11 JUNE 2002

7:00 P.M.


  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

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

    Robert Sherry, Councilman Tom Vanover

    David Whitaker and Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: Richard Huddleston (arrived at 7:08 p.m.)

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

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


    1. Report on Council

Mr. Galster stated that the next meeting on June 19th will have public hearings on the Zoning Code changes and the number of pets issue.

Zoning Bulletin Ė May 10, 2002

Zoning Bulletin Ė May 25, 2002

Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė April 16, 2002

    1. Building Elevation Change Ė Globe Furniture Ė 11745 Commons Drive (tabled 5/14/02)

Peter Levick of Globe Furniture Galleries said we have a few minor details to work out, but we are much further along.

Mr. Syfert said at this point, it might be best to start with staff reports and that should address the issues that are remaining.

Mr. Huddleston arrived at 7:08 p.m.

Ms. McBride reported that the applicant has revised their square footage. The 123, 970 s.f. is the same but last time staff had some confusion because there were areas labeled as future warehouse, etc. That has been split out now so that 61,640 s.f. are warehouse proposed for today, and future warehouse is 12,760 s.f.



11 JUNE 2002



Ms. McBride said in terms of signage, one item I need to correct under Item 3 of the staff report, it says that no design details of the signs have been provided. They had been and that should have been omitted from the report.

They are entitled to 462 s.f. of sign area and are proposing 331 s.f. on the north elevation and 95 s.f. on the west elevation, for a total of 426 s.f.

They require a total of 172 parking spaces, and are providing 175 spaces in the northeast portion of the parking field. In addition to that, there are 97 parking spaces to the rear of the site that are labeled employee parking. Last time we had questions as to how it would function with regards to the loading dock and Mr. Shvegzda might want to comment on the accessibility of the southern loading docks. They have also added four customer pickup bays back there as well as designated two truck loading dock areas.

They are proposing a compactor area in the southwest corner of the building. They have two sections of wood screening fence but there is a gap between the two sections. We would want to see that as a solid screen as opposed to the two sections with a gap in the middle.

You may recall that we had two comments regarding the landscaping plan, and both have been addressed. The sweet bay magnolia has been added back in a different location and they have added the note regarding the three inches of hardwood mulch. My only comment is to get additional screening for the compact area.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that we got the additional information on the modification to the southern parking area. However there were a few things that need to be addressed. One is the dimensions of the parking area in the back, primarily the parking stalls and aisles. There is now a concrete retaining wall that is to be at the point where the southern loading dock is and there are no details. There is a drainage system from the parking lot area but there is no analysis or details. There appear to be a couple of parking spaces that are towards the area of the northern parking lot. It is unclear if they are truly parking spaces, and if they are, how they would function in that area.

There is some question as to which areas of the existing parking lot are to be salvaged and where the new additions to the parking lot are. There is a section of curb that appears on the drawing to go out into the parking lot area. I am sure that is not the case; it is probably mislabeled, but we need an explanation. Also in regards to how the loading docks function as far as the wheel path of the trucks in that area and how it impacts the parking in that location.

There is a question on some of the contours; some of them appear to be incomplete so it is hard to tell exactly how the grading is finished in some areas. The last area deals with the details of the whole issue of storm water and what effect it will have on the additional impervious area added and whether it will be a concern for detention and the storm sewer calculations.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane stated that most of his comments are covered with the exception of the issue of the covenant change. The original covenants for the Roberds space specifically spelled out square footages and allowable areas for retail, office and warehouse. With this proposed use, the warehouse exceeds what is spelled out for the previous Roberds space. We had suggested some language in that section of the covenants that would allow the trade off of retail space for warehouse. In other words, they can increase the warehouse space for an equivalent amount of reduction in retail space. The wording that has been added is just one line in the covenants, which is "warehouse floor area may be increased provided there is a corresponding reduction in retail and/or office floor area." That would allow for this use and also flexibility for the balance of the space that is currently unleased.

Steve Adler with The Bergman Group said we are the construction managers for the owners on the proposed dock scenario. We commissioned Robbers Engineering at the May meeting to come in and draw the dock areas out. We only had about 10 days to get everything back in time to you, so I agree that there are a lot of items that need to be addressed. Do you want me to go through each one now, or should we guarantee that when the plans are sent in for a permit they will be taken care of, however you want to handle it.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if there were any objections to anything that Don brought up? Mr. Adler said not at all. Mr. Syfert commented I see no reason to go through them individually, do you Don? Mr. Shvegzda answered that they are all issues that are more of a detail in nature. Mr. Adler said Robbers would like to incorporate these in the next set of drawings we turn in for permits and address it that way. Mr. Syfert asked if the commission wished to go through it line by line.

Mr. Galster responded I am comfortable with their meeting the requirements of our engineer and having it handled at the submittal time.

Mr. Okum said on the back where the loading docks are, you probably will need some light packs or some way of lighting that area, and I would request that it be downlit and non-glare. There is a driveway area and people will be moving in and out.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said based on the placement of these concrete pavement areas, will it be feasible for the trucks to be able to negotiate that field and get in and out of those bays?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that is the question, how the turning path of the trucks will affect the indicated parking spaces. With that all open, there wonít be an issue, but maybe we can go through the actual required parking spaces that are there. If I remember right there is a fairly good cushion available.




11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Adler reported that there are 96 spaces there and Globe will need about 20 of them. The southern doors will be used for straight trucks only. Only the doors in the northwest corner will be used for tractor trailers. According to our engineers, they should be able to come around the curved road and back in. If not, we can take more of that landscaped area and curve that around to make it easier for the trucks to pull in.

Mr. Okum commented that looking at it I think you may lose some of those spaces, but I would like to see the turning patterns determined before the spaces are painted and the asphalt is done so that we donít have cars parking and trucks clipping them trying to get into the spots.

Mr. Syfert asked the commission members if they were comfortable with Mr. Shvegzda and the applicant working out the details. Commission members indicated that they were, and Mr. Syfert asked about Ms. McBrideís comments.

Mr. Tom Schroeder, architect, said Ms. McBride commented on our screen wall, and that was really a computer graphical error. In reality we intend to have a continuous screen wall there.

Mr. Syfert asked what had been done on the covenants. Mr. McErlane reported that they have a copy of the revised covenants.

Mr. Okum asked about the black and yellow striped band left on the old Roberds. Larry Bergman answered it is turned off right now and is falling down. If we could pull it off as we redevelop it, we would.

Mr. Adler reported that the piece in the front would come down all the way to the front canopy to make room for Globe Furniture Galleries. Weíll take it down all the way to the canopy so it is a continuous look. Mr. Okum said if you take it down that far, the area to the right should come down too and be painted out with the rest of the building. Mr. Adler said that is easy enough to do. Mr. Bergman added that we want it to be aesthetically pleasing to all the tenants. Mr. Okum said so you will remove the rest of the yellow and black band.

Mr. Vanover said are there any changes to the HVAC systems? Mr. Adler responded that they would use the exact same systems that are there. Mr. Vanover commented that the screening is all right.

Mr. Galster said the transitions into your space on each end, coming from the Globe Rental and where it changes to your space, I have a black column with a glazing and I donít have a description of that.

Mr. Adler reported that they are bright red panels with lights behind them. There will be one between the Globe Furniture Rentals and Globe Furniture Galleries on the east side of the building, and there will be one on the north side facing I-275. Mr. Galster asked the width and Mr. Schroeder responded that they are four feet


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Galster commented I wasnít here last month, but the previous month we talked about making that similar or closer to the corner element that you have on the building.

Mr. Schroeder answered that is what we did. The scale of our corner element is actually smaller than the end pieces right now in terms of the size of the red panel portion.

Mr. Galster said originally what we were talking about doing is taking one section of that wall and making an additional window there. My only concern is if that four feet would break up that wall enough.

Mr. Schroeder responded that there would be a 24 inch stripe between Globe Furniture Rental space and the vacant space. Also there will be a change in color.

Mr. Okum commented that the red stripe and the cranberry column are two different colors. Mr. McErlane showed the sample colors. Mr. Okum said I donít see the red that will go next to this element. Mr. Schroeder said we could eliminate that. Mr. Okum responded I donít know why you need it, and I donít know why you would want the red and cranberry. Mr. Schroeder responded with the cranberry column there, we would eliminate the vertical stripe. We have agreed to take the black and gold down from this point to wherever we can here and take it on the other side wherever we can. It is built into the canopy from this point to that point. We will take it down as far as we can.

Mr. Okum moved to approve with the following conditions:

    1. All staff items be incorporated into the final approval;
    2. If they were to add wall mounted light packs on the rear of the building, they should be downlit and shielded from the public right of way and adjacent properties;;
    3. The remaining light element and cabinet on the existing Roberds facility (excluding the canopy) be removed and painted out with the same finish as the rest of the face.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.



    1. Approval of Preliminary Plan and PUD Map Amendment for proposed CVS Pharmacy, 11601 Springfield Pike

Steven Kelley, Bearceek Capital said I am acting for the CVS Corporation who is looking to redevelop this site. We have developed other CVS Pharmacies in the Cincinnati area, all of a similar new prototype that we will be presenting this evening. With me are Joe Dillon of Civil Environmental Consultants, Mike Maggio with Arcadis the design architect, and Mike Floyd with North American Signs, our signage consultant.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Kelley stated that this is a redevelopment project that we have been working on for well over six months. We have assembled three properties with two owners. The Dave Hunley property and the Zugg property (the two residential). The Hunley property is a former gas station and has some environmental considerations. One thing that is unique to CVS and a lot of what we do is the fact that we run into a lot of those sites. We actively remediate those; it is something that is ongoing and something that CVS as a corporation is very well versed in addressing this.

The way the site is laid out, we have positioned the building off of that property. We would have the parking area in the front, and environmental concerns were part of our site planning and some of the basis of our design.

This is a PUD zoning. We have had a number of meetings with staff and have a group of their comments that we wish to address. With it being general commercial on the corner and residential and this being the Springfield Pike Corridor, a Planned Unit Development is a proper zoning for this area.

The CVS building that we are presenting is appropriate at this corner and we think it will fit into the general locale of what is in the area as other properties redevelop or increase their development.

Joe Dillon, Civil Environmental Consultants said there are two residents on this redevelopment and a gas station at the corner. The storm water flows back in the residential area and the gas station currently goes over land into the street area.

This lot is L-shaped with a lot of challenges and opportunities. All truck access is to the rear of the property. The main access is in the front where all the parking is and their customers can go right into the store.

The parking will be lighted and we have been working with CVS and will submit a foot-candle plan with the next submittal.

We propose three accesses, one on Route 4 and two along West Kemper Road. Currently the gas station has four, and we are proposing only one where the gas station was to ease the traffic congestion as much as we can. This would also allow us to have truck access in the rear.

All of the necessary utilities are there so this building can be served as designed. We will be working closer with CDS on the storm water issue. The preliminary design is a detention pond in the rear. The current storm water on the gas station is a pipe underground to an existing storm sewer along Route 4 so this water wonít go back into the lower area where the residences are. In the front of the building there will be a catch basin along the road, so there will be some areas that will not be tied into the pond. We would minimize any impact to the rear of the building.




11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Dillon reported that on the landscape plan, there is a six Ĺí wide buffer between this property and ours. We had consideration for future development on the plats, and that is why there will be a fence and shrubby on this side. The landscaping features at this intersection will be beneficial for both CVS and the city. We do recognize that this is a major prominent intersection.

We are buffering this building, and I know that Anne has comments and we can add more trees and shrubbery and increase some of the islands, and I feel we can easily do that.

Steve Kelley passed out the color plans of the building elevations.

Mike Maggio of Arcadis Architects said I would like to discuss the background of the corporate philosophy of the CVS stores and their approach to architecture.

They have different prototype stores. They want each of their stores to be recognizable as a CVS store, but they also want to work within the community and bring elements of the individual community to the design.

This style is called the New England style. It uses plantation style

brick (showed sample) and gray roofing. We have attempted to introduce new elements to that basic prototype per the requirements of the Route 4 Corridor. We have additional hip roof along the back and mansard roof connecting the two hip roofs. Behind the mansard roof that is roughly five feet high would be the mechanical units. We also have given additional emphasis to the pilasters and pulled them out further than the standard design.

We also tried to find a greater window streetscape for the building

In an attempt to break up some of the solid mass.

The actual internal requirements for the building are that it needs to have an entrance and it needs to be a blank box. It does not have any requirements internally, so anything we are going to do would be an exterior treatment. So the windows wold be faux windows or clear on the outside and colored on the inside.

Typically their dumpster is hidden by a chain link fence with the slats in there. They have gone to a brick screen wall for the dumpster and compactor.

We have made additional refinements from the plans we submitted earlier in response to some of the comments received from the city. I think the colors you are reading on those plans are a little closer to reality than the earlier ones. These colors work better together and are not as harsh as the image you received earlier. It will be a soft and harmonious exterior.

Mike Floyd passed out copies of the signage package. He reported that the proposed CVS location would be a considerable improvement and a much more effective use of that key location.




11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Floyd added that CVS wants to be a contributing part of the community for the long term. In order for that to occur, CVS needs to insure the continuing viability of this location. The viability is dependent upon the exposure of the multiple services offered at this location. Given the siteís unique characteristics, considerable setbacks and the intersection of West Kemper and Springfield Pike

He added that the One-Hour Photo sign would be on the front, on the south side and the east or right side of the building. We also would have signage for the drive through pharmacy on the front as well as the east. That is not illuminated. In the front, the CVS and one-hour photo are the only illuminated signage on the property.

There are two ground signs both less than 50 square feet. One is at the intersection of West Kemper and Springfield Pike and the other is on West Kemper Road at the western edge of the property.

The pharmacy generates 60% of the business, and the drive through windows will play a significant role in this. The effective exposure of that service will be essential to the viability of this location, and viability is very important here.

The one-hour photo is the next component of that viability. The equipment for the one-hour photo, processing and training will represent a large investment for CVS at this location and exposure for that service is important to CVS.

The Food Shoppe is another component of that viability. It is a ready convenience and with the one-hour photo it represents a significant portion of that other 40% of the business. The viability of those components is essential to the success of this site.

All of those signages work together as a system to inform the customer where the CVS is and how to negotiate safely from the right of way onto the property and how to get to their service, the drive through pharmacy or to parking and into the building.

The siteís viability is very important, not only to CVS as a location but on a continued basis to successfully and effectively offer its services to the community, but to the community as well. The community wants to have a dependable business there that consistently offers their services. The viability of this location is dependent on its exposure, and exposure takes place through the signage. We have all seen the consequences of not having that visibility, having businesses closed and shuttered after a short time, and thatís in nobodyís interests. We want to be a contributing member of the community and be a positive influence.

Mr. McErlane reported that there are three existing parcels. One is zoned General Business, GB and is approximately Ĺ acre and two are zoned RSH-L, residential single household which are approximately .62 acres each for a total property area of 1.71 acres.




11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane stated that all the properties are located in the Route 4 Corridor Review District Subarea B, and the applicant is proposing to amending the zoning classification to PUD, Planned Unit Development. We reviewed this application under three different sections of the Zoning Code, the PUD District, GB for underlying zoning district requirements and the Route 4 Corridor Review District requirements.

There were some items that were not submitted with the application. We received faxes of the ownerís affidavit last Friday and the original yesterday> there has not been a draft of the covenants submitted< but those are typically developed through dialog with the applicant. Some of the suggestions would be the maintenance of the landscaping buffer adjacent to the residentially zoned properties and prohibition of outdoor storage or outdoor display of products, and as weíll hear from the city engineer, a commitment to provide cross access with adjacent properties when they develop.

We received material samples and color samples for the brick and shingles. WE didnít receive a paint color for the stucco finish. There was some indication of a limestone finish, and there can be some variations on limestone color, and we didnít receive those either.

There is a specific requirement in the PUD that the property be at least 3 contiguous acres in size, and it is 1.71 acres so it would require a waiver of that requirement by Planning Commission.

Also, the same area of the PUD ordinance requires a peripheral setback to adjacent zoning districts of 75 feet minimum. That also will require a waiver by Planning.

The applicant meets most of the setbacks with the exception of the 75-foot of the PUD requirement and a few others. The setback for the building from the west property line is 24.42 feet and because that is a residentially zoned property, it is required to be 30 feet. There is a 10-foot setback to the pavement on the south right of way line and the requirement in the Corridor District is 30 feet. There is a two-foot setback to the pavement on the east property line (at the rear northeast corner of the property adjacent to the small strip center). The requirement is 10 feet. There is 6 Ĺ feet to the west property line, and because that is residentially zoned, the requirement is 20 feet. There is a four-foot setback to the pavement on the north property line and because that also is residentially zoned it is required to be 20 feet.

Parking is shown at 57 spaces including three handicapped. The requirement is 55 spaces with three handicapped.

On the signs, there are differences between what was shown on the building elevations and the site plan versus what was shown in the sign package. Two are consistent with respect to ground signs. There are two proposed ground signs at 40.5 s.f. each, although there is nothing to distinguish which ground sign goes where on the site plan.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane reported that one of the ground signs is 9í-10 ĺ" tall which would require a waiver by Planning because the maximum is 7í. The other is 7í-10 ĺ" tall, which also will require a waiver.

There are a number of directional signs shown in the sign package, but only one of them is shown on the site plan and that is a directional sign at the east entrance. It is proposed to be three square feet, 3í-4" tall and 10 feet from the right of way and meets the Zoning Code requirements.

There are differences between the elevation drawings and the sign package with respect to the building signage as well. The building elevations donít show any lettering on the awnings. The sign package also specifies a larger sign on the north back elevation than what is shown. The sign package indicates that the north sign will be the same size as the south and east CVS Pharmacy signs, but the elevations show a smaller sign in that location.

I donít know that it is worthwhile to go through each of these independently, but based on the building elevations and the site plan, the total signage requested is 442.52 s.f. Based on the sign package, we are at 548.1 s.f. The allowable sign area for this property is 250 s.f. The elevation drawings reflect a sign area that is 77% higher than what is permitted by code and the sign summary is 119% higher than what is permitted by code.

The trees are identified on the two residential properties, but no trees are identified on the auto service center site. Even though the majority of the trees are typically below the protected size on that site, all the trees currently on that site are replacement requirements for trees that were removed without permission. So, those trees are required to be replaced under this plan.

In addition to that on the residential properties, there are 159 caliper inches of hardwood trees to be removed. We believe one of the 30-inch caliper trees is exempt because it falls within the footprint of the building. There is an additional 30 8nch caliper tree which will require larger plantings under the new sections of the code, which require 3 Ĺ inch minimum size trees to replace the 15 caliper inches required for that 30 inch caliper tree.

Total tree replacement excluding the replacement for the auto service center site, is 60.5 caliper inches. The landscape plan indicates 59.5 caliper inches.

Within the zoning code there is a requirement for buffer yards and the setback areas to parking around the perimeter of the site. Specifically the west and north sides of the property require more intense buffer yards because they are adjacent to residential properties. The requirement in the code is that there must be at least one two inch caliper tree every 25 to 35 feet, and a double row of six foot evergreen hedge. That is option 1. Option 2 requires a six-foot high wall fence or earth mound plus three-foot deciduous hedge and one two inch caliper shade tree every 25 to 35 feet. The third option is a double row of two-inch caliper evergreen trees at 15 feet on center.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane reported that the landscape plan as submitted shows partial compliance with B on the west property line. However, there are no tree plantings shown there in compliance with that section of the code. On the north buffer yard, it doesnít show close compliance with any of the three options.

The Corridor District requires at least 50% of at least three facades and any façade visible from the public right of way to be brick or stone. All elevations exceed that requirement.

The Corridor District also requires that at least 50% of the site coverage of the structure have a pitched residential roof form. There are pitched treatments around the perimeter of the entire building. My guess is that the majority of it is a mansard treatment at the top of the roofline, so it isnít really a pitched roof over the entire building, but we donít have the figures to determine whether or not it meets that 50%.

Initially they showed two trash receptacle areas, one for compactor and one for a separate dumpster. Although on the elevations the compactor shows a brick screen, we donít have details for the separate dumpster enclosure.

Ms. McBride stated said I need to make Planning aware of something that is not in the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan is going before City Council later this month and that is a tool Planning and Council should look at when considering any type of zone change, particularly in the Corridor District. It recommends neighborhood business with uses and buildings that are between 10 and 12,000 s.f., so in those terms the proposed request is consistent with this. Another item specifically mentioned regarding the comprehensive plan in this area is that there would be no curb cuts on Springfield Pike.

Planning needs to look carefully at the double drive through window issue. If it were in a straight General Business District, it would require a conditional use permit by your Board of Zoning Appeals.

We typically require a three-acre minimum for a PUD. It was our suggestion that the applicant go with PUD even though they only have the 1.7 acres. We feel that is appropriate given the significance of the location within the corridor and proximity to the municipal building.

The floor plan indicates a mezzanine level and we wonder how that mezzanine level will be used and if it will be accessible to the public, and if it is included in the 10,880 s.f.

Mr. McErlane talked about the different variances needed on the setbacks. From a plannerís perspective, the one that is most bothersome would be the one to the west, which is still single family residential use and is occupied as a single family residence. We certainly want to protect that for as long as those individuals choose to remain there.


11 JUNE 2002



The other one is the parking setback from West Kemper is proposed to be 10 feet and is required to be 30 feet. Given the prominence of this location within the city, those are two key issues that I have.

We allow a maximum 24 foot wide access drive and only one of theirs is dimensioned at 25 feet so we need to see the rest of them dimensioned and Planning needs to decide whether or not you want to grant those at 25 feet in width.

We asked them to demonstrate that the two proposed drive through lanes can meet the five stacking spaces that our code requires and they did so.

The site plans showed a dumpster area in the northwest corner of the site and a compactor to the rear of the store. The plans indicated that screening for the waste container was on a sheet but we didnít get that and it wasnít specified how or if the compactor area would be screened. It is my understanding based on the representation this evening that the dumpster area in the northwest corner is going to go away and it will all be to the rear of the store and screened by a brick wall. We would want to see the height and how it will be accessed in terms of solid gates and that type of information.

We asked them to include a sidewalk along the frontage of West Kemper Road and they have done that. Eighty per cent site coverage is allowed, and they are proposing 75% so they are in compliance.

One of the requirements of the Corridor Review District states that parking areas need to be in the rear or side yard unless the applicant can provide evidence that doing so would create a hardship. We havenít seen any evidence to that effect, but we have heard that parking needs to be in the front yard.

The Corridor Review District requires a minimum of 200 feet between curb cuts and the cross access easement is to be provided. Minimizing curb cuts within this district is a high priority. They are proposing three curb cuts and the minimum is 115 feet apart. Staff would like to see some type of future access at a location to be determined in the future to be provided for the property to the west should it ever develop in a non-residential capacity, trying to minimize curb cuts along West Kemper.

We would also like to see a linkage between the sidewalk that is being proposed and the store, to try to draw people in from the sidewalk and from other parts of the corridor. We want to make sure that there is limited vehicular pedestrian conflict.

All of the plant materials need to be incorporated into three-inch hardwood mulch beds. The landscape island adjacent to the access drive on Springfield Pike does not meet our minimum 180 s.f. excluding curbs so that needs to be enlarged and shrubs need to be planted in that island.


11 JUNE 2002



Ms. McBride stated that the landscape plans do not indicate any of the signage that is proposed. The Corridor District requires that the base of those signs be landscaped so they need to be included on the landscape plan.

The Hickís Yews that are proposed need to be planted a minimum of four feet on center to allow for a dense screen within two years of the time of installation. The Hickís Yews that are utilized as a permanent landscaping for the parking lot need to be extended in several different locations in order to give a full screening for the parking lot.

They need to add shrubs or ground cover in the narrow landscape islands that extend into the parking lot. Right now they are not showing anything in those locations.

Staff has some concern about the Leatherleaf Viburnums that are shown on the west property line close to the access point onto West Kemper Road and sight distance at those locations, so we would want to verify that. That plant material gets to be eight to 10 feet at mature height, and we want to make sure that will not pose a problem.

The same Leatherleaf Viburnums that are proposed on the north property line may be planted no greater than six feet on center. They are proposing that at a greater distance than that at the moment.

The foundation plantings proposed for around the building are very sparse; we would like to see some additional plant material incorporated as well as variety in there.

Both the west and north property lines are abutting residential districts, so we require a 20-foot buffer both to the west and to the north. The west property is proposing a 6í-5" buffer and the north property drops down to about two to four feet, depending on how you scale it; it is not dimensioned. In addition on the west property line they are proposing a proportion of that be a solid wood fence. Twelve trees and a three-foot hedge are required, and nine of those trees are missing from that buffer area, and there are areas where the six-foot high fence is not proposed. That could be substituted for a double row of shrubs, but that is not proposed for that area either.

The 178 feet along the north property line requires that same buffer treatment but there is very little of that shown along that north property line. Additional attention needs to be paid to that west and north property line.

There needs to be nine to 12 trees along the perimeter screening for the parking areas on West Kemper, and the applicant is proposing only six trees. We would like to see additional landscaping on the east property line which is adjacent to the rear of that existing strip center. The number of Blue Rug Junipers needs to be increased in the parking islands.


11 JUNE 2002



Ms. McBride added that the applicant has agreed with the significance of the West Kemper Road/Springfield Pike corner and they are proposing a ground mounted sign there. We would like to see that incorporated into some type of feature, whether it would be a wall or an architectural element or water feature at that corner, as well as additional shrubs and floral displays.

We did not receive any lighting information on this, and given its proximity to a single family residential use, we are very concerned about site lighting and on building lighting and any light spillage and the height of these light fixtures.

The information submitted this evening indicates that Sign A (monument), that has CVS Pharmacy, Drive-Thru Pharmacy 1 Hour Photo, Food Shoppe and Open Late is to be on West Kemper, and the CVS Pharmacy only is apparently to be at the corner of West Kemper and Springfield Pike. Mr. McErlane talked about the modification with regards to the height of one of those ground-mounted signs.

We have talked about the extensive sign package that is proposed on the building. Again, it is difficult to make comparisons, because the sign package that was submitted and resubmitted this evening does not match the building elevations that were submitted initially, or the building elevations that were submitted this evening.

I was in Maryland over the weekend and there was a six-month old CVS there. It has a very similar architectural treatment and the only signage on that building is the CVS Pharmacy on both corners with a ground mounted sign out front.

On directional signage, they are only showing one sign, Enter. If they are proposing additional directional signage, we will need to see that. I also would like Planning Commission to specify that it not include any logo or verbiage than enter or exit or however they choose to phrase that.

They did submit a floor plan which showed a mezzanine level and the question was what it was to be used for, how many square footage, and if they provided parking for it and who is to have access to it.

We made a number of comments on the building elevations, and I am pleased to see that some of those were incorporated into what was represented to the commission in terms of the window treatment and the canopy treatment. They have addressed the concern about screening mechanical equipment and I donít believe we have received all the building materials or color samples or the awning materials.

There are additional issues that arise any time you look at a drug store of this nature in a community. Given the location of the double drive through window with regards to the single family residence, what is the noise level going to be?. I understand that the exchange between the customer and the pharmacist is minimal, but if it is 2 a.m. it might be a problem if the windows are open.


11 JUNE 2002



Ms. McBride added that we recommend that there be no outdoor pay phone located on this site. If there is going to be a pay phone, it should be inside. There also should be no outdoor storage or display on this site.

We would like to see some restrictions on the hours of delivery and waste removal, given the proximity of the site to the single-family residences. We suggested 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The hours of the store and the drive through goes to the single-family residence adjacent to the west.

They are proposing a number of retaining walls and we have not seen any materials. Some of them will be in excess of six feet, so we have some concern as to what they will look like next to a residential district, and would there be any type of fencing or containment on top of those retaining walls for pedestrians or vehicles. Also, the question that is asked for these types of facilities is whether or not alcohol would be sold at this location.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the detention basin is underground and located on the north side of the building. It is currently positioned to discharge to the north. The applicant has proposed to provide a level spreader. The issue is the fact that currently the water that flows to the north is a sheet flow. By being placed in a detention basin and outletted at a particular point, it would be a concentrated flow and that is what this device does. It spreads that flow back out over a particular width, depending on the flow rate leaving the point of discharge. Providing that the proper details are submitted along with that, we feel it is probably applicable for this location,.

On the detention volume itself, just under 6,000 cubic feet of detention was indicated for this location. We just did a rough cursory review of that, and taking into account that the applicant indicated that there is .63 acres discharging directly offsite, primarily to maintain existing drainage patterns on the site, when that discharge is subtracted from the allowable outflow rate, we have calculated approximately double the amount of volume that was being presented on the site plans.

There is additional information that needs to be provided on the storm sewers, such as storm sewer capacity, inlet capacity, major storm flow routing, how that will get to the detention basin.

We need more clarification as to where the curbing will be on site. Also all of the onsite storm water from the parking lot must be captured on site via catch basins.

On the site layout and grading, the applicant has submitted a plan showing the wheel path of the truck turning into the site from both State Route 4 and West Kemper. You will note with the driveway on Kemper Road the truck to access that point has to cross the double yellow line on Kemper into opposing traffic, so that drive should not be used as a primary truck access point.




11 JUNE 2002



The northernmost parking space along the east face of the building is in conflict with backing out into the main accessway to State Route 4. Also, it is in the area where the north-south drive flares out, and we feel there would be quite a bit of confusion in that location and so that parking space should be eliminated.

There is some indication of bollards to be placed around the brick screening wall around the dumpster area, and additional bollards need to be placed in that vicinity to properly protect the brick wall.

The applicant has extended the sidewalk along Kemper Road, the frontage of the property. In addition, the curb and gutter on Kemper Road needs to be extended across that frontage. It currently extends the limits of the existing service station.

There was an earlier concern on the initial review regarding elevations and how it interacted between the proposed site and the adjoining site, particularly to the west because of the close proximity. Subsequent to that, the retaining wall was added. There are still some areas where additional spot elevations need to be shown to tie down some issues in that area.

On the proposed retaining wall, it is about six feet high and 250 feet long. No details are indicated, and protection for both vehicles and pedestrians will need to be detailed for that wall.

There is one storm sewer that outlets to Kemper Road. A few years ago a storm sewer system was added onto the north side of Kemper Road in that area. As part of that, a 15-foot storm sewer easement was provided for in that area and it is unclear with that angle if the proposed storm sewer coming from the site will be on or off that existing 15 foot easement.

On access to the site, there is a concern for the driveway on State Route 4. It is in very close proximity to the existing stop bar at the southbound State Route 4 traffic at Kemper Road. Due to that, we went out at peak hours and timed the periods and durations that the traffic would block that driveway. The one time we did check it was 20 minutes out of the peak hour. Due to the concern of that being blocked and people trying to turn left out of that driveway and blocking the southbound through and right traffic, the driveway there should be limited to right in, right out.

In addition on the development of the property to the north, provisions for cross access should be a part of the covenants of this development. At that point, the driveway at this location should be eliminated as a particular access point to State Route 4, and this should be noted in the covenants.

On the easternmost access to Kemper Road, in some initial conversation with the applicant, the primary use of this driveway was for access for trucks. As we have seen through the exhibit on the wheel path of the trucks, this driveway really canít be utilized for that, as the trucks must cross the double yellow line. Based on that and the proximity of Kemper Road, this driveway should be right in and right out.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Shvegzda said upon the redevelopment of the property to the west, and when the cross access through these adjoining properties is provided, this easternmost driveway on Kemper Road should be eliminated.

The cross access easements should be provided so that when the other properties are developed, both properties have access to the adjoining developments. This is in conjunction with the requirements of the Route 4 Corridor District. This also should be in the covenants.

On the landscaping area of the northwest corner of the Kemper-State Route 4 intersection, as part of the streetscape project that is taking place, the City is providing quite a bit of landscaping up and down the corridor, in particular at the southeast corner of Kemper and State Route 4. The consideration would be for providing an easement for the City to both plant the particular streetscape features that would be more in conformance with what is going on in the corridor and to provide insurance for maintenance of that and possibly inclusion of the monument gateway type feature that would be done at a later date.

Mr. Sherry said you are recommending that the curb cut on Route 4 be right in and right out and that the easternmost one on Kemper be right in and right out. How are they going to get trucks in?

Mr. Shvegzda said the island to provide the right in and right out could be made so that it would prohibit cars from crossing over to force them into the right in right out movement, but it could be traversed by a truck. Mr. Sherry asked if there would be a curb in the middle, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that there would be which could be utilized with pavers in the middle so it could be traversed by a truck.

On the storm water management system, is this the only way it can be done, that the water canít be brought back out to Kemper or Route 4? Mr. Shvegzda responded it appears it is more of an elevation issue. The site as it exists really does drain to the north. We do have storm sewers on State Route 4 and Kemper, but they are relatively shallow and it would be reversing the drainage pattern there. So it is an issue of having enough depth in the existing storm sewers on State Route 4 and Kemper Road. It doesnít appear that it can be done. We havenít looked at it extensively and maybe the applicant can comment on it a little more.

Mr. Sherry said it looked to me like the invert of the storm sewer elevations were the same on the north as compared to at the intersection. The north invert is 731.29 and that is about where they are exiting at the north. Mr. Shvegzda asked Mr. Kelley what the invert was of the proposed detention basin. To get the depth of the detention basin, because it is going to be a fairly large diameter pipe and by the time that is in, it will be difficult to get that back up to the north. Mr. Sherry commented I just think this thing to the north is a bad deal, because you are giving the water to the guy to the north to deal with later on.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Shvegzda responded that it is currently draining in that direction. We are maintaining the flows. The same amount that is draining the Route 4 is draining in that direction. The same

amount that is draining Kemper Road and draining to the north is being maintained.

Mr. Kelley added that the drainage concern as far as it being sheet flow and still going was a concern to the degree that we could drain some water that is permitted to be additional but drain the detained water to the north. We would do that because we are just putting water onto an overland flow and we would prefer tying into a storm sewer system if we could, if the inverts work out.

Mr. Dyal added that the best we could probably do is a split system that way, and we would really have to analyze that. We would look at sending Ĺ the storm water to the north and possibly looking at putting the other half up front. But we do have to analyze the storm sewer to make sure it has the capacity, and right now I think it is doubtful. The water will be within the detention pond and overall the adverse affects would be very minimal on that property.

Mr. Sherry asked if to do this they would have to double the size of the intended basin Mr. Dyal responded the calculations we submitted had upwards of 9100 cubic feet, so it is a little closer to the 11,000 he came up with. I donít know where that 5400 came from, but those are not our numbers. It is closer to 9100 cubic feet.

Mr. Okum asked where the high voltage utility lines ran and Mr. Dyal answered that it goes to the rear of the building. We are talking to the Cinergy people right now as to what we would have to do so we could reroute them around the property, or leave them where they are. Right now it wonít hinder the building location, but we will try to reroute them.

Mr. Okum said on the drawing you show future cross access but you have a retaining wall there. I know that you have to have the parking area in the back, but on the other hand, your property line only goes so far so you put up a wall. I see some difficulty in the future development of that site and what that property owner would have to look at, a six-foot high concrete wall with a guardrail on top of it, approximately eight feet high. Iíd like to see some resolve to that for that property to develop in the future.

Mr. Dyal responded when that driveway is extended there will be some walls needed for there. We probably would have grading done there to minimize any walls, and the maximum height for the walls is six feet; the average will be less than six feet.

Mr. Okum responded I donít know if the six-foot is where you put the future cross access or if it is on the west corner. I would say by looking at the site that it is going to be somewhere in the middle of that wall. If the wall is necessary, I think we have to be sensitive to the adjoining neighbor and the wall has to be treated on that side with some aesthetic effects as well as a guardrail system or whatever is on the top. I am requesting it to be addressed now.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Okum said I have a big concern if you take a turn around there, that canopy is 15 feet to the bottom of the roofline and then there is about a three-foot base on it. Trucks will be clipping that base coming around there is there is not a car in the drive lane. He asked the height for clearance.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that for signal heads, we have about 16 Ĺ feet. Mr. Okum said I am not saying I want that canopy head 16 Ĺ feet off the ground, but I think we need to be concerned about that.

Signage seems to be an enormous factor in this project, and I appreciate the need and necessity of signage but we have another pharmacy type business in this community that is fairly successful and does not have this kind of signage on it. It also is at a less driven corner than this one. This much signage is well overdone. I am fairly confused as to why we have canopies on your sign submission showing 1-hour photo and a sign right above it saying 1-hour photo. Ms. McBride added that there is another one by the entrance. Mr. Okum commented it is far in excess of what is permitted on the site and I think we will have to get realistic or it will be a very very long meeting. This is well oversigned, and I cannot see the necessity for that to make it a successful business. This is preliminary and a PUD, and I am sure we can work together to come up with a sign package that will work. Additionally I think the 9-foot elements for your monument signs can be lowered a bit. The two-foot space plus the space below the CVS could be brought up a little bit.

On the lighting, I am an advocate for non-glare lighting, flat lens and no light packs unless they are downlit only so I will be looking for that on your submission.

On the roof elements, I am happy to see that it has some appearance of a shingled roof, and that is very important to the development. The side on the front elevation looks like about five feet of slope, not a lot, so that may need some looking at.

Mr. Maggio said the roof at the front and back are true hip roofs. The part that connects them is a mansard, and the total height is 5 feet. That is flexible; we did it because we thought it was good proportionately.

Mr. Okum said if the center areas ends up flat, I will have a lot of problems with it if it has all the elements that doesnít make it look flat.

Mr. Okum asked the color they would use on the inside of the glass, white or gray. Mr. Maggio answered my feeling is that black and white are true harsh; I am thinking light gray. CVS probably has a standard color, but I would like to find something in the same general tone that is harmonious. I am thinking in the taupe range, that would blend in, a warm gray. We probably would use an Indiana limestone color and I brought the color to show you.




11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Okum said there will need to be a roof access point. Mr. Maggio responded Iíll answer two questions now. The mezzanine is for storage, and is 2500 s.f. It wasnít used in the calculations for the parking. We would have a ship flag going from the mezzanine to the roof for internal access.

Mr. Okum asked if the mezzanine square footage changed the parking calculations. Mr. McErlane responded that even though storage is typically not an occupied space, in a mercantile establishment stockrooms are an occupied space, so that would generate an additional 13 parking spaces. So, we are at 56 spaces and we would need 68, and that is something Planning Commission can consider as part of the application as well.

Mr. Okum said I believe it is a workable plan. I am not overly excited about the red canopies. Recently we had a submission for a red roof and it got changed out to an earthtone red. I think the awning color is something we do need to be concerned about. I think that much red gets a little bit heavy and I will be very concerned about how we treat the buffer yard to the adjoining residential property.

Mr. Galster said the staff comments reflected a lot of my concerns as well, but when it comes to the two monument signs, one on the corner and one on Kemper, the pharmacy drive thru, which is the first one you would see going southbound on Route 4. As Ms. McBride said, I would like to see a brick or stone wall possibly in the corner with signage on it and try to minimize some of that.

Iím also still concerned about the three curb cuts, and those are major issues. I want to make sure that when you go back and look at all the comments, you take all those to heart.

Mr. Floyd said you are talking about the sign at the intersection. Mr. Galster responded that right now you have a monument sign at the corner of Route 4 and Kemper. If you look at the White Castle one as an example, they have a wall with a cabinet. I would like to see individual letters rather than cabinet or some type of serpentine wall. The Wimbledon Plaza has the brick and then they have the stucco with their name, which probably would go well with the look of your building, something similar to that on the corner. I would like to see something to dress that up and make it very nice. Iím not real thrilled with the second monument sign with all the things listed on it. Iíd like to see it a little cleaner than that.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone on this commission had any real problem with the recommendation that this be a PUD and deviate from the required 3.3 acre down to 1.71 acres. No one had a problem.

Mr. Okum asked if there were anything Planning needed to do to legislate that and Mr. McErlane responded that the rezoning request and the preliminary site plan would go to Council for approval. Mr. Okum asked if Planning needed to ask Council to deviate from the 3-acre rule.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane said no, if you choose to provide a waiver to it in approval of the plan, that becomes a part of the plan that Council would approve, provided Council agrees with that.

Mr. Syfert commented that we have a number of variations from the required setbacks, and I donít know if anyone has a real problem with some of these or not. If you do, now is the time to lay it out on the table.

Mr. Okum responded I think it is up to the applicant to either resolve the issues or bring a resolution to it by means of buffering, landscaping, treescaping, or mounding. If they are sensitive enough to it in their planning, I can waiver from the setback requirements.

Ms. McBride said the question I would have for the applicant is if there is another CVS store that is similar to this one that the commission could go and look at and get a feel for.

Mr. Kelley responded that the one in Mason is similar with residential in the back. At Mason there is no mezzanine or mansard, so this is unique. Mason, Cheviot and Sharonville are all this prototype. CVS is moving to a new prototype. It has more of a vertical elevation to it without the shingled roof. Where there isnít an architectural review, weíll probably be losing that. We felt it important with t he Corridor District and the residential area to keep that shingled roof style.

Mr. Sherry asked if the CVS in Silverton were comparable to this, and Mr. Kelley indicated that it would be. The drivitt colors and roof patterns change from store to store. As far as where the brick is, how it is treated and accented, this is what we feel is a good prototype. It is a good basic building.

Mr. Huddleston asked the size of the floor plan without the mezzanine, and Mr. Maggio indicated that it is 10,880 s.f. Mr. Huddleston asked the number of prototypes CVS has. Mr. Maggio answered this is it. The elevations change, but the footprint is sacred. Mr. Huddleston said so you are telling me that every store is 10,880 s.f. Mr. Maggio said CVS has different prototypes that they use in different parts of the country.

Mr. Okum said none of those prototypes are downtown environments. Mr. Kelley said Silverton is, adding that one place where we have canopies is at UC the Clifton project.

Montgomery is in a historic district, and they looked for elements of what they have in the downtown. I donít know if that is what we have here. We felt that the New England style building fit from what is up and down Springfield Pike. It is not a historic type area, and that is why I didnít mention the Montgomery store

Mr. Okum said with Old Towne Springdale, that is something that will evolve with future development along Springfield Pike. I know this isnít a part of that area, but I think transitioning from that feel to this and further north is important as well.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Okum said that there have been some conceptual type businesses that have been recommended for the other corner, and I would like to see how those blend. I wanted to see if we could get Ms. McBride as she reviews this to make a comment on that transition from Old Towne Springdale into this if it blends.

Mr. Huddleston said in conjunction with the serious oversignage on the building, one of my concerns would be if the applicant is going to try to reduce this signage to some reasonable level, I have a great concern. You have monument signs that are 10 feet high and what does that do to line of sight. I think that has to be studied in conjunction with any monument signage with those entry-exit points or the corner

Mr. Floyd said we can take a look at the overall h eight of the monument signs; I think they are 9í- ĺ". For the base of the sign on the corner, we might be able to put together some sort of modified base that takes the same type of brickwork that the White Castle does. We could probably forego the awning signage; that is negotiable. But, CVS really does feel that, given this unique location and setbacks, the signage that I presented is what they want to have on the site, what they really need to make this site viable.

Mr. Galster said in looking at the signage issues, if what you are telling me is other than the awning and some slight modifications to the pole sign, that all the actual signs on the building are a make or break type thing, that you have to have them all, I can tell you that I am going to have a real hard time with signs on the back of the building, especially an illuminated sign on the rear elevation that faces the residential property.

I have a problem with the 1-hour drive thru that faces the other residential property on the left side elevation. If you could make it all move, it would almost be like a traveling billboard on the sides of it because there is that much of it. I know that I am going to need to tone that down. If what you are telling me is that there is no flexibility there, I think we have a pretty major issue.

Mr. Floyd responded you have mentioned some of the signage issues that you found to be the most difficult to accept. If we could leave here identifying those parts of the signage that you have a problem with, that would be helpful. We have to go back and talk to CVS, and the more specific we can be about those issues, the better off we will be.

Mr. Galster responded specifically, the rear elevation CVS Pharmacy sign. However I do understand the need for a drive-thru entrance there for people coming around the corner, but that might be done with just a directional sign as opposed to something up there on the canopy. I have a problem with the left side elevation on the canopy. I would take issue with the 1-hour photo on the main CVS sign in addition to the 1-hour already being in the panel.



11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Galster added I donít know about the overall size of these signs, but I would like to see something different happen with the two monument signs. I would like to see something on a wall with individual letters as opposed to putting plastic in the middle of brick. I think it needs to be handled more decoratively than just a piece of plastic panel. Those are the specific signs I have a problem with.

Mr. Kelley said I would like to address the sign on the back of the building and comment generally on signage. This all wraps around access signage and is very much a difficulty in how you redevelop sites. Do you raze the whole block and rebuild it or does it come together piece by piece and with good planning do all the pieces fit together.

We have this property and CVS building here. We have looked at an access out to State Route 4, because we understand showing a full access this close to Springfield Pike is probably not the best location. We are taking a look at getting an access out to State Route 4, if that is appropriate or something that would help this site. Peach Street would be a location, either with a redevelopment to the north or with an access tot he north, that is an access way we think would be good to develop for this area. We want to study that as this site redevelops. We are looking at the cross access; we are not opposed to the cross access between properties with redevelopment. The only thing we look at when we propose cross access is every business wants to know that they have a cross access with a business that is similar to theirs, not a cement factory for example where a lot of trucks would come and impede on their business. With that access essentially up here, this access reduced to a right in and right out seems to make a lot more sense. .

We were seeing this sign on the back as being with this building, another element. Again, you get into buildings and where is the front and where is the back, we felt that sign could be placed on the rear with the pitched roof as a complement to what we were doing there, including the back with brick. Again all four sides are brick and it is treated on all four sides and we felt that sign on the rear of the building, if there has to be a rear of the building, did fit and could blend and provide a usefulness with this access.

The site is hidden from State Route 4. We think we have a good visibility here, but until you wrap this corner, it is fairly well offset. That is the one thing I have been hearing from CVS in terms of the need to be viable on this site and have adequate signage. There is balance and something that CVS will want. They will own this site; this is something they want to have for a long time. With the investment of the land, the architecture and the style they want to make sure they have a viable project, and part of that is signage.

Mr. Galster said if in fact access point was out to State Route 4, and that was your main entrance point, I could say letís redo the look of the back of the building and make it more like the front of the building, and then maybes a sign is more appropriate there, but thatís not what we are looking at here.



11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Galster said if you came back with a plan that showed me access out there, I would reconsider the need to have a sign out there. Or if it happens five years down the road, that might be a different story. Based on what you are planning on doing here, I donít see the need for that sign.

Mr. Vanover said that left side elevation and the drive thru pharmacy, the only people who would see that would be the residents next door. That is totally useless. Mr. Galster mentioned the 1-hour on the big marquee sign on the front. I would be willing to let that stand if you took out the big 1-hour photo to the left in the front elevation. You have two signs right next to each other, one on the front of the building and none on the canopy that say the same thing, Drive-Thru Pharmacy. If they canít see one, they arenít going to see the other.

Mr. Floyd said we might be able to forego the wall mounted 1-hour photo sign next to the CVS sign on the main marquee of the building; that cabinet can be changed. If CVS wants to go to Open Late or 24 Hours that can be taken out, so it is changeable. Mr. Vanover responded that is your choice. The monument sign spells it out too, so you know going into the site what is available.

You look at he right side elevation and you have the big sign, 1-Hour Photo right there and one sign over says 1-Hour Photo. I have a hard time believing that anybody that doesnít know the availability of CVS products probably just dropped out of the sky. Itís like McDonaldís.

I have a big problem with signage, and you nave heard it from just

about everybody else up here. If you are going to take a message back, I would be very critical of the actual need. Historically we have been very willing to work with an applicant, but the site is grossly oversigned.

Mr. Floyd said I appreciate your comments as well as all the other board member comments. I will be taking that message back to CVS, but my position has been that the signage we submitted with the changes I mentioned are what will make this site viable. I understand you are willing to work with us, and CVS does appreciate that and we will see where we can go from here.

Mr. McErlane added to point out a little bit of overkill, there are eight places on the site that 1 Hour Photo shows up, and Drive-Thru Pharmacy also occurs eight places on the site. If you look at your main CVS Pharmacy signs, the three of those alone exceed your allowable sign square footage, and they are fairly close to what Walgreenís has as a total sign package on their facility. It is up to Planning Commission, but I think you have quite a bit of signage on this site.

Mr. Sherry said I share the same concerns, but I have another question. What are the little boxes above the signboards? Mr. Maggio said they are downlights. Mr. Sherry said so the signs on the side will be illuminated. Mr. Floyd answered that is an error and will be deleted.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Huddleston said again, your team is to be complimented to the extent that you are very thorough in your drawings and have tried to work with staff. You have a complex site and a lot of details to work with. I think you will find that the Commission will work with you. I think the signage is seriously overdone and you have to go back and remediate that and come back to us with something that we can all live with. I think there are some very positive things here. Other members have said the same thing; we like what you are trying to do Ė letís get to some point of reason.

Mr. Syfert said if there are no other comments, you and your staff can go back to CVS with our comments.

Mr. Kelley responded I want to outline the direction in which I think we are going to go and touch on signage and say we are going to look at signage. I would like to state my understanding of your concerns.

We need to address the covenants, but I donít know if we need to address them until we have a recommendation from Planning. Mr. McErlane reported that if the intent tonight is to table this and come back next month, some semblance of an effort at covenants needs to be made, but they donít need to be in their final form. We could dig out some previous covenants and give you some direction on that.

Mr. Kelley stated that there will not be any outdoor storage. We are in favor of regulated cross access for redevelopment of property. The paint colors and drivitt colors are things that I think the team can put together. We can incorporate Anneís comments on the buffer yards, but there are certain restrictions within the redevelopment area that we have that we will have to work with the yard and try and buffer where we think it is appropriate.

The access on this site is important, both short term and long term. Having the access on Kemper Road the way we have it, for me is a concern for truck routing and we need to go through that. The access onto State Route 4 I think will be a long-term issue for this site. Either it will be a full access on State Route 4 short term, or a better access at a more logical location is something that CVS feels they would need to have for this site. So access is a concern of ours for the viability of the site. The signage is as well, but that is something we are going to take a look at.

We will bring back a lighting plan with cutoff luminaries. On the wall treatments, typically we have done a very good job with the architectural block style walls and worked out with fencing, which will need to be used as a buffer, and also landscaping that can be used as a buffer.

We have done a lot of stores with mezzanines, and have never counted it in parking. Fifty-five spaces are kind of a minimum for CVS. They like 60, but they will push the limit if they ever fill 55. It is their real goal to provide that parking.



11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Kelley added that the drive thru pharmacy does a lot of volume and it is very important to their business, but I donít think we would need 68 cars here. I donít know if that is an issue just with the code, or something we need to discuss but I think 56 is adequate for this site.

Mr. Kelley said I would like for you to take a look at the Clifton store

And see how you think the brick, the awnings and the spandrel glass showed up there. You can call awning identification or a signage, but it is all part of their look and feel, and it is important to them.

Mr. Kelley commented I think the challenge is to get all theses colors to blend and complement each other, working with the CVS colors as the base. It is important to them; it is identity.

Mr. Okum said I would like to see a different shingle, something different. On that little bit of roof, it will look like a shingled roof. If youíre going to do the roof to look like a roof, give it some Old Towne flavor. It wouldnít raise the price that much to give it some dimension. Mr. Kelley said I might take a look at it.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Shvegzda indicated in two areas that at a future time if driveway reconfigurations occurred, he would recommend vacating the driveway on Springfield Pike. Mr. Shvegzda added that was essentially to eliminate the one on Route 4 when access to the north was available and the eastern most drive on Kemper when the same conditions took place.

Mr. Kelley said we understood that. What I donít think we do understand, and we probably need to get educated about is how the plan is for this redevelopment. When this redevelopment and access is provided to the west, is the access up here at the intersection or down here across from Thriftway. Those are things we need to understand if we are going to eliminate accesses and not have any, because it is important to the viability of the site long term. Don is looking at this long term, and we want to also.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that it is something that we are looking at right now as far as future concepts for that. Mr. Kelley responded that would be great, because to understand where and how access would be provided in the future is going to be important to understanding if we are willing to vacate anything.

Mr. Sherry wondered if the cars in the stack lines count as parking stalls. They have in other jurisdictions. Ms. McBride answered that the five stacking spaces required do not count toward the parking.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said I assume you are requesting that this be tabled.

Mr. Kelley answered yes, and I do want to let you know that we are working with some property owners, and we do have time constraints. We are going to do our homework, and hopefully we can bring this back to you and get approval next month and move on to City Council.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Huddleston moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the item was tabled to July 9, 2002.

Planning recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m.

B. Approval of proposed parking lot expansion, Tuffy Muffler, 370 Northland Boulevard

Kurt Klosterman said I was going to have the architect/engineer do this, and he has been sitting on I-75 North for the last two hours. He had made another set of drawings to address some of the issues, like the planting of trees. It now has the landscape planning that goes with it. I have the lighting grid with me showing where the pole will be, the height of the poles, the style of light and the manufacturer. There will be an alternate to the storm water, to change the 10-inch line going out to the street to a 12-inch line. Then it wonít need the two 18 inch lines for retention. He has the specifics the drawing and calculations with him, so hopefully he will show up.

The biggest thing on this is for the west side property line. I want to build a retaining wall on the property line. I have contacted the adjoining property owner. I spoke to him yesterday and today and he is having his lawyer draft a letter, but he doesnít seem to have a problem with it. I tried to explain that it would be nothing permanent on his property. It was just to allow it to be dug out and replaced back to the original condition to form the concrete retaining wall.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business, GB, and is located in the Route 4 Corridor District Subarea C. The applicant is requesting to expand the parking lot to create a parking area of 12 spaces, but it nets eight additional spaces because four are being removed to provide access to the new 12.

Because the property is in the Corridor Review District, the modification has to be reviewed by Planning Commission against the standards of Articles 42 of the Zoning Code.

Required setback for pavement from the front yard is 5 feet and the applicant is proposing 5 feet. Required setback from the west side yard is 10 feet and the applicant is proposing 8 inches, so a variance will be required for the side yard setback.

Landscaping is required along Northland Boulevard at a minimum of a two-inch tree every 25 to 35 feet on center and a shrub every three feet. The other option would be one 1-Ĺ inch ornamental every 20 to 30 feet on center and a shrub every three feet. There is some indication of landscaping on the drawings, but the details are not there.

The plan shows additional light poles, and the applicant has indicated that it will meet the Ĺ foot-candle requirement, but at this point we do not have a photometric plan.


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane reported that the plan shows a concrete retaining wall on the property line and as the applicant explained, he is in the process of contacting the adjacent property owner to obtain whatever is necessary to construct the wall. The wall does not encroach on the adjacent property ownerís property, but some type of temporary construction easement or right of entry agreement would be necessary to construct the wall.

I have talked to the owner of the adjacent property to explain to him what was occurring there and that a permanent easement would not be necessary because there are no permanent encroachments of structure on his property.

Mr. Huddleston asked what would be required if the retaining wall starts to kick out in five years? Is there some kind of maintenance?
Mr. McErlane responded you typically donít see that unless you realize that you are going to have to have scheduled maintenance on it. Certainly that is a possibility. I donít know that we have actually required a permanent easement for maintenance on that type of structure in the past. As far as I know there is not one that exists for Costco for the 30-foot high retaining walls that they have.

Ms. McBride said one of the requirements in this district is that the impervious surface area on this site not exceed 85%, and we need to know the percentage to make sure that it doesnít exceed this.

The applicant did not submit a landscape plan, but had a note on the plan stating that plants would be provided in accordance with the zoning code. We would like to see the landscape plan and exactly what is being proposed where.

The same thing applies to the lighting plan with regards to the fixture and the pole information and the photometrics for the lighting that is to be added.

The applicant is going to relocate their existing ground mounted sign. Right now it is six feet from the right of way of Northland Boulevard. They already have a variance from the 10-foot setback that is required, so they will relocate that at the same six-foot setback.

We wondered about the material on the face of the retaining wall, whether it would be concrete or some decorative finish. Curbing would be added to the parking area island that is being created adjacent to the new parking area.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the current drawing shows the underground detention via two 18-inch underground detention pipes and the existing 12 inch that leads from that parking lot area. The initial comment was to verify that both the existing inlet to the east of the proposed parking expansion and the storm sewer that led into Northland Boulevard had enough capacity to handle the additional runoff from the proposed parking lot, because the grading was all to drain back to that point. I



11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Shvegzda said I guess the reason for the detention is the fact that they fee1 the 10 inch that drains out to Northland doesnít have the capacity and now I hear there is an alternate to do one or the other. My comment would be that we would need to know which one.

The area as you came into Northland and turned left was a striped out area, and now the asphalt has been removed and it will be for landscaping. However the drive that heads into the proposed parking area adjacent to the 90 degree parking (adjacent to the western end of the existing parking lot) there is a striped out area there that we feel would best be served if it were removed and a curb and landscaped area placed in there to protect the cars that are parked there from vehicles backing out into the aisle. Also, it would allow additional landscaping.

In general as far as the storm sewers, existing and proposed, all the information needs to be there, size etc. There are no sediment control features noted for the construction of the parking lot and whatever is going to take place for the storm sewer system.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if there were parking behind the facility utilized. Mr. Klosterman answered that would be the other property owner; it is first come-first served. Mr. Okum asked if it were part of his leased space, and Mr. Klosterman answered it goes back so far, there is a dumpster there and blacktop all the way across. The owner at that time blacktopped the small area between where his blacktop stopped and where Tuffyís was going to stop and they agreed that whoever got tot hat spot first could use it. It is not part of the approved parking for my business. Mr. Okum said then that land is not land that you are leasing. Mr. Klosterman answered I am the owner of the property; I donít own Tuffy Muffler; I own the property and the building. Mr. Okum said I understand that you do not own the property behind your business. Mr. Klosterman brought out a piece of paper which is written up as an easement. Tuffy and the people next door both have access to it.

Mr. Sherry asked Mr. Shvegzda if the existing site had any storm water detention now, and Mr. Shvegzda reported that it did not, because it is less than one acre.

Mr. Galster said the property line extends to the back corner of the building back with shared parking so there must be a parking easement.

Mr. Okum said I donít understand why we need to bring out a parking lot. I know the setback requirement is 5 feet, but we are showing this huge parcel here and we are pushing the parking lot right up against the street. Quite frankly we have a corner situation at Kemper and Springfield Pike right now that has a number of cars that are just setting on the site and not getting moved. They are being stored there while they are being repaired or are in disrepair.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if the city limits the number of cars on a site that can be stored?


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. McErlane asked Mr. Klosterman if the cross parking easement is a written agreement. Mr. Klosterman answered I believe it is. Mr. McErlane continued so it may not necessarily be delineated on a plan. Mr. Okum commented there is a line there that shows three parking spaces that could be utilized, if that is truly a line. Mr. Klosterman said it is truly a line; I am almost positive that it is a recorded easement.

Mr. Okum said my question was about the non-operational cars stored right on Northland Boulevard five feet from the street right of way. The site was presented to us originally with this development ample enough to supply enough parking spaces for an in and out muffler repair business. Now you want to add eight more spaces, and I donít understand that.

Mr. Klosterman added it was also approved for future building on the other parcel at the same time. Mr. Okum responded I donít know how you could get another building on that other parcel and park it. If it was, I havenít seen it. Mr. Klosterman added that was the indication I was given before I bought the place. Mr. Okum said looking at that site, it would be very hard for me to understand how

you could possibly put a building and parking on that, unless it was a very small building.

Mr. Galster said to take care of Mr. Okumís concern about the cars so close to Northland and the west property line, it seems like you could spread your parking out over the usable land that is there and have it back away from the street a little bit.

Mr. Klosterman responded that you wind up with fewer spaces, less parking and a lot less greenspace and a lot more cost. Essentially you would turn that whole thing into blacktop if you did that, and you would still need a retaining wall. The further you go back, the narrower the lot is.

Mr. Galster said I have drawn something that would have all your parking run the other way. Mr. Klosterman said if you had one way parking, you would take out three spots on each way of the existing parking lot or a total of six. The other way you would take out four spots and have nine spots. That would be all blacktop from the front all the way down to get fewer spots.

On the original plans that were submitted, it says "future development" with an outline of a building possibility. That is why that 12-inch line was stubbed over there so they wouldnít have to tear back into that blacktop. I have a letter from Mr. McErlane at the time stating that it was suitable for future development. It said it was good for 1500 to 2000 s.f. office building or building.

Mr. Syfert said there were some unanswered issues that I think you were waiting for your architect to handle, so maybe we can get those out of the way. Mr. Klosterman reported that on his plans he will have the percentages of impervious surface. There still will be a catch basin going over to the new parking area which will be two foot by two foot and changing the line going out to the street to a 12 inch. .


11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Shvegzda said this is one of those situations where we are getting revised plans at the time of the Planning Commission meeting. We can talk about it, but we really canít comment on it.

Mr. Syfert said you are saying that we cannot give final approval of this.

Mr. Syfert said are there any other questions for the applicant before he requests that it be tabled. Do we all understand what is happening?

Mr. Klosterman answered I am not quite sure. Are you still indicating that you do not want the parking spaces where the lines were? Mr. Shvegzda responded you are talking about the area that is currently striped out between the entrance to the new parking field and the handicap spot? Mr. Delbert Ogle, engineer for the project said that the new plan has the old curbed and greenspace for landscaping. There is no more striped area. Mr. Klosterman said I believe that everything that was on the list was addressed.

Mr. Ogle added that we have calculated the impervious surface area at 78.5% so we are under the 85% requirement. We have increased the landscape area, we are increasing the size of the storm drain from the existing catch basin out to the catch basin in the street from a 10-inch to a 12-inch to handle additional runoff. We are extending the existing 12-inch storm sewer into the new parking area with a catch basin there. So we are handling all the existing plus additional runoff. We also have the lighting calculations and the layout of the poles and light fixtures. We are 2 Ĺ times the minimum requirement at any point on the parking lot, and in some cases we are about 20 times the minimum light level required.

Mr. Syfert asked about the rear area abutting residential. Mr. Ogle answered we are at our lowest level along there. It is 1.25-foot candles down to 1.07-foot candles at the rear property line, so there will not be any bright light shining back to the rear. It is all focused to the center of that parking area.

Mr. Syfert said where we stand on this is that staff has not had a chance to review the revisions you brought in this evening. What we are facing is a request to have it tabled until next month. That will give staff time to approve all that and get the comments back to you.

Mr. Huddleston asked if he has what it is the applicant owns and showing any cross easements on there so we are aware of what we are dealing with? Mr. Ogle answered I am not aware of any easements because all I researched was the deed itself. Mr. Huddleston commented the plan that we have in front of us here tonight does not show where the actual property boundaries are, so we donít know what we are dealing with. Mr. Ogle answered it does now.




11 JUNE 2002



Mr. Syfert said so you are requesting to table until next month? Mr. Klosterman answered I brought up a survey of that lot that showed the boundaries and property line. It is straight back with a cross easement. If you want me to see there is an easement it would be in my files. There is an easement that goes back because part of the drainage goes that way also.

Mr. Syfert responded I think it is an issue that we should clarify by next month. With that I would like a motion to table this.

Mr. Vanover moved to table and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the item was tabled to July 9, 2002.

  2. Mr. Syfert said you all have a copy of Mr. Osbornís memo to Mr. McErlane about the Certified Planning Commissioners Program. It will be October 21 and 22, 2002. I think the first class was quite successful. Mr. Huddleston said it was well received, and both new and experienced planning commissioners got something out of it. Anyone interested in attending? Mr. Syfert, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Sherry, Mr. Okum and Mr. Galster are interested.

    Mr. Syfert said as chairman, I want to thank Dave Whitaker very much for his input during his tenure at the Planning Commission. He knows the city quite well and I hate to see him move out of it because I think his knowledge was quite valuable. I thank you very much and wish you good luck in Indian Springs; get involved up there.

    Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present at the next meeting July 9th? Everyone expected to be.



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,2002 ________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



_____________________,2002 __________________________