12 OCTOBER 1999

7:00 P.M.,



The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Acting Chairman David Okum.


Members Present: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Councilman Tom Vanover, Dave Whitaker

And David Okum

Members Absent: Chairman William Syfert

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner


Mr. Vanover moved to approve and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative



    1. Report on Council – none
    2. Zoning Bulletin – September 10, 1999
    3. Zoning Bulletin – September 25,1999
    4. 10/4 Letter from Bill McErlane to Rakan Shtiewi, Gold Star
    1. Sports Therapy, 11729 Springfield Pike approval of landscape plan for replacement of trees (tabled 9/14/99)

No one was present from Sports Therapy, and Mr. Okum said we have a choice of carrying this over, removing it from the agenda or move it to the end of the meeting.

Mr. McErlane reported that he had spoken with Mr. Novicki last week, and I got the impression that he would be here tonight. He might be running late so you might want to table until later in the meeting.

Mr. Galster moved to move it to the end of New Business and it was so moved.

B. White Castle requests approval of proposed parking lot at corner of West Kemper Road & Springfield Pike (former Precision Tune – tabled 9/14/99)

Mr. McErlane reported we meet with representatives of White Castle about a week ago and went through the comments that we had given them for the August Planning meeting. They understand the issues and are working on a revised plan and would like to have it tabled to the November meeting.

Mr. Okum commented White Castle’s landscape maintenance program needs to be looked at very carefully with this submission.

Mr. Galster said concerning their neon, do we do anything in the meantime. It is not in compliance with the Planning Commission.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. McErlane responded we looked at the files that we have on the White Castle submission. The only elevation drawings that we have do show neon, but there was no discussion about it at the meeting. I’ll leave it up to this board as to whether or not they feel it was approved, because it showed on the plans as part of the approved plan.

Mr. Galster asked if the discussion wasn’t that there was no modifications to the exterior of the building; that it was all interior? Mr. McErlane responded there had to be some modifications since there was a drive through from one location to the other. Mr. Galster asked if this were an issue or a non-issue

Mr. Okum responded I certainly think it is an issue that needs to go through this board. It would give them an opportunity to address it in a public forum and express their position. Mr. Galster moved to table to the November meeting and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the matter was tabled to November 9th.

    1. David & Melody Langord, 11673 Harmony Avenue request a second driveway on a residential lot (tabled 9/14/99)

Neither was present, and Mr. McErlane reported that they had been informed by letter this month’s meeting date and time and indicated they needed to attend. We have heard nothing subsequent to that. Mr. Okum suggested this be moved to the end of the agenda just in case. Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the matter was moved to the end of the agenda.

F. Approval of revised building elevation colors of Gold Star Chili, 11551 Springfield Pike

Rakan Shtiewi said at the bottom corners of the building was yellow painting, which was an accident and is back to the original color now. The building color was white and a sample was given to Mr. McErlane earlier this afternoon. This is called STO but with different numbers they are different shades of color.

Mr. McErlane reported this is the color that is actually on the buildng. I think Mr. Shtiewi tried to show what white actually looks like on the building. The actual color on the building is this color, which is called gray mist. Mr. Shtiewi added it looks like three different colors under different lights.

Mr. Galster said I visited the site, and the yellow has been painted out and it looks a lot better. My observation was that the color of the building is similar to the top of the Provident Bank building. Did we get the color sample when the applicant was here?

Mr. McErlane responded there were actually three different variations of beige that were shown. The original color pallet had a lot darker color beige and the color rendering which probably was a little more lighter yellowish color beige and then this stucco finish that was shown. Mr. Galster commented and the model was different and the drawing was different.

Mr. Galster commented the sample we have looks almost peachy to me. Personally I do not have any problem with the color on there right now. It could have been a little more brown tone, but it is pretty close to Provident Bank and is not white like the White Castle.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston asked how this occurred. Mr. Shteiwi answered on the plans I have, it said a STO color. I went to three suppliers and asked for a sample. The second sample looked like gray. STO color has four or five different numbers. This is what the sample was supposed to be. Mr. Huddleston said so who provided the incorrect paint; how did that happen if you were trying to order the gray? I still don’t understand that.

Mr. Shteiwi answered they were giving me samples of the STO color, and I took this old sample and went down to Remax, and they said it was the same color. I tried to put that in there, but the other one has a little more green in it. They are all called STO, but different numbers. The guy brought me the number, I didn’t even look at it, and we painted it on a piece of plywood in the restaurant, let it dry three or four days, and it dried really good; it looked a little brighter than the STO they brought before. I told them to go ahead, because it was about the right color I was looking for. Mr. Huddleston said so you ordered what is on the building.

Mr. Okum commented it certainly is not what you presented and what is part of our record as the color. Do you have issues with your franchise? This is totally different from any Gold Star I have seen. Mr. Shteiwi answered no. The only difference is between what the city wants and what Gold Star wants; the only issue was the red colors and the yellow colors. Honestly it was a lot lighter than I expected it to look after it was all done.

Mr. Huddleston asked what it would take to make it the original color that was intended? Mr. Shteiwi answered respray the whole building. There was a box in the back of the building that I had overlooked and now I have to take it out, so the whole building will have to be resprayed.

Mr. Okum said there are coatings specifically designed to change to change the EIFS color; it is a special material similar to a paint. Those corners that were yellow; they have a primer or base on it now and will need to spray corner to corner. So you have two corners that are already being resprayed.

Mr. Huddleston commented I hear the applicant saying that he has to respray a quarter or half the building today but the building should be done in the original intended color to harmonize with that district as it is ultimately intended to be developed, and I will move to that effect.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if they were respraying the two corners of the building, and not the walls and Mr. Shteiwi answered it is just the corners. Mr. Huddleston said I thought the applicant had said he had to remove the box and to do that he had to repaint the whole wall. Mr. Galster responded my understanding was that he decided not to take that box off so he wouldn’t have to re paint the whole wall. Mr. Huddleston asked why it was different from repainting the corner. Mr. Shteiwi answered the box was on the wall before they put all the stucco in. If you try to take it off and redo it, that is what is going to happen to the whole wall; we just painted the box and left it alone. Mr. Huddleston said I’ll grant there was no intent there, but I think we are defeating the purpose of the Route 4 Corridor Zone we are trying to create.

Mr. Okum said the motion was that the finish be put to the original color submitted, which is STO 10610.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Okum. Mr. Galster voted no, and the finish will have to be changed to the original color, STO 10610.

Mr. Shteiwi asked how long they have to do that and Mr. Okum responded I think it is part of your occupancy requirements, so I would think prior to your opening. Mr. Shteiwi said it probably will be impossible to pour in seven or 10 days. Mr. McErlane reported we would be amenable to a temporary occupancy based on a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Okum added it seems like the dirt is washing up on the face of your building, and it will stain it permanently.

E. Darden Restaurants requests final plan approval for Northwest Business Center Subdivision (Pictoria Island) for Bahama Breeze Restaurant, 325 North Commerce Way

Jack DeGagne and Michael Harrison of Darden Restaurants approached the commission. Mr. DeGagne stated we have gone over the requests for revisions and hopefully have addressed all of the issues.

On the site plan, some of the concerns were parking islands and adjusting them down to shorten up the breaks in the islands. We have extended the islands down and provided a sidewalk on the west side to tie in with the sidewalk on North Commerce Way and we have extended the sidewalk on the south side of North Commerce Way all the way across.

On the floor plan and seating plan and the calculations for parking, I have talked with Mr. McErlane and after his review, we are in compliance with the parking requirements.

There were five handicap-parking stalls on the east side of the property, and there was some concern about the cars backing out. We would like to suggest that we provide a speed bump on the south travelling lane to alleviate any concerns you might have.

On the north and east elevations, to address your concern in terms of mass of material, we have added more landscape materials and have reduced the amount of split face block and have added a wainscot and additional stucco. Over the rear door, we have added a roof element, so I think the combination of a change of materials and the use of plant materials will greatly answer your concerns about these two elevations.

Sheets P1 and P2 further explains the architectural material elements.

On the landscaping, one of the concerns was changing the plant material on North Commerce Drive to tie in with the overall development. We need clarification on whether it is maple or red oak in terms of the type of tree that will be used throughout the PUD, but we will abide by either one of those. On this, we are showing the red maple.

There were questions about the pine trees being legged up to 6 feet high and we have provided a picture to give you an overall feel of what that pine will look like. We will not be legging the pine trees on the west side of the property line to provide more of a screening effect to the parking lot.

You have a lighting plan, which is a reflection of the parking lot lighting in terms of foot-candles. There are additional building lights, particularly underneath the portoche, and this would be the only area where traffic would be an issues.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Ms. McBride said the submittal made at the end of the month did not have a floor plan that showed the exterior seating or designated the assembly area. Yesterday the City received the building permit plans and Mr. McErlane was able to calculate that they do have enough parking.

We asked for signage for the drop-off area to indicate that it was a one way situation. They provided pavement markings at both ends of the drop off area, which we feel, are adequate.

We still have concerns about the five handicap parking spaces. The applicant has suggested speed bump in that area and that is agreeable.

They had three parking islands that had quite a gap in them and we had concerns particularly about the easternmost one and whether or not cars would access through that area. They have decreased that space to five feet as the commission asked last month, to allow for storm water.

Item number 7 had to do with the trash enclosure. Last month they indicated that the details were on Sheet D-4 and the same comment is on this month’s submittal; we still do not have Sheet D-4 so we still need to see the screening detail. We also want to make sure that all their containers are within that area.

We met with the applicant this afternoon concerning landscaping, and the vast majority of our comments are the same as last month. Shrubs need to be added along North Commerce Drive to adequately screen the parking field. We ask for additional shrub material to be incorporated within the parking islands in the parking lot. We had asked for a mixture of plant material to be added along 275 and had asked for some plant substitution where we felt there was some sight distance issues. We had comments regarding how the plants were to be treated in terms of their planting, whether they were to be legged or not.

Another issue is whether or not the street trees on North Commerce should be red sunset maples or northern red oaks. We approved the northern red oaks for the extension of Century Circle and since this is one PUD, I think the street trees should all match. On the other side of North Commerce Way is a kind of hodge podge of trees, probably three or four different types, but if Pictoria Island is to be one PUD, I think we should continue with northern red oaks, planted 50 feet on center as they are doing on that portion of the street improvements.

When we met with the applicant this afternoon, they indicated as they had last month, that they would make all of these changes to the landscape plan. They didn’t seem to have any problem with that, and we had reached agreement on most of those items.

In terms of lighting, our Zoning Code has a minimum .5’ candle lighting within parking and walking areas and their photometric plan does not show that on a number of areas of the plan. One of the big areas is the drop off area and the service area and portions of the parking field that also don’t have .5 foot-candles. We mentioned this again last month. Also there was considerable discussion on the type of lighting that it was to be and it was my understanding from the Commission’s discussion that it was to be metal halite. There is no change in the lighting plan in that regard. We also asked for the color of the pole and fixtures and suggested bronze and that it be used throughout the development and that information was not provided nor was the height of the poles, so we still need all of that information.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Ms. McBride added we would like to see the covenants revised to reflect the change regarding the music rocks that they would only be playing when the restaurant was actually open.

In terms of signage, we are only looking at the two wall signs, the 64 square foot sign on the front elevation and the 74 square foot sign on the west elevation. We received no other information regarding the ground mounted sign, so we suggest that the commission only act on those two signs this evening, and we consider the other signage at a later date.

The submittal did not include the complete floor plan. Also the building elevations we received did not include the screening from the deck area to the ground that was requested by the commission.

Mr. Shvegzda reported the westernmost access point driveway has been moved to line up with the two-way section of North Commerce Way. However, we do feel that the raised concrete island in the driveway can be better configured in order to prohibit the left turn movements out of the driveway while still permitting the other movements to take place.

The site plan indicates that the east access drive is constructed six feet beyond the proposed property line. Obviously this is in conjunction with the further development that will take place to the east of the site. However, the particular edge of pavement does not have any curb or any way to delineate it from the ground that existed to the east of that area. Although we realize this is in conjunction with the further construction that will take place, in the interim it would be suggested that some type of temporary barrier should be placed along this edge of pavement.

On the drainage, the entire site will drain into the modified detention basin and is consistent with the assumption we made for the design of the detention basin. However we still don’t have drainage calculations to verify the sizing of the storm sewers and inlets that are proposed for the site.

The paved gutter which essentially drains the southernmost portion of the property into the detention basin has been eliminated. A storm sewer and grate has been added to the site plan. However, there still is the situation where we have right from the back to the curb, which is a three to one slope down into the basin and since the body of water is 8 to 10 feet deep, we would recommend some type of additional barrier, whether that be posts be laced along that area to prevent vehicles from hopping the curb and entering the basin.

It was indicated that sidewalks are now shown across the entire frontage on the outside of North Commerce Way; we had requested that they be built to fill in the gap. The south side of the road is acceptable but we recommend that the point of crossing to the north be immediately in the one way section of North Commerce Way. Obviously with that the construction curb ramps would have to be placed for the handicap crossings at this point.

In terms of the driveway construction, they need to have concrete aprons to be consistent with the subdivision regulations.

Mr. McErlane reported we talked about signs last month and there has not been a new sign submittal, so at this point of time the only recommendation we can make is that the signs shown on the elevations for the wall signs be approved as shown on the previous elevation. The issue of any freestanding signs still needs to be resolved and brought back to this board.


12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. McErlane added the floor plan was not submitted at the first of the month. Yesterday I received a floor plan and it appears to check out with the amount of square footage of the standing and waiting areas in the restaurant at 967 square feet, so the parking numbers come out to be 203 required and they are providing 205.

There is an existing covenant that limits the amount of EIFS finish, or drivitt type finish to 20% of the total wall finish of the building. I am not sure that the stucco shown on the drawing exceeds that or is within that perimeter. My understanding is that stucco is not really an EIFS system. Mr. Harrison reported it would be traditional two or three coat stucco over masonry. Mr. McErlane commented so it is not really an EIFS finish.

Ms. McBride talked about a covenant requirement for the music rocks. This 20% requirement was derived by Duke Associates who put this development together, so I’m not sure if it was the developers mandate or from this board at the time. I think the intent was to take a look at stucco type finishes whether they be EIFS or not, and I’m not sure if Darden has looked at whether or not they exceed 20% or not.

Mr. Harrison responded we are showing 23%, and if there is a need to get to the 20%, the split face concrete wainscot around that portion of the building could be raised one two or three courses of block that would bring it back to the requirement. Mr. McErlane commented the only reason I raise that question is whether or not Planning Commission has a strong feeling one way or another with respect to that finish material as well as the developer who is being represented tonight (Tipton Interests). If there is a modification required to the covenants for the music rocks, a modification could be made to that 20% if it is felt that it isn’t a problem. If not, then a modification of the building elevations would be in order.

Ms. McBride added there was discussion by the commission on the inclusion of a sidewalk on the easternmost landscaped island of the parking field. That did not specifically come through in some of the comments from the Commission Minutes, but I wanted to remind the Commission that is something we had discussed, particularly how the people from the two office buildings to the north could get to the restaurant at lunchtime without walking in that roadway.

Mr. Harrison said the staff has worked very nicely with us, and we do appreciate the co-operation. We ask that you continue working with us because we have retained a local contractor and we would like to start this job and open in the spring. We are hoping to address these comments; we are not necessarily opposed to any of these things; it is just a matter of satisfying you and agreeing to it.

The 20% stucco versus EIFS we discussed and there is a solution in that we could raise the height of the split face wainscot material. Regarding stucco versus EIFS, we are not really sensitive to either one. Both have a sand finish stucco look, so it would be whichever you prefer.

On the lighting issues, the bronze pole color is acceptable to us. On the type of lighting, we prefer high-pressure sodium lighting because we think it gives a softer look. The metal halite tends to be very stark and very bright and very white; it is similar to what they use in gas stations. The sodium lighting seems to be a little more yellow, and a friendlier color.







12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Okum said I think the comment was for consistency along the development and the representative for the developer is here.

Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests said my recollection of our meeting was we talked about the two different colors, and I’m not sure which one you wanted to go with. But we all agreed that consistency was important, and we talked to the Darden people and agreed that the high-pressure sodium is what we all prefer and what we want and what we would recommend.

Mr. Harrison said on the photometric drawing, it showed some areas that are under .5 foot-candles, and if we are approved, will have our engineers either add heads at some of the poles and an additional pole if necessary. I will have them include in the photometric drawing the heads that are up under that portocachet, because it will light up that whole circular entrance drive. That is the main drop off point, an important area for us because we offer free valet parking and a lot of people use that service.

I have an 8 ˝ x 11 that shows the details of the trash enclosure. The enclosure contains all of the grease, waste dumpster, storage of milk crates and it also serves as a drop off area for the truck deliveries. He passed around a drawing of a sample enclosure.

Mr. Harrison reported the music rocks are not played loudly, and we would be willing to give you a letter in writing committing to playing them only in certain operating hours, because they are not left on overnight. It is meant to develop ambiance as you leave your car and go up to the building, so it’s not loud and blaring, Carribbean music. Mr. Okum said I believe Ms. McBride’s suggestion was to have that incorporated into the covenants. Mr. Harrison said that is acceptable.

Mr. Okum asked if there were landscaping at the corner next to the handicap parking spaces where the drivers would be coming around. Would the person have vision to cars coming around the corner? Mr. Harrison responded the car should be in the right lane. Mr. Okum said I think you would want to have the center lane marked because a handicapped person coming out of that spot would be blind to that car coming around the corner.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if he agreed with that and Mr. Shvegzda answered a centerline designation would be preferred, and I would recommend that the line markings be yellow to be consistent. Mr. Harrison responded we do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Harrison stated we are not opposed to the sidewalk. We did not show it here because we didn’t think there was enough room to allow one without interfering with the canopy trees.

Mr. Okum asked if the landscaped islands would have some mounding. Mr. Harrison answered traditionally we do not crown them; they are more flat. Mr. Okum wondered if there would be mulch beds there, and Mr. Harrison responded around the planting material. We would like to minimize mulch and keep the grass up tight around there. We can mulch the beds, but we like the look of the planting material.

Ms. McBride added at the meeting we had this afternoon, the applicant agreed to adding shrubs and mulch in that area so there would not be sod; it would be shrubs.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Okum asked why we would want mulch instead of grass, and Ms. McBride answered the landscape architect felt it provided more of a visual break in the parking field to have the shrubs and so forth both in terms of helght and color than just the grass. Also people would be less susceptible to walk through a bed with mulch and shrubs than they would sod.

Mr. DeGagne added from our discussion today we want to add some shrubbery in here, but again it would be a clump of three or four shrubs here and three or four there. So, I think there would be a chance for the use of sod in addition to shrubbery in this area. Mr. Okum commented I personally have no problem with that. Mr. Harrison added we are flexible; we want to satisfy the landscape architect.

Mr. Vanover said the only thing there would be maintenance, but other than that, I would welcome grass.

Mr. Woodward said the original PUD did show sidewalk in that east most island. My recollection is we discussed that last month, and the decision was to remove it from that island and put it on the west side to provide access to the cinemas. The office buildings are all to the east side of the extension of Northwest Boulevard and the extension of Northwest Boulevard does have a sidewalk. So I think it is a little bit of a duplication of the circulation patterns created on the PUD.

Mr. Vanover said when you look at the big picture with the circulation of the walking path/sidewalk, it isn’t as necessary. I don’t have a pressing need to see that sidewalk over there. Again, you have a10 foot island and you figure 42 inches of sidewalk, you are putting pedestrian traffic between a parking field and a roadway. So probably it would be better to isolate the two more than to bring them down the middle.

Mr. Woodward showed Mr. Galster where the sidewalk went on the drawing, and Mr. Galster agreed that the sidewalk that runs in that island is not necessary.

Ms. McBride said if the commission is in agreement with that, fine. I certainly wasn’t thinking we would eliminate the one to the southwest of the site, because I think that serves an important function. If there are enough other opportunities for people to get from those office buildings over to the restaurant at lunchtime, that is fine. There was a question in my mind as to the commission’s preference on that. There was a lot of discussion on tree heights so I put it more on for discussion to see if you wanted to have it included or not.

Mr. Harrison said the request for a barrier wall along the retention pond is good. Instead of a normal curb, I am envisioning a high barrier wall.

Mr. Shvegzda commented I don’t think we were specifically looking at a wall of that height, but something not as unattractive as a guardrail, maybe a closer spacing of the guardrail posts without the rail. Mr. Okum suggested posts and wire, like they do in Indian Hill. Mr. Shvegzda answered that certainly would be an option.

Mr. Harrison answered I don’t think we are opposed to that; as long as we can keep it down to a level so you can still see it, we are not opposed. Mr. Shvegzda added there shouldn’t be any obstruction of the lake; we are talking at least six-foot spacing between the posts. Mr. Harrison added we are not opposed; it sounds like an important safety issue.



12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Shvegzda stated that the detention calculations are fine. We have reviewed them to verify this. It was the onsite storm sewer itself that we do not have any analysis to verify that it is correct. Mr. Harrison said I have the basic calculations.

Mr. Harrison stated we are not asking for a ground sign. We feel the building is in a prominent position and the signage we asked for should suffice.

On the landscaping there was a request not to leg up the pine trees along the exit ramp and that is fine with us.

Mr. Harrison said we actually provided very thick heavy landscaping, starting from three or four feet high and dropping down to ground level. The idea is to go around it on all sides. Mr. DeGagne added in this area by the gazebo, we will come back in with a low creeping juniper, a ground cover that might get six inches high.

Mr. Whitaker I think what Ms. McBride had specified is something to prevent children from occupying that premise. If you landscape, they can still get underneath that area. Mr. Harrison said we could add a lattice or even a knee wall of sorts. Would you be opposed to a knee wall below the edge of the deck of the same split face block you see on the backside? Mr. Okum responded if it could be densely landscaped as you have indicated, it wouldn't matter, just so children and animals couldn’t get underneath it. Mr. Harrison continued I think it would be in keeping with the rest of the building, and it would solve your problem.

Mr. Okum said so your indication is that you will enclose the lower area of the deck with split face block.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the driveway aprons there is a typical requirement for a depressed curb. We have a standard detail that we will get to you.

Mr. Galster said on the color samples, is the concrete block color the same as the stucco? Mr. Harrison confirmed that it is.

Mr. Okum wondered if it would be better to have a break in that color or a slight variation. Ms. McBride commented I don’t think so; I think it is fine to keep the same color.

Mr. Huddleston said the problem we had earlier tonight with the color pallet on the other building. Does that say that historically we kept the sample boards that were submitted with these? Mr. McErlane answered yes. Mr. Huddleston said I assumed that to be the case and the applicant would leave that here tonight unless you already have one on file. The split face block on your elevation drawings is shown here as concrete block. Mr. Harrison answered it should say split face; there is a photograph. Mr. Huddleston commented as long as we are clear that it is textured split face block.

Mr. Vanover asked if the board wished to address the 20% requirement. I personally do not have any problem with this. Actually I would have preferred to keep that wainscot wall down lower. I think it would be much more appealing, and the 23% is something I can live with.

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride recommended hedges along North Commerce Way separating the parking field from the roadway. Are you in agreement with that? Mr. DeGagne answered a meandering hedgerow, not a straight line. Mr. Okum added we are talking 18 inches on center, or something of that nature.


12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Okum added prior to this we talked about downlit non-glare lighting. You do have a profile, showing a burial of a post instead of a concrete pier mounted and 30-foot in height. Is that correct? The applicant confirmed this, adding this is a cast aluminum pole. Mr. Okum commented you do have some exposure to the interstate exit ramp, so we don’t want that 30-foot high light catching vehicles and people on the roadway.

You have also indicated that you will be planting hemlocks on the back of the site for screening the front wall of the building. If you turn to L1, the area on the northwest corner where the rear exit door is all concrete. I was wondering how you would get those seven trees in there. Mr. Harrison answered the idea was to create a landscaped median to shield that . Mr. Okum wondered how wide that earthen area is; I wonder if you have enough to accommodate the number of hemlocks you want to plant. I saw six foot high hemlocks, which are fairly small for the back elevation of the building, which is 18 feet high.

Mr. Harrison added we need some sort of access area. Mr. Okum said I understand that. It was your choice to use landscaping as a buffer, and we want dense enough landscaping. Based on this drawing, these hemlocks are 12 to 15 feet tall, and you are going to be planting 6 foot tall hemlocks. When the hemlock becomes 15 feet tall, you will have a terrible security issue for employees and additionally you will not have enough earth to accommodate it, because the base of the hemlock will be seven or eight feet in diameter.

Mr. Okum said the other question I have for commission members is whether a six-foot tree is adequate on an 18-foot wall. Parking between the trees. Mr. DeGagne responded we could change the configuration to make the area adequate for planting of the trees. Working with the city on the landscape plan, we can address that area and provide an adequate design that assures us healthy vegetation in that area. Mr. Harrison added our details on the full set of building plans shows the area of the deck where we put down a fabric mesh and four to six inches of riverstone on top of that, so there is a riverstone bed that provides drainage.

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride indicated that a definite detail on the dumpster doors would be required, one stable and sturdy enough and ties in with the rest of the building.

The current limited access area will affect your development. Have you made any attempts to work with the State of Ohio to handle the vegetation that is currently there that would be blocking the view of your site? Mr. Woodward answered we have contacted ODOT and have a permit to take out the trees and shrubs there and signed a maintenance agreement with ODOT to maintain that right of way all the way from the beginning of our project by Avon to the end of the property line on Route 4. Mr. McErlane added we have given an approval to a removal-planting plan they have shown. Their planting plan does not show removal of all the trees within the ODOT right of way, and I’m not sure that ODOT has changed their position in terms of looking at trees as amenities instead of an obstacle as they have looked at them in the past.

They don’t agree with removing all the trees, so the plan does show a number of the trees remaining in the public right of way, particularly the larger trees and does show a pretty good planting plan as well. We had submitted some comments back to Woolpert on where some of those trees should be planted, particularly in the city right of way, because there is a sanitary sewer and drainage ditch that run through there.


12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Okum said so the first part of this applicant’s development would not fall under that issue, but the entire development would under the PUD. Mr. McErlane said the developer of the PUD would present it.

Mr. Okum added all lighting on the building should be downlit and non-glare or offensive to the driving public in the public right of way, the exit ramp to 275 as well as North Commerce Way..

Mr. Huddleston said in the discussion last month on the dumpster location, there is still some concern about how you treat the elevations on that side of the building. I would still like to see dormers or something there to break up t hat mass. As far as I can see, there have been no great efforts to screen it beyond what it was last month. How can we address that concern since it is a highly visible area?

Mr. Harrison responded we were hoping the addition of the massive landscaping and the changes in materials would be acceptable. Mr. Huddleston wondered if the landscaping protruded enough from the building enough to block the side views? I don’t see that when I look at your landscaping. Mr. Harrison said that L2 would do a better job of showing that. Mr. Huddleston added you also would have an adjacent neighbor at some point that will be accessing that field of parking from that same general location. Mr. DeGagne added in reference to our future neighbors, more than likely their landscaping would have some effect and provide some screening for us. That is hypothetical, but I would believe with the landscape requirements that the city has that their landscape plan will benefit us somewhat. Referring to the plan, Mr. Harrison added from this direction on North Commerce Way, I see not only this parking area for landscaping but also this area to provide additional screening as you are driving west.

Mr. Huddleston said what you said earlier hasn’t changed the perspective of how that is viewed from one of the two primary drive accesses into your building off Commerce Way. You have done an excellent job of breaking up the entire building and architecturally featuring the building and when you look at that side, you are looking at the mass of the building and the access doors to the dumpster. I still would like to see dormers or something to break up that elevation.

Mr. Harrison said if you look at the P1 black line drawing, in the center of the upper elevation in the front of our building there is a small Boston pitch roof over the top of the portocachet. This element over the dumpster enclosure could have a Boston pitch structure introduced into it here to provide a little different effect on the elevation.

Mr. Huddleston commented I’ll defer to the other members of the commission. You still have a back door to the building that we haven’t asked you to screen it with a wing wall or anything else from the back end of the driveway. You come out of the main parking field to access this and it looks like the back of the building.

Mr. Vanover asked if the pitch roof would extend above the height of the stucco, and Mr. Harrison answered that it would not; it probably would project out over this wing wall, six to seven feet. Mr. Okum asked how far the dumpster area extended and Mr. Harrison answered another eight feet. He passed photographs from the Atlanta facility with the grease container outside the dumpster.






12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Okum suggested a circular radiused area between the doors and did something with more vertical landscape material between the doors. That is 20 some feet across. I think I commented that at the last meeting, and Mr. Huddleston had suggested dormers on the upper roof line to break that roof line in that rear area.

Mr. Galster suggested two dormers and a continuation of the stucco and either get a false window with some shutters or some planting to break that wall up. I think that would accomplish what Mr. Huddleston is looking for. If you put the Boston pitch roof on the back of the building plus the two dormers plus do something in terms of the split face between the two doors and either put in a window with a shutter or some landscaping in there would be good. If there is a window you might add lower shrubs like you would treat it if it were on the front of the building.

Mr. Harrison said this dumpster has a heavy duty angled steel structure with siding that is painted similar to the exterior of one of the pods. In lieu of that, maybe I could turn these into larger louvered elements with a louvered style to them that would look like the shutters. Mr. Galster suggested taking the split face down further, not bring it all the way to the top of the doors.

Mr. Okum commented I think you need some vertical material there and you do need landscaping right in the middle. It needs density. Mr. Harrison responded I am hoping to satisfy you by making these look more like a large group of panels. Mr. Okum said you still have that blank wall. Mr. Galster suggested coming out a couple of feet and plant hedges. It doesn’t have to be a gigantic tree there if you have other features on the gates. Mr. Okum said I like the idea of the regular dumpster with solid gates that are maintained, something that you could center that roof over the top of. Mr. Harrison commented these are features we have used in the past and can easily add. Mr. Okum added it is difficult for us, because these are the same types of comments we were making at the last meeting and we are working this out again.

Mr. Galster said so to recap, we have the Boston pitch, we have the two dormers on the top, and a fake window in the middle of the two doors with some type of landscaping below it. Does that dress up the back of that wall enough? Applicant agreed, adding most of those features we have used in the past.

Ms. McBride said I think that sounds like a good solution. I wish we could have seen them in person tonight, but we have seen different elements of it so we can envision and put them together in our own minds.

Mr. Huddleston said on the issue of the EIFS and the 20% coverage, is that something we can waive, or is it something the developer has to waive? Mr. Okum responded it is part of the covenants.

Mr. McErlane added the covenants are controlled by the developer. They can be handled two different ways. The covenant as it stands right now is an overall covenant for the entire development, but it probably could be handled as a modification to that particular lot. There already is a recommendation to modify the covenants to add the music rocks limitation.

Mr. Woodward commented it seems to me that we were reviewing the preliminary PUD and discussing some of the changes that we needed to make, we addressed that issue, saying we would expect to have four restaurants, and some of them would be 80-90% stucco.


12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Woodward added I thought we had addressed that by either removing that part of the declaration or by saying as approved by the final development plan.

Mr. McErlane reported they were recommended changes to the covenants. There were modifications somewhat agreed to by Planning Commission on the preliminary plan and they weren’t exactly as presented but they were suggested changes in the wording from what the developer presented. I think we all agreed on what they should be; we just haven’t seen that yet.

Mr. Okum said so are we saying that it is okay for the commission to waive it on this site and let the legal people handle the adjustments to the covenants? Mr. McErlane responded we recommended what those should be at the preliminary plan stage. They just need to be incorporated into the covenants as a modification and brought back for approval. Normally we see the final draft of the covenants at the final plan stage, and this is really the first final plan for Pictoria Island. They could be submitted just for that approval at a future date. In reality they should be in place before we issue a permit for it.

Mr. Huddleston asked about the overall site lighting be an issue for the covenants? Mr. McErlane responded there is already a covenant for site lighting; I don’t think it spells out the type of lighting. I think it spells out the height of the poles, which is 35 feet maximum. Mr. Huddleston wondered if the covenants were the proper place to do that, and Mr. McErlane indicated that it was. Mr. Okum said and the street trees as well. Mr. McErlane added there already is a covenant for the street trees, the number of street trees.

Mr. Harrison said to avoid the covenant issue, perhaps add a block or two height to the wainscot and possibly meet the existing requirement. Mr. Okum said it won’t delay you; the covenants would still need to be secured and recorded prior to issuance of the permit. Mr. McErlane said you are saying it won’t delay him, but having to bring those covenants back to Planning will mean another month. Mr. Galster said could it be to the satisfaction of staff? Mr. McErlane answered that is fine; we had discussed what those changes needed to be prior to this, and any additions we need to make sure we note tonight, relative to the rocks, the street trees and the lighting issue. The question is whether Planning feels that the final draft of the modifications to those Covenants need to come back to this board for approval, or if you can approve them contingent upon staff review, and typically legal counsel needs to look at them.

Mr. Okum said I think the motion should include finalization of the covenants pending staff review and approval along with the legal counsel review.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the final development plan subject to:

    1. Staff and legal review of the PUD Covenants as it relates to the EIFS coverage, music rocks, consistency of street trees and consistency of site lighting.
    2. The applicant provide for final review by staff the post and wire rope barrier and the drainage pipe calculations for final review and the modification of the raised island at the western driveway.
    3. Final landscaping plan be submitted for review by staff.
    4. Applicant provide photometric plan to meet design criteria of .5’ candle for all light sources.


      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Motion for Approval – continued

    6. Add speed bump at the five-handicap parking spaces location.
    7. Poles shall be bronze in color with the high-pressure sodium lights.
    8. Approval of signage as shown only. No ground mounted signage under this review.
    9. Applicant provide permanent barrier under the decks as indicated.
    10. Revised landscape plan shall be resubmitted for final staff review.
    11. Sidewalk eliminated from the parking field.
    12. Rear dumpster enclosure changes shall be made as discussed.
    13. Provide Boston pitch roof, dormers, and door detail on the dumpster enclosure as well as a window and landscaping modification in the center.
    14. Provide 8-foot high hemlocks rather than 6’.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Okum. Approval of Bahama Breeze was granted with six affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 9:17 p.m.

    1. Springdale Ice Cream & Beverage, 11801 Chesterdale Road requests approval of construction of training facility and proposed entrance drive.
    2. David A. Weigel Engineer and Smokey Powell, Project Engineer approached Planning. Mr. Weigel said we would like to discuss the addition of a small training facility outside the existing building, and the modification of the roadway into the facility.

      The plant has been there about 35 years and has gone through various configurations. We are at a point where as our production demands increase, we have run out of space inside the building for office and training areas. Our processes have become more technical and we need to supply training to our existing staff to improve their technical skills as the equipment becomes more highly automated.

      We are proposing the addition of a 1200 to 1500 square foot training facility behind the building, between the building and I-275.

      Mr. Okum asked about elevation drawings of the building, and Mr. Weigel said we do not have any, but we can supply them. We haven’t picked the exact building yet; that is what we wanted to talk about, what would be architecturally pleasing. It will be a one-story building, 24’ x 60’ with shingled roof. All the utilities will be hidden, and it will not be visible from Chesterdale Road. We are behind the new Target, and it would be visible from the rear of the Target building and also the Champion building. We are basically at the rear of this industrial setting, so it won’t be visible to the general public. It is a modular building, but it will be mounted permanently in such a pleasing way that it will appear permanent, which is our intention.






      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Mr. McErlane reported there are two requests. One is for an additional curb cut on Chesterdale Road to serve the employee parking area, and the second is a 24’ x 60’ modular building in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the I-275 right of way. The driveway would remove three or four parking spaces leaving 98 spaces remaining. The Code requires that parking accommodate the two largest successive shifts and in talking to Mr. Weigel, he indicated that typically the shifts were about 35 people. At any one point in time he indicated there might be 50 people there. Mr. Weigel said yes, with the staggering we have in terms of coming and going for sanitation and production functions, they come and go at different times. Mr. McErlane continued so it appears that the 98 parking spaces will satisfy the requirement.

      The location of the building is at the northwest corner of the site. There may be some building code issues that may cause it to shift a little further away from the existing building, possibly as much as 40 feet. The plan doesn’t show the propane tank behind the building, and there are some setback requirements for that as well. Mr. Weigel stated it is a 19,000-gallon tank, but I think we have enough space back there to satisfy the requirements. It may mean shifting the building one way or another, but it appears that there is enough space. The fire code requires a 50-foot setback from the propane tank itself.

      The building is shown at about 36 feet from the I-275 right of way, and the Zoning Code requires a 25-foot setback. The packets do show a different variety of buildings that are available.

      Mr. Okum asked why the building was placed so far back on the site, and Mr. Weigel answered we wanted to get away from public view. The only thing you would see from the interstate is the top two or three feet of the corner, and other than Champion and possibly Target you would not see the building. Mr. Powell showed pictures of where it would be located. Mr. Weigel added we plan to put shrubs and flowers around it to make it attractive.

      Mr. Galster said based on the fact that we do not have any information on the building itself, are we looking at a conceptual approval? Mr. Weigel answered what we would like to do is get together with your staff after we get your approval, and with your staff’s permission we’ll pick the building that is architecturally pleasing. These things can be constructed with any type of siding on it. The Kroger buildings are a beige or sand brick, and we are going to closely match that color and put a beige or white skirting on it so it is attractive. We want to go a head and order the building, but we want to do it based on your staff’s approval.

      Mr. Galster asked their time frame. Mr. Weigel answered it takes six weeks to get it once we order, so we were hoping to get at least a conceptual approval of it tonight and based on your staff’s approval, pick the actual building and siding. Mr. Galster said so you are asking if the idea is okay; you are not asking us to say if the building is okay. Is that something you would be willing to bring back a month from now?

      Mr. Weigel answered I would prefer not to wait a month; once we got your basic approval, I was hoping to work with your staff. Mr. Galster commented we do rely on our staff to do a lot of things but I think what you are asking them to do is look at the complete building without any input from Planning and that is further than we have ever gone before.

      I have no problem in determining whether this is appropriate, but leaving it to staff to decide the type of building, style of building, location colors etc., would eliminate this board’s ability to evaluate the building, and I am not real comfortable with that.


      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Mr. Galster continued with the pictures that you submitted, there are a lot of different styles of buildings here and I don’t know that I am comfortable saying that there might not be 20 more styles to choose from. We are saying it’s okay to put a building back there and we’ll let the staff work out the details.

      Mr. Weigel responded I am not trying to say that to you. Basically this will be a standard vinyl sided type structure with a slightly pitched roof. This will not be a radical departure from something appropriate to the general area.

      Mr. McErlane said we talked with Mr. Weigel and Mr. Powell and we thought they would bring in a variety of building types and get your feedback on which you thought appropriate. If you look at the different variety of structures available, there are some that look a little more permanent than others and there probably are some that are more appropriate to be adjacent to an industrial building than others.

      Mr. Galster commented there seems to be a lot of variables. I would have no problem with choosing a specific one and proceeding accordingly. Mr. Okum added I am concerned about seeing your building there because I see your propane tank. He suggested the post office illustration. Ms. McBride reported that the zoning is GI, General Industrial and the required maximum is 40% building coverage. And we need to have site acreage and building coverage.

      Mr. Weigel said then we propose the post office style, 24’ x 60’ with vinyl siding to match the colors of the building. The members looked at the illustration. Mr. Weigel added it would be rectangular, with the same basic single story structure and flat roof. Mr. Okum said frankly this looks like a trailer, a mobile home. Bringing a building down to this level has amore commercial look to it. This at least looks like a commercial building, and it does bring it down to grade. I am concerned about the building being elevated there because I do see you propane tanks, so I know I'’ going to see this heading east on 275. Your proposal is to put it 35 feet from the right of way line, which means if you are going over Chesterdale Road across the bridge, eastbound, you would see it. Mr. Weigel said I don’t think so; you wouldn’t see the whole building; you would see the top of it. Mr. Okum said through this picture, I see a white pickup truck, which is 7 foot off the ground. Mr. Weigel responded you would see the top.

      Mr. Okum said I have a preference for this type of building set at ground level rather than a trailer set up on platforms.

      Mr. Galster said so your opinion is that the day care center building in Florida would be a more realistic building because it is rectangular with a flat roof.

      Ms. McBride reported that the zoning is GI General Industrial and the requirement is for a maximum 40% building coverage. Staff is not suggesting that they are over that, but we need to have site acreage and building coverage to check that off.

      The commission needs to indicate the design and building materials that they wish to see on that. On the design of the unit, some have mechanical equipment screened and some of them don’t. We would want to see that screening. The other item that is important is how the building appears. If it appears to have skirting or it does appear as a building attached to the ground, I would prefer to see the building as attached to the ground.


      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Ms. McBride added when we met with the applicant earlier, we indicated that some landscaping around the unit might be appropriate, and we didn’t see any of that, and the commission should think of that as well.

      They have indicated that the people who are going to be trained are their existing employees on the site, so we don’t feel it necessary to add any additional parking at this time.

      The applicant also indicated two 400 watt lights on the site plan. I don’t know if they are existing or proposed. Mr. Weigel said they are existing, and there are four of them. Ms. McBride added they are not indicating nor is the commission permitting any additional signage for the training facility, and they are not indicating any additional waste receptacles for this facility. They do have a waste receptacle out there that could possibly use some screening, so the commission might want to take this opportunity to suggest that.

      Mr. Galster said I do not have a problem with the idea and concept, but I am still not comfortable with just saying build something. Mr. Weigel responded we could take a look right now and pick it out right now. After reviewing the drawings, Mr. Okum stated let the record show that the applicant has indicated that the US Postal Building is their submitted request. The only change would be a flat roof system and it would be

      ground mounted, the color of the building would be similar to the existing building, and landscaping would be approved by our city planner, and incorporate other comments by our city planner. Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Okum. Approval of the construction of the training facility was granted with six affirmative votes.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported on the additional driveway, going through the Thoroughfare Plan requirements, two unsignalized access points are permitted due to the fact that the frontage of the property on Chesterdale is in excess of 500 feet. There is also a requirement that the space between the drives be 100 feet. There was no separation between the radius returns

      Regarding driveway sight distance, insofar as the profile of Chesterdale Road is concerned, there is a sufficient sight distances (500’) to satisfy intersection sight distance conditions. However, there may be lateral obstructions there. There is a guardrail and fence in that vicinity. In terms of alignment of the driveway with the driveway on the east side of Chesterdale is offset so traffic in each direction will be opposite one another. It is probably not a big concern in this area because you are not going to have very much cross traffic from one side to the other. This driveway has a secured gate area where you have to have a card reader to access the parking lot.

      The guardrail that exists is 30 feet into the proposed driveway area. The plans note that it will be relocated to tie into from the public right of way back onto the Kroger property along the proposed driveway.

      We have reviewed the ODOT requirements on guardrail. Typically guardrail would not be required in the vicinity of the proposed driveway. The limits of the guardrail would be 150 feet south of the end of the bridge.





      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Mr. Shvegzda said there is an existing pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the edge of pavement in this vicinity. Currently because of the width of the existing driveway and the large radiuses on the driveway, it is approximately 100 feet to cross that area. With the addition of the proposed driveway and the fact that they are basically back to back, you will have 180 feet of driveway to cross.

      In terms of recommendation, the separation between the proposed and existing driveway is not as severe a problem as it normally would be. You do not have a retail type condition; you have the employees that will access the proposed driveway and the trucks that will access the existing driveway. Due to the fact that the existing driveway will only be accessed by trucks, and there are no trucks permitted on Chesterdale north of 275, consideration may be given to modifying the existing driveway to essentially not permit a southbound right into the existing drive, or a left turn out. This would allow a possible refuge area for pedestrians between the two drives.

      Part of the problem with having this arrangement where we had to go back on private property if there was damage, sometimes splitting who is responsible for repairing what section of the guardrail. The fact that the guardrail is not required here, our recommendation would be that we remove it to the point where it would be 150 feet south of the existing bridge. We are not aware of any other safety issues that were put in place for that extent of a guardrail.

      In terms of the fence, unless there are other safety reasons that we are not aware of, we would recommend that it be moved to the same location as the guardrail.

      The proposed pavement for the driveway wold be in the public right of way and would have to meet the requirements of the Public Works Department in terms of the thickness of pavement and those issues.

      Mr. Okum asked if there were anything that needed to be addressed in terms of sheet flow of water off the roadway that would ultimately hit the driveway, because this sets a little lower off Chesterdale, so we might have some water coming off Chesterdale Road into this area that would go down into that corner. Mr. Shvegzda responded that is true, but basically it would flow back around radial to the radius down into the low area and there is a catch basin further to the north. They also are proposing placing a catch basin between the two drives to handle any water that would be accumulated in that area. There is another culvert or catch basin to the west that is on the more detailed drawing.

      Mr. Huddleston asked if we know that the fence belongs to Kroger or the highway. Mr. Shvegzda answered there are two fences there, one that is high with the barbed wire on the property. The fence I was referring to is right in back of the guardrail, and it is the city’s fence.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you understand that the engineer is recommending against taking the guardrail onto your property. Mr. Weigel answered we will follow his recommendations. Mr. Okum said and do you have any problem with the no left out and no right in issue for trucks? Mr. Weigel responded currently they can’t make a left out; it is posted that way, and we will continue to observe that.

      Mr. Huddleston asked if he was proposing to further the configuration on the radius, and Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, to accommodate the reinforcement of the fact that there is no truck traffic allowed north of 275.



      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Mr. Shvegzda added this would provide a refuge area for the pedestrians between the two drives. We also would recommend curbs between the two to allow better separation for the pedestrians from the roadway. Mr. Okum said it would be curbed, but you would have to have a depressed handicapped section. Mr. Weigel commented that is not a problem.

      Mr. Huddleston wondered if the safety fence was still an issue and Mr. Shvegzda answered I don’t know. The slope there is 3 to 1, so although it is as much as 12 foot in height, it is not a very steep slope. I can’t say the original intent of the fence. Mr. Okum said I think it was to keep children from falling over the edge, because the guardrail was put in and they were concerned that it wasn’t enough. Mr. Galster suggested that we leave that open for Mr. Shvegzda to check with Mr. Shuler to make sure that there are no issues outstanding. Planning concurred.

      Mr. Vanover moved to allow for the construction of a new driveway outlined with the requirements and conditions and with the approval of the city engineering staff and discussion with the engineer on the fence and include the redesign of the existing driveway to eliminate left out and right in for truck traffic. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

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

      B. Princeton Properties requests development plan approval for a three-story addition at 100 Merchant Street

      Dan Wheeler said I first came to you eight or nine months ago for preliminary approval that we were granted. I want to answer some of the questions that have been posed to us. We have been able to match the brick, even though it is 50-60 years old. He passed around a picture. We have two different proposals for the limestone, and there is a washed concrete that is similar. He showed the material adding that it would be for the banding above the windows. The material matches and the windows are exactly the same as what has been used. The shape and size of the building approved remain the same. Tonight we are addressing the colors and materials. Mr. Okum asked the life expectancy on the concrete, and Mr. Wheeler said it is the same as limestone, but it would be more repairable than limestone, especially since it is a local product.

      Parking has been an issue. We had surveyors get an accurate count of the parking spaces, 465, and we will lose 32 and another eight to make two more island pads to align the driveway close to the building as recommended by staff. After we add another 30 spaces, we will have 450, which is still less than the 493 required.

      This building is unique in that there are a lot of common areas – lobby, lunchrooms, stairwells are 5-6 feet wide – lots of areas that are not usable.

      We took counts in the parking lot at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., and there were 220 to 250 spaces that always were available. We will be seeking a variance from the 493 required to the 450 spaces that we have.

      The dumpster was moved as recommended with a brick masonry enclosure around it and gates. The actual survey shows it 1 foot off the grass; it is actually about 18 inches off and the setback required is five feet. We would ask for a variance for this.





      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Mr. Wheeler said there are a couple of errors on the landscape plan. Between the windows we propose a dwarf flowering crab. The formal plan will be submitted once we have the layout of the islands. We will not be relocating the large pine trees. We will be planting burning bush underneath the windows. In the islands we will plant canopy type trees, red oak or maple or ginkgo. We will submit the actual drawing to the staff.

      Mr. McErlane reported that this is a 25,000 square foot 3-story addition. A variance will be required for the number of parking spaces and the location of the dumpster enclosure.

      A color pallet was not submitted, but the brick will match up and they will try to match the existing heads over the window and trim along the top of the building.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that the detention required is 1,250 cubic feet. The roof downspouts should tie directly at the storm sewer rather than discharging into the parking lot. Also, they are proposing not to build any underground storage.

      Mr. Wheeler added we have done the calculations with Mr. Shvegzda, and if the whole footprint were used, that would be the volume of water. However, more than 2/3 of the building is already in asphalt and concrete, and we are only adding a small amount of water. Digging up the parking lot would cost $30 to $35,000 so we are asking for relief on the storm water detention.

      Ms. McBride stated they are adding one new lighting fixture, meeting the .5 foot-candle requirement. On the landscaping, we would be willing to work with them on the plant types size and quantity. They will add the two landscaped islands we requested at the ends of the new parking aisles.

      Mr. Okum said I am not as concerned about the number of parking spaces, but I do have a problem with the new huge field of asphalt with no breaks except for a few islands. Is there a reason for that? Mr. Wheeler answered it was built that way 40 years ago.

      Mr. Okum commented they took out the front area that was all grass and now it is a development. We need to get some green on that site. I do not see why we should give relief for a minimal amount of detention, when we have none on the site. I think you have done an excellent job on the brick matching, and I have no problem with brick over limestone.

      Mr. Galster said you say there is no storm detention. Mr. Shvegzda reported there was an approval for Linclay in that vicinity and there was detention required as part of that, but it was never constructed. Mr. Galster wondered if we had any water problems there now. Mr. Shvegzda answered not that I am aware of. There have been problems further to the south on 747, but that is not the result of this site

      Mr. Wheeler commented the cost would be $30 to $35,000 and I would rather put a couple of pine trees in than put something in the ground that is not going to do a anything for anybody.

      Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Galster asked if he felt this site needed to have this underground detention. Mr. Shvegzda answered it will not immediately impact anything, but the decision needs to rest on where this waiver of detention may or may not be applied.


      12 OCTOBER 1999



      Mr. Huddleston wondered if there were a regulation to direct how the commission should react, and Mr. Shvegzda answered not specifically. We look at each situation individually.

      Mr. McErlane added the ordinance on the redevelopment of a property indicates that you consider detention for the entire property as if it were undeveloped and you waiver that based on the hardship. Mr. Shvegzda said the volume required for Linclay, which was bigger, was 64,000 cubic feet.

      Mr. Vanover commented you have to look beyond that property. I have seen two 100-year storms in a period of about three years, so it could be a big problem.

      Mr. Okum commented that these parking fields are huge without any breaks. Ms. McBride reported that the development was approved prior to this city planner and it might have been done a little differently. We cold ask the applicant to include some landscaped islands, but I would be hesitant to add an enormous number. Mr. Wheeler said I would not be opposed to putting in five islands with trees in each one.

      Mr. Galster wondered where the entrance to the addition would be and Mr. Wheeler stated it would be directly in the back. Mr. Galster suggested taking the 10 spots and making one green space. I don’t see an advantage to one tree here and there; maybe you could have an island of trees next to the handicap parking area

      Mr. Wheeler stated when I was talking about adding and subtracting spaces, there are 18-20 spaces that are not shown on this plan. If we did a total of 20 spaces, we would end up with 428 spaces.

      Ms. McBride reported there might be areas where he can pick up additional parking spaces to offset some of the losses. We could sit down with him and work that out so we could create nice landscaping.

      Mr. Okum commented the landscaping issue needs to be resolved before next Tuesday and the BZA meeting.

      Mr. Galster wondered if the water retention issue needs to be included or excluded as part of the motion. Mr. Wheeler stated I requested it. It is a large amount of money, but I understand why it is in the ordinance.

      Mr. Galster moved to approve the three-story addition at 100 Merchant Street, based on the review by the City Planner on parking spaces and landscaping and with the addition of an underground water basin as discussed by the city engineer. This is to be approved with the dumpster enclosure as shown and with the variances for parking spaces and dumpster setback approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Huddleston seconded the m motion.

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

    3. Replat of Lots B1, B2, C, D1, D2, D3 and E, Northwest Business Center Subdivision (Pictoria Island)

Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests reported that Pictoria Island has seven lots that they want to consolidate into two, from Northwest Boulevard to North Commerce Way. This would provide for the right of way for the extension of Northwest Boulevard. Each parcel will be sold off, and there will be a separate split of the lot.


12 OCTOBER 1999



Mr. Shvegzda stated we have two parts, one is the consolidation of the previous lot lines and dedication of the right of way for the extension of Northwest Boulevard, and the other document provides us with two lots, one for Bahama Breeze which is consistent with the PUD and the previously approved plan for the Bahama Breeze.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the replat, pending final approval from the engineer and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Parham stated that we will have a TIF in place for Lot 3, 4 and part of Lot 1. There is a portion on the existing TIF that is identified as the restaurant site that has 100%; the balance is 30%. If you are replatting this, it is hard to understand where the restaurant site is on here. Mr. Woodward reported there was a Cantino Del Rio Restaurant planned for this site. Mr. .Shvegzda stated the property line has moved some distance to the east.

Mr. Parham reported it is a TIF, and we need to be able to identify the lots and plats. The county does not provide it very clearly when they do a replat. I also have to know exactly what is 100% and what is 30% in order to live by the spirit of the agreement. The lines of the TIF will remain the same, but they may be divided into a number of these.

Mr. Okum said to simplify, we ill have to put it upon the developer to set the requirements of the TIF, and that should be a part of the motion.

Mr. Parham responded as long as we can identify the location and as we look at the way they are replatting it, it seems to run with the driveway, but I still need to make sure.

Mr. Huddleston suggested that the developer has to provide you with the survey data to satisfy you.

Mr. Galster so modified his motion to approve. Mr. Parham added the thought is to roll the existing TIF into a new TIF.

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

D. Vacation Plat Approval – Part of Century Circle East (Vineyard)

Mr. Shvegzda reported this is another two for one. We have vacation of a segment of Century Circle East, a part of the Vineyard overall development. This is a necessity because they are terminating that segment of the roadway into a cul de sac and are vacating that portion of the right of way further to the south in the cul de sac.

In addition to the vacation, there is a replat. There are a number of lots that were there previous to the development that they are consolidating and producing two lots out of it and also dedicating some additional right of way to encompass the cul de sac. These are consistent with the overall site plan development. We reviewed it and it is consistent with the subdivision regulations. There are some detail issues that they still have to take care of.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Okum. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.


Mr. Okum said we will go back to Old Business, Item A.


12 OCTOBER 1999


A. Sports Therapy, 11729 Springfield Pike approval of landscape plan for replacement of trees (tabled 9/14/99)

Eric Novicki said after speaking with Mr. McErlane, we would like to get the city planners to sit down with us and develop a plan that would do what we are looking to do with that site, which is to provide buffer from the driveway for the properties behind. With the existing covenants, requesting a certain type of tree in there, we need the board’s approval to allow them to do that.

Mr. Galster asked if we have any problem with trying to develop an acceptable plan to resolve the issue. Mr. McErlane responded realistically I don’t think they could fit 36 caliper inches of tree in there without making it look like a tree farm, so the best thing to do is come up with a legitimate plan that actually provides something of a buffer. The other alternative would be for Mr. Novicki to contact a landscaping business to see if they can come up with a landscaping plan.

Mr. Novicki said my thought is we could go back and forth and back and forth forever to try to meet what they want, and we would like to get this done in a timely fashion.

Mr. Galster asked how much time the City would be investing to resolve the issue, and Ms. McBride answered a couple of hours. Mr. Galster moved to allow our city and landscape architect to work with the applicant to come up with an acceptable plan not to exceed two hours of time. Ms. McBride said three would be more realistic. Mr. Galster modified his motion to indicate three hours and Mr. .Whitaker seconded the motion. Mr. Okum commented that 36 caliper inches of tree x $44 would total $1584 worth of trees.

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


Mr. Darby said reflecting on what happened with Gold Star, is there a procedure in place that could have caught that before the entire place was painted? When I drove by I thought it was a primer he had on it.

Mr. McErlane reported it could have been brought to a halt in the middle of the process. The only way to preclude it is to have them get their painter to provide a sample initially. The unfortunate thing in this case is Gold Star did some of the legwork in determining what some of the colors were and the owner of the building was deciding what he was going to do with it. Mr. Okum suggested that the inspector be brought up to date on the color pallet on developments.

    1. David and Melody Langford, 11673 Harmony Avenue requests a second driveway on a residential lot (tabled 9/14/99)

No one was present. Mr. Galster moved to remove this from the agenda, and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. .Vanover and Mr. Okum. Item was removed from the agenda.

Mr. McErlane stated that GTE Wireless has not finalized the lease agreement with Cincinnati Bell, even though we received a letter from Cincinnati Bell saying it was okay for them to represent them with their request. From the discussions I had with Ms. Getz, she indicated they are trying to negotiate several different sites with Cincinnati Bell Wireless, and they have not finalized those and are not sure when they will finalize them.


12 OCTOBER 1999


Mr. McErlane reported that she is asking for a temporary portable antenna for up to a period of six months. The only reason I brought it forward is if you look in the code new cell towers require a conditional use permit. I bring it forward to find out if you feel a temporary situation would merit going through the conditional use permit hearing process. Planning members felt the process is needed.

  2. Mr. Okum said in Chairman Syfert’s absence, I have a request for sign approval for the Institute of Medical & Dental Technology at 375 Glensprings Drive. This is their maximum on signage; do we have any problems with this? There were none, and Mr. Okum as acting chairman will sign the approval.


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,1999 _____________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



____________________,1999 _____________________________

Dave Whitaker, Secretary