14 NOVEMBER 2000

7:00 P.M.


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

  4. Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman

    Tom Vanover, David Whitaker and

    Chairman Syfert.

    Members Absent: Donald Darby – out of town

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

    Greg Dale, City Planner

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

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster said nothing on Council, but the steering committee for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan had its first meeting and the second meeting is scheduled for later this month. Members were out taking pictures trying to compile information. WE anticipate it will be a one-year to 1 ½ year process.

    3. .Zoning Bulletin – October 10, 2000
    4. C. Zoning Bulletin – October 25, 2000

    5. Planning Commissioners Journal – Fall 2000


    1. Modification to and Compliance with Conditional Use Permit, Creative Kids World, Inc. 11285 Springfield Pike

Mr. McErlane reported that around the first part of October, the City received complaints and a petition from residents neighboring the property at Creative Kids World with respect to excessive noise. Included in their complaint and with their petition were copies of pieces of the minutes from the Planning Commisison relative to the issue of building a retaining wall around the playground area. We have reviewed the Planning Commission minutes to try to determine whether or not it was taken into consideration as a possibility of a buffer for some of the sound issues. The only discussion relating to sound issues were concerns expressed by the adjacent tenants, and not how it would impact adjacent residential properties.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. McErlane added from a staff standpoint, we looked at the wall

Relative to the part it played in grading and drainage of the playground area, and when it went for final plan approval to the city engineer and to our office, the engineer for the site found that he could drain the playground area without having to build the wall and the plan was approved without the wall.

Last month I brought the issue back to determine if Planning Commission may or may not have considered the wall to have been an issue relative to buffering noise. It was considered that it might be a good idea to bring it back before Planning Commission to consider the noise issue, with respect to either the wall or some other means by which we can buffer noise.

Greg Dale of McBride Dale Clarion reported that the members have a letter from Anne McBride dated November 1st in which she summarizes the results of a noise study that was conducted in October and took a total of nine different readings in a clear sunny day so the readings could be taken. The noise level ranged from 62 to 74 decibels. Anything above 65 but less than 75 decibels is considered by HUD to be unacceptable, but capable of being attenuated or mitigated through one measure or another.

The original approval of the Conditional Use Permit had a number of conditions related to landscaping as well as the wall Mr. McErlane referred to, and the landscaping called for a certain number of evergreen trees to be 10 foot tall. The trees that were planted were less than 10 feet in height. That is one issue that Planning might wish to consider.

What Anne McBride concluded in her letter is that there are several options to consider in terms of mitigating the noise. One of those would be some additional trees and Anne suggested two rows of staggered non-deciduous trees 10 feet high along the west fence line. Another option would be a six-foot tall shadow box fence, with staggered wood.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if Ms. McBride’s letter had been sent to her, and Ms. Tammy Barnett indicated that she had just received it this evening, adding that she had some conversation with Mr. McErlane.

Ms. Barnett stated I am representing Creative Kids World and GRC, the owners of the space that we occupy. I certainly am willing to sit down with GRC and present this to them. We understood that the fence that was proposed would create a problem for the adjoining businesses, that the shadow box paneling would bounce the noise back off and could create a problem for the tenants who are not complaining about the noise. GRC was not aware that one of the evergreens had died and they wanted me to come to find out what we could do to make it work with the nine complaints that we have.





14 NOVEMBER 2000



Ms. Barnett added we have adjusted the schedule when the children go outside and play. They had been going out a little earlier than I thought acceptable in terms of the people in the neighborhood, but that obviously wasn’t enough. I have brought the schedule, and we can adjust that if that would help. This is my first opportunity to read Ms. McBride’s report

Mr. Syfert asked if there was anything in the report different from the conversation you had with Mr. McErlane, and Ms. Barnett answered I knew about the fence. GRC is willing to work with the Sharkeys or whoever else in the neighborhood who has a problem within reason and have it something that would not create another problem with the present tenants.

Mr. McErlane reported in some of the discussions I had with Ms. Barnett, we talked about the potential for some type of shadow box fence that would help absorb some of the noise because of the design of it. One of the concerns is where you place it. If you place it near the property line, you would have to remove some of the growth that is currently there, and that is probably not a good alternative. The other, to immediately surround the play area would almost wall it off like it is a detention area instead of a play area. There may be some ways to mitigate the noise with plantings. We talked a little bit about additional or different shrubbery around the fence line. The problem there is that you have to get something with enough size to do some good. I thought the shadow box fencing would be the way we were going, somewhere in the neighborhood of the current chain link fenced area, but I can see that the adjacent tenants may have some concerns about that as well.

Mr. Huddleston said if the tree screening was not placed at the proposed 10-foot height, what was it installed at? Mr. McErlane answered they are in the neighborhood of seven feet. There were five shown on the plan and five were planted; one has died since then.

Mr. Huddleston commented the quality of the attachment to Ms. McBride’s letter is poor, so I was having a difficult time reading it, but if I look at some of these sound readings, I am having a hard time identifying how much they fall off the property line. Can somebody expand on that for me?

Mr. Dale answered I believe if you were to look at the locations 4 3 and 2 on the map, and flipped to the attachment it might help. Mr. Huddleston asked how the meter settings are determined; what are you saying. Mr. Dale responded honestly neither Anne nor I are experts in sound analysis. Mr. Huddleston commented we have had Ms. McBride’s letter since November 1, and I don’t know when Ms. Barnett was notified she had to be here this evening, but they have had no time to prepare a response. Is that fair to the complaint we have registered with them?




14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. McErlane responded as I expressed, we talked about alternatives similar to what Ms. McBride is presenting. The only thing new that came out tonight was the concern of adjacent tenants that a shadow box fence might cause the sound to reflect back at the building.

Mr. Huddleston commented as I recall from the original approval discussion, the primary concern came from the adjacent existing tenants. Apparently the adjacent tenants are not having a problem and I question where these sound readings are coming from and where they are falling off to and whether they are as severe as the report would indicate on the surface. We have had some experts look at this, but I am not sure we have the benefit of what they are trying to tell us here. I don’t understand it; does anybody else understand it?

Mr. Dale said if there are questions about that, we would be happy to get those answers. Anne McBride’s initial reaction was that the operators of the facility should look at this and come back and propose a solution consistent with the parameters we have set. In the meantime, we can get answers to the questions about the sound readings in more detail.

Mr. Huddleston said if it would be acceptable to the applicant, I would like to suggest that we table this for 30 days and get either a document report that explains this somewhat or an expert to tell us what they are trying to achieve.

Mr. Okum wondered the 10-foot trees weren’t planted in the first place, adding that part of the Conditional Use Permit required that. Now one has died and has not been replaced. Is there a reason why that occurred?

Ms. Barnett answered not that I know of. We turned in all of that information; their representative was at the meeting, David Cawdrey.

Mr. Okum said the decibel levels are all in the range of not acceptable. From what I understand, 66 decibels was at location 4; 74 decibels was at location 8 and along the west property line, the highest level was 71. Along the property line, we know we have 71, 62 and 66 that we need do deal with.

I agree that the applicant needs more time to review this. I am not a noise expert but I certainly don’t agree with these noise levels being acceptable on their property line. I have to say the prime discussion when we had the meeting regarding the residents and how this noise from the children playing would affect them, we were given assurances that they would make every effort to prevent that, and I think we need to also. Before we table, I think we have residents here and I would hate to see those residents not given an opportunity to express themselves.

Mr. Syfert stated this is not a public hearing, but maybe one representative could speak for them all.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mike Sharkey, 355 Naylor Court said I have lived there for over 25 years, and the reason I am here is a matter of trust. We trust the people we elect to Council and Planning to do the right thing for the people of the community. So far none of this has been done. My neighbors and I came in here; we saw the plans; there was supposed to be a four-foot wall and shrubbery around the fences in the back, which was overlapping to help keep the noise down. That was never planted. The wall was not done. None of this was done. Everyone was promised things; now you are going to table it and shuffle it off and the residents will forget about it. I want you to hear a little something here. This is what the little children sound like when it is so quiet (played tape recording). Try to talk over this. This is m id range and goes on from approximately nine o’clock in the morning ‘til 5:45 at night. It goes on Saturdays and Sundays. Our understanding was that this would be five days a week.

I love kids; I have three of my own and grandchildren, but I don’t particularly want to hear this in my back yard. My wife doesn’t want to hear it and the neighbors don’t want to hear it. We can’t hear in our own back yard. We have lived here 26 years; we pay taxes all these years, and this is the thanks we get for getting residents and not causing problems? It is shuffled under the rug. You can table it all you want, but it won’t be shuffled under the rug. Nothing has ever been done that was promised. It won’t happen any more. Thank you.

Mr. Galster said Mr. Sharkey, I don’t think it is our intent to shuffle it under the rug. It is to give the owner of the business the opportunity to go back to the owner of the building and say these are our recommendations, and either have them attend our next meeting so we can discuss what could be done to eliminate some of the problem. It is awfully hard for us to do that without either the owner being here or secondly, the owner of the business didn’t have the opportunity to see the report before tonight to know our recommendations. The idea of tabling it is to say these are the issues; we have a problem and concerns. We may have made a little error in judgment in properly evaluating the noise level that would be created, but we now need to be given an opportunity to see if we can come up with a solution. The only way to do that is to make sure that all parties understand what our city planner and the noise and sound experts consider to be appropriate steps to take to try to mitigate the noise level that you are hearing there.

From the audience, Mrs. Sharkey said I sent her a letter on September 25th telling her that we were disturbed by the noise, and she has done absolutely nothing about it. All she needs to do is teach the children not to scream. It’s called discipline, and she doesn’t do t hat. She also has allowed the little toddlers 1 ½ to 3 years old outside the fence. They are running all around that back area. All they have to do is run around the side of the building and they are on Springfield Pike.





14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Syfert commented I think the representative of your neighborhood did speak, and I think we understand and we hope to come to a proper conclusion to satisfy you folks. Mrs. Sharkey added I think it is important to teach children not to scream, and not let them run all around outside their fenced in area. One of these days someone will get lost or hurt or killed and everyone will be boo hooing what happened to the little child

Mr. Galster commented if there are additional questions regarding supervision, that is something that possibly can be addressed the next time. When we talk about tabling it, we are not tabling over an extended period of time. We will have everybody back in next month. I apologize to the residents who came out expecting to have some resolution tonight. I know how frustrating that can be, but at the same time I think it is fair of this board to allow the owner and the tenant to look at the recommendations we have come up with and see what they can do to at least start addressing it. I’m not saying they all will be fixed the first go round; but we have to have a starting point and the only way to do that is to make sure everybody understands where we are starting.

Mr. .Sharkey asked why the things we agreed to initially weren’t done in the first place? Mr. Galster responded I would love to ask the owner, who is not here tonight, why he didn’t do what we asked him to do. I can’t take it out on this lady; she doesn’t own the property.

Mr. Sharkey said my neighbors had a deck built on their home. This neighbor had a driveway done, and the inspector was out there two or three times a week checking to make sure his deck was done right and his cement was laid right. Where are the inspectors when this project was done, the inspectors who drive around and check for people with flaking paint and fallen down gutters. Where were they when this was done? If it had been done properly, maybe we wouldn’t have a noise problem. Mr. Galster responded I can’t tell you why an inspector didn’t tell us that the trees were only seven feet instead of 10 feet, but that still won’t make your noise problem go away. In my opinion, in order to properly mitigate the circumstance, would be to give the owner and tenant the opportunity to address some of the concerns.

Mr. McErlane said this can be discussed at the next meeting, but there were questions raised about operating times. Perhaps Ms. Barnett can inform us of them.

Ms. Barnett said the one Saturday that I know of that there was noise in the area we conducted an open house. We had children inside the center and the parents asked if they could go out on the playground while they toured the facility. That has happened once, maybe twice. Most parents don’t bring children to an open house, so that is the Saturday they are referring to.






14 NOVEMBER 2000



Ms. Barnett added that on Sundays, we do open the center for about three hours to a local church that comes in, and they were going out at about 11 o’clock with the children. Since our first complaint, we have not allowed the children to go out until after 12.

On the children behind the fence, on occasion the teachers will have a project where the children go on a treasure hunt, and they will go behind the fence and pick up some of the leaves, or whatever they can find. That is the only time that they are behind the fence. They are not allowed to play and run.

I am responsive to their request. Mrs. Sharkey did send a letter and I called and said if she would like to come over to the center and sit down and look at the outdoor schedule, we could adjust it. I am willing to do that. I heard what they were saying, but they did not respond to that call. Mrs. Sharkey said I never got that call.

Mr. Syfert said you are operating more than the five days a week that was originally proposed. Ms. Barnett answered on Sundays the church comes in for a couple of hours but it is not operating under the guise of Creative Kids World, if that is what you are asking, and that Saturday we open it up about once a month for tours.

Mr. Syfert asked who was responsible for the Sunday hours that the children are there. Ms. Barnett answered it is my church; I come in, open up the center and we use two or three of the rooms. We got the permission of GRC to do that.

Mr. Galster said so your Saturday hours are only open houses; no kids are coming in on a regular basis. What time are the church hours on Sunday? Ms. Barnett answered usually from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. It depends on how long the service goes, and from the time they are actually outside, now that is from 12 until 1 or 1:30. Mr. Galster said so 8 to 2 would pretty much cover it. And on Saturdays when you have an open house, what are the hours?. Ms. Barnett said they are tours scheduled from 11 to 1, and we don’t do them every month. There is one time I definitely remember that they are referring to when we had several parents come with children and they asked to watch the children play on the playground.

Mr. Galster asked their hours during the week, and Ms. Barnett answered 6:30 a.m. until 6 p.m.

Addressing the residents who were present, Mr. Galster asked if 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the week seemed about the time the center was open. From the audience, a resident responded during the week and weekends too. Saturday at 8 in the morning they are up at 8 o’clock and we hear the noise until at least 4 p.m. Sundays at 9 a.m. until the same time in the afternoon.






14 NOVEMBER 2000



Ms. Barnett stated I come to the center often on Saturdays to do paper work and because we have cameras in the center and on the playground, I often sit in my office and see children out on the playground. A lot of times I go back and tell them that the center is closed; I assume that they are neighborhood children and I tell them that there is nobody here and we don’t want you to get hurt and they run off. That might be what they hear on Saturdays, but the center is not open on Saturdays.

Mr. Okum asked if the camera was run all the time and if it was recorded, and Ms. Barnett indicated that it was just during center hours and there was no record.

Mr. Syfert said I will entertain a motion to table, but it is with the understanding that next month when you come back that the owner of the property is here.

From the audience, Larry Jenkins of 362 Naylor Court asked to make a comment regarding safety. I have been a resident for 25 years, and I have a real concern about the children that run outside the fenced in area. There is a holding pond that was built back there when the building was constructed and several times the residents have observed children outside the fence with the people who are supposed to be supervising the children standing over by the corner of the building chatting among themselves. It is not far to that retention pond and I am concerned that we will have an incident there with one of those kids getting in there following a rain, because that fills up like a pond. It is easily accessible once they are outside that fence.

All I am saying is if you table it fine, come back and consider it later, fine but at least let’s try to do something to reduce the risk to a child who could potentially run into the pond not even knowing it is there. From what I can tell, it is an easy access.

Mr. Huddleston said I would ask at the same that Ms. Barnett asks her landlord to come to the December meeting and be in a position to respond to this, you also review the conditions and operating hours of that permit and we get some response to your position. With that I will move to table for 30 days and Mr. Okum seconded the motion

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Item was tabled to December 12th meeting.

Mr. Syfert stated that for any final plan approval five affirmative votes are required, not a simple majority.











14 NOVEMBER 2000


    1. Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan Approval for Proposed Mike’s Car Wash and Quickstop Oillube, 1190 East Kemper Road

Tom Tepe, Attorney with Keating, Muething and Klekamp said with me are Bill and Mike Dahm, representatives of Mike’s Express Car Wash, Jeff Simmons, representative of Quickstop Oillube and Gary Murray and Rick Radabaugh from Paul I. Cripe, Inc. a architectural engineering firm.

Mr. Tepe said you have before you a request for preliminary development plan approval on a proposed PUD for the property on East Kemper Road, formerly a church. We are asking for the establishment of a Mike’s Car Wash as well as a Quiockstop Oillube. We believe all of the uses presented, the express car wash and oil lube are reasonable uses. If you look at the area as a whole, a car dealership is directly to the east. Furthermore the proposed PUD is consistent with the area as a whole, as the properties directly to the west are almost exclusively a PUD, we have Costco in the rear and we have a General Business District (the car dealership) to the east. Anne McBride, your City Planner determined that as well.

We believe all the issues that may have been raised by staff have been adequately addressed. There were some issues that staff believed were not addressed to the degree that they could have been, and I think Mr. Murray has addressed most if not all of those issues and it should be to the satisfaction of the staff and hopefully the commission.

In the event that there are issues that the staff or commission feels aren’t as specifically addressed as they should be, we would like you to know that this is a preliminarly plan review and most of such issues are final development plan issues. We will be back before you to address those.

In the Saturday’s Cincinnati Post the article is touting the type of operation that you will receive on East Kemper Road, an operation that is nationally known for its cleanliness and customer service. This is a first class operation and a tremendous asset to any community, and it is something that Mike’s has prided itself on.

Gary Murray said I have been working with Mike’s Car Wash for about 10 years. If this site is approved, it will be their 20th location. There are five in Fort Wayne and two in the Cincinnati area. Mike’s Car Wash is a 52-year-old firm, very established. There are some things that are still outstanding. Some of the signage was not finalized, which had to do with the two tenants on the property. Mike’s will own the entire property; the oil lube will be a tenant on the site, and we were trying to combine one monument sign and get the two owners of the property to work that out. That was finalized last Friday so we do have that this evening for you to look at.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Murray said one of the other issues was a sample board of colors. Both buildings will be constructed of this same color brick with the same brownish black metal roofline. We have pictures of two recent locations, which are both four bay self-serve car washes with an automatic tunnel. They do a first class job of landscaping.

One of the other issues that addresses the site plan and how it is laid out is the allocation of the parking and how much goes to which tenant. The two tenants have looked at the site plan; they both believe that customer service is the number one issue and don’t believe that, as its laid out it will impede the operation of their business or level of service.

They don’t need parking for their customers; they are either in the bays or they are waiting, so there is plenty of stacking area outside the oil lube to accommodate their customers and there is plenty of stacking for the car wash. There are nine parking spaces provided for employees. Both the car wash and oil lube use three personnel each per shift, so the two operators on the property believe that this will work for their needs.

We are the outlot setting in the southeast corner of the Costco. There will be a 17-foot retaining wall on the northeast corner to 0 at our northwest corner. We have proposed several retaining walls and are in discussion with their contractor using the same material so it is a homogeneous look. There are two customer parking spaces at the entrance to the Oillube, where a customer would walk in. There is plenty of customer stacking space to stack five cars outside and still have three inside. You have three stacking lanes that run almost the full length of the property to route people around through the automatic tunnel, and you have stacking spaces to go through the self-serve base.

Mr. Murray showed slides of other sites. This is the newest store that just opened in Indianapolis and this is relatively new plant material, but it shows you the extent they go to make their properties look good. They do all concrete and heat the concrete at the exits to make sure there is no ice buildup in the wintertime. There is an enclosed dumpster area made of the same brick with wooden gates. There is directional signage, which we will need to work out with staff. They are extremely clean; all the operators wear white shirts and ties. We are going to have a storage room and a dumpster enclosure of the same brick as the building.

We are asking for an oil lube. This is our first cooperative effort with Mr. Simmons. Mr. Dahm will be responsible for doing the landscaping to his standards. It will be maintained; they have it worked out in a lease agreement. We provided a joint access agreement with Costco that the Temple of Praise Church entered into with them, and gave Mr. McErlane a copy of that this evening.





14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the detention, that after talking to the consultant, it appears that there was a variance in the intensity that was used to calculate the different values for the detention. So, they are a little short in terms of what the preliminary plans indicate. Because of the existing elevations, it allows additional detention to be provided underground in the rear parking area, so that is something that can be worked out in detail plan.

There is a storm sewer that discharges into the ravine in the rear area from the area of the Costco site. How that bypasses the detention basin will have to be worked out so the release rate can be adjusted. Where the release structure is shown on the preliminary plan is not in alignment. Immediately downstream from this point is the detention basin, which is also underground for the Kemper Dodge facility. It is just a matter of aligning it so it is opposite that point.

On the access to Kemper Road, it was determined that the left exiting the driveway onto Kemper Road would not be a safe movement, given the amount of traffic on Kemper Road. Therefore the applicant is proposing to provide a raised concrete median within the driveway area to prohibit the left turn exiting, but allows left turns into the site from Kemper Road. In 2002 it is currently planned for that section of Kemper Road to be widened westbound with an additional lane, and as this is laid out on the preliminary plan, it is set back enough to accommodate that widening. There are additional details as to how to handle the area between where the raised concrete island is and the roadway.

There is a sidewalk in that area, and it will have to be maintained, so the alignment of the sidewalk will have to be worked out.

With the widening issue, the applicant has indicated that they are agreeable to dedicating an additional 11-foot width of right of way across the frontage to accommodate these improvements.

Apparently there was an access agreement executed between the original property owner and Costco, so that takes care of the issue of the applicant’s left turn exiting, which will be through the Costco site and out through Commons at the signal.

There are two retaining walls, one more adjacent to the east property line, and one is between the access drive and the staging area for the oil lube. The one more adjacent to the property line is at maximum height at about 11 feet. Therefore the next detailed submittal will need to have enough detail on the retaining walls to make sure they take into account any utilities that are in the area. Also a guardrail may be required. The applicant has indicated that they are supposed to be the same as that established around the Costco site to complement those walls. By the grading plan, it is indicated that to the north where you see the Costco right now, additional grading will take place so that it will be up against the existing wall that Costco has. Some of that grading work will be on Costco property and we will have to get written permission from the Costco owners to allow that to take place.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Syfert asked if these were just detail items to be tweaked around, and Mr. Shvegzda indicated that they were, adding that we need details on the driveway arrangement and some of the storm sewer issues and detention issues that can be worked out during final plan submittal.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Galster said when you say the widening in 2002 is accounted for and there is enough room, I am wondering if we are going to lose all this green space when that happens, or has that been accounted for without disrupting the space.

Mr. Murray answered you will be losing some grass area, but the plantings will still be there. We may have to move some further back. Mr. Galster wondered if it were possible to move it back and keep a lot of the green up there, and Mr. Murray answered I can’t speak to that aright now; we would have to look at it. There are certain vehicle turning movements that are necessary. Mr. Dahm is very particular in the way he likes to set up his sites. That is why we have all these walls. It all has to do with orientation and speed with getting customers through. He likes to do a first class wash as quickly as possible, and in order to do that you super elevate that turn and actually have your car nosing down to align onto the conveyor. As you come out of the building, your car automatically starts rolling out because of the grades. We can definitely look at that to try to mitigate the loss of green as much as possible.

Mr. Tepe added I was speaking with the representative of Mike’s. When this new dedication comes through and there is the work on the road, we would be willing to come back in with a revised landscaping plan to take into consideration that and to be approved by staff. Our landscaping is something we pride ourselves on and we have as much interest in this as you would to keep as much green as possible.

Mr. Galster commented should this move forward to final, I would request that the dimension of the 2002 expansion of Kemper Road be shown on the drawing so I can keep it in perspective.

Mr. Vanover wondered about containment or capture of grey water on the site. Mr. Shvegzda responded in terms of the car wash itself, I believe it is a self-contained system. Mr. Murray added it is a reclaim system where they reclaim the water, run it through an ionization process and it is filtered before it goes to the sanitary sewer system. They use all biodegradable products; they are not considered an industrial discharger.

Mr. Okum said the original topos show the existing grades to be between 674 and 675, and Kemper Road is running 675. The site stays pretty flat straight across Kemper Road. When I think of that site I think of the church being down a little bit.

Mr. Shvegzda answered that it is. There is a ravine in the back area, which will be filled up so the walls are needed around the east property line.


14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Okum said so you are saying that there would be walls against the property where Kiels is; how would they protect the trees that run along the eastern property line? There are some fairly mature trees along the property line.

Mr. Shvegzda answered they are showing the wall to be about eight feet off the property line. Mr. Murray added it is 5-8 feet, and we will attempt to keep the trees as much as possible, but they are not very good specimen trees. They are mature, but not good specimens. Mr. Okum commented they are not pretty, but they are green. We’ll get into tree replacement issues if there are some on that site, but the sunset maples are two inch caliper so it takes a long time for them to get to the size of the current trees that are being removed.

Mr. Huddleston said the applicant addressed this before, and I wanted to check this with him and Mr. Shvegzda. Concerning the stacking provisions, I don’t see anything here as a traffic plan. I see driveways, but my main concern is the possibility of entering either off McClellans Lane or the right turn in off westbound Kemper, that we might be backing traffic up from a car wash into the public right of way or the thoroughfares.

Mr. Shvegzda answered the stacking doesn’t take place until back within the site, at the far western end. Essentially the driveway has a full length without any curb cubs until you get to the rear most part of the property.

Mr. Dale reported that the property is zoned Residential Single Household Estate. Staff does concur that a map amendment to the PUD zone is consistent with the adjacent land uses and zoning and is appropriate.

I have a number of comments on site planning, landscaping and signage that I would like to run through. On the parking spaces, the zoning code would require nine parking spaces, and nine are provided. However, the requirements for the two uses are actually zero parking spaces for the car wash and nine spaces for the oil lube. Only two of those spaces are actually adjacent to the oil lube building itself. Seven of the spaces are located more adjacent to the car wash, so staff has a concern about the physical location of the parking spaces and whether or not there would be any problems created by that.

The site does comply with the open space requirement of 20%; in fact they are providing 24% of open space. The Zoning Code also requires a 75-foot setback from the adjoining property line and just over 50 feet is provided, so they are short. However, the adjoining property is another automotive related use, so staff doesn’t have a concern about the waiver of that setback.

The waste area is located in the upper left hand or northwest corner of the drawing and is 6’-8" tall enclosure with modular brick and brick accents on all four sides. Staff would like to see additional details on the gate at the final plan approval.


14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Dale stated that the stacking spaces themselves exceed the Zoning Code requirements. For the car wash, five stacking spaces are required and 11 are provided. For the self-service car wash, six spaces are required and 32 are provided.

A free standing sign is being proposed, although depending on whether the site plan is used or the landscaping plan is being used, the location is not clear, and needs to be clarified. The sign meets the 100 foot requirement for area; they are providing 85 square feet, but it would exceed the height requirement of 7 feet (they are proposing 10’-3") Details have not been submitted for the sign materials (we were handed some materials this evening and will review that).

There is a detail for on building signage for the Quickstop and they are showing signage on all four elevations. Staff questions the need for signage on the north and west elevations, since they wouldn’t be visible from the street.

There wasn’t enough information on the Mike’s Car Wash signage to evaluate what is being proposed. More information was submitted tonight, which we will review.

We are suggesting if the Commission wants to recommend approval of this that the on building signage for the car wash not be included as part of that, since we need additional detail. The same thing is true for the directional signs. There are a lot shown here and it is not clear where they are being proposed or what a lot of the sizes are, so we would request that any potential approval not include the directional signage.

The lighting is another area where we would like to see more information and have some more discussion. Ms. McBride’s perception is that the Mike’s site she looked at was overlit and has concerns about how much lighting would be provided. She would like to conduct some additional review of that issue. So, we would suggest that it not be approved as part of the concept at this time.

On the landscaping the comments that staff had have all been addressed with the exception of adding another red sunset maple to the East Kemper Road frontage to provide the 50-foot on center spacing. Other than that, the landscaping has been addressed.

The building elevations look fine; they have provided the materials, modular brick with brick trim on all four facades, and they are showing the roof system and the HVAC equipment to be screened from view. They have provided samples tonight, and the Commission might want to consider that. We did not have the samples prior to this evening.

No covenants have been submitted, but the applicant has agreed to submit those covenants and items that should be included include the common area maintenance, permitted land uses, future land uses, outdoor storage and display of goods, etc.





14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Dale added there are comments that staff had that are related to what was obsersved on other of Mike’s sites. That is that the Commission should be clear in communicating that any painting of building windows would be considered to be signage and should not be permitted. That needs to be made clear as part of any approval. Also, apparently there is the practice of displaying a lot of outdoor stuffed animals, and the concern is that this not be allowed to occur here.

There is a pattern that they put the Mike’s logo and sign on everything from trash compactors to directional signs, and we should be clear that those would be considered as signs and would not be permitted.

Staff has summarized 11 different potential considerations, largely related to what we just discussed.

Mr. Okum said in the comments, Ms. McBride referred to the use of neon on the site. Mr. Dale answered it is not clear from the sign package up until tonight what was being proposed. Anne did suggest that we add that as one of the considerations, that the use of any neon not be permitted on the site.

Mr. Galster said I drove by the Ohio Pike facility, all the open signs in this package are the neon, and there were a lot of directional or menu type signs. The thing that jumped out at me the most was the lighting; that place is lit up brighter than most of the car dealerships that are there. I agree with the comments concerning the signage. We understand that signage is an important part of your business, but a lot of the secondary type signs seem to add up and add up and add up.

The lighting needs to be addressed. I have a question on the surface. You say it has brick accents but it has a brick block general construction. Mr. Murray said it is a block wall with brick fascia. It will be identical to the Ohio Pike facility. Mr. Galster said the facility was extremely clean and a very nice attractive building.

Mr. Syfert commented that a number of the concerns dealt with the signs and lighting.

Mr. Murray answered we think we have addressed the lighting concerns. What we have submitted is drastically less than the facility we just built. We have drastically reduced the amount of lighting based on the first comment letter. In staff’s defense, our original submittal didn’t have one and our follow up submittal did so there was no comparison drawn to the two sites. Based on that, we have directed our consultants to lower the light levels to be more consistent with the area. Whether or not that will satisfy all concerns, we will have to work through that. I know we have tried to keep the lighting at the property line at a one foot candle limit, which is the light intensity of a full moon. That is what would spill over. I know we have tried to reduce the brightness of the internal lighting and we’ll try to cut down on any glare.


14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Murray added we believe that is an issue that can be worked out. If you’ll look at your site plan, one of the reasons why there is that bump in the parking spaces is to maximize green space. We could have put all the parking in front of the oil lube. In order to assist the customers in getting the wheels lined up on the conveyor, we try to keep the distance at 70 feet, and that is what bumps us out so far. Because we are out that far, we try to maximize the green space and put parking on the other side. We think that works better.

On building signage, I think we can work through that. Our intent is to meet the ordinance for building signage, the overall square footage. We think what we have submitted meets the intent of the ordinance, and if we have to work through that, what we are asking for is the monument sign, which is under the square footage allowed but would be a little higher than allowed. We want to put the brick accent down below to match the building. On the directional signage, we think we can work through that, and we’ll have to talk about the menu board and see how that goes. Like a drive through, you need a menu to order what you are doing. We might be able to cut down the number; it’s another thing we can work through with staff to minimize that. They pride themselves on speed and being able to get through and on and off the site in about three minutes. You have seen the menu and the prices so when the attendant comes out to the car, you pay your money and go right into the tunnel. It helps speed it up and provide quality service to the customer. We can take some of the Mike’s logos off the trashcans if that is what is required.

On the covenants, we have put in writing to staff some of the issues we are willing to do. The attorney is here to talk about how to get that done. Also, we have committed to putting the sunset maple in.

Mr. Galster said the lighting fixtures themselves are awfully glaring. Mr. Murray answered I talked to the lighting consultant, and there is a new flat lens that cuts down the glare. We feel we can work that out with staff. Mr. Galster added we don’t want to be blinding people on Kemper Road. Mr. Murray said we have the one-foot candle limit at the property line and inside the site itself there is some glare, but the new flat lens will cut down on that. Mr. Galster responded I don’t know if it is Ohio Pike or not, but I can tell you that the residences behind that place are lit up.

Mr. Galster asked if the material for the Quick Stop building matched the Mike’s building, and Mr. Murray indicated that it was, adding that the signage is a little different in coloration, but it is part of the lease agreement that the buildings match.

Mr. McErlane said the other two consultants gave most of my comments. We did talk about the fact that we did not have covenants, and Mr. Dale recommended a few relative to uses. Obviously we would want to tie down any future automotive uses on the property relative to intensity. For example, we might want to restrict muffler repair or something a little noisier or more intense of a use.


14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. McErlane reported that there was no tree removal plan submitted. There are trees immediately east of the site, and I’m not sure if they are on this property or on the adjacent property. If they are on the adjacent property, it looks as though they probably will be impacted by the work they are doing. I don’t know how we address that. Typically you look at a protection zone of at least a foot for every inch of caliper in diameter, so if we are looking at 12 to 18 inch diameter trees, we are looking at a 12 to 18 foot protection zone. If these are on your property, they need to be taken into consideration with respect to what you are replanting. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires you to replant based don what you are taking out. So, we will need that summarized, as well as the location

We got the information on the color pallet tonight. We talked about the peripheral setbacks for PUD being 75 feet, but because you are adjacent to commercial properties it shouldn’t be a concern.

In the PUD section of the code, it indicates that a PUD property should be more than three acres unless there is some unique circumstance or development occurring. The alternatives to a PUD zoning on this property would be either Motor Service which is not consistent with contiguous property or General Business which is what the zoning is on the property to the east of this. The problem with the General Business zoning is that it doesn’t allow automotive repair service, and car washes are conditional uses in those districts. The applicant probably can expand on how his development is unique and should be a PUD.

On the signs, Ms. McBride recommended that if we are to approve signs it should only include the ground sign. I think the applicant has given that as a concession in lieu of a pylon sign. It does exceed the 7 feet in height, but it is only 10’-3".

Of the sign package that we could determine size, square footage and location, there are directional signs shown at nine square feet and over four feet in height. We can look at those at final plan stage.

Their car wash building is permitted 204.5 square feet and the oil lube facility is permitted 129 s.f.

Mr. Okum asked the acreage of this site, and Mr. Dahm answered 2.08 acres. Mr. Okum asked the acreage of the Ohio Pike site and Mr. Dahm answered that it is 1.2 acres Mr. McErlane stated that site only has a car wash on it.

Mr. Galster wondered if this needed to go through a separate zoning change? IF there is a preliminary plan approval for a PUD referred to Council, is there another process to convert it from the single family zoning first? Mr. McErlane answered no, adding that part of a map amendment for PUD includes approval of the preliminary plan as well. It happens concurrently.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Huddleston said we required Costco to relocate service bays away from the front elevation, and here we will have eight garage doors facing Kemper Road. What thought has been given to rotating these buildings on the site to give us an elevation rather than the garage doors?

Mr. Murray responded the bays are open with no garage doors. We were not aware of that recommendation for Costco, so we haven’t looked at that. From a traffic flow and stacking standpoint, this is the best way out. Mr. Huddleston commented I don’t know the answer to this, but it certainly could affect my decision and approval of this.

Mr. Okum said I visited Ohio Pike and you had 21 triple headed lights, and 14 double headed. They also had 12 lights in the front that were triple lights and six doubles. I have concerns about the overhead doors facing Kemper Road. We did require that of the Costco development, and have encouraged that along the Kemper Road corridor and in other areas of the city. I do have concerns about overlighting of the site, and the applicant has indicated that they are willing to work with us on that.

I also have difficulty with window signage. The covenants should reflect all lit or non-lit neon if it is ultimately approved, or if there is a light bar around the building that it be all lit or not lit at all times. On the Ohio Pike site I observed the self-serve bays had light packs on the walls above the walk. If those bays are gong to be lit, I would rather see them downlit from the ceiling instead of the walls, because they do cause a glare to the motoring traffic. We need to make sure the oil lube portion of this site is part of the PUD and that they are included in the covenants as one site with the landscaping maintenance, building materials etc. All lighting should be non-glare to the motoring public; I would like to see a zero bleed onto adjoining properties and the public right of way.

The eight bays facing Kemper Road are very important to the working dynamics of the site, but I’m not overly happy about it and have some difficulty with it and I think you need to prove to us that it is an enhancement to Kemper Road. Kemper Dodge right next door to you has all their bays and services are on the sides and back. Costco, also adjacent to you has no service bays facing Kemper Road. Unfortunately Sam’s Club came in a little earlier, but their service bays are well below the public right of way and out of the line of sight.

If the oil change business should not be successful and vacate, I am concerned about what that might turn into. We now have a vacant oil change business in front of Wal-Mart. I am not excited about the possibility of another empty business setting on that site five years from now.






14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Okum added I have no problem whatsoever with the ground sign. I would give the latitude to the applicant to go to the height they requested, but I do have concerns about the oversignage and identifications on everything on the site, including trashcans, dumpster corrals and so forth.

Tom Tepe said we agree with the covenants that have been proposed and the details can be worked out with Mr. Schneider.

The site is unique, in that we are somewhat constrained. We are a little smaller than what is required under the PUD. As a result of that, we are also constrained as to the orientation of the building on the property. We front Kemper Road and we front McClellans Lane and also have a large retailer behind us as well as a large retailer (automobile dealership) to the east of us. I believe if you look at the plans, we have maximized to the greatest possible extent this site, maintaining an abundance of the green space requirement (24%). We also have agreed to an additional tree which we think will somewhat mitigate the view of the bays facing Kemper Road.

There seems to be somewhat of a lighting issue. We have no problem with bringing in our lighting expert and having him rework the numbers and submitting that to you and having discussions with staff to make sure everyone is happy with what is proposed. Every site is different; every government entity is different, and we certainly want to do what is in the best interest of this community.

Mr. Galster said in reference to the bays facing Kemper Road, and if in fact that is a major issue that would cause favorable or unfavorable vote on the plan, I wonder if it shouldn’t be addressed prior to its going to City Council for approval of the PUD. I would say that this would be a sticking point for a number of us.

Mr. Murray answered if you will look at your site plan, the way it is laid out and the parking spaces in front of the four open bays, we would be agreeable to planting some trees in there that would mitigate the view of those bays from the street. We have some lower shrubs.

Mr. Galster said the planting that goes out in front of those bays doesn’t help me when I am driving up and down this road. Mr. Murray responded that is lower plantings; we would propose higher plantings and trees. Mr. Galster said even if you planted those trees directly in front of those bays, I’d see those bays. Mr. Murray said that would be McClellans Lane, a vacated street from that view. That is a view from the side. Mr. Galster said my point is I know you have to light those bays so that people will be able to see what they are doing, and those bays will shine not only right in front of the opening, but up and down. Mr. Murray responded I agree, but that is another corner location. The Ohio Pike location is on the corner, and that picture was not taken from Ohio Pike. Mr. Galster said I am just saying is that picture is similar to what we would have driving down Kemper Road, and if you plant trees right in front of it, when I am right in front of the bays I won’t see them, but leading up to them and going away I would.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Murray responded we don’t want to block all our signage either by putting full height trees there, but I believe there is some room for planting.

Mr. Galster asked if they had considered turning the building, and Mr. Murray answered the site is not wide enough. We need 70 feet to enter the building and 130 foot tunnel and we need 50-60 feet at the end. Our site simply is not wide enough to accommodate that, nor do we get to maximize the amount of stacking to keep the people off the public right of ways.

Mr. Bill Dahm, President of Mike’s Car Wash said these bays have to be oriented so customers feel safe and we know from experience that they have to be oriented towards the street. I also want to say that we are sticklers on housekeeping. If you go by either of our two sites everything is immaculately clean. WE have great landscaping, brick and metal so this isn’t a real unsightly situation. I am not denying that they are bays. A bay is a bay, but these are not dirty open doors with trash laying around. It is a very clean environment and unfortunately to make our investment work here, we need this additional profit center. These bays are open longer hours than our tunnel. We open our tunnel from 7 in the morning until 9 at night. Without these bays that are open all the time, we can’t make our numbers work. Where we might be given some consideration is the material, which is the brick and metal. We will put landscaping in front of the bays, big trees 10-12 feet high and with our immaculate housekeeping, I think it might be acceptable.

Mr. Murray added we do mound the area between where you line up in queue to get into the automatic bay and the parking area. That is mounded four feet in this picture, so if we mound that and put some higher plant material in there, it would help screen that view from Kemper Road.

Mr. Galster asked if the insides of the bays were painted white and Mr. Dahm answered that they were, and Mr. Galster asked if it was available in any other colors. Mr. Dahm answered that it was, and they could look at other colors. We’ve always felt that white denoted cleanliness, but if it would help we would be glad to work with the staff and come up a color that is more complementary.

Mr. Okum said I think that island is fairly small to get anything higher than four feet. You might be able to get five feet and mix in some heavier environmental plantings, something more screening oriented on the drive through self-service bays. Adding some evergreens on the corners might help also. Earlier when Mr. Galster suggested moving the building back 11 feet, I was going to suggest shifting it back 5’-6". I know you need your lineup, but 5’-6" is relatively small. Instead of leaving the public right of way area and the grassy area along Kemper Road flat, treat that with a variation of mounding and elevation changes along that as well. I would say 99% of the people going along Kemper Road are driving, and if you get it up mounded along Kemper Road it might help with blocking that view. We don’t want to see eight garage doors across the front.


14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Murray said here’s another view (photograph) in which it is mounded up, you change the plant material and you have something. Mr. Okum commented I think the landscaping on this, although it is new, is somewhat sparser than what I saw on Ohio Pike.

Mr. Dahm said I don’t disagree with a thing you have said. Another five feet would give you room to do mounding, not only on the street, but in the grounds. We certainly would be willing to work with you on all those suggestions.

Mr. Syfert said getting back to Steve’s question as to whether this is an issue, have we resolved that to an extent? Commission members agreed.

Mr. Huddleston said I recognize the gentleman runs a very successful business and I respect that. On the other hand, I have a difficult time with 7, 8 or 9 service bays facing Kemper Road. I think some of the suggestions, which were brought forth here tonight, would probably work very well to soften the criticism I had, especially the open-air bays. I think if those comments are incorporated in any motion that is made, I would view this much more favorably.

Mr. Syfert said aren’t there only four bays? Mr. Murray answered there are four open air bays, 1 tunnel and 3 oil lube bays. Four would have doors to them and four would be open.

Mr. Galster asked about the oil lube building being turned, and Mr. Dahm answered we would have no room to get in and out of the building. With your concerns about our bays being open, our facility is not your typical repair garage. It is a retail area and is kept clean and simple and uncluttered. Mr. Murray added there is a landscaped area that comes out that they have to come up and around, and we could look at that and maybe move them that five feet back and widen that out to give us more mounding space there. That would go a long way to screening two of the doors. In order to get the exiting movement, unfortunately there is not a lot we can do. It is a pull through service, which allows people to stack on the backside which would not be viewed from Kemper and which we thought was a better solution.

Mr. Galster commented your car wash building is actually blocking a lot of its view as well. Some consideration might be given to backing that building back even a little further to try to mitigate that.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant had indicated that he would be willing to set the building back a little due to the dedication of the right of way. Mr. Dahm answered we can move it back five feet.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the preliminary plan. This approval includes:

    1. Comments and recommendations by city planner, city engineer and building official;


      14 NOVEMBER 2000



    3. That it include the covenant restrictions set forth in the recommendations and approved by the law director;
    4. The plan is approved with the following conditions:
    1. No signage except for the ground sign is part of that consideration;
    2. Location to be approved by Planning Commission at final approval;
    3. No outdoor lighting;
    4. No window signage;
    5. Oil Lube shall be part of the PUD, including all landscaping, building materials and maintenance;
    6. The 8 bays on Kemper Road shall be screened from the public right of way by mounding and landscaping subject to approval by Planning Commission and the City Planner;
    7. Building setback shall be 5’-6" further back from what was proposed to accommodate the dedication of 11 feet of right of way;
    8. City staff comments regarding future uses on the site shall be part of the covenants.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Dale said I have a question. Are all of the considerations incorporated in that motion, and some you reinforced in the motion. Mr. Okum confirmed this.

Mr. Tepe said for clarification with regard to not including the signage or lighting plan within this approval, I would like to have it noted that we will come back with a lighting and signage plan to be approved at a later date. Mr. Okum stated it is part of the final plan review. Mr. Syfert added only the ground sign has been approved in this motion. Mr. Okum added and the location of that ground sign is not set.

Mr. Whitaker said I would recommend no signage at all, since we don’t know what landscaping is going to be around that ground sign.

Mr. Okum said I think we have come pretty far with the applicant in regards to the site. The other sites they have do have pole signs and the applicant has shown their willingness to work with the City and provided a ground mounted sign, which we directed and encouraged. Since we have landscaping approval on the site, and will have final landscaping approval on the final plan, I think we can address that at that time, especially since we have approval of the location of the sign at the final plan approval. That is the only reason I incorporated it into the motion.

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







14 NOVEMBER 2000


Planning Commission took a recess at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.

    1. Development Plan Approval of Steak n Shake, 11470 Princeton Pike
    2. Joe Chambers, Senior Construction Project Manager of Steak n Shake said our request is for a relatively straightforward remodel of the restaurant. We would like to add 12 feet to the front or south side of our building, which would be all dining room space. We also would like to add an exterior walk in cooler and freezer unit to free up some additional floor space in the kitchen area. We also want to enlarge our restrooms to make them ADA compatible and give us more restroom facility.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the property is currently zoned GB and is used as a restaurant. Although it could very easily be confused as being part of Cassinelli Square, it is a separate piece of property with access easements in and out off Cassinelli Square property.

      The property is currently non-conforming from the standpoint of the setback from the east; the rear setback to the building is less than the 30 feet required. Under the newest zoning code, a drive through restaurant is required to have a Conditional Use Permit for the drive through portion. This existed prior to that requirement in the code.

      Setbacks are 82 feet from the front and the required is 50 feet. They are proposing to remain at the 82 feet. South side setback is 85 feet and they are required 12 feet and are proposing 75 feet. That would be the section that is being expanded for dining room. On the north side, the existing setback is 120 feet and the required is 12 feet. They are proposing 113, and that would be the side they are proposing the expansion for the walk in cooler walk in boxes. The rear east setback is currently 19 feet. The required is 30 feet, and they are reducing it to 15 feet because of some wing walls that they are building on the new expanded front, where the front door is located.

      Parking is shown at 47 spaces and 43 are required. As discussed by the City Planner, in the future there may be a loss of at least one or two spaces due to maneuvering clearances that are required to get to use a few of the parking spaces.

      There will be a variance required for the rear yard setback, the reduction to 15 feet, but even if there was no reduction to 15 feet, the expansion of that 19-foot setback would require a setback variance.

      Mr. Dale reported they are exceeding the number of parking spaces that are required. There is one space on the site plan immediately north of the building, where we have some concern about the southeastern single parking space and the ability to maneuver in and out of it. Given the fact that they are exceeding the required number of parking spaces, we suggest that be curbed and landscaped to give a little more green space on the site.



      14 NOVEMBER 2000



      Mr. Dale added there is also a grease dumpster on the north property line that is not screened, and we would suggest that be relocated in conformances with the Zoning Code.

      Five stacking spaces are required for the drive through window and it appears that there is space to accommodate four stacking spaces. We would suggest that the applicant request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

      Signage does not appear to be an issue. There was no new signage information issued, so we are assuming that there will be no changes in the signs that exist.

      We are suggesting some additional low-level plant material around the area adjacent to the menu board. We are suggesting that the chip marble be considered for landscaping. We also suggest that the gold mound spyaria designated on the southeast corner of the building be planted at 24 inches rather than the 15 inches proposed on the plan. Landscape material is indicated on the east corner of the building elevation. That is essentially where that wing wall is and it’s not clear from the plans where the concrete walk ends and where the landscaping bed begins, and the existing plant material which is designated to remain should be identified.

      On lighting, it appears that there are no changes proposed to the lighting plan. On the building elevations, the white marble being passed around is the material on the southern addition only (the new seating area). The northern addition would actually be a stucco embossed aluminum in a white color.

      We are suggesting that the variance would need to be obtained on the setback and on the stacking spaces, that a landscape plan be prepared pursuant to this report and that the parking space adjacent to the north elevation of the building be eliminated and the area curbed and landscaped.

      Mr. Chambers said we don’t have a problem at all with eliminating that one parking space; that’s a good idea. We were surprised at the comment about the stacking spaces, because that is what we have currently. We are proposing to upgrades the menu board and put it in the same place so we wouldn’t change the stacking spaces.

      On the wing walls, we want to upgrade this restaurant to look like our newer style restaurants that we are building now, and that necessitates the addition of the wing walls. They are strictly decorative, and if that involves an encroachment on the existing variance or setback variance, that is something we will have to consider, but we certainly would like to try to minimize the time to start the project. If we have to go before BZA, that would increase the amount of time for development. Mr. Syfert stated BZA meets next Tuesday night and if approved, you will be referred to t hem.




      14 NOVEMBER 2000



      Mr. Chambers said we want to add the wing walls from an image and consistency standpoint with the other restaurants we are building in the area. It is something we would like to try to do.

      There was a question about the white embossed aluminum skin on the walk in freezer and cooler and I don’t have a sample from the manufacturer. It is very typical outdoor freezer cooler unit, and the white would match our building. It is an embossed material so it won’t easily wrinkle or dent or show any wear.

      We would be glad to work with staff in terms of mulching material. There was some comment about the white marble, which is our standard in our restaurants. We use black lava rock and white marble chips immediately around our building for mulch, and around the perimeter we use shredded bark and hardwood. We certainly are open for discussion on that. That’s not a major issue; in fact, we have been looking at a material that is recycled automobile tires, which comes in various colors.

      Mr. Okum asked Mr. Dale if he were recommending that the white marble be changed into landscaping area such as grass or some material other than marble. Mr. Dale responded what Anne had in mind was some sort of low level landscaping, something more than grass. Mr. Chambers stated we would be glad to upgrade the landscaping to satisfy staff. You recommended increasing from 15 to 24 inches on the spyrarea; that is fine, and we would landscape around the menu board. The new menu board is slightly wider (about one foot) and is lower, but the area is essentially the same.

      Mr. Okum asked if the awnings would be removed, and Mr. Chambers answered that the awnings would be renewed. Those awnings will come down and new black and white stripe awnings will be put up. Mr. Okum asked if the awnings would be illuminated and Mr. Chambers responded that they would be internally lit, translucent. It would be the same as is currently there; we are just changing the material but there is no additional translucency. There would be the same amount of light as what we have. Mr. Okum asked if they were relighting anything on the facility and Mr. Chambers answered they would be putting new lamps in under the awnings, but nothing to the parking lot lighting. Mr. Okum asked if the color of the EIFS on the building was the color he had submitted, and Mr. Chambers confirmed that it was.

      Mr. Okum said I do have some difficulty with your new walk in box being a part of your building and not part of your building. I know this might be a hardship to you in some ways, but would you have any problem carrying this across with the same architectural characteristic that you have on your building? Mr. Chambers answered there is a problem putting that material on the box . It would really take adding foundation and building a wall around that box.





      14 NOVEMBER 2000



      Mr. Okum said I understand, but you have to understand that what everybody is going to see when they drive down S.R. 747 is a

      white porcelainized walk in box on the back of the building. It will

      be a refrigeration box setting on your building. Mr. Chambers answered it is white like the building and has one door in it visible from the outside. Mr. Okum responded I understand, but we had the same thing happen with White Castle. It is white like the building too and is an eyesore. I don’t know how we will address it if there is no break to it. We have the exact same thing on another business that we missed when we reviewed, and I can’t in good conscience allow that to occur. This is an architectural part of your building; you are putting a very nice front on the building and a walk in box on the street side of your building and you are not treating that architecturally in any way. We are allowing an additional increase in seating; we are allowing the improvements on the site and we want you to be successful, but we have to think architecturally, of all the materials on the building being complementary.

      Mr. Chambers responded we certainly will be glad to see what we can do. Right now I am at a loss to come up with an alternative, other than build a wall around it. We can investigate that, talk to the manufacturer and see if there is some way we can adhere the brick to it with some assurance that it will

      Mr. Okum said I have to look at this as one plan, and I’d like to vote in favor of it, but I don’t know how we are going to get to that point tonight if you can’t make a commitment to treat that the same way architecturally as you are treating the rest of the building. Mr. Chambers said could we make it a part of the approval and try to come up with something that the staff would agree to.

      Mr. Dale said there is another space adjacent to that and also additional space around the menu and that area. An option might be heavier landscaping around there, essentially around the corner. They have more parking spaces than is required by the code, and they could lose another space, which doesn’t look convenient to get in and out of. In addition to that around the corner from the menu board, if you combine those areas there is an opportunity for a substantial landscaped area.

      Mr. Chambers said I agree. Mr. Okum said so your suggestion would be to carry landscaping around and vacate the spot behind the menu board.

      Mr. Huddleston said I had the same concern on the box. I would suggest we make it a condition of the approval. If the rest of the board is satisfied that landscaping would do it, I can go along with that, but they could always build it as a building addition and put a box inside. What they are proposing is a freestanding panelized addition with a shed roof. I don’t like the shed roof on it either. My point is that the applicant could choose to do this out of the building materials and they could put a freezer inside the building. We could make it a condition of the approval. They are proposing a freestanding freezer-cooler.



      14 NOVEMBER 2000



      Mr. Galster said looking at those same parking spaces, if you take the second row of parking with four spaces and you turn those and park them facing the old cinema, you open up a lot of area for landscaping behind that box. You could eliminate all those spaces where you have to drive through one space to get to the others. Mr. Chambers responded we felt this would strictly be employee parking, managers and staff. Mr. Galster continued right now we are going to miss two or three of those parking spaces. I’m not saying you couldn’t put five if you turned them the other way, and you would have a quite large area from the menu board curb area all the way back to in front of the box.

      Mr. Okum said I am still not convinced that landscaping would change the freezer unit on the outside of the building into an architectural feature. And I agree with Mr. Galster that if you vacate all those spots back there, you could put the tall dense evergreen back there, but you would need a lot of it. Mr. Chambers commented it would be a whole lot cheaper than building a wall around it.

      Mr. Vanover said I would like to see the mechanical units, usually on the rooftop screened. Mr. Chambers answered they will be ground mounted with landscaping. The main reason is in Ohio if you mount it closer than 10 feet to the edge of the roof, you have to put a wall or handrail around it and you can’t do that on one of the walk in units.

      Mr. Huddleston said the applicant also had a comment on the elevations, "existing black aggregate panels paint white typical". Are you going to paint all of those white? Mr. Chambers answered the two on the existing front of the building will be removed and all the rest will be painted white, so the entire building will be white, with the black and white awnings.

      Mr. Huddleston said I agree with Mr. Vanover about screening the mechanicals. If the mechanicals are ground mounted, they are not indicated on here where they will be. I would prefer to see this freezer cooler addition done as a building addition with the boxes inside rather than outside.

      Addressing Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Syfert said I think what you are saying is that you don’t want to use any vegetation back on the box. Mr. Huddleston responded the vegetation would hide the hood work to conceal the panel materials, but that’s not going to conceal the shed roof and everything else that looks like a tack on shed addition to this building.

      Mr. Okum said I have no problem with the front portion of the renovation, if we include the staff comments, but I have to consider the walk in freezer an addition. I certainly don’t think that is architecturally tied to the building in any way, and unless the applicant has any other solution, I would be inclined to make a motion to approve everything but the walk in cooler. The rest of the members agreed with this.


      14 NOVEMBER 2000



      Mr. Chambers said we will have to look at it. I am not in a position tonight to say we will build an additional addition to the building to house the walk in freezer and cooler. I am also not in a position to say we will not do the freezer and cooler, because what we have inside the building is quite a bit smaller and older.

      Mr. Syfert said at the applicant’s request, we could table this until next month. I think you have heard our major concerns; although everyone didn’t express it, I saw the heads nod.

      Mr. Chambers the other option would be approval with the exception of the walk in cooler and would give us the opportunity to make that decision while the project goes forward. I have to go to the BZA for the zoning variance.

      Mr. Huddleston said I would be willing to make the motion for approval of the plan as submitted and recommend the variances to BZA subject to the freezer-cooler building being deleted or added as a building addition with an inside box. That way they can proceed if they choose to through BZA, and if they choose to go with a freezer-cooler building they can do it as a building addition with matching elevations, height materials etc.

      Mr. Chambers said that sounds like our only two options. Mr. Syfert said it sounds like a good way to keep the project rolling, and you always have the opportunity to come back.

      Mr. Huddleston said I will move subject to the recommendations of the staff to recommend approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals and with the provision that the freezer-cooler addition be incorporated only as a building addition with matching elevations and height and materials with an inside box rather than an outside shed box. Also I would include the provision that all mechanicals whether roof mounted or ground mounted be screened. Mr. Okum seconded the motion,.

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

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said this would automatically go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which meets next Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. You will automatically be on the agenda.

    3. Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan Approval for Proposed Renovation to Springdale Plaza, 459 East Kemper Road

Paul Guigino, of Paragon Consultants, Representative of the developer who purchased Springdale Plaza said our intention is the complete renovation of the center. It is quite an eyesore at the moment. We have had numerous meetings with staff and have addressed many of their issues. We are taking about five trees and coming in with hundreds, we will redo all the parking lot, the parking lot lighting, the signage and we will be taking down the existing eyesore, which housed the old Steinberg Store and Pharmor.


14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Guigino added we would build a Bed Bath & Beyond, DSW Shoe Warehouse, an upscale shoe seller and a new Circuit City. We also are proposing major renovations to the existing center, all new canopies, and all new drivitt across the faces of the building. We will be carrying the architectural scheme to the rear. We will be screening all the unsightly dumpsters that we see there now and we also are proposing in the front portion of the building on Kemper to add some additional retail. Overall we will be reducing the amount of square footage, around 13,000 s.f.

We have addressed the detention, landscaping, and traffic movement issues. We have engineers and landscaping architects here to field any questions. Colors and materials have been submitted.

The elevations will step down and eliminate that exposed foundation. The parking lot will be changed to a gentle slope up from Tri-County Parkway. We worked with the City on the right of way for the road widening along Kemper Road. We believe this will be an exciting addition to Springdale. We have a powerful developer who will manage and maintain a first class center.

Mr. McErlane reported that the zoning is GB, General Business and is being used as a retail shopping center, and that is the proposed use. However, the applicant is currently requesting a map amendment to PUD and approval of a preliminary plan.

Only the covenants have not been submitted and there are some recommendations by the city planner and myself relative to limitations on possibly some uses, like drive through restaurants which would create some problems in terms of internal circulation as well as outdoor storage and display of items. We are suggesting that outdoor storage and display be limited to sidewalk sales and tent sales as regulated by the zoning code.

There is a total new sign package for the site. They are proposing a pylon sign 30 feet in height and 269 ½ square feet in area at the corner of East Kemper and Tri-County Parkway. The ground sign would be 7 feet high and 62 square feet in area at the southernmost entrance drive on Tri-County Parkway. In terms of building signs, there are a numbers of signs that identify the center that are shown as an ess type logo, with which we as the city staff don’t have a problem.

To summarize what the major tenants have, Circuit City has 530.4 square feet and their allowable is 426.4. Designer Shoe Warehouse has 325.8 square feet and their allowable is 238 square feet. Bed Bath & Beyond has 590.2 square feet, and their allowable is 265 square feet, and Michael’s has 411.4 square feet and their allowable is 275 square feet.







14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. McErlane added with respect to the major tenants and freestanding signs, our recommendation is that Planning Commission consider those. On the smaller tenant signs, we recommend that Planning consider compliance with the zoning code requirements, and not consider those as part of the approval of the center tonight. The signs that exist there today are permitted signs, so there shouldn’t be any problems with that.

There are a few deviations from the zoning code requirements; the peripheral setback to adjacent property is less than 75 feet on the west side directly adjacent to Bed Bath & Beyond. It is in the neighborhood of 65 feet. Parking setbacks are less than 10 feet along Tri-County Parkway. They are shown at about 5 ½ feet. The impervious surface ratio exceeds 75%, which is the requirement of the underlying GB Zoning District; they are at 84%. All the major tenant wall signs exceed 150 square feet, but in the past Planning Commission has taken the size of the development and the size of the stores into account for larger developments.

The total allowable sign area for each of the major tenants exceeds what is permitted by code. The pylon sign exceeds 50 square feet and 25 feet in height, but it does not exceed what is currently there today under a variance. In the covenants, In addition to display and storage, we also suggest that we have a restriction on automobile repair uses and maintenance responsibility for landscaping and the detention basin.

Mr. McErlane added that the current pylon sign is 32 ½ feet high and 290 s.f. in area, and the sign will be moved back out of the right of way due to the road widening. Mr. Okum asked if it were elevated somewhat and Mr. Guigino answered it is at the parking lot level, which is higher than the sidewalk level. Mr. Okum continued I know our existing sign is 32 feet and your proposal is 30 feet. I get stiff necked looking up at signage, and with it already on an elevated plateau, had you considered bringing it down a little bit? The driving public doesn’t need to look up; they need to look straight ahead, and as long as they can see it above the truck in front of them, they will see it. Mr. Guigino responded we can entertain looking at that.

Mr. Shvegzda reported they looked at the theoretical traffic for the proposed versus the actual traffic for the existing site, and they were about the same, using the square footages and uses. However there probably would be an increase in traffic over what is at the site because there are a number of empty buildings there now. With that in mind, there were not any modifications required of the Tri-County Parkway and Kemper Road intersection.

However, we looked at the history of traffic accidents that occurred at the unsignalized intersection along Kemper Road, midway between S.R. 747 and Tri-County Parkway. We recommend that a raised concrete island be placed in the drive, which is a common drive between the proposed development and Cassinelli Squared to prevent left turns out of and eventually through traffic between this site and Tri-Countly Mall.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Shvegzda added that on the cross connection between this site and the Cassinelli site, the alignment is such that coming around the building you head east-west, then turn north-south, and you have to make a 180 degree turn to turn right into the common drive to head north out to Kemper Road. That movement can’t be made unless you are turning into the opposing traffic on the common drive. Therefore, we would recommend a second right turn only connection out to the common drive which would be immediately opposite the aisleway that’s the east west on the north side of the proposed building. As part of the provision to prevent the left turns in and out of that drive that raised concrete median would be extended back.

On the southernmost driveway in Tri-County Parkway, the original driveway alignment had brought it out opposite the drive that is in the vicinity of Lowe’s. In producing enough of a curvature to bring it back in fairly rapidly toward the front of the building it was causing a problem with the geometrics so this has been revised to be more parallel to the front of the building. It does intersect between the loading dock driveway and the southernmost drive into the Lowe’s parking lot area. The problem with this alignment is the pavement of Tri-County Parkway doesn’t have enough width to provide the 11 foot required left turn lane into, so there are two options. One would be to provide a raised median to prevent left turns, or to widen Tri-County Parkway in order to have enough width to provide the left turn lane in.

On the detention basin, you can look at it in two ways regarding the volume. It has enough volume to take into account the new buildings at the southern end of the property. It is approximately 25% of what would be required if the entire development would have detention for it, which is fairly consistent from what we have been requiring of Cassinelli, Princeton Plaza and other redevelopments of existing properties.

On the south side of Tri-County Parkway is a public storm sewer easement that continues on due east to outlet into the railroad track ditch. In order for the city vehicles to have access to maintain the storm sewer there, there has to be a 10 foot flat area from the south property line in the vicinity of the detention basin. This may affect the grading somewhat and we will have to take a look at that in terms of what we can do to preserve the volume in the basin.

For the private storm sewer that will come over from the site and discharge into the detention basin, we will need a licensed agreement to allow that to occur.

In terms of the covenants, I have been dealing with the maintenance of the detention basin, and we will need sewer and water availability. A new sanitary sewer is being constructed to handle the proposed buildings at the south end of the property, and we will need the approval of MSD for the proposed sanitary sewer plans.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Galster said I agreed with all the limiting of lefts and ins and outs until you got down to that south drive on Tri-County Parkway. To me that seemed like a pretty major entrance into this facility. When you are talking about widening it to 11 feet, for what distance does that have to be widened?

Mr. Shvegzda responded part of what makes that unique here is the newer section of Tri-County Parkway, to the south of the building, is at such a width that it has three lanes and it tapers in as you come around the curve. I don’t know if the applicant has looked at it in terms of what additional improvements need to be made in terms of the length of widening, but we probably are talking about 50 feet for the left turn lane itself, plus whatever transition may be needed.

Mr. Jim Huitger of Savage Walker & Associates, Civil Engineering Consultant reported that it would require between 1 ½ and 2 feet of widening for a portion of the west side of Tri-County Parkway and would gradually taper back into that curve. The existing pavement coming down is roughly about 31 feet, and the three lane section in front of Lowe’s is 33 feet approximately. From our aspect to widen it to get the turning movement in there isn't really a problem.

Mr. Shvegzda added this is similar to what Lowe’s had to do on the other side, to get the reversible left turn lane in there. They widened it by approximately two feet.

Mr. Galster said so the applicant would prefer to widen it a little bit there as opposed to limiting the turns in and out. Mr. Huitger confirmed this, adding that they have a drawing that reflects that. (showed drawing on easel). It’s not a big adjustment, and the striping plan is similar to the one for Lowe’s. Mr. Huddleston wondered about the stacking capacity for the left-hand turn, and Mr. Huitger answered that it is the same as it is right now, 1 to 1 ½ cars. Mr. Huddleston commented it would be pretty tight in terms of the potential for backing somebody up. Mr. Huitger responded stated we took the striping plan and moved it back. Mr. Guigino said watching the traffic in and out of Lowe’s, the majority of traffic used this because it is easier, so this would be the major ingress/egress. Mr. Galster commented my concern was if we had only one entrance without all these limitations, you’d be driving around trying to determine how to get in and out.

Mr. Okum said it seems like the further south entrance to Lowe’s doesn’t get traffic at all, except for their trucks. The more northerly entrance does get a lot more traffic going in, not so much going out. I do think going down Tri-County Parkway heading north we are going to need more than 1-½-car lengths of stacking. Maybe we should stretch it out to get two full car lengths. I can understand the offsetting driveways there; I don’t think that will be a primary entrance for your facility. I think there will be a lot more people going up and flowing through the lanes in that more northern entrance.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Okum asked if there had been any consideration with staff of a right turn in lane prior to that entrance on the north side. Instead of stopping on Tri-County Parkway, giving an ingress lane, maybe 75 feet along there where you can cut in? Mr. Huitger responded that it wasn’t a comment by staff, so we didn’t consider that. Mr. Okum said I drive that road a lot, and I know a lot of people stop to turn into that site. Depressed curbs help, but that still is a right turn, and if you can make it easier for them to go in, it will be better.

Mr. Huitger answered we can take a look at that. Mr. .Guigino said a concern I have is we have landscaping and greenspace, and if we cut into here and everything moves over, we have to take that into consideration. Mr. Okum said I saw the parking calculations, and those spots along the bottom of the roadway to back out into the line of traffic aren’t going to get used. Wal-Mart insisted on perimeter parking, and nobody ever parks in them. Maybe your standards for parking are higher than what we have in the City, but I think you are providing more parking than what is needed. I agree with you about the landscaping; you have done a lot along there, but giving it a little more depth of green and grass there might help it as well.

Mr. Huddleston said if you go in front of the Circuit City building where the driveway is coming out parallel to the face of the buildings into Tri-County Parkway, have you considered going past the entrance of Circuit City and kicking that about 30 degrees back towards Kemper Road so it will come out perpendicular and get it further our of the curve? I don’t think it plays much with your symmetry or layout.

Mr. Shvegzda responded we probably could do a lot of that with increasing the radius at that northwest curb as it intersects with Tri-County Parkway. When you make a larger radius you have an additional pavement area to line those lanes up. Mr. Vanover commented that would give some stacking capacity coming through that curve to make a left hand turn.

Mr. Huddleston said what I was thinking was kicking that to give you another 30-40 feet through there. To me it would add a safety feature coming around that curve, get that driveway and drive entrance, which is a prime entrance, out of the curve.

Mr. Huitger responded one of the problems we would have looking at that scenario would be the existing building and massive wall up here and the line of sight.

Mr. Dale said there are three spaces in front of Circuit City and our concern is that people would back directly out into the main drive and question whether or not they need to be there.

The islands and curbing proposal on the service drive adjacent to the west property line are an improvement; they give better definition to the loading and service areas.





14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Dale said on the signage, I want to make sure Planning is aware that the code provides that either a pole sign or a ground sign be permitted. They are proposing both, but we do think that given the configuration of the site and the visibility that it is not an unreasonable request.

On the Bed Bath & Beyond facility, they are proposing on building signs of 590 s.f. and as Mr. McErlane pointed out, the code allows 265 s.f. which is a substantial difference. Similarly for Michael’s they are proposing 411 and the code allows 275. Staff’s recommendation is that those be reconsidered; 400 might more appropriately be 300 s.f. and the 159 s.f. from Michael’s might be reconsidered at something like 70 s.f. which is closer to what Circuit City is showing on their façade.

They are proposing to have floodlights to illuminate the façade. That is something new that you should be aware of and think about the impact of it.

Clearly the landscaping is a significant improvement over what is there. There are two maple trees and an ash tree along East Kemper that are proposed to be removed, but they also are not shown at being declining. We are suggesting that they be moved and incorporated into the landscape plan. We also suggest additional landscaping on the parking islands closest to Circuit City, DSW and Bed Bath & Beyond to match those in other areas. I know there is a concern about not wanting to obscure the signage and the façade of those buildings, but something like honey locust and crab apples would still allow the viewing of the tenant but provide additional green area.

The arbor vide that is on the plan is proposed to be four feet at installation, and we are recommending it be at five feet at installation to provide better screening

On the building elevations, it presents a much-improved better-unified appearance. We are suggesting additional details on how the rooftop units will be screened, and that can be provided at the final plan stage.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston said one of the unsightly characteristics of the existing development is at the back of the existing Michael’s, the conduits and abandoned gas propane fencing and things of that nature. What will happen back there. Mr. Guigino said our intention is to clean this entire mess up to bring it to a high development standards. We will add sidewalks, indirect lighting, new gutters and downspouts, dumpster enclosures, and all conduits will be organized. We will make sure that the architectural colors are carried around there.

As far as screening the rooftop units, any view on the backside of the major tenants will be screened. On the others, because of their placement behind the parapet walls, they will be tough to see.




14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Huddleston commented I recognize that you are investing significant dollars and treatment in all the buildings, and you say you are going to modify all that. Mr. Huitger added there certainly will still be some exposed conduit, but it will no longer be a hodge podge.

Mr. Okum said it is my understanding that mechanical units that can be seen from the public right of way will be screened. Mr. Guigino answered on the new buildings. Mr. Okum continued you will relight the entire site, and I assume they will all be downlit nonglare flat lenses. Mr. Guigino confirmed that, adding that they also have coordinated it to have the same type of light poles and fixtures as Lowe’s. Mr. Huitger added the intention was to have the same light as Lowe’s, and we’ll make sure that gets done. Mr. Okum commented the lens is a critical element. A lot of light manufacturers are dispersing light via parabolic lens. If this lens is yours, it is one that will disburse light in a wider span. Mr. Huitger responded we did not intend that to be the case. Mr. Okum said if I were to make the motion, I would move that all lighting would be non glare and down lit conforming with the standards being used. Mr. Huitger said if you look at the lighting scheme, you will see that light with those lenses would not project that kind of lighting. Mr. Okum said the photometric is still showing bleed off onto the public right of way. Mr. Huitger responded it is probably less than .5 foot-candles. Mr. Okum said we try to aim for zero bleed into the public right of way or as close as we can get. Mr. Huitger said our intention was to grade the lighting from the store back out onto the street. We are at 7 at the stores and come back 5, 3, 2 and at the right of way, we were around .5

Mr. Huddleston commented they are stronger than that, as high as 6 foot candles in a limited area.. Mr. Huitger said there are some hot spots. Mr. Okum said we’ll need to look at that carefully at final approval. Mr. Huitger answered that was no problem at all.

Mr. Okum said additionally light packs on the back of the building shall be non-glare and downlit. Mr. Huitger answered we are specifying shielded and downlit.

Mr. Okum said I agree with the comments concerning Bed Bath & Beyond and Michael’s; I think some adjustments need to be made. I had mentioned the height of the pole sign being lowered and you said you’d look into that.

How will you maintain your landscaping areas? Mr. Guigino responded that the management group of the developer runs the landscaping. They hire a local landscaper. Mr. Okum asked about irrigation and Mr. Guigino indicated that there was none.

Mr. Okum added the islands being placed between your parking, some have two-inch trees placed in the island, and some 1.5-inch. There is not a lot of earth there to take moisture in for the root system.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



The landscaper answered that is why we took great care in the species we chose. They are drought and heat tolerant, because you get a lot of heat from the parking area around there. These species will take that. Mr. Okum asked if they had considered widening the islands for those trees since they will not be irrigated, and Mr. Guigino said they had not looked at that.

Mr. kum commented I now you are changing the site to make it considerably softer in terms of asphalt and hopefully it’ll never come back before us again, but we are not at 20% and I’d like to see some grass island along Kemper Road. Ms. McBride’s recommendation is that your site get up to 20%, so adding grass along Kemper Road where those 20 parking spaces are might help.

The landscaper responded her recommendation was that some modification of 20% be considered. Mr. Okum said and it indicates 18.4%, but other information indicates 15%. Mr. Guigino stated we actually are at 16%. Mr. Okum continued according to our parking standards, the site requires 854 parking spaces and you have 991 so I am asking if we can get more green down along Tri-County Parkway and if you landscape those islands as recommended, you might bring the gap closer to 20%.

Mr. Guigino said the reason why we don’t put trees in front is because retailers hate them. We have a forest all the way around, some nice bushes here and we can put some low growing foliage there. We can change the height of the screen from four to five feet; we are willing to do t hat. We are trying to avoid any kind of circulation problems. Mr. Okum said I didn’t ask you to add islands to the site. You are about 23 to 25 spaces between an island which I have no problem with. I have requested that you delete some spaces that are not going to be used.

Mr. Dale said the question is whether or not there is a potential to increase the size of some of those interior islands and lose a couple of selective spaces.

The landscaper indicated that the islands are roughly l0’ x 20’ or 9’ x 38’ on the double islands. It is a vast improvement over what is there now. WE added many white pines for screening the back of the building to break up the monotony. Mr. Guigino added this is an eyesore, and we are attempting to improve it. We are repaving the whole section, adding sidewalks all along the retail shops. It will be a dramatic improvement; no matter how you go around the center, I think you will be extremely pleased.

Mr. Syfert asked if anything had been resolved concerning the green space in front of the small retailers. The landscaper said it’s all landscaped right now with spyraeia. We can look at it. I know we can work this out.

Mr. Vanover said this development has been a heinous eyesore. While we are working on fine details, this is wonderful. I welcome these changes and I think this will be a wonderful addition.



14 NOVEMBER 2000



Mr. Guigino said this will happen all at one time. There are no phases, so for a while it will be messy, but it will be done.

Mr. Galster said the only sign I have a problem with is the ground mounted sign. I’d like to see it moved back a little more away from the street, just so it doesn’t block the view when you turn left out of the southernmost drive. Right now it is tucked in the corner. Mr. Guigino said I think once we reconfigure that, as we talked about widening the radius, it will have to move.

Mr. Galster added the Bed Bath & Beyond is a little large compared to the other two, but the Michael’s sign that faces north will almost overpower the tenant that goes in that corner. I don’t know about the need for that.

Mr. Guigino stated Bed Bath & Beyond is a prototypical sign. They are at an angle in the corner 800 feet off the road. WE don’t have a problem reducing that signage. That north elevation is only 400 square feet instead of the 500 feet, which Mr. Dale indicated. Michael’s has a sign there now and we have lease obligations and theirs is a heavy one To satisfy that lease obligation, we moved that sign forward and up so it would be visible. It is the same size as is there now. We can entertain some bend in the size.

Mr. Galster commented I can even live with the Michael’s sign for what we are getting here.

Mr. Guigino said by adding a continuous sign, it will have al of the letters of the same size. It really will be a clean look with the colors flowing,. Each major has agreed to move around some of their prototypical colors so we can continue that flow. They tied all their colors together so we can have an architectural continuity.

Mr. Galster said I don’t think we are far off on the signage; it is extremely workable. The only other thing I had was the pole sign; it might need to come down just a little bit in height and I would like to see the Springdale Plaza moved up top for more character to the sign.

Mr. Guigino said I can approach them with this; it is a workable situation.

Mr. Galster moved to recommend to Council the map amendment and preliminary PUD Plan approval for the proposed renovation to Springdale Plaza with all the comments discussed here tonight. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

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







14 NOVEMBER 2000


D. Amendment of Sign Regulation

Mr. McErlane reported that there are two zoning code amendments for you to consider. Disregard the first page of my memo that says sign regulations; it is not. It is land use intensity. You will notice the importance of the word not, which was not included in the new zoning code when it was ad opted, so all of these sections need the word not included.

Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, Planning Commission moved to recommend this to Council.

Mr. McErlane said the second item is a recommendation by the law director’s office, which stems from an Ohio Supreme Court case. This concerns the time period for display of political campaign signs. The gist of the change is to change the general election time parameters to allow placing of signs as early as Labor Day and removal not later than five days after, which is what our current code says. For other than general elections, 60 days prior to the election and no later than fives days after.

>There are other miscellaneous changes that he is recommending as well. The first on page 1 of the memo, item 1 is deleting the word "accessory" from allowable uses in the zoning districts where it delineates accessory uses, one of which is signs. His reasoning is you allow for sale signs and political signs to be on a lot that has no other primary use on it, so it is not an accessory use. Personally I think it would be better if we allowed for sale signs and political signs as permitted uses on those lots. One of the concerns is if you remove the word "accessory" for signs, that means you could put any sign on la vacant pieces of property. I don’t know that we would want to open that up.

Mr. Galster moved to let Mr. McErlane work with the law director to determine what he wants to change. Mr. McErlane added that the other changes combined political and political campaign signs. There is a provision that allows you to have a political sign, which is not a political campaign sign but a free speech sign. Mr. Huddleston seconded Mr. Galster’s motion. By voice vote all present voted aye.



    1. Kemper Pond – 1313-1329 East Kemper Road – Ground Sign
    2. Delta – 127 West Kemper Road – Wall Sign
    3. Donato’s 810 Kemper Commons – Wall Signs
    4. Heater Meals – Zesto Therm – 311 Northland Blvd. - Ground Sign
    5. Sterling Research Group – 360 Glensprings Dr. – Signs
    6. Sweeney BMW 11538 McGillard St.






14 NOVEMBER 2000



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

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,2000 _______________________

William Syfert, Chairman



___________________,2000 ________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary