Tim Martz of Lykins Oil Company passed out pictures of the project. He stated that at the December 11^th meeting, we proposed to change the existing canopy into the standard Exxon canopy, which had a backlit 24 inch red band around it. We have agreed to limit that to eight inches non-illuminated. You have the picture in front of you. The canopy itself will be white with an eight inch red band and two illuminated Exxon signs, 25.5 square feet each on the east and the west sides of the canopy.

In terms of the color coordination of the entire facility, if you look at that picture, the Shell yellow band will be removed. The Friends sign in the yellow that matched the Shell has already been removed. We intend to make the red that we have white, and the building will be gray with that red canopy. Hopefully that meets your requirements.

Mr. McErlane reported that the only questions he raised in his comments were the size of the red band and whether or not it was illuminated, and those have been answered tonight.

Ms. McBride said the eight inch wide band is down from the 24-inch band that you saw in December. One question the commission needs to decide is whether or not the white the red and the gray constitute a coordinated color scheme. The Corridor Review District requires that there be a color-coordinated scheme for the site. Obviously the two signs at 25.5 s.f. would be acceptable to this part of the staff and there should be no revisions to the lighting. I know that has been a concern with regards to the canopy.

Mr. Okum said I spent some time going through Exxon’s web page, and Exxon uses gray colors in their logo on their letterhead. They use Exxon with a gray band and a flare striping which is light gray, and you could do that canopy in the same way that they do their letterhead, and eliminate the issue of the stark white and the Exxon background.

Mr. Okum asked if the Exxon were to be cut into the canopy facing as it was presented in December, or will it be a red painted stripe on the existing canopy with individually lit Exxon letters attached to it?

Jim Thacker answered that they would be individual letters attached that will protrude about four inches.

Mr. Okum said and the existing canopy will be painted out. Mr. Thacker said the existing canopy has a lighted fascia that has to be removed and there will be a white metal fascia.

Mr. Okum commented that the awning is a pretty significant one. It is in place and I can see your wanting to retain that. However I tend to have some difficulty with a white white canopy and gray building and red awning and yellow and red Friends sign on the building as well. Mr. Martz said the Friends sign has been taken off.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okuma asked if he had been on the web page to see how they utilize the gray and flare on their top band of the letterhead. Mr. Martz answered that he hadn’t, but I can assure you that the Exxon gray canopy was eliminated many years ago. Mr. Okum responded I can’t argue that, but we had asked for a corporate identity presentation that Exxon uses in other areas. There are other restrictive districts in the country.

Mr. Martz reported that Exxon has red white and blue, and that is the image they want to portray at the island. That is why their new canopy would be red and white and their sign would have some blue in it.

Mr. Okum said their current stationery doesn’t reflect that, but it doesn’t mean that it is their entire corporate image. Mr. Thacker reported that this picture of the Exxon interior was designed. The engineer had three options. The other one was all white with the red Exxon, and the third one was the large red 25" red on white. Those were the only three options he would offer us. I have never seen the gray you are talking about on any sign.

Mr. Okum said it is just on their letterhead, but I am trying to bring you back to what would be allowed in the Route 4 Corridor District. An eight-inch band with the awning and the colors not being tied to the building tend to affect the outlook.

Mr. Martz responded we would be more than happy to change the building color. Mr. Thacker commented that it could be white, and Mr. Okum said I don’t want the building white either. I believe the Tuffy just around the corner from you presented a white, which was changed to gray.

I have not seen any offer from you to change the lighting at the bottom of the canopy, and we discussed that at the last meeting.

Mr. Martz answered as I said as part of any package, we would be willing to agree to change the lighting. I think Jim has an example of that.

Mr. Thacker said these are diffusers that we can put up on each of the 220-watt lamps that completely cut out the glare. It lets just enough light out through these holes so that the glare is cut down completely on the bulb. Mr. Okum said so the lens protruding below the canopy does not become overlit or project light out through the sides. Mr. Martz confirmed that. Mr. Huddleston asked if the manufacturer had photometric charts, and Mr. Martz indicated that they did.

Mr. Huddleston commented for purposes of discussion, I would be prepared to make a motion. Addressing the applicant, he said you have indicated that you are willing to provide either fixture alterations or new lenses to eliminate the glare under the canopy fixtures. Mr. Martz confirmed this.

Mr. Huddleston added that personally I have a real problem with the color scheme. Ms. McBride recommended that a coordinated color scheme should be submitted; I would say it should be a detailed coordinated color scheme with accurate material samples, and that color scheme should be in basic accordance with the Route 4 Corridor District requirements to satisfy our staff, along with the other recommendations by Ms. McBride. Have you seen those?

Mr. Martz answered it was my understanding from the last meeting that the problem was with a 24" red band, and that there was no problem at all with the white on the canopy. I am sorry I misunderstood, but that was my understanding.

Mr. Huddleston asked if he were familiar with the Corridor Review District requirements and Mr. Martz answered that Steve, our sign man, is familiar with them, and I reviewed them. I don’t want to say I am an expert. Mr. Huddleston commented in my opinion you had a pre existing condition that wasn’t necessarily in full accordance with those requirements, but it was a reasonably coordinated color scheme. You have gone from that to something that is not coordinated at all. I have a real concern about how we go forward with that. If you or your staff have familiarized yourselves with the corridor requirements, I would like to know how you are prepared to respond to that.

Mr. Martz answered I suggested that we make the building the same color as the canopy, and Mr. Okum didn’t like that option. I am no in a position to be able to change Exxon’s identification. If the commission would like us to go back and resubmit to Exxon for a gray canopy, we could do that. But at the meeting on December 11^th, the white was not brought up as a problem.

Mr. Huddleston commented in my mind what we need to see is not just how you are going to treat the canopy, but how you are going to treat the facility in total, building and canopy. I am prepared to make a motion that would only expand on Ms. McBride’s recommendations, but would require you to come back for an approval of a coordinated scheme for the entire facility and site and that you be in a position to reduce the glare on those canopy lights in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. Sherry said I am new here, and I do want to make a few companies. My company does a lot of gas work and I am quite familiar with the BP and Shell Company standards. There is a new Exxon on Ridge road that I would suggest you look at. I think it is indicative of their company image, and it is a very beautiful station.

Mr. Martz said that location is part of a rebirth in the area and certainly is the best looking in the area. I thought the problem here was the red, and that has the 24" red band, but I agree with you completely.

Mr. Sherry continued I looked at it, and it raises other issues. We haven’t talked about their price sign; it is bright blue. Mr. Martz responded that has been approved; it has white, red and blue. Mr. Sherry added they had a dark gray roof and a tannish type of EIFIS and stone; I thought it was quite attractive.

I don’t care for the gray on what I am looking at here; it is reminiscent of the Shell colors and I think you need to make that go away and bring us something a little more in keeping with the Exxon image and the corridor standards.

Mr. Sherry wondered if the diffuser for the light had been used somewhere so I can go look at it? Mr. Thacker answered I will get the location back to you. Mr. Syfert asked him to give that information to Mr. McErlane so we all can look at it. Mr. Sherry added I have not seen that before, and I’m not happy with those kinds of fixtures that they have down there now. They are so overpowering and they do blind you when you are on Northland or Route 4. If the diffuser will do the trick, I am all in favor of it.

Mr. Huddleston said you are interested in brand identification, and I am in sympathy with that. We are interested in a coordinated color scheme for this facility in the Corridor Review District. Hopefully we can find a match there. I would reinforce what Mr. Okum said earlier; I’m sure this isn’t the first controlled or special district that Exxon has had to deal with. If you are willing to work with their marketing and their facilities people and come up with something that reasonably addresses our corridor requirements, I think we would be prepared to act affirmatively for you.

Mr. Martz said in terms of the coordinated color scheme, I was handed this paper a half an hour ago, and had no time to prepare. I am certainly open to the motion to give you that at the next meeting.

Ms. McBride added that the concern that we had expressed in December was that we didn’t necessarily think it was a bad thing; we have approved these types of uses in other locations, but we didn’t have the information that we have asked for in other locations. I can appreciate that it is a school, but I think we need to treat all these types of uses in a similar fashion.

The commission has expressed a concern previously about what the exterior would look like, how the bottom area would be treated, how the mechanical equipment would be treated, and how long the unit would be in place. We had asked for that information in December and had not received it until five minutes ago. We have not had a chance to review this, and I am not in a position to make a recommendation to the commission.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that we had comments at the December commission meeting. I hear that there will be a sanitary sewer lateral installation to serve the trailer, which will go out to the existing sanitary sewer that is within Walnut. Mr. Thacker said it would run west and south into an existing sanitary line coming out of the west side of the new addition. Mr. Shvegzda said the concern was that it not be within the existing pavement in Walnut. Mr. Thacker said on the site plan you received last Friday, there is a bottom line that shows where it comes out of the building and continue out to Walnut Street.

Mr. Shvegzda continued that the other general question is about the circulation of the parking in that area. I am concerned about the latchkey program where the children are dropped off early in the morning. I am not sure which door they access the building from, but does that cause a problem with that?

Mr. Thacker answered that the children are dropped off and walk across the asphalt walkway across the grassy area and directly into a corridor on the northwest side. The modular classroom would be set back far enough that it would not interfere with the children coming in and out.

Mr. Shvegzda said I don’t see anything of major concern on this project. It is just a lot of these issues that need to be discussed and shown on the site plan.

Mr. Thacker said the setback requirement is 35 feet from the right of way, and this will be well past the 35 feet.

Mr. Syfert asked if there was another access point behind the trailer, and Mr. Shaffer answered that there is the cafeteria area and this would be another fire exit over here. This is a qualified corridor for fire exit.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, we did receive a brochure on the modular units and there was one page checked. Mr. Shaffer responded that they had so many configurations that is the closest one they would have.

Mr. McErlane asked if that were the color they wanted, and Mr. Shaffer answered that historically they have come in either beige or gray. We have several of them at Lincoln Heights and Stewart Elementary, and we stain these whatever color would be preferable. We would be able to stain it any color that you would desire.

Mr. McErlane commented that the dimensions on the site plan are barely legible, but it is 24’ x 70’, and that is the unit size? Mr. Shaffer said yes. Mr. McErlane asked about the skirting. Mr. Shaffer reported that historically we use T-111 for skirting and we have our different painters stain it whatever color would be preferable.

Mr. McErlane stated that when he first contacted the school about this proposal, there was some indication that you were hoping to move in over the Christmas break. What is your schedule now?

Mr. Shaffer answered until we received your approval, we have not ordered anything at all. We are just now moving one in at Sharonville. In this case we would have to provide the rough in for the plumbing and they would have to put in the footers or piering. So it probably would be the beginning of March before anything would get on site.

Mr. Syfert asked the time for this, and Mr. Shaffer answered that the intent here is that we will permanently move the children out of the basement of these buildings. We have a facilities committee looking at different bond issues for building a new building in Springdale. That is why we are projecting three plus or minus years, but we would not want to put those kids back into those basements because of the flooded areas.

Mr. Syfert said some of the concern of the commission might be that we could be looking at seven or eight years down the road on these. Is that a possibility? Mr. Shaffer answered I cannot speak for the board, but I would say that perhaps through attrition that our classroom sizes may be able to move around. To answer your question, I have found out in 15 years that anything is possible.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. McErlane if the fire and public safety people have looked at this. Mr. McErlane answered that we would have to issue a building permit for location and foundation and hookups to it. The state preempts inspections of the unit itself, because they are all preinspected by the state. The Fire Department was furnished a copy of it, and I haven’t heard any comments from them. As far as distance from the existing building and access, there is no problem.

Mr. Huddleston said I that if and when we act favorably on this, that Planning Commission provideuddlHu

a sunset provision. I am in sympathy with the school district’s problem; without funding, they cannot do anything, but I would be concerned if it is there 10 years from the time we approve it. At least they would have to come back and tell us their plans at that time.

Mr. McErlane passed around the brochure of the modular units.

Mr. Sherry said I am concerned about the setbacks. It is 10 feet from the existing school. I would have thought that there would have been some kind of fire rating on that to comply. Mr. Shaffer responded it is 10 feet from the existing building since it is not a fire rated wall within the modular classroom. That is the setback as far as we know, unless Mr. McErlane says it is different. Mr. McErlane reported that he had not looked specifically at the requirement for the setback. In no case would it be more than 15 feet, but 10 feet seems to be the appropriate number. I would have to look at it.

Mr. Shaffer commented that is what it has been in the other communities. If there were something different, we would accommodate whatever you would require.

Mr. Sherry said how does the slope relate to the modular unit? Mr. Shaffer answered that one end would almost be level, and as you go to the east it rolls down, probably four feet. On the one side we would have to pier the side and camouflage that however we would have to, with more skirting or a retaining wall. Mr. Thacker added that the paint would match the school in color also.

Mr. Sherry asked about any input from the PTA; are they were aware of this? Mr. Shaffer answered I am sure they are, but I don’t know what the board had done on their own.

Mr. Sherry said we had two children go to that school, and my wife was very active in the PTA, and I know when the playground was built, the original location for it is where the trailer is. There was quite a bit of controversy over that; they didn’t want anything there and it got moved to where it is now. I wanted to bring that to your attention.

Mr. Shaffer responded I appreciate that. Our problem with Springdale is that you are landlocked everywhere else, so that would be the place to put it. Certainly we couldn’t move it away from the building but with the proximity to the existing structure, we try to keep it as close as we possibly can for supervision.

Mr. Sherry added that his wife participated in the facilities committee and I have read the report. I know that the basement has never flooded, but it is moldy and there is mildew down there. I agree that something should be done there, and this is probably the first step.

Mr. Okum said I agree that getting the children out of the basement is necessary. When they looked at Springdale Elementary, there were no classroom relocations that they could do. You are only going to gain two classrooms out of this.

Mr. Shaffer said we actually have four classrooms in the basement area. We have two smaller classes that are directly affected, and on the other end we have art rooms.

Mr. Shaffer said we are incorporating two of the classes inside the structure, but trying to come up with four classrooms in the existing structure is a problem. The original intent was to have floor classrooms in two separate modulars. By working things around with the principal, they can contain the other two classrooms in the existing structure.

Mr. Okum asked how the downspout leader lines on the modular units would be handled. Mr. Shaffer answered that there is a storm line right there that we could tie into. The only ones we have contended with before were right over the doors themselves. Mr. Okum said your primary objective is to place the unit as much on the existing asphalt as you can. It looks like it’s going to carry over a little bit into the greenspace. Mr. Shaffer answered it does. Under the 10 foot, I think it comes out another six feet.

Mr. Okum asked the location of the doorways and ramps for the unit, and Mr. Thacker answered that there will be doors on both sides and a set of steps on one side and a ramp on the other side.

Mr. Okum said you are taking four fairly healthy trees. Mr. Thacker said these are very borderline, so depending on exact placement, these four caliper inch trees will have to be relocated. We would move them down. Mr. Okum asked how much green area was between the modular, and Mr. Shaffer answered 14 feet. Mr. Okum said when you say relocate, I haven’t seen anybody move a tree that sizes for ages. Can they do that? Ms. McBride answered that they can. There are companies in town that specialize in that. Mr. Okum said so your intention is to relocate those trees in the same area.

In the literature they show some hedging that is used to break up the skirting and give it a little more residential look. I don’t foresee this being here for three years; I think that is optimistic and we are talking five minimum, and we should address that. If it is not kept up, it can look pretty bad in three years. There are some nice looking units there. Will there be windows on the parking side? Mr. Shaffer answered that there would be windows there.

Mr. Okum said if this is approved, I would support the ramping system being concrete. Mr. Shaffer said wood is what we provided in the past. Mr. Okum responded if it is wood for five or six years…Mr. Shaffer answered that our district paint crew restains them every year to maintain them.

Mr. Whitaker asked what grades would be placed in the modular unit, and Mr. Shafer answered it would be preschool or kindergarten, and that is the reason for the need for the restrooms. Mr. Whitaker continued so they would be confined to that area except for lunch or recess. Mr. Shafer confirmed this.

Mr. Vanover asked if the exterior walls vinyl or metal siding? Mr. Shaffer answered that the one that came in at Heritage Hill was gray vinyl siding.

Mr. Vanover commented I personally despise T-111. Long term, it is a maintenance nightmare. Depending on approval, I would look at some other skirting solution.

I don’t know the status is now, but for a while MSD was holding steadfast. Would this be considered a new tap for sanitary? Mr. McErlane responded MSD would get involved from the inspection standpoint anyway. They were looking at new developments and flows, and I’m sure this doesn’t tax it anywhere near what a restaurant would. Mr. Syfert commented that it is just a substitute, Ms. McBride added that they may be able to demonstrate that they are not increasing the number of students; they are relocating them on site.

Mr. Shaffer said I can address some of the other concerns and questions. The height was in the packet, and the HVAC system is through the wall units instead of rooftop. We had originally set overhead electrical and communication lines but if you would prefer to have it trenched that is not a problem. We could have it trenched over. The parking will not be altered, because we are not increasing the number of students.

Mr. Sherry wondered how they would get water to the building, and Mr. Shaffer answered that it would be trenched over from the existing building. There is a classroom right inside where we can pick water up.

Mr. Sherry asked if they had considered lattice around the perimeter instead of the T-111 with landscaping? Mr. Shaffer answered we are willing to do whatever the committee decides.

Mr. Thacker said on the skirting, with the wood, the school could get parts and replace it. What we would really like to do is put landscaping in to protect it. The lattice does look nice but I would like to have something solid but we are open to whatever you want to do with the skirting.

Mr. Okum wondered if the committee had discussed the type of roof you would put on it? Mr. Shaffer answered that it would be slightly sloped; it peaks to 12 feet and has a gentle slope. The one at Heritage Hill was EPD, a rubber roof. Mr. Okum commented that the book shows both peaked and single slope. The reason I was asking is because I would like to see more of a peaked roof system on it. Mr. Shaffer responded I could approach JELCO and see what they can provide.

Mr. Okum said my suggestion in terms of skirting is that I don’t have a problem with the T-111 for purposes of keeping the kids from climbing underneath it, but I agree – I hate looking at it. If I were to make a motion, I would say "continuous hedging and plantings approved by the city planner in areas around the unit on the west, north and south sides." That would be areas visual from the entrance into the cafeteria, the front of the building entrance and the parking lot area, those three sides, east west and north.

Mr. Shaffer said on the south side, we would be in the asphalt. Mr. Okum commented that they might be a little in the asphalt to do some landscaping on the west side and east side. You would need to cut into that, or plant on top of the asphalt. .

If there are any light packs on the building for security, they need to be downlit with residential shielding. Mr. Shaffer commented we would have some existing on the north side. Mr. Okum said that would be between the buildings and would need residential shielding as well. The existing trees should be relocated in the same proximity as they are to the building. I would suggest that the HVAC units that are on the north side be placed on the south side. Mr. Shaffer commented that normally they have come in on the ends of the units. Mr. Okum said I am thinking on the end of the unit, toward the cafeteria side. Mr. Syfert said they show one HVAC unit on each end. Mr. Shaffer commented that they could build them however we design them.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the modular facility for Springdale Elementary to house two classrooms. The units shall be 24' x 70’ and placed where referenced in the submission. Also, wall mounted light packs if used shall be shielded with residential shielding. The units shall have continuous hedging and plantings around the unit on the west north and eat sides and approved by the city planner. The four existing trees on the north shall be relocated in the same area as necessary to facilitate placement of the unit. HVAC units shall be mounted on the east side and skirting shall be T-111 and stained to match the siding. There will be a 5-year limit on the placement of these units, after which they must submit for continuation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the motion was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Approval of Landscaping (Hobby Lobby) and Additional Parking Area – Cassinelli Square, 11360 Princeton Pike

Wendy Klepcyk of Michael Schuster Associates said in response to last month’s meeting, we are proposing to demolish the existing garden center from the former HQ building as well as the covered area and screen wall and gate and fencing area that is currently attached to the building.

In addition to that, we will be providing a parking field in that area as well as additional landscaping. Also we will have raised beds that will be 10’ x 4’ x 2’ high painted to match the Hobby Lobby color scheme with plantings included as indicated on the elevation.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the proposed parking which is the existing concrete surface that is in place, there are no dimensions on that indicating the overall width in particular. It scales about 97’ based on two 19’ parking stalls and two 24’ drive aisles. Only 86’ is required.

Mr. Shvegzda added that a suggestion might be to utilize the excess width to both protect the south face of the building and also to provide a protected pedestrian area. That is a long stretch for people to walk within the drive aisles.

In terms of existing features, there is a raised concrete median in the north/south driveway to the west of the building that is not shown, so it is a little unclear as to how that affects the access into this proposed parking field.

It is also shown to have access to the area that is to the east of the building. The drive access shown from that eastern area on to that common north/south driveway to the east of the subject building is quite a bit different from what is indicated on the plans. It was difficult to see how all that was functioning there, so there was a question on that.

On the drainage, this is an existing surface in place, but now that it will be utilized for a different purpose, the question is how the drainage will function. There needs to be some type of curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot and there was nothing submitted concerning lighting.

Ms. Klepcyk responded that they are proposing to provide a standard 6-inch curb at the perimeter where the existing screen wall will be removed. In terms of pedestrian access, right now the sidewalk in front of the Hobby Lobby area is flush with the asphalt paving. We could stripe that off with the additional 10 feet similar to the way it is done out in the front to provide additional pedestrian access. There is an existing detention area underneath the greenhouse area, and we propose to utilize that for surface drainage.

Ms. McBride said they are going to be removing that garden area and adding 74 parking spaces. They didn’t provide dimensions of those spaces or drive aisles and we would need to see those. They are proposing to paint the south wall of the Hobby Lobby consistent with the balance of the exterior of the building.

The site plan indicates that dead or damaged landscape materials fronting on Tri-County Parkway will be replaced with similar material. This needs to be done throughout the PUD. There are a number of plants that are in poor state or no state, and they need to be replaced. That is a requirement of the Zoning Code and we need to find out specifically where they are proposing to do that to make sure they will be covering all of that.

They are proposing the three raised landscaped beds on the west elevation of the building and six 18-inch terra cotta planters on that front elevation. We would suggest additional terra cotta planters. That is a pretty long building elevation and we would like to see it broken up in a low cost fashion for the applicant.

Ms. McBride continued that they are proposing a new parking area for the south and they have not indicated any lighting. We would need to see and review a lighting plan for that area.

Also, staff is suggesting that the dimensions of that parking area be readjusted to provide for a sidewalk adjacent to the south building elevation. There is not one proposed at that location at this time.

The new landscaped islands that they propose within that parking area to the south have one tree and some shrubs. The landscape architect feels that there needs to be two of the Cleveland select pears in each island, with eight to 10 additional blue chip junipers to fill in that island. Additionally we need to have the size of the Cleveland select pears identified.

On the parking islands immediately to the west of the building, there are no shrubs, so we would like to see the blue chip junipers added to that for consistency as well as to fill those in.

There needs to be additional plantings added to the island east of the loading dock for screening purposes. I understand that they are going to be putting in the vinyl slats, but they sometimes have the habit of falling into disrepair, and we need to see additional material in that area.

Mr. Okum asked if the landscape architect mentioned breaking up that long 72 parking space area with another planting island in the middle of it. Ms. McBride indicated that she did not, but I would always be in favor of that. Mr. Okum added that this is a major improvement over what we had, but another island in the middle would duplicate the two at the other end and would help.

We have seen the west elevation, but we don’t know what the south elevation will look like. Ms. McBride responded that what the applicant has indicated is that they are going to paint that to the beach house color to match the rest of the existing building. Mr. Okum said I see on that elevation that there is a light pole. Ms. Klepcyk responded that they would be providing three light poles at the planting areas and at the center of this island. We also would provide an additional planting island. We are including two of the Cleveland select pear trees on each island and they would be 3-inch calipers.

Mr. Okum said so you are going to carry the façade on the southern portion, the same finish, all the way down. Will the rear of the building, the dock area be updated, painted and redone? Ms. Klepcyk answered that it would be painted the beach house. Mr. Okum asked how far the beach house went, and Ms. Klepcyk answered that it would extend to the furthest corner.

Mr. Okum asked if any light packs would be necessary, and Ms. Klepcyk answered we are not proposing any. Mr. Okum continued that I would suggest that the motion include that if there are light packs they should be downlit and shielded to protect the adjacent properties from glare.

Ms. McBride added that to supplement that and respond to Mr. Sherry’s concern, maybe you put some of the raised planters in, in lieu of the parking bumpers. A few could break that up and also provide that separation.

Ms. Klepcyk commented that would be preferable to providing a brand new sidewalk and it would help dress up that south elevation as well. Mr. Syfert said I don’t believe that a sidewalk is necessary if we would do something like that.

Ms. McBride commented that staff’s concern was that there be some provision when you come out of the store with a cart and a three year old, that you don’t immediately have to worry about the cars coming around. Whether it was a raised sidewalk or a combination of planters and bumpers, just so there is a safe area to allow the people to get to their cars.

Ms. Klepcyk answered I think that addresses a couple of the issues that you have and would be a good solution.

Mr. Vanover said there don’t seem to be light packs on that south side. Since we lost the wall where there were light packs, are you planning on putting light packs on the new south wall?

Ms. Klepcyk answered we were not proposing anything. I’m not sure what is on that south wall right now; I know there is some lighting in that area and I haven’t been able to get back in there. Mr. Syfert said you have the three-pole lights out in the parking field. Mr. Vanover said if there were light packs, I would suggest that they be downlit and shielded.

Mr. Sherry asked where the doors would be on the front elevation. Ms. Klepcyk answered that there is a new entryway being developed by Hobby Lobby and the doors would not be visible from the front. Mr. Sherry asked if that would be out at the existing column line, and Ms. Klepcyk answered yes. They will be recladding the existing columns that are currently where the columns were for the HQ and enclosing that area with glass and providing entry on each side.

Mr. Sherry asked if the recladding would be brick or split face block and Ms. Klepcyk answered I believe it is split face block that would be painted. They would supplement this area with a EIFS fascia footbridge.

Mr. Okum said looking at the length of the south elevation, four to five would probably break it up better than three. Ms. McBride agreed, adding that if you allowed staff the latitude and if four isn’t enough, we could have five.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the landscaping and additional parking area with the following conditions: