no problem with the conditions being placed on it, which would require an appearance that will be pleasing to the staff members.

Mr. Vanover said with all due respect to the applicant, in the past this commission has been promised things and the final plan was not delivered on and we are stuck with those developments. I would feel more comfortable putting my vote on something I have seen with my own two eyes.

Mr. Syfert said final approval would require five affirmative votes. I don’t know if you want us to force the vote or bring it back next month. Mr. Smith responded we will bring it back next month and work with Ms. McBride and the staff.

Mr. Syfert said as Ms. McBride said, she will be willing to work with you as well as Mr. McErlane and Mr. Shvegzda and myself. I think that probably would be our best bet.







9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Syfert asked if there were any other issues that should be brought out right now. Mr. Galster said I don’t have any problem with making that court look like the other complete end of that building and have it be a false façade and totally eliminate the court look altogether. Put the perspective on this side on the other side; make it dual. That is how important I think that other side is.

Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to November 13th.

C. Approval of Proposed Exterior Color Changes – Famous Dave’s – 12183 Springfield Pike

Dan Egan came forward and introduced David Erickson, one of the other partners in Famous Dave’s

Mr. Erickson said we have been grateful to find the staff has been patient and helpful and given us clear direction on what we need to do.

We have provided an illustration showing the exterior elevation to the restaurant which will show an additional mechanical equipment screening across the front of the restaurant above our entrance to complete the screening around that building.

We also have submitted a trash enclosure, which we have worked out with Hooters. We will tear down their existing enclosure and reconstructing a new concrete pad in the same location and incorporating their dumpsters and our dumpsters in a metal frame enclosure with a wood exterior. The purpose of the metal frame is so that the doors don’t start to sag and fall apart. It provides integrity to the fencing.

We will be removing all the neon around our building, as well as the orange neon on the side of the building where our Famous Dave’s sign will be going above Hooters entrance.

We also would like to bring up for your consideration an alternate color for the roof, to give us a separate identity from Hooters. WE have a sample of that color.

Mr. Galster said in general, what we are talking about here is that they have agreed to do everything that we discussed at our last meeting and this is clarification to that, with the exception of the color changes. Is that the bottom line?

Ms. McBride confirmed this, adding that they will remove the neon and not put any back up, so that is an improvement for the Route 4 Corridor. They will screen all the mechanical, fix the trash enclosure, screen it on all four sides and everybody’s dumpster goes in there. The color that they are proposing is not a true earthtone, but it is pretty close. Everybody will have their own opinion in terms of color, but this part of the staff doesn’t have a problem with this color replacing the red.



9 OCTOBER 2001



Ms. McBride added that the only suggestion I would make is that the rear portion of the roof is shingled in a brown and that would need to be reshingled in a color that would be similar to that. You still will know that it is metal and shingled, but the color will blend a little better.

Mr. Vanover said it sounds good. I definitely appreciate the screening. My only question is your selection of material. T-111 is good for probably five or six years and the weathering takes hold. I am thinking that there might be alternatives out there that might be more cost effective and less of a maintenance problem. That is my only concern. It gets wet behind there and starts separating. Mr. Erickson said we were just trying to match the existing. Mr. Vanover responded I appreciate that, and my only concern is the durability of that product. Your idea and concept is great. Mr. Erickson asked for a recommendation. Mr. Vanover didn’t know; there is metal slatting that has been used. Mr. Egan suggested that they have their contractor come up with something else. Mr. Vanover answered I don’t have any problem with that. I think in the long term maybe some other product might be better off for everybody.

Mr. Okum said the screening you are intending to put on the south side above what is now painted red, will that be a building element that comes up to that edge, or will it be set back from the edge three or four feet.

Mr. Erickson said currently it comes right up to the edge. I think our preference is to have it as close to the mechanical units as possible, provided there is room for maintenance people tog et around the units and keep it back from the roof edge.

Mr. Okum said the existing screening on the back has a band around the field, and your intent is that the band is something like 1 x 6 going around it, picture framing it.

Mr. Okum asked if the deck would change, and Mr. Erickson said it does not change. We replaced some of the boards, more of a safety issue.

Mr. Okum said I would prefer a flat or satin finish on the metal panels rather than the gloss. Mr. Erickson said that is no problem.

Mr. Okum added that there is one mechanical unit, like a ventilator unit, on the back roof of the photo that needs something. I think it should be painted out rather than having an enclosure around it.

Mr. Galster said while I agree that this color is better than the existing red, I still don’t know about allowing one building to have multiple colored different roofs based on whatever elevation you are looking at. I think that is going a little bit beyond. My opinion still is that the roof should all be the same color on one building, even though I do like this color better.





9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Syfert asked if anyone other than Mr. Galster feel that the roof should be one color? Mr. Okum said I don’t disagree with him, but on the other hand, we had a green roof and a gray roof on that same building which was approved prior to this board to give the building definition or separation so you would know that there were two entities in that building. Mr. Galster responded I understand that but because an earlier board approved that doesn’t mean that it should be. Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride her comments.

Ms. McBride answered I don’t disagree with Mr. Galster. If we were starting new, I would like to see it all one color, but I really don’t like the red and I really didn’t like what you had approved last time. So, looking overall, this is four more steps toward coming in compliance with the Corridor. This is certainly closer to an earthtone than what we had or what they put up. I am looking at it that way.

Mr. Okum said this exterior trim is listed as gloss and should be semi gloss if that is the pleasure of the board.

Mr. Darby said I do understand Mr. Galster’s point, but I recall when that was one restaurant, The Music Palace, which was too big. The concept the developer brought to us was to, in a unique way, divide that big building into two restaurants, each maintaining somewhat of its own identity. In terms of site lines, I don’t think the two roof colors pose a problem, and because of that, I don’t have a problem with it. It would be rare to find any other buildings constructed in a different way with different site lines in this community where we would go with two colored roofs, but it is in a unique situation and is uniquely designed building which supports that concept.

Mr. Okum moved that the color change submitted by the applicant be approved, the color to be #27 for the roof and trim accent color to be #2719, rustic red, satin gloss by Sherwin Williams, and that Sherwin Williams exterior satin #2202 outrigger shall be the field color for the siding. All other items from the motion in the last meeting shall remain. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Syfert wondered if that applies to just the metal roof or to the entire roof. Mr. Okum responded we should include Ms. McBride’s recommendations for the rear roof to be changed to complement the new color, other than the Owens Corning red shingles.

Mr. McErlane said are we talking about a red that is closer to the red, or no red at all? What are you looking for? Mr. Okum responded that the red shingles are really stark; they are as bad as the metal roof that is on there now.

Mr. Syfert said aren’t we defeating what we are trying to do if we don’t use something similar to this? Mr. Okum answered their red shingle is a stronger red than this is. Mr. Darby said why are we discussing red; we are not allowing red. Mr. Darby suggested brown, and Mr. Syfert wondered what was wrong with the brown on there. What do we want?



9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Okum responded Ms. McBride suggested that the back roof be changed to complement or tie in with the side roof. If you look at the photo, this is what you see when you come down the hill, whether that be red or green.

Ms. McBride reported that the concern that we had was that if we didn’t do something with the shingles, we would end up with three colors on the roof.

Mr. Okum said I agree, if I were to do this over again, the back roof would be the same as the side, which would be a metal roof painted the same color.

Mr. Darby commented that is a red red that you will be repainting, and it would have to be done in such a way that it doesn’t bleed through and change the color. Mr. Erickson responded that it would have a primer that is on there now to handle that.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had any problem changing the back roof to the same as the side roof? Mr. Erickson said I don’t have a sense of the cost of the metal versus shingle. We certainly wold be willing to submit the color samples to staff for their approval to match this, or do something darker and further away from the red than this color.

Mr. Vanover said I would be willing to allow them to submit samples for staff approval and go from there. I think this can be worked out, and I agree that this is much closer to what we are after. That was a hot spot a number of years ago, and in one of the proposals they were going to have two independent buildings on that lot. This is a much more realistic application, so I would amend the motion to approve with the caveat that the roof shingle color would be submitted, either shingles or metal, for final approval by staff. Mr. Okum seconded the amended motion.

On the amended motion, all board members voted aye, except Mr. Galster who voted no, and the approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative votes.

    1. Approval of Proposed Exterior Changes to Hobby Lobby, 11630 Princeton Pike (former HQ)

There was no one representing the applicant, and Mr. Darby moved to table. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to November 13th.

    1. Name of Former Commons Drive and Connector Street

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the roadway on the north side of Kemper Road that used to be at the signalized intersection and formerly was known as Commons Drive.



9 OCTOBER 2001



Mr. Shvegzda said in addition, there is an east-west roadway that runs between Kemper Commons Circle and the unnamed roadway which never had a name but has been referred to as the connector road.

Mr. Shvegzda added that at the last meeting someone suggested, I don’t know if seriously, to call it McClellans Lane in honor of the former roadway. Mr. Okum commented I think that is an insult to a residential drive. Mr. Whitaker agreed.

Mr. Okum said I would suggest, because there is one business potentially on that, we rename it Commons Way or Commons Place so they can identify that it runs off the main road. Mr. Galster wondered if Commons Way or Drive or Place would create a problem with the police or fire people? Mr. Shvegzda answered I don’t know, but sometimes it is confusing in referring to it. Mr. Okum asked if there were a business on that drive, and Mr. McErlane reported that there is a warehousing operation and at this time, they moved out of where Globe went in, so they are still using their old address there. Actually they are using the Roberds old address, and their only access is off the old Commons Drive.

Mr. Syfert asked for other suggestions. Mr. McErlane commented that if there is a concern about naming it similar to that because of stationery, they just moved into there and I don’t know if it would really impact them. They have asked me a couple of times how they can get people to their location when they can’t get directions beyond Commons Drive. We could call it Old Commons Drive, and Mr. Vanover suggested that it be spelled Olde Commons Drive. Mr. Darby said I like the historic touch of Olde Commons Drive.

Mr. Okum said how about Connector Lane, and agreed with Olde Commons Drive. After further discussion, the board agreed on Connector Way and Olde Commons Drive.

Mr. Huddleston reported that there are a number of community forums going on around the Hamilton County area relatives to the Planning Partnership efforts. We had a good meeting on our Capital Improvements Priority Setting for the county wherein we try to prioritize multiple jurisdiction efforts to go to the state and lobby for funds. There are a lot of things underway. We still have a long uphill climb to go.

Mr. Whitaker reported that he was going to a community forum tomorrow. Mr. Okum added that the Steering Committee is very excited about the information that will be coming from these community forums. There are eight of them throughout Hamilton County, and they are designed to generate an enormous amount of input from people throughout the communities. It is broken up into groups of around 12 people, in most cases very diverse groups. Every bit of input will be saved and will be data based and collected and referred back to the Steering Committee who will make recommendations. If you can make one of the forums, it would be very good for everyone.




9 OCTOBER 2001


  1. DISCUSSION – continued
  2. Mr. Huddleston that it ultimately will be synopsized and it is a good opportunity.

    Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be here November 13th and Mr. .Darby indicated that he would be in Columbus that day.

    1. Alexander Patterson Group – 12075 Northwest Blvd. – Wall Sign



Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,2001 _________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



____________________,2001 __________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary