PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
13 AUGUST 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.
Members Present: Robert Coleman, David Okum, Robert Sherry
And Chairman Syfert
Members Absent: Tom Vanover, Steve Galster and Richard Huddleston
Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator
Beth Styles, Economic Development Director
Bill McErlane, Building Official
Don Shvegzda, City Engineer
Anne McBride, City Planner
Mr. Okum moved to adopt and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye and the Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.
Mr. Syfert said we only have four members present tonight, and we cannot act positively on anything. I do want to open the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for Springdale Nazarene Church, 11177 Springfield Pike. This is to allow a non-residential driveway in a residential district. He asked anyone who wished to speak for or against this to come forward.
Todd Yoby, representing Springdale Nazarene Church began his presentation. Mr. Syfert said this is a public hearing, and you can speak either for or against it. Ms. McBride suggested that the hearing be opened and immediately continued in progress. That way all of the members could hear whatever testimony is offered. Mr. Syfert indicated that would be the proper method, and Mr. Okum moved to continue the public hearing to the special meeting on August 22, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the public hearing was continued.
Mr. Okum said based on the fact that we have this attendance, I will move that this meeting be continued until August 22, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion., All present voted aye. Planning Commission disbanded at 7:55 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - CONTINUED
22 AUGUST 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Okum
Members Present: Robert Coleman, David Okum, Tom Vanover, Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Robert Sherry . Chairman Syfert arrived at 7:14 p.m.
Others Present: Beth Styles, Economic Development Director
Bill McErlane, Building Official
Don Shvegzda, City Engineer
Anne McBride, City Planner
Steve Kelly, Bear Creek Capital said we are here again with Joe Dillon of Civil Environmental Consultants, our Civil Engineer; and Mike Floyd with North American Signs. Mike Maggio with Arcadias is probably en route on I-75. Weíre here to discuss and request the preliminary approval of the PUD for the CVS. We had our original meeting on June 11 where we had comments. We were requested to go back and work further with staff. Since then weíve revised the elevations. We went in a direction that I donít think was the wishes of the City. Weíve gone back to some of the comments made originally so we have revised and updated those elevations. We have revised and incorporated the access comments by staff into the project. We have revised and updated the signage for this particular development as well. An updated lighting plan was also included. The landscape plan has also been incorporated. A lot of the comments staff had and what we felt we heard from members of Planning Commission during the last meeting. Iíd like to have Joe go over the elevations and Mike address the signage and then we can go back and address any comments you would have.
Mr. Okum said your revisions are 8-2-2002.
Mr. Kelly said I think there were two subsequent revisions. Davidís comment is the latest package they have is the 8-2 submission.
Mr. Galster said I know weíre going to get into comments shortly. I just wanted to ask Ms. McBride are there more than two pages of your comments.
Ms. McBride replied there are six pages and she would copy them for the Commission members.
Joe Dillon, Civil Environmental Consultants, said Iíd like to go over some of the important changes and revisions that weíve made. We moved the dumpster up against the building with a sufficient amount of screening. Thereís a fence on the west side of the property. Thereís a retaining wall in the back where the elevations have to be built up to accommodate the grading. There will be a combination of retaining wall and six food high wood fence. There will be shrubbery on the low side and a six foot high fence by the property to the west.
Mr. Okum asked what Section is that. Mr. Dillon replied C4. Mr. Dillon said the retaining wall has block. Itís very attractive. There were comments about the landscape easement up front. Weíve been working with Donís office on access. We changed the one on SR 4 to right in, right out. It will also allow truck traffic to go over it. The entrance across from Van Arsdale has also been changed to right in, right out. Weíve added trees along the corridor area. Weíve added additional trees in the back. We added more vegetation in the landscape area also. Weíve been working with Mike Floyd to make the sign a major feature. We can blend that into the landscape berm. The base of it is 14 feet long. We did indicate that we would plant foundation plants around all the signs, low lying evergreen shrubs as well as flowering plants.
Mr. Galster you mentioned the landscape easement. Is there a drawing that shows where that is?
Mr. Dillon replied not yet. We will make it as rectangular as possible.
Mr. Okum asked are you irrigating your landscape areas? Mr. Dillon replied yes.
Mr. Okum are they on a maintenance program? Mr. Dillon replied yes. Anything we build for CVS in the Cincinnati area will have an irrigation system. The minimum would be the two frontage streets. Anything that is a bed or would be desirous of the sun they will be landscaping. They do go into a regular maintenance period. They will treat the bushes. They are very proactive. The company lawns will be maintained.
Mike Floyd, North American Signs, said staff mentioned free standing signs. We made adjustments to each sign. We adjusted the length and height. One of staffís comments involved the height of the sign. There were comments about the length at 7 feet. We took off the drop at each side. Something was said about landscaping and the presentation of plants around the sign. As long as we have visibility that will be fine.
Mr. Floyd said there has been significant scale back in wall signage for the building. On the east elevation we took the corner sign down to 14 feet from 18 feet. On the other sign it was a height issue. We dropped that back to the structure. The east elevation CVS wall sign would be 42 inches high at 102 square feet. There would be 18 inch drive through and photography sings. On the south elevation would be the other CVS pharmacy sign and the one-hour photo sign. The canopy sign will only have "Exit" on it. There is no sign at all on the west elevation. On the north there is a canopy for the drive thru, drop off and pick up only. CVS has changed how they are approaching the two-lane drive through. There are directions for each line. Thereís no increase in square footage. Thereís a 42 inch wall sign on the back. They tell me a reduction to a 36 inch sign would be preferable. Given the setback that we have, we are behind two buildings. Visibility along SR 4 is the main reason that sign is there.
Mr. Syfert asked is that what you consider the absolute minimum signage for this project?
Mr. Floyd replied this is the latest iteration. I have no indications that there will be a real move to reduce it very much unless the Commission has some really strong objections.
Mr. Syfert said it is pretty well known throughout the pharmacy buying nation that there are two major pharmacies operating in this area, CVS and Walgreenís. I believe itís pretty common knowledge that you and Walgreenís both have one-hour photography, you have pharmacy and food items, and you are open 24 hours. Iím not talking about the ground signs. I just wonder about all the rest of it. Forty-two inches doesnít sound like much to you but me it sounds like a pretty good stretch across there.
Mr. Floyd replied given that setback and the location, that visibility is important. Given how far from the intersection that building and its elevation facades are and that you have to visually adjust as you are coming up and down SR 4 to the presence of buildings in your line of sight. Having signs that do the attention getting is what the sight needs.
Mr. Vanover said I was in downtown in old Montgomery and there is a CVS there. I had a hard time identifying it because there were only two signs, one that faced the main street and one facing Montgomery Road. We probably have as much if not more at the corner of SR 4 and Kemper than they see on Montgomery Road through that stretch of old Montgomery, and I would be hard pressed to believe that the driving public would not be able to find it without all the bells and whistles that we have on this proposal. I have a problem with the signage here. I can give a little bit on the monument sign. The buying public knows CVS; they know what they do. One of Ms. McBrideís comments is about moving the drive-thru window completely and that would eliminate the extemporaneous signage on the site. You can do what you need and want to do to make yourself visible with a whole lot less.
Ms. McBride said the concern was the buffering to the west and the suggestion was to remove one of the drive-thru windows. Iím sure the applicant will tell you that they are not high volume windows. They donít stack them up. They get six to eight cars an hour. Going to one drive-thru window gave us additional footage as a buffer.
Mr. Kelly said there was a request for the standing seam canopy. CVS has put a lot of time and money into a product that they feel is a very durable, long-term product. Mike has gotten the information on what the decibel levels would be for an individual drive-thru. Itís not a big speaker, pick up window. The volume would be as if you were standing 2.5 feet away from the property line. The drive-thru is important to this project. CVS has the canopy columns in there and for convenience, they have the double drive-thru. They would still need adequate truck turning capability so donít think that eliminating the drive-thru would increase the buffer. We think a modest buffer should be applied to the site area. The easement area we are recommending should grant that. There are a couple of items still needing adjustments. I talked about the noise level from the drive-thru. The sound would be no higher than having a decibel level 2.5 feet away. We are not proposing any outdoor display. We can control our delivery and pick up time to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The hours of the drive thru would pretty much follow the hours of the store. The drive thru would probably establish its own hours of when it is being used. We think a lot of the elements on this site are similar to that on Montgomery Road. The retaining wall block colors are an issue for us. This is a redevelopment of this site. The issues with CVS from Day One is where this building is located on the site. It is not on the corner. As a result we have developed a good plan. Weí like to continue to work with staff on cross access and develop more access that will fit with the corridor plan. Weíre not going with a pylon sign.
Mr. Floyd said we thought the monuments would fit very well with the package we have put together. We cut back on the other signage. The existing signage is important to us. We could discuss the reduction of size on the pharmacy and one-hour photo size on the wall sign. We could eliminate those two signs altogether. That would leave us with the 42 inch wall sign, directional signage on the canopy and the two ground signs.
Mr. Kelly said we think the ground signs do help for distance. Other signs are important to this site.
Mr. Galster said I think the 40 square footage on those two can go. Thatís what the monument signs are for. I donít have a problem with your two out front in the corner. I have more of a problem with the back one. I think the drive-thru pharmacy and one-hour photo on the side would need to go. I still donít see where the back sign will be drawing from any different than the ground mounted sign. Maybe the ground mounted sign needs to come closer to your entrance. If that wall is like a billboard to traffic coming that, then I think we have to look at the treatment of that fourth wall to give it the two-tone, stucco look. Right now we just have a brick wall that doesnít have the same finishing touches that the other three sides do.
Mr. Kelly said we think the view is mostly at the upper end of the building. You will get a glimpse and a glimpse. Our desire is to get some type of access out there. WeĎve been talking with Bingís trying to come up with a way to do that.
Mr. Galster stated I would have no problem conditionally permitting that sign if, at some point, there is an access point back there in the future. If you are going to see the top of that building I would like to finish it off similar to the other three sides which is nothing more than a little bit of stucco. Make that conditional use if that access ever opens up. On the ground signs that were just submitted to us, I have a comment on the smaller one that has drive-thru pharmacy, food shop and open late. I know that weíre concerned about right-of-way and height, but I donít think weíre worried about right-of-way on the width of this sign. Right now that stone or brick look doesnít do a whole lot for me. Itís going to be covered by landscaping. Iíd like to bring the brick up the side and encase the bottom of that. I believe you have the room.
Mr. Floyd stated we can work with that. We can adjust the landscaping.
Mr. Galster said if we eliminate the 40 square foot sign which is the one-hour photo and drive-thru pharmacy, dress up the second monument sign on Kemper Road and remove the back sign until some future date when there is an access back there, clean up the fourth side look
Mr. Okum said on the south elevation one-hour and drive-thru, you are taking off one of each.
Mr. Galster said Iím looking at drawing A.1.2, the one-hour photo sign and the drive-thru pharmacy sign.
Mr. Floyd does 36 inches instead of 42 inches do anything for you.
Mr. Galster replied no, that back sign is my biggest issue. I think it will be a sporadic view. If itís going to be up there like a billboard I donít like it anyway. I donít think it needs to be on all four sides anyway. If there is an access there, thatís different.
Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane, I see a building that approximately 40% of the front of the building is behind another building. I saw on your report that they are allowed 250 square feet. Frontage is frontage and I believe the business where the auto parts is already has frontage on SR 4 with signage. Has that lineage of space across SR 4 been calculated in their allowable space?
Mr. McErlane replied we deducted the part that is behind the auto parts store.
Mr. Okum said I donít want to get into content on signage. I think thatís inappropriate but volume of signage is what we are all talking about. I could see where if that other entrance point were created there would be a need for a monument sign there and I would encourage a monument sign there. If it becomes a multiple use parcel, then maybe a shared use monument sign would probably be more appropriate. Then weíd have three monument signs along the corridor and Iím not sure that is appropriate with the volume of signage that has been requested for the building itself. I would be more agreeable to the additional signage along the corridor to allow the visibility. Whatever information is on the monument sign, I donít think the building needs the same information. I agree with you, Mr. Galster, Iím glad to see the applicant bring them down into the seven foot range. How does the applicant feel about the elimination of that north building sign at this time?
Mr. Floyd said I will take suggestions to CVS.
Mr. Kelly stated it is there because it is desirous for CVS.
Mr. Okum said we have no control over that, but if that were to occur, we need to anticipate that a signage package would ultimately come forward from that that. I remember a number of years ago we had a developer put an L-shaped crowís foot on a drawing and was permitted by virtue of that to place a billboard type advertisement sign on their site. If itís on the piece of paper it better describe what itís going to be or you get what you get. I think Mr. Galster has a good point thatís a valid way to deal with some of it. Iím encouraged by what you are doing with the ground mounted signs but I certainly think a box coming up out of the ground doesnít do it justice. I want to see the numbers come down obviously, but I think they are working towards that.
Mr. Huddleston said I agree with the other comments that the north elevation signage should disappear. I do have a concern that the future cross access and a proposed possible future access is shown on this drawing. I donít think that should be considered because I think that would be a totally independent third party whoís not represented here tonight. I donít know how we can represent anything on this drawing that could commit anything to that property. That having been said, I think in the future this Commission would certainly be open to discussing future monument signage on Springfield Pike to the north if that becomes available.
Bob Sherry said Iím also in agreement with most of the comments you have heard so far. Iím troubled a bit about the monument sign on Kemper. It doesnít appear to have much visibility. I know you are ten feet off the right-of-way but you are also behind 3-3.5 feet tall landscaping. It seems to loose its purpose with that there.
Mr. Dillon said one of staffís comments was to extend the shrubbery. We can move the shrubbery back and help the visibility.
Mr. Coleman said there are just too many signs. I donít think the back sign is necessary at all. I think the need for the back sign would be diminished even if there was an access entrance. It seems to me that once you are on that access road you have limited maneuverability so you are already on the road that is going to cover the other businesses.
Mr. McErlane said just to remind Planning Commission, the application before them is for a map amendment from General Business on the auto care plot and from Residential Single Household on the two western plots to be changed to Planned Unit Development as well as approval of preliminary plan. Any action taken by Planning Commission tonight would be a recommendation to Council for rezoning to PUD and approval of a preliminary plan.
Mr. McErlane stated we have reviewed it under the PUD District and GB Underlining Zoning District as well as the Corridor Review Standards. My comments indicated that we had received a draft of the covenants. We did receive them the day of the scheduled meeting. They have been forwarded to the Law Director and I have given the applicant some comments back, and the City Engineer has just recently given some comments back, but they are not before you tonight because of the late submittal. There are some issues that we have with respect to a number of conditions that they have applied to the covenants in order to provide cross access easements and weíll be working those out with them as well. We do have some concerns about those. Our concern is making sure that there is a commitment for cross access to the adjacent properties when they redevelop.
We talked previously about the setbacks. There are really no changes to the setbacks from the previous discussions we had. The building is 10,880 square feet on the first floor with a mezzanine of approximately 2,500 square feet. Parking shown is 57 spaces including three handicapped. Required parking is 67 spaces with three handicap. Weíve talked quite a bit about the sign package.
Mr. McErlane said as far as trees go, the applicant has revised his plan to include additional plantings; however, based on the numbers I had come up with they were about 4 inches of hardwood short. We canít include any of the plantings of evergreens because of the size they are indicating on the landscape plan. They are indicating 6 foot high evergreens and the Tree Preservation Ordinance requires 10 foot high evergreens, so we would recommend that they change those to 10 feet high to accommodate the Tree Replanting Ordinance. Included in the trees to be replanted are five 3.5 inch caliper trees to accommodate the most recent change we made to the Tree Preservation Ordinance that requires larger trees to be planted at 3.5 inch trees minimum. We discussed previously that because of a short setback on the west side that the applicant doesnít meet the total requirements for the buffer yards on that side. They are short on the planting of trees on that line and also on the north side. They have given us a number and are far exceeding the 50% of the three facades that face the street to be brick or stone. They have provided documentation to show that the residential roof form on the roof is at 58%, which exceeds the 50% required by code.
Mr. Okum said the last item you commented to, requires 50% of the structure to have a residential roof form. I visited a number of CVS facilities such as Grove City, Hilliard and the local ones. I donít find their mansard roofs to be at residential form at all.
Mr. McErlane replied some of their older architectural styles are truly a mansard treatment which is down on the face of the wall. Whatís being proposed here is actually up on the roof.
Mr. Okum stated itís only 5 feet, 7 feet of vertical plane with shingles on it. Itís at an 11/12 pitch. Itís roughly a vertical element.
Mr. McErlane asked do you see a pitch on the drawing somewhere.
Mr. Okum replied Iíve seen the buildings.
Mr. McErlane responded, as I said, there are a number of buildings that do have a mansard treatment.
Mr. Okum said I understand, but I want to consider what theyíve presented as a residential roof form. It would be on the big canopy over the entry way but the rest of the mansard treatments on the building sitting above the roof line, I have a hard time taking that as a residential roof form.
Mr. McErlane stated the pitch shown on these drawings is not the pitch youíre quoting.
Mr. Okum said itís 5 and 12 on the hip roof but the mansards are not 5 and 12. Iíve visited too many of them to know.
Mr. McErlane stated it doesnít help to not have the architect here to describe it, but
Mr. Okum said I understand and I was hoping he would be here because that was one of the main issues is, you can put shingles on a vertical plane, does that make it a residential roof form? I say no.
Mr. McErlane said the pitch on this portion of the roof is far from 11/12 pitch.
Mr. Okum said letís say itís 8/12 and only six feet of roof line.
Mr. McErlane stated from the way it looks itís no more than 6/12.
Mr. Okum said itís not.
Mr. Kelly said it would be the same.
Mr. Okum asked do we have any photos that have been taken of the existing CVS establishments.
Mr. Kelly replied that would not be what we are building here. It would be the same pitch that is on the canopy.
Mr. Okum asked whatís the rafter length on that section?
Mr. Kelly replied 5 feet. It all has relief.
Mr. Okum said you dropped it back from the vertical plane I saw on the Hilliard and Grove City buildings. This looked very similar to the first presentation and itís very difficult to take that. I stand corrected. I was assuming that the 5/12 pitch was a reference to the main hip roof on the main canopy and not the mansards around the perimeter of the building. The thirteen foot run is actually like a rafter length, not actually depth flat.
Ms. McBride said we have on a number of occasions talked about the setbacks and understand that this is a redevelopment site, etc. This part of the staff still has sincere concerns with regards to the west setback. I think the minimum anywhere in the City in any of the districts we would allow a commercial use this close to a residential use would be a minimum of ten feet. Here we are looking at 6.5 feet and weíre in the corridor. Weíre getting dimensional relief, visual relief and this is still a single family residence next door to this proposed development. I personally have a real problem with that. One of the suggestions I had was the possibility of removing one of the drive-thru windows. Again, you look at the volume per hour that they do on those drive-thrus and I donít think that is a sincere hardship. I think that is something the Commission should consider. I also have concerns about how the landscaping on the other side of the fence is going to be maintained unless they have some type of easement from the adjacent property owner to maintain that. With regards to the parking, they are proposing 57 spaces. We require 55 by the code for just the store, 67 if you count the mezzanine level. This part of the staff thinks 57 is adequate for this development. As the applicant has indicated, they have moved the dumpster to the rear of that building. They have screened that and they have provided us with the details of that. Our corridor district does not encourage parking in the front yard. I think this is an exception and the Commission ought to look at waiving that. In terms of future access to the north and west, since this was drafted we did get some covenants. The covenants suggested that those accesses would have to be tied to the City putting restrictions on what those adjacent properties could and could not be used for. Obviously we are not in a position to do that. If the access is going to be tied to those kind of restrictions we canít do that. We asked for details of the wall material and of the fencing and they have provided those. The covenants were received after the staff reports went out. I have a number of comments about the covenants. One obviously has to do with the restrictions they are suggesting we place on surrounding properties. Another has to do with the fact that they are suggesting that there will be shopping carts stored outside, where the applicant represented this evening that they are not going to store anything outside. We need to get some clarification on that. We did not receive any lighting information when this report was prepared. This week we received a photometric lighting plan for the site. We received no cut sheets and no documentation with regards to pole height, etc. We did a preliminary review of it and there are still a number of problems with the lighting. The concern is that we do have a residential usage adjacent to this site. There are minor comments on the landscape plan. One of these has to do with using a different viburnum at one location. Another comment had to do with the fact that they had not identified their foundation plans around the ground mount signs. We need to have those identified and quite frankly, thought there wasnít significant amount of material around those anyway. We needed to have parking blocks added in the parking lot wherever they are going to butt into the sidewalk or into landscape islands. We have some comments that have carried over on the landscape plan. One pertains to the west buffer and I think Iíve said my peace on that. The other has to do with the size of one of the landscape islands. It doesnít meet our minimum standard of 180 square feet. Another has to do with plant material selected along the west property line and whether or not it could be a problem with regards to sight distance. We have talked about signage extensively this evening, the 250 square feet thatís permitted and whether that really and truly is the final number. We did just receive this information this evening so really havenít had a chance to look at it, but for example, the West Kemper Road sign all of the trim has come off of it and the stone base has gone away. They say that the stone base is still 24 inches but by my calculations itís about 7.5 inches of stone. Once the grass or foundation plantings grow up that stone base is gone so we have left the sign intact and gotten rid of everything that was decorative about it to keep it at 7 feet and I donít know that that is necessarily appropriate. The applicant indicated that it was a brick base but the information we have received to date indicates it is stone so we would need some clarification on that. We talked about the landscaping at the base of this and also the fact that the site plan does not match the sign details so we really canít judge as to where they fall in terms of setbacks, whether they actually encroach into the setback area. It had been staffís suggestion that the sign on the north side of the building be removed. If, when access is approved, the application will have to come back and have their development plan modified to include that access point but that that signage be kept to about 75 square feet. Thatís what they used on their Grove City store for their front elevations. They actually had to get a variance to get the 75 square feet. Staff has suggested and maintained that standing seam canopies would be more appropriate, easier to maintain and more within the character of the corridor, but they are proposing red vinyl canopies so I would leave that up to the Commission. Items we still had outstanding until they were addressed in part this evening are noise levels associated with the drive-thru, outdoor storage and display on the site. This was addressed in part in the covenants that were received recently but they do mention shopping carts so weíre not clear about that, hours of delivery, store hours and the drive-thru hours. The situation with the west property line is a real concern.
Mr. Okum said you mention the Grove City facility. I also had an opportunity to view that facility. I would hate to put the same concerns on this site but obviously their landscape plan, if it was approved by Grove City, they either missed irrigation or they havenít turned it on. It looked sparse and that was after a good spring. It was in terrible condition. It seemed Grove City encouraged the planting of trees but as far as the maintenance and upkeep it was very poorly kept. In fact, it was weed beds instead of 3 inch beds of mulch. You did not comment regarding the mechanical units in the Grove City unit. You do observe the mechanical units from adjoining properties. I would want to think that we would want to make sure that their mechanical units here are fully covered and below the roof line.
Ms. McBride stated we have had that discussion and that comment appeared on several staff reports before and they have provided us with documentation that says they will be screened and below the roof line.
Mr. Okum said you have indicated that their buffer line must comply or exceed the 153.608 section of our code. Ms. McBride indicated that is correct for the west property line.
Mr. Okum said Iím not sure about a six foot high wood fence. We have a much nicer fence around CostCo and itís landscaped. Is it necessary that it be a wood stockade fence?
Ms. McBride said staff had suggested a wrought iron fence when we didnít get any details and thatís when we got the wood fence detail.
Mr. Okum said Iím just asking because this is right there in the middle of everything.
Ms. McBride said they have 6.5 feet and theyíre trying to do something with that.
Mr. Okum said we could hold on any approval of the fence until they submit something that could come to us on final plan review.
Ms. McBride said they have actually submitted something since then but itís hard for staff to update staff reports as stuff comes in in pieces.
Mr. Okum asked Steve, would you like to comment in regards to Grove City. I was surprised with how it was kept.
Mr. Kelly weíve done the projects here in Cincinnati. We didnít do Grove City. Planning requested a couple of sites we were involved in. Operations in Cincinnati is different than Columbus. Some of the sites we have heavy landscaping on such as Montgomery and Mason I can speak to how well they are maintained and how they are irrigated. Commission members are welcome to go to those projects.
Mr. Okum said I went to Clifton and Montgomery. I did not get to Mason.
Ms. McBride said there were pictures of the Mason store and other stores that the application suggested in your packet, not this time but the time before that.
Mr. Sherry said I have been thinking about Anneís comment about the buffer for the house next door and it occurred to me that maybe a solution to that is to narrow the throat after they leave the drive-thru. They are showing 28 feet now. If we could never that to 12-14 feet you could pick up a considerable amount of area there where the buffer is really needed.
Ms. McBride said my thought was if it went to a single driveway, you donít really need the canopy so the trucks can through in a single lane.
Mr. Dillon said thatís pretty well dictated by the truck trafficking.
Mr. Sherry said, Anne, you commented about the fence and the landscaping on the other side of the fence. What would your recommendation be?
Ms. McBride replied I think if the required buffer yard were provided that they would have adequate space to maintain the landscaping.
Mr. Sherry asked and not have a fence?
Ms. McBride said we offer different alternatives with regards to the required buffers. That could be part of it. With 6.5 feet, by the time you put that fence up there I donít know how theyíre going to get shrubs in there, let alone maintain them. They would have to go to the adjacent property owner to get a maintenance easement.
Mr. Syfert asked, Ms. McBride, did you have something to offer in narrowing that throat?
Ms. McBride replied no, I was going to say here we are again redesigning an applicantís site plan.
Mr. Okum said, Ms. McBride, if you made a recommendation to the applicant for a wrought iron fence, whatís the need for a six foot fence?
Mr. Kelly said to react to comments we received on establishing a buffer.
Mr. Okum said a six foot high wood fence doesnít seem to be environmentally soft to a person who is looking at a six foot high wall going across their property line. Itís basically a barrier.
Mr. Kelly said the landscaping would be on the other side. The whole purpose was to get a barrier between the residential and development and also allow more good use of the property when itís developed in the future. We went through the basic parameters of the site constraints. We can talk about signage. We will do everything we can to improve this but there will be a couple of areas where we will be in the six or eight foot range. Because this is a development area, if we landscaped it, I think the fence is a good approach.
Mr. Okum said I still see a single family residence sitting there and in my mind, Iím not going to say itís going to change to commercial some day. Iím going to say there is a single family residence there. Letís not move the commercial down Kemper Road. Letís keep it to the front by Rt. 4 and be sensitive to those people. Iím not comfortable with that side yard at all. Six to eight cars go through the drive-thru in an hour. If you have two, would it be twelve?
Mr. Kelly replied itís hard to predict. Itís not just a pick-up window. You are going to be there for a while. We want to be sensitive to the residents. Given the area we are in we thought maybe an introduction of a landscaped area here was a good way to buffer the building. Weíd put the fence as far over on our property as possible.
Mr. Okum said I guess the jury is out on the fence. I think there was a comment made about the type of viburnum that could be used that would increase that density and do better in that environment.
Ms. McBride said the comment that was made about the viburnum on the west property line had to do with the site distance at the full access onto Kemper. One thing I wanted to explain to the Commission, though, is the six wood solid wood fence has always been on there going back to a little bit behind the building. Staff had concerns the retaining wall because they were originally showing no fencing on top of that retaining wall and that is where we suggested the wrought iron. You canít have 6.5 feet and not have that fence. I think the applicant has reinforced what I suggested. If they have six to eight cars an hour go through those drive-thrus, if McDonaldís doesnít have a double drive-thru, why does this site need a double drive-thru for a drug store. If you do away with one of those drive-thru windows, you pick up at least nine feet. You can go with a canopy that is just a short overhang off the building. You could pick up a significant amount of buffering on that west property line.
Mr. Okum said as long as that remains single family residence there, we have to be concerned. In regards to CVS pharmacies nationwide, what is the percentage of closed units?
Mr. Kelly responded that there has been an exchange between Rite Aid and CVS. The program that CVS is under and have shared with their stockholders is to require that all of their existing in-line product to be relocated to a free standing product, which we are showing at this location. With each new store that is built there is usually a relocation of an existing store in a certain area. A lot of that is demand. Everything that we have opened that is a new prototype is an existing facility, open and in operation. CVS took the old Revco spaces. I always thought Revco and Kroger were one and the same. A lot of the products we have been doing is taking them out of the in-line and bringing them to a new free-standing location.
Mr. Huddleston asked how long have you been doing this for CVS?
Mr. Kelly replied three years.
Mr. Shvegzda said regarding storm water management the applicant has provided information indicating that approximately 11,000 cubic feet of underground storage is to be provided with the release rate of 1.76 cfs. These are both acceptable providing the additional detail as to how the release structure will function in the particular type of underground detention regards to size, excess, etc. be included with the plans. In addition, as far detail analysis, the storm sewer calculations, inlet capacity calculations, and any details and analysis regarding the major storm routing needs to be submitted. Regarding the site layout curb and gutters now indicated for the entire frontage of Kemper Road. That curb and gutter should be provided through the proposed driveways as a depressed curb. There is an existing driveway in that location that currently has a depressed curb through it that needs to be removed and replaced with a full height curb and gutter. In regards to the two drives, the one on Rt. 4 and the one closest to the intersection on Kemper, are both now indicated to be right-in, right-out driveways. Additional geometric and information regarding the concrete apron, curb types, location of materials needs to be included yet. Regarding the segmental wall that has been discussed, there is an area that is the eastern part of the wall that runs north and south, we would suggest that a handrail be included for pedestrian safety. Regarding the storm sewer at the southwest corner of the site, we just need additional information to verify that that will be within the existing right-of-way, the subject property or within the storm sewer easement that exists along Kemper Road. Right now itís not indicated and may be outside any public easement. The covenants have been discussed by Anne and Bill. We have reviewed those and forwarded comments on to the City Solicitor. There was a discussion on the landscaping easement on the corner. We need to see the boundaries of that and the particular verbiage of the easement itself.
Mr. Sherry said I have a question on the streetscape improvements. UDF is doing some streetscape work with pavers but weíre not having any of that as part of this proposal.
Mr. Shvegzda said itís my understanding that those will be done by the City. The easement will be provided for that to take place.
Mr. Galster said we are out for bid on the streetscape project and we are looking at an ultimate to include one or both developments depending on their timing. Otherwise they wouldnít be touched until later.
Mr. Galster said in reference to the double drive-thru, whatís our position here? Obviously we have a buffering problem. At first I was trying to find a way to gain a couple of feet in that landscape island next to the building. I think it would be better served on the other side but I still donít think thatís going to be enough. Whatís your feeling on creating an additional buffer there?
Mr. Kelly said the double drive-thru is needed for what CVS wants to do.
Mr. Galster asked if you have a double drive-thru do you have to worry about a third area for a car to pass?
Mr. Kelly replied yes, thatís the by-pass. I donít think we would be concerned about it as long as we can get a truck through. The drive-thru is not a fast drive-thru. If one car getting a prescription and another car is there not getting service, that is the reason for it. It is important to the project and development. The location of the drive-thru is really behind the outbuildings. This is going to be here for a long time. I think we can widen it out and have ten feet if not twelve feet where the residence is. I think the fence really does help in that area. I would ask the Commission to keep the six foot fence and that width shown to the north and widen it up to ten feet to the south.
Mr. Syfert said in order to keep our planner alive, I would not be agreeable to anything except a minimum required on that west side. How you work it out is up to you. Whether you get down to one drive-thru or have two drive-thrus and no space for a truck. Iíve waited for trucks before. They can wait for me if Iím sitting at the drive-thru. I wonít agree to anything less to that.
Mr. Sherry said when I brought that idea to the table I wasnít thinking in terms of going from six foot to ten foot. I was thinking in terms of reducing the width of that excess from 28 feet to 12-14 feet so we can really create a buffer there. I donít think you need more than 12-14 to get anybody out of there.
Mr. Dillon said they would have to snake around a little bit and that would require more space on average.
Mr. Sherry I understand that but I think that can be worked out with the right geometry and still give us lots of room there.
Mr. Kelly said if we can do it we will do it. I thought we had talked about this buffer. If we missed it, I apologize. If thereís a strong need to have the twenty feet there, we want to be a good neighbor. Is 20 feet the minimum requirement with a fence?
Ms. McBride replied yes.
Mr. McErlane stated the fence requirement is just one of three options for buffer yards on that.
Mr. Okum said one of the things I did notice at a couple of CVSs, we talked about the white, opaque spandrel glass going in the fake windows. A number of them in the photos we were provided have this white, tacky looking raised panel aluminum in the lower windows around the main entry. Is that necessary?
Mr. Kelly replied to block that area out is necessary, not to necessarily have the white panels. I think the white is trying to blend with whatever vinyl columns they would have in the canopy. In this particular project we are talking about a stone. The plan is to have a visual barrier between the outside and the stock that is inside.
Mr. Okum stated I understand that but you have to do the same thing with the fake windows with the awnings.
Ms. McBride said they had originally shown the white plastic panels and staff had asked them to get rid of those and they did that.
Mr. Okum said so itís glass only, no metal panels. My thought was that it would be opaque spandrel glass.
Ms. McBride said the submittal before that said white plastic panels.
Mr. Okum said staff has recommended a different change to the awnings. You came back and said all the CVSs have these red awnings. Iíll be honest with you. A break on that exposure other than all brick across the front certainly helps. You donít feel comfortable with a standard seam awning.
Mr. Kelly replied I didnít say that. We use for our own commercial buildings standing seam. We donít know of another product out there. When we went back to Arcadias with the comments, that was the response that we received. CVS has spent a lot of time and energy on these types of awnings. They have another type of building which is a block type building that has these awnings as a focal point for that particular building. You will see it in the county seats in Pennsylvania. Thatís a product that they feel is very solid, strong and durable. Thatís what they want to use for their buildings. This is a good product to use.
Mr. Okum asked are they illuminated or translucent.? Does light reflect through them?
Mr. Kelly replied yes.
Mr. Okum said I think the chairman hit it on the head. I donít care if you have one drive-thru or two drive-thrus if you can get your buffer yard set. The west side buffer yard has to be right. You have agreed to remove the back wall sign and on reduce the building signage by 40 square feet. You have been asked to but you havenít agreed. Youíre going back to them for comment.
Mr. Floyd said we can forego the 40.5 square feet tied up with the drive-thru wall sign and one-hour wall sign. We do have to go back and discuss the back wall sign.
Mr. Okum asked should we defer making a decision on this until you can an answer?
Mr. Kelly said I think that access would be conditioned upon having the rear sign on the building.
Mr. Okum said I donít see a direct correlation. The issue is that I feel long term if there is a cross easement onto another property via that road, there would be some type of signage at the street that would get people into the development. Once they are in that lane coming down to CVS they will be at CVS. I donít mind making a motion to exclude it at this time. You will have to live with that decision and you can take it back and say no we canít make it work. There are two big areas here. The buffer area is a big issue and the rear signage is a big issue. We also do not have a lighting plan on the table in front of us that we can give any consideration to. We donít know if you are over lighting or under lighting. We donít know if you have 0 fall at the property line. We donít know what your fall is at the street line. I think those things need to be determined. We can set guidelines. We can 0 fall at property line, non-glare lighting and at the street it can be no more than .15 except for driveway access. That way you can do your lighting plan and design around that criteria. I personally think you have to be at 0 fall at the property line on the residential side.
Mr. Kelly said weíve worked with a couple of property owners out here, not all of which are the easiest to work with. Weíre to a point where contractually we need to move forward on the property and get direction. We would request Planning Commission to grant a conditional approval. I think we heard the west buffer, lighting and covenants being the critical items. We would request a vinyl instead of the standing seam canopy. Weíve been asked to get the access out to Rt. 4. We do want to pursue that. Itís part of the cross access that rings into a lot of the comments. Weíre saying that is something we want to go out and bring back. That should be a condition of the plan. With that being said, thatís been the function of wanting to have signage for the rear of the project. Based on that understanding we will have a final PUD coming back to Planning Commission. I think weíre agreeing to that particular comment but I think it is necessary to continue through the process. Those are the major issues. Give us guidelines and let us move forward.
Mr. Sherry asked how deep are the canopies? Mr. Kelly replied they will be 4-5 feet. Mr. Sherry asked are they wide open underneath and Mr. Kelly said yes.
Mr. Sherry said I recommend that if we allow these that the supports be in red also. Typically they do them in aluminum but they look better if they are the same color.
Mr. Syfert asked if we approve the plan and PUD map amendment for recommendation to go to Council, donít we have to send the plan that we approve?
Mr. McErlane replied the plan you refer to Council would be this plan with whatever conditions are placed on it. Unless Council asks for a revised plan to come in, we typically try to stick with this plan so weíre not trying to figure out what changes occurred between here and Council. Weíd rather it remain this plan with whatever conditions Planning Commission applies to it.
Mr. Syfert said if we forward this with the condition that they meet the side yard minimum requirement, then Council wouldnít have to chew them up over that issue.
Mr. McErlane said there would be a list of conditions that go with the plan to Council.
Mr. Galster said usually the two representatives will say these are the major issues that Planning Commission still has.
Mr. Okum made a motion to approve the preliminary PUD development plan at the northwest corner of SR 4 and West Kemper Road, Springdale Ohio including specifications and designs contained in exhibits dated Revised 8/02/2002, C1, C2, C3, C4, LS1A-1.1, A-1.2, A-1.3, A-1.4 with the following conditions.
Mr. Vanover said Dave, you mentioned .5 foot candle minimum not to exceed .15. Do you not mean 1.5? Mr. Okum replied yes, I did.
Mr. Okum said .5 at edge of pavement is okay and meet staffís approval.
Mr. Vanover said final approval of ground mounted signs should be made at final plan approval.
Mr. Floyd said the ground sign we were talking about is some kind of stone treatment for the West Kemper sign. Is there something else?
Ms. McBride said the one on West Kemper ends up with a seven inch stone base.
Mr. Floyd said we could do some kind of treatment on this sign similar to what we did on the corner sign.
Ms. McBride said if the Commission is happy with the seven inch base that is fine.
Mr. Okum said Mr. Galsterís recommendation was to cornerstone it with surrounds on the right and left side of it.
Ms. McBride said you have about 2.5 feet of stone on the corner sign. You have seven inches on the West Kemper sign.
Mr. Okum said the only problem I had is that both numbers are the same.
Mr. Kelly asked are we in agreement on the size of the sign? I guess the only condition would be the final design treatment that would be approved at the final plan by Planning Commission.
Mr. Galsterís comments were not to exceed seven feet.
Mr. Galster said Ms. McBrideís comment was rather than reducing the brick face we should have reduced some of the sign square footage and kept some of the base at the bottom. That was after my comment about adding something up the sides. A better comment would be that the ground sign on Kemper Road needs to be reworked to accommodate and be approved by the board. If you actually look at the resubmitted monument signs, thereís not much more than seven inches there either.
Mr. Okum said when you put landscaping in front of it, you wonít see the base if it is 18 inches.
Mr. Sherry asked are we doing standing seams on the canopy?
Mr. Okum replied no, I did not change from what they submitted, but I added that they would be non-translucent. If itís standing seam then youíve got supports, structure, a lot of things involved.
Mr. Galster seconded the motion.
The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Syfert asked what is the next step?
Mr. McErlane said a letter will be sent to Council from the Planning Commission recommending rezoning to Planned Unit Development and recommending approval of the preliminary plan. Council will need to set a public hearing date and advertise thirty days prior to that. It will be up to the President of Council to determine that.
Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Syfert said weíll start with staff reports first.
Mr. McErlane reported that the property involves eight parcels including Elm Alley. Four of the parcels in Elm Alley are owned by the City at this point. The proposal is to demolish existing the existing building and rebuild primarily on the eastern most parcels, the stores and bank, and then build a 3,780 square foot canopy on the site the UDF store is occupying. The property is in the Route 4 Corridor District Sub-area B and the westernmost parcel is Zoned GB with a Transition Overlay. The eastern four parts are zoned GB. We reviewed it under the General Business requirements as well as the CRD requirements. One of our submittal requirements is that property within 200 feet of the site be shown including topo structures and features and that was not submitted. Detailed engineering plans have not been submitted although there is a representation of some of the utilities. There arenít detailed plans for the detention basins with respect to storm sewers or proposed electric service. There are power poles shown along the back side of the site. The electric service, I assume, will come in from the back because of the power poles being in that location. The location size and species of existing trees were not shown on plans to determine compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. There are a number setbacks that are illustrated on the second page of my comments. There are basically the same ones you had seen last month. There were variances granted for a number of those by the Board of Zoning Appeals on 7/16 and in addition to that a variance was granted for the impervious service ratio which is proposed to be 79%, where the code requires 75%. The CRD district requires 50% of at least three facades and any facade visible from the public right-of-way to contain brick or stone. On this proposal all but the gable ends of the buildings contain brick or stone so they far exceed code minimum with respect to building finishes. The CRD also requires at least 50% of the roof be a pitched residential roof form. The proposal also far exceeds that requirement. Sign areas for all signs proposed meet code. The UDF site is proposing 181 square feet and 187 is permitted. The bank is proposed to have 65 square feet and 131.2 square feet is permitted. The bakery is proposed to have 65 square feet and 123.4 square feet is permitted. In addition to the setback variances granted for the ground signs, there was also a variance obtained to allow four ground signs where two are permitted for the development. The banking requires 12 parking spaces; the bakery requires 9; the convenient store portion requires 20 and the pump island canopy requires 13 for a total of 54 parking spaces. Forty-four are shown. On July 16 Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to parking requirements. We couldnít determine compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance because the existing tree survey wasnít submitted. The landscaping plan shows 28 caliper inches of hardwood is to be planted. I reviewed the site to see what trees were there. It looks like there are approximately six 10 inch honey locusts and two 12 inch honey locusts on the site for a total of 84 caliper inches. Because itís a redevelopment, if those are removed, 84 caliper inches are required to be planted. We would suggest that an effort be made to save as many as possible of the existing trees. We know for certain that there is one that will have to be removed. Itís at the corner of the existing building, but the remainder around the perimeter are in areas that are to be landscaped anyway.
Mr. Johnston said the site is bordered by the elementary school here, City property and a retail outlet. I didnít show the topo of the structures other than I did define on the revised drawings, those that were in close proximity. That will certainly be included in our final plans as would any topo and any engineering details for storm sewers. Mr. Johnston showed where the trees are now. He said I donít think that they really work with the things that we want to have happen along the street front. There will be substantial improvements that will be done with the streetscape and they are virtually right on the edge where all that construction will occur. We would like to be able to put appropriate trees into the development that will support and enhance our development rather than retaining some trees just to be retaining some trees. You are aware that we got all the variances that we talked about at the previous meeting.
Mr. Galster I believe with the new streetscape that if we incorporate it up to the end of this property, I know in the Northland to Kemper area most of the street trees are coming out and have to be replanted.
Mr. McErlane said these are not street trees. These are on their property.
Mr. Johnston stated they are on the property line.
Mr. Vanover asked did we not relocate power lines a few years back and they went underground?
Mr. McErlane replied any new power drops to any existing buildings off the lines have to be underground. They will have to come down to a transformer and run underground to the building.
Ms. McBride said there are two island north of the fuel canopy and we had asked that those be landscaped and they have been curbed and landscaped. The landscape plan does not reflect the number of trees required by our Corridor Review District to be planted along Springfield Pike, West Kemper Road, Pear Street and Walnut Street. They are required to be planted at 25-35 feet on center. Planning Commission has the right to vary the number of street trees that are required. If you choose to do that, you need to include that in any motion you might be making. The mulch beds would have at least three inches of mulch. The signage has been approved. They have supplied all the information that we have requested on building elevations. Only two items remain on the building elevation. One has to do with the east elevation that faces the elementary school. There are two areas on that elevation that are kind of blank. We had suggested that maybe they could put in some fake windows or closed shutters, something that would break that up. The applicant did add a window to one of the facades, but they are reluctant to commit to much more details until they have specific signed leases with those tenants. I think that is something that Staff can work out with the applicant as those leases are signed. The second item had to do with screening of mechanical equipment. Staff had concern about what that equipment would look like from the elementary school from Walnut Street. The applicant went so far as to enclose it within a roof structure. I looked at it on another site, and it was very impressive and Iím sure very expensive. We donít feel something quite to that extreme is necessary here. Again, we would ask the Commission to allow Staff to work with the applicant and come up with some kind of screening that is acceptable without going to quite that extreme. They did submit a compromise lighting plan as Staff had suggested. They had submitted a prototypical type lighting plan that UDF would prefer, then they submitted one that basically complied with the Cityís requirements. They have come up with a third lighting plan and we believe that does address a lot of the concerns we had with their prototypical light plan. They did reduce the middle halite lamps that will be used from 1,000 watts to 400 watts. Itís still hot under the canopy but thatís the nature of the beast. You have women stopping at night so I understand the need to do that so Staff is satisfied with the lighting plan. They have committed to the hours of service and delivery with regards to the proximity of the school. They have also agreed to the outdoor display or storage on the site. The only thing we ask that they might incorporate into that would be that there not be an outdoor pay phone on the site. We discussed that with them and they didnít seem to have a problem but we would ask that that be included.
Mr. Okum asked are there any light packs proposed for the site?
Mr. Johnston said probably in the service area. Mr. Okum said weíd probably want to see residential shields on them to protect the spill.
Mr. Johnston said if we do use a wall pack it will be a wall accent type light.
Mr. Okum asked did you allow for irrigated landscape areas.? Mr. Johnson replied everything is irrigated.
Mr. Okum said the vertical ventilation shaft
Ms. McBride replied that was added as part of this roof structure that UDF proposed to construct to hide all the mechanical equipment. That would go away with some new type of screening we would work out with the applicant. Then it starts to affect the appearance from all four elevations, not just the east elevation. We appreciate their efforts but think maybe we can come up with something that will work just as well for us and might save them some money as well.
Mr. Okum said if they are forced to have something like that I was thinking maybe stone veneer to look like a chimney.
Mr. Johnston said this is what we are talking about. I think where Anne and I will be directing our attention would be to create some type of louvered screening to hide the railings and at the same time blend in with the building. The gable would go. We would create a linear element that would become a screen from the majority of people who walk or drive by. It would still function as an access point to get into that platform where the equipment is. We have air conditioning units with compression for our refrigeration so thereís a lot of equipment that happens in this platform that needs to be concealed.
Ms. McBride said if the Commission would like to see that, I did take some photos of what that looks like out in Mason.
Mr. Johnston said we did it there because that site is going to present itself to a future development. There will be a shopping center behind us. Mr. Johnston said the equipment is going to be in the back. There are a lot of things that will contribute to the concealment of that mechanical equipment. I agree with Anne that itís a little bit more than needs to be done.
Mr. Okum asked you donít have any problem adding the future windows in those rear walls.
Mr. Johnson replied no. We had even talked about the possibility of putting some vertical transitions in there to repeat the columns that happen on the front side.
Mr. Sherry said the intent is to put all the units for all the tenants on the rooftop.
Mr. Johnston said we have done that.
Mr. Sherry asked is the bakery going to be a bakery? Mr. Johnson replied no, everything will be brought in.
Mr. Galster said to get back to the screening, it wonít be seen from the right-of-way but it will be seen from the second floor of the school. With Princeton talking about building new schools in residential communities, thereís a possible different use for the school at that location sometime in the future. Ms. McBride, keep that in mind when you approve this screening. That could very well be office or school.
Mr. Shvegzda said regarding the site and storm water management, there are two proposed underground detention basins. Thereís one in the south area. Its proposed volume and release rate are acceptable. We just need additional information regarding the tributary drainage areaís details on underground conduit and outlet control structure. The second area is in the west drainage area. The applicant has submitted two criteria, one utilizing the area that is totally undeveloped and one with a 50/50 split between pervious and impervious with the two resulting volumes. Weíre aware that this is a difficult area to get the detention end because this is on the upper end of the storm sewer system so both on Kemper and SR 4, the storm sewer is very shallow. The proposed diameter on the detention system is 30 inch. It appears a 36 inch would have to go with a flatter outlet pipe from it but it appears that could be done. In addition, with the 36 inch there is a system where you can put smaller pipes basically within the radius above and below the 36 inch pipe, which maximizes the volume for that same footprint area. With that 36 inch pipe and the small pipe above and below you can get about 5780 cubic feet, which we feel is probably acceptable for this area. There are a couple of areas where some of the on-site may drain out into the public right-of-way one on the axis point from Kemper Road. Weíll have to take a look at that. There is a proposed contour on the southern side of Walnut that appears to be incorrect at 737. There is an existing contour out in Walnut itself that is showing 735. In general, there may be additional spot elevations just to define where the break points are on the site to control the on-site storm flow. We just need additional differentiation between existing and proposed, particularly on the curbing. Itís all one line weight so itís difficult to tell where proposed and indicated curbing is indicated. There is an existing contour plan that just shows the existing contours. It really should be combined with the same plan showing existing physical features. The utility poles are now shown on Walnut and it appears that two are, in fact, in conflict with the proposed driveways that are in place so those will have to be relocated. The fiber optic lines that the City owns are in that west curb line area. That will need to be shown on the plans. There will need to be cooperation with the Public Works Superintendent in order to protect that system. Weíve worked on the access drive to Rt. 4 in regards to getting the angle of the driveway such that it more limits it to the right in only configuration so that appears acceptable. The remainder of the access points basically look acceptable. We just need additional information regarding geometrics, the apron, extent of the apron, curbing, etc. The existing sidewalk location along Walnut Street appears to be incorrect. Thereís a five-foot green space between the back of Walnut and the sidewalk itself. I believe it shows it up against the curb. It was mentioned about the landscape area being an easement to the City for maintenance and landscaping in that area. Thereís a bike rack that is indicated towards the southeast of the building. There may be an issue with the right-of-way. It looks like it might be extending out into the public right-of-way but itís just a clarification. We will need details on catch basins, drive aprons, pavement, curbing, sidewalk curb ramps, etc. Sediment control during construction will need to be defined and the final plans will need to be sealed by a registered engineer.
Mr. Johnston we widened these driveways. The throat of one driveway is a little wider so we can have better movement of vehicles into the bank stacking area. We feel there will be the opportunity to build yet still stay open for a period of time. Obviously at some point the gas operation and building will have to be shut down, but it offers us the opportunity to start working. There were some computer errors on the elevations. We will be sure on the engineered drawings that we present as our finals that we control all the water on site and all the elevations will be correct. Weíll have all the engineering data and details that are required by the City. Weíd like to get the sidewalks out closer to the curb line and have more green space between the building and sidewalk. We feel we can work with 5,700 cubic feet on the detention. We do have additional space and could expand to 30 inches. If it doesnít work weíll go with the 36 with compressed piping.
Mr. Shvegzda said if the sidewalk is moved up to the curb we have that at 6 foot width. We know we have two poles that have to be relocated. That may mean that the third has to be relocated because that would be within the proposed sidewalk.
Mr. Johnston stated I donít believe it is but we might have to relocate two or three.
Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride, you had mentioned in the covenants the phone being inside. I guess that would include no outdoor vending machine.
Ms. McBride replied we didnít discuss that with the applicant. Mr. Johnston said we donít do that.
Mr. Okum said I think it should be in the covenants.
Mr. Sherry asked where will the vents for the tanks be located?
Mr. Johnston answered they have to be at a certain height. I wish I cold give you an answer right now. You can put them in the columns. This site is flat enough that you can move them a distance.
Mr. Sherry said you donít have perimeter gutters on the canopy.
Mr. Johnston said we use two types. The style we will use here will be internal gutters. The water will all go back to the columns. Itís a drain pipe thatís on the outside of a steel column, then has brick around that. You will not see a gutter.
Mr. Sherry asked did you give any consideration to widening the width between the two columns on the canopy to bring them out closer to the edge of the canopy?
Mr. Johnston said there is a standard dimension of twelve feet. That gives you ample protection for a person. Once you move them out, you really start to eliminate the protection the canopy is supposed to be providing.
Mr. Sherry said I was just debating leaving the dispensers where they are and putting the canopy on the outside of the dispensers. I donít feel good about the looks of the canopy because itís so overpowering.
Mr. Johnston said itís a large canopy but you have a strong fascia. There are a lot of things to distract you from the overall affect.
Mr. Sherry asked do you have signage on the dispensers?
Mr. Johnston replied we have the Mobil logo, gas pricing and if allowed by the code, we have the pump topper, a placard that sits on the top.
Mr. Okum said Mr. Sherry, you are saying on the elevation drawing for the canopy, that if the pumps were in and the canopy poles were out, it wouldnít like this big thing sitting on top of a posts. I think it would give it more balance.
Mr. Johnston said you can do that. It just creates a different structure.
Mr. Galster said I make a motion that we approve the plan based on the following conditions:
Mr. Galster asked do we want to get into total number of caliper inches.
Mr. McErlane said itís up to Planning Commission to provide relief from it or make recommendations relative to saving existing trees or replacement of them. If all the trees come down that means 84 caliper inches need to be replaced.
Mr. Johnston asked how do I do that?
Mr. McErlane replied go to something other than the two inch caliper trees that you are proposing. Some of your trees are based on 40 foot spacing that could be increased a little bit. The illustrations you show on your plan are trees with a 30 foot spread. At some point they may get to that but they wonít for quite a long time. I donít know if you can get to 84 caliper inches and I donít know if possible to save a couple of the trees. I know you say one of the trees interferes with your sign. Being the tree preservation person I would say maybe that your sign interferes with the tree.
Mr. Johnston said I donít see a lot of reasoning in saving one tree and getting rid of all the others. Thereís nothing that we can plant that will match the size of that one. Itís going to look like a sore thumb. Iíd rather start fresh. One of the things we talked about last time was being able to see these signs, how important it is for a person to see the price sign.
Mr. McErlane responded the existing trees donít impact your signs at all.
The foliage on your new signs will more impact your signage than the existing trees.
Mr. Johnston said we are talking about trees that would be 6 feet high. Some of those trees out there right now are lower than 6 feet.
Mr. McErlane said they could be limbed up. They are 25 to 30 feet tall.
Itís up to Planning Commission to consider relief from the 84 caliper inches with the possibility of a contribution to the Tree Planting Fund or whatever Planning Commission desires to do. To say mature trees need to come down because they are mature trees is kind of opposite of what a tree preservation ordinance is attempting to do but itís up to Planning Commission.
Mr. Okum said when you increase the dimension of the diameter of the tree, the umbrella moves higher. If you have a three inch tree your limb base will be higher. If you would increase to a 3 inch on your replacements, I donít know if you will get to the 84 inches but you would get quicker to that area. Iím not totally convinced that clustering them together they will strangle each other. We also have a street tree there but as Mr. Galster said it looks like the corridor is going to lose most of the street trees. Iím really excited about that because of their size and health, why get rid of the tree if you donít have to, but on the other hand itís what the program calls for.
Mr. Johnston said 3 inch trees are difficult to buy.
Mr. McErlane said CVS just proposed to plant five 3.5 inch caliper trees on their site.
Mr. Johnston said I have no problem with that or the other option of contributing to the preservation ordinance.
Mr. Okum said Iím not overly excited about planting a tree in a park.
Mr. Johnston said we can convert the 2 inch trees to 3 inch; three times 60 versus the 84.
Mr. Galster said on the motion we will convert the minimum caliper inch from 2 inch to 3 inch and allow the applicant to remove the 4 trees that are shown. The replacement will end up at 60 caliper inches.
Mr. Okum seconded the motion.
The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
VI. New Business
A. Approval of Proposed Roof Sign, Bahama Breeze, 225 Pictoria Drive
William Musco said I work for a commercial sign company and tonight I m representing Chandler Sign Company which is a sign manufacturer in San Antonio, Texas. Their client, Bahama Breeze, is interested in adding a roof sign to their southwest elevation at exit 41. Their original proposal was for a 4 foot 8 inch high sign. They got as big a sign as possible and stayed one foot under the allowable square footage for Springdale. The problem with that is that you donít allow roof signs. You require that there is a backdrop and the sky is not used as a backdrop but you have given relief where the sign is confined to the top of the roof where the roof acts as a backdrop. They want to put a sign on the roof there because they really have no other space due to the design of the building. The preliminary staff comments I received stated that you did give relief in several instances and thatís what we are asking for.
Mr. McErlane said the original application we received for permit showed a 27.5 foot long and 4 foot six inch high sign on the roof. The first concern is that it is a roof sign. The second concern is that we have given relief in the past, to Famous Daveís Barbeque and Longhorn Steakhouse. In both of those cases the roof portion is quite a bit larger than what this is proposed to be mounted on. The original application was 27.5 feet long. The upper portion of the roof it was being mounted on was 28 feet. They have scaled it back at this point to a 24 foot wide sign. Itís actually mounted on less of a pitched roof and there is a steeper pitched roof behind it. The steeper pitched roof is what is 28 feet wide.
Mr. Syfert asked there is no problem with total allowable there.
Mr. McErlane said the original proposal did place them about right at their maximum so they are 30 square feet short of what they are allowed.
Ms. McBride said when Bahama Breeze came in Staff spent a lot of time working with them developing their elevations to make sure we used each and every square foot to do something with that building and I think thatís why they are hear tonight for the roof sign. We made them do an awful lot of architectural detail on all of the elevations but that elevation in particular so I donít have any problem with the sign.
Mr. Galster made a motion to approve the plan as submitted. Mr. Vanover seconded.
The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Syfert stated last Tuesday we had a continue of the public hearing so tonight I will open the public hearing for anyone who would like to speak to this project.
Greg Neville, 314 West Sharon Road, said originally I didnít have much disagreement with what was planned to happen. In reconsidering and looking at the situation, first of all, we donít need additional traffic on Sharon Road. Itís a high volume street now. Entrance and exit from your driveway is a hazard. Myself, as well as the two lots west of me, all three of us have turn around locations in the front portion of our yard because you canít back out onto Sharon Road safely. You can but you risk getting killed. You canít hardly turn into your driveway anymore without coming close to rear end collisions. Thereís not a week that goes by that Iím westbound on Sharon Road getting ready to go into the driveway, and drivers will go west of center to go around me rather than wait that moment while I turn into the driveway. Not only do I not want the traffic but the aesthetics of the street would be altered. The area I believe they are looking to put this driveway in is a treed area. If they put a driveway in those trees will have to move. They couldnít be replaced in that area because that would create an obstruction of the view. Sharon Road coming up from Rt. 4 there is no traffic light until you get all the way up to Southland Road. Even though you have a set speed limit of 40 mph a lot of traffic, a large number of people go 50 -60 mph. The area where they are proposing this there would be a very bad view if you are looking eastbound. People would be coming up the hill. There is a driveway as you crest the hill. The driveway where that crest of the hill is, that house is being used as a multi-family residence. Thereís room for off-street parking for six vehicles. Those would affect your view looking eastbound, as well as the fact that the property adjacent to mine, thereís also a turn around area where a vehicle is parked. Then you come up to my residence and there is a parking area at the top of my driveway. If you are proposing to come out on Sharon Road, the people looking down will be looking at possibly six vehicles which will obstruct their view. If you look to the right you are talking about possibly two vehicles, a telephone pole, two mailboxes that would partially obstruct your view of traffic coming eastbound. Itís not a safe situation. If you had people turning westbound out of there, you would still incur the same problem. By the time they look east and look west somebody is going to be on top of them. Iím not a traffic engineer but Iím a retired policeman. Iíve seen enough accidents to know what constitutes a hazard. Ideally if people obeyed the law and maybe reduced their speed some, it might not be quite so bad. At 40 mph and no traffic enforcement to speak of, youíre asking for a possible problem. Anybody who goes to church there, especially an aged person whoís reflexes are naturally going to be slower and their mind is not going to be on driving, itís going to be on what happened at church and whatís going to happen at home, is going to pull out and get t-boned. That would be on the churchís shoulders and your shoulders. I think Rt. 4 is perfectly sufficient for what they need. There is plenty of view northbound and southbound.
The public hearing was closed.
Andrew Aurilo, Environ Group, said Iím here to talk to you about the proposed access drive for the Nazarene Church. The church as recently acquired the property necessary to allow an access drive from the parking area to Sharon Road. The primary reason for this drive would be for Sunday morning and evening services and special events. The drive access would be gated at all times except during these uses to prevent people from coming through to get to Rt. 4. We believe this access will relieve the current congestion experienced on Sunday afternoon especially during special events. We feel we have selected the best path for this access road. It is our desire to work with staff and Planning Commission to resolve remaining issues. We are looking to get the results as soon as possible so work can proceed with construction currently ongoing at the church.
Mr. Shvegzda said in regards to the site distance issues we did look at that in regards to stopping site distance along Sharon Road. It appeared sufficient; however, we did not take into account any parked cars that may be an obstruction issue. Thatís a new wrinkle and weíll have to take a look at that separately. Drive slope has been modified and it is now 10% and acceptable in regards to tying in to the proposed road at Sharon Road. We suggested that be offset from the existing edge of pavement because of the difficulty of getting that wedged in along the edge of pavement with a radius there. There is excess volume in the detention basin and all this drainage into the retention basin; therefore, it is acceptable. A ditch section has now been added to the driveway that goes through a cut area so that takes care of that tributary area that is draining to the roadway. The only concern is where the driveway meets at the parking lot. At the west side of the drive there is a catch basin that was proposed as part of the overall redevelopment of this site. Itís not clear with the grading. There is so much water that is supposed to build up on the catch basin so it has capacity to go into the detention basin with a modification of the re-grading of the drive. Itís a little uncertain whether that can still be achieved so additional details need to be provided for that. Sediment and erosion control plan needs to be submitted and the part of the driveway that is in the public right-of-way needs to be up to the pavement standards for Sharon Road to match the pavement there.
Ms. McBride said a conditional use permit is pending before Planning Commission. That is necessary to allow access through a residential district to a non-residential district which is what the church is actually zoned. They are proposing one ground mounted sign that will be on the east side of the access drive. That will require two variances actually from the Board of Zoning Appeals, one to allow a sign within the residential district; and two, that would actually be the third sign for the church. The sign itself is set back ten feet from the right-of-way line as we require and itís over 50 feet to a residential property line. The height is 5 feet 8 inches, which is below that which is permitted and the area of the sign is 24.5 square feet, all of which are consistent with the requirements of the code in other districts. They did submit a landscape plan; however, they did not show a plant schedule that shows compliance with the requirements we have. We have very strict requirements in regards to buffering access drives or parking areas from residential areas so that plant schedule would need to reflect all of the requirements of that buffered area. The access drive would eliminate 8 parking spaces within the approved parking area for the church. The code requires 300 parking spaces. After they lose the 8 they would have 346 spaces so they are still in compliance with our code. A concern of staff is the lighting plan that was submitted by the applicant. They are proposing five pole mounted lights along that access drive, 175 watt, middle halite lamps that would be mounted at a height of 25 feet. As you know, the City has lighting regulations. One of those would be that those fixtures would be mounted at a maximum height of ten feet. They are showing a maximum illumination of 11.08 foot candles and in this type of situation we have a maximum of 5.0 foot candles. Also we have a regulation that there be a maximum of 5 foot candles at the property line where itís adjacent to residential and their readings exceed that 5 foot candles at the property line. We would need to see that lining plan revised to reflect the requirements of our lighting standards. The only other thing I would point out to Planning Commission is that you have very specific standards and conditions that must be met for you to issue a conditional use permit. Those would be found in A through H of my staff report so you need to address those in any motion that you might be making.
Mr. Sherry said I have questions on the lighting too. We got two drawings from the applicant; one that had an arbitrary grid on it and one that had the actual foot candles superimposed over the plan. I couldnít find the 11 foot candles on the actual plan but I could find it on the arbitrary grid. How are they to comply with the code? I donít know how they can get only 5 foot candles out of the fixtures. Typically they are much brighter than that underneath it which is where you get the 11 that you have here, and they go down dramatically from there.
Ms. McBride said not being a lighting expert I would say they have to comply with it or obtain a variance form the City. This is clearly adjacent to residential area so staff is very sensitive to lighting in this area. If there is a problem that it canít be complied with then we need to go back and look at our standards. We hadnít been apprised of that situation before, that it was not obtainable. When the amendment was drafted it was floated around to different lighting companies and there were no problems pointed out.
Mr. Sherry said I was surprised that we have a 175 watt lot on a 25 foot pole. Thatís very uncommon. Iím surprised you have any light going down. They just donít put out a lot of light.
Ms. McBride said that is what the applicant is proposing.
Mr. Sherry asked when we did the Comprehensive Plan work it seems to me a bike path was supposed to go through here. Is it on this side of the street and whatís going on with that?
Mr. Shvegzda said the bike path is proposed for the southside of Sharon Road between the edge of pavement and sidewalk that exists, I think. That has been submitted to ODOT and will probably start construction in the spring.
Mr. Okum asked what are you going to do about the lighting?
Mr. Aurilo said dropping down to ten feet is not an issue. We will be adding two more poles. 175 watts would be adequate as well. Maximum .5 foot candles at the property line shouldnít be an issue. In regards to the sign fluorescent light will be used instead of a backlit sign. The sign will be ten feet off the right-of-way and towards the middle of the site.
Mr. Okum said I have a real problem with this. I live on Springdale Lake Drive and Iíve got Mallard Lakes subdivision built underneath a residential lot. Frankly, itís a hazard all the time on people ingressing and egressing at that intersection. Itís a slight radius there, which makes a difference, but on the other hand, unless you are going to have a police officer there controlling that intersection whenever itís in use, I donít see anyway that could possibly work for safety issues. I have to agree with Mr. Neville, with cars parked on those t-parking areas for those residences I would be very concerned. I know people get distracted. Youíre going to have a bike path across the street. I agree with you on speed. I would be very concerned about members of their church coming out and getting t-boned. The only way that could possibly work would be if there were a police officer at that intersection whenever it is used. I donít like the idea of it coming out into a residential area period but if there were a street there it would be coming out there but thereís no thoroughfare plan showing a street there.
Mr. McErlane stated the church lot itself currently has two signs. One of those was granted by a variance in 1993 so the additional sign is going to require a variance. The plan shows removal of 198 caliper inches of hardwoods requiring 99 inches of replanting. There are forty 2.5 inch caliper hardwoods proposed which comes up to the 100 caliper inches. If you look at the limits of construction on construction documents they actually show that they will be impacting more trees than the 198 caliper inches that are shown. It would be my suggestion that if Planning Commission approves this it would be based on meeting the Tree Preservation Ordinance in replanting.
Mr. Galster said you said the gate would be closed except for what hours.
Mr. Aurilo replied except during church service on Sunday morning 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Sunday evening from 6 to 8 p.m. and during any special events. There is an Easter production on multiple nights during 7 to 9 p.m.
Mr. McSwain said Iím 68 and have been going to Springdale Nazarene Church for 67 years. Sharon Road comes down and curves just a little bit. Itís heading straight into our proposed entrance both ways. It doesnít drop off until it gets past there. As far as the sign is concerned, we have gotten awards on Rt. 4 for the way we take care of our property. Landscaping will be first class. As far as Mr. Neville is concerned, I think we are kind of close. In fact, he offered to sell me his property and I chose not to pay that much, and go down the street and buy two other ones. I went into debt for both of those houses because I believe in it. They are not just there to help the Nazarene Church. They are there to help people. Those signs are going to attract people from Forest Park and Greenhills. Thatís what its all about. I really disagree that it will be a hazard going in and out of that place.
Mr. Huddleston said I did drive that street and try to visualize the line of sight. I didnít go back into the property as Mr. Neville indicated. I didnít really perceive that there is a problem there. Iím not a traffic expert so I guess I would defer to Mr. Shvegzdaís opinion as to what kind of study we would need to do to determine if there is a line of sight problem eastbound, westbound or accessing it.
Mr. Shvegzda said we had previously taken a look taken on the line of sight, stopping sight distance with no obstructions there. We can take a look at specifically where that line of sight was and observe to see what obstructions are actually out there that may affect the sight distance. Weíd probably have to go out there a couple of times to verify that.
Mr. Huddleston asked is there any benefit to the church or City to create that as a right out lane? Do you see that as a negative?
Mr. Shvgezda said it certainly would eliminate some conflicting movements. I donít know how that would be viewed in the churchís concern about the effectiveness of the driveway.
Mr. Huddleston said they have double lane egress from their Springfield Pike driveway. Anybody going east on Sharon could very well come out that way. Here if we made that a right out only it would facilitate westbound Sharon Road and alleviate part of their traffic congestion on Springfield Pike. I donít know how the church would feel about that.
Mr. Aurilo said I would be willing to take that back to the church. Right now we are proposing a two way turn.
Mr. Huddleston said I suggest that we have the City Engineer study this and get back to us if it makes sense to do that. If itís a negative we donít want to waste everybodyís time. Iím not sure that would meet the timing that the church is looking for. On the other hand if there is a safety concern we need to address that. I donít have a concern as long as we address the adjoining neighbors and screen them from the light and to some extent noise as long as public safety features can be met.
Mr. Syfert asked was this presented at all to the Police Department.
Mr. McErlane replied no, we donít typically forward to the Police Department.
Mr. Okum said I think deferring it to allow the City Engineer to do a visual on it would be useful. If you are dropping 20% of your parking out of that space, youíve got 346 parking spaces. You will have a lot of cars coming out of there. You will need monitoring of some nature to handle that volume. The conditional use permit can have conditions attached to that. Once we get the report back from the City Engineer if there are conditions that say that there has to be a certified police officer on duty at all times when that gate is open then that would probably make me feel more comfortable as long as all the other issues are met.
Mr. Galster said I wonder if we can gate the other side coming out of the church parking lot so that would allow us to turn the lights off except for on the nights they have events. There is no need to have lights on all the time.
Mr. Vanover said Mr. Galster you could have every other one on a separate circuit that would be like night lights. I do think it would be worthwhile to take a little extra time and look at all sides. Mr. Neville is correct that there is nothing more devastating than a loss within the church community. It might be good to get some insight form the Police Department to see what they think.
Mr. Syfert asked does the applicant appreciate the concern that we have? Do you have any problem with us studying this and then you come back next month? Mr. Aurilo replied it was not a problem.
Mr. Galster made a motion to table and Mr. Vanover seconded.
Mr. Sherry said Iím troubled by the application. On the one hand you are telling us you will be using it for exit purposes. The testimony you gave tonight says you are going to encourage access into the property off of Sharon. I am troubled by that. If you have an existing problem you donít need a sign there. The sign is there because you want to bring people into the property.
Mr. Aurilo stated the sign is there to open up that side of the community to the church, not necessarily as a physical thing but to show the church to that side of the community. Itís more of a marketing standpoint to increase the congregation. A lot of people will drive up and down Sharon and not even know that church is there, yet it takes up a tremendous amount of land and there is a very large and supportive congregation in Springdale.
The motion to table passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Syfert said you will be on the agenda September 10 under Old Business.
Mr. Okum made a motion to table Item C on the agenda. Mr. Galster seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be there September 10th. Everyone said yes.
Mr. Huddleston said I apologize for my absence last time. I thought we were covered but we werenít.
Mr. Huddleston said I asked that the amendment for the Resolution Of Cooperation with the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commissionís Planning Partnership be added to the packets. That regards fee structures for the partnership. It was an attempt to level the playing field, to basically cap going to community residents at 35 cents per residents. There were some inequities on a per resident basis. We did it geographically.
Mr. Okum made a motion that we recommend the amendment to Council as a positive. Mr. Vanover seconded. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes.
Council adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
William Syfert, Chairman
Robert Sherry, Secretary