PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
7:00 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

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

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:    Steve Galster, Bob Diehl, Tony Butrum
                David Okum, Lawrence Hawkins III and
                Chairman Syfert

Members Absent:        Tom Vanover

Others Present        Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
                Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, City Engineer
                Anne McBride, City Planner

III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 10 JULY 2007

Mr. Butrum moved to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster reported that Ordinance 35-2007 is in the packets. This amends the Zoning Code to escalate the level of violation so they can come before the judge rather than just paying out the fine.
B. Zoning Bulletin – July 1, 2007
C. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – 6/19/07
D. Ordinance 35-2007 Amending Zoning Code Section 153.902
E. Affecting Violations and Penalties for Violations

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Approval of Final Development Plan, The Offices at Glenview, 250 West Sharon Road

Bobbie Breeze-Stringfellow introduced Dr. Michael Todd, Rob Canfield, partners in the project, Julie Durbin of Durbin Landscaping and Tom Vandenbosh of McGill Smith Punshon.

We eliminated the eastern curb cut. Although we felt strongly about maintaining both of those curb cuts, particularly for the benefit of the upper level occupants, we do understand the city’s position and their desire to minimize the number of curb cuts in the corridor review district. So we compromised and deleted that eastern curb cut.

We are requesting a modification for the front yard setback of 79 feet from the right of way of West Sharon Road, and the western side yard setback to 10 feet from the property line.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE TWO

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Ms. Stringfellow added when we decided not to move forward with the David property on Springfield Pike, we had to shift the building pad slightly to the southwest to get it off the corner so we need these modifications

Staff asked for clarification on the dumpster enclosure. The space in the northwestern corner of the site is 10 feet wide and we are proposing having a standard size dumpster six feet wide, so we think there is enough clearance for a car door along that enclosure wall.

Last month we provided a cut sheet of the detention basin fencing, and I have some color copies. I have indicated the style and color. She passed out the copies. The fence will be four feet high and the pickets are less than four inches apart. Pearl black is the color and the material is baked aluminum.

The location for the detention basin fencing is as shown going almost completely around the detention basin. We would like to keep the western most portion open so we can maintain the grass in the basin. On the eastern detention basin, we propose having the fencing along the top of the retaining wall.

We provided a sheet on the spec for the segmented retaining wall. I have some additional copies and the color is canyon color which is complementary with our building fascia. She also showed the brick and stone and siding. The roof shingle is Shenandoah.

The photometric plan has been accepted by staff. There was mention of building mounted lighting. We will have accent lighting and lights over the exit doors and they will be shielded and down lit.

On the cross access easements when we assembled the properties at 242 and 252 West Sharon Road, we envisioned that as Phase 1 and we thought we would acquire additional properties to the west in the future and continue with the development. Someone else has acquired the property so we don’t know what will be built there or if there will be a mutual benefit to the cross access easement.

If the property is developed on just this one lot and there is concern about a curb cut being located there, the city might suggest that there be a primary access for this lot through out property, and we wouldn’t realize a mutual benefit. We would have maintenance concerns with that and probably some liability concerns. If this is a multi lot redevelopment there might be a mutual benefit to crossing the properties, but right now we don’t know what’s gong to happen to the west of us. We would much rather wait until we know what is proposed to the west before we give a blanket cross access easement.

When we were talking to CMHA while we had the David property under contract there were no cross access easements between those two properties. We just got confirmation from CMHA that they have no outstanding issues with tying into their storm system.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE THREE

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Ms. Stringfellow added I would like to thank staff for their responsiveness and availability to answer the number of questions we have asked.

Tom Vandenbosh said talking about the north detention basin, the 10 foot wide would allow three inches of water to go over the spillway. The velocities were below the four foot percentage. I met with CMHA and discussed the overall runoff issues and they were acceptable to those calculations

On the south and east detention basins there are some issues with the spillway also. There is no storm sewer or well defined drainage way and there is more concern about the spillway in that location. Just above where the flow spreader was we propose to put the emergency spillway. Only about two inches of water would be going through that emergency spillway and the velocities were much less than the other basin.

On the storm sewer calculations, there were concerns about the small amount along the Sharon Road right of way. We pushed the contours and grading out into the swale slightly. We are prepared to provide these calculations so you can see what the flow is through there and make sure we are not pushing the water under the street. If there are issues, we can always add a short retaining wall by the parking lot. I don’t think that will be a significant issue.

There was a concern with the MSD rules and regulations on their easement. Their rule is that no building may be constructed within three feet of the easement. When we do get down to building design, we will make adjustments as necessary.

Julie Durbin said we met on July 19th Anne McBride to cover the over all landscaping design. We also were to add more trees and shrubs, and we completed that. We have also upgraded the size of the trees and we have been able to screen the headlights which was a concern on the west side. I think we have met every concern, from the west side screening with the wall. We also have put some climbing hydrangeas to soften that wall and raised that bed so we could put a columnar box which would give that screening 12 months a year. We moved everything around on the perimeter to meet all these requirements. I do believe that with Anne’s help that this new landscaping plan overall is probably at its maximum capacity in terms of trees. We took every space we could to add in the amount that we could to get closest to the requirements, upgraded those sizes and added additional shrubs, ground cover and perennials. In that meeting, they said they would like to see fewer mulch beds, especially on that west side and West Sharon, so we have added perennials to have color all summer long. We believe the new plan will be much more colorful, fuller and closer to the requirements for this property.

Mr. McErlane reported that the major difference from last month’s report deals with the tree removal and tree replacement. I provided you with an update after meeting with the applicant at the site yesterday. We found a couple of trees that were either dead or dying so they wouldn’t require replacement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE FOUR

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Mr. McErlane added that the new totals are as follows. There are 580 caliper inches of Category I trees that are being removed. Of these, 52 inches are in the building footprint, so there is not a requirement for replacement. Category II (evergreen) total 51 caliper inches being removed and 39 inches of these are below the required replacement size, eight inches, so they are not required to be replaced either.

Of the 580 inches of Category I trees, there are 310 inches that are larger than 24 inches which requires them to replant larger trees. There are several 40 inch trees, a few 36 inch and some 26 inch trees.

There is still some concern about some of the trees along the rear property line as to whether or not they will survive or make it through the construction process, because there is quite a bit of grading back there. So we might lose a few more.

Based on what was presented, the tree replanting that is required is 264 caliper inches of Category I trees and six inches of evergreens for a total of 270 caliper inches.

As I stated there were a number of trees over 24 inches and the Tree Preservation Ordinance requires that 155 inches of those Category I trees be planted at 3 inches. What they show on the planting plan is 105 caliper inches of Category I trees, 67 inches of evergreens and 63 inches of ornamentals for a total of 235. This makes them 35 caliper inches short. Last month they were 161 inches short, so they made a vast improvement and have come closer to meeting the replacement requirement.

To satisfy the 3 inch size trees, if we count the spruce trees toward that requirement they have satisfied 83 caliper inches of the 155 required to be the larger trees. I’m not sure if there are additional changes that can be made to some of the plant material to upsize to 3 inches. Most of the evergreen material comes in a larger caliper inch size than the typical 2 or 2 inch tree, so I’m not sure Bald Cyprus turns out to b something bigger than 2 inches, so that may count as well. However, even if you upsize these, you won’t meet the 155 caliper inches of 3 inch trees.

The law director was satisfied with the changes made a month ago in the covenants. On the access easement, it probably could be covered in a covenant. One of the things that I’m sure the applicant would be concerned about would be to make sure they protect their interests with regards to the maintenance of whatever happens there. We can provide language from the CVS covenants that would give them a start. They may want to tweak them.

The applicant has indicated the canyon color for the retaining wall and it is available in two different styles. One (Europa) has a variable height block and one with a consistent height block. The Europa is shown on the color chart. The Courtyard collection also has the canyon color with standard height. Ms. Stringfellow reported we would want the Courtyard.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE FIVE

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Mr. Syfert asked how much is short on the tree preservation and Mr. McErlane reported we are short 35 caliper inches total tree replanting, and the major trees are short 71 inches. Even if you took all their deciduous trees and upsized them an inch, you wouldn’t get the 70+ caliper inches. Also, the parking lot is only three to four feet higher than the road. Most of that grade change occurs out in the right of way. The front floor level is actually 9 feet higher. There are steps that go from the parking lot level up to the floor level.

Mr. McErlane said we don’t have a distance from the right of way to the roadway but it looks like it is 15 to 18 feet so it would be 25 to 28 feet to the parking lot. Mr. Shvegzda reported it scales 28 feet from the parking lot to the edge of pavement. Mr. McErlane added and it would be 90+ feet to the building.

Ms. McBride reported that one of the biggest changes was the removal of the eastern access point which eliminated staff’s concerns about those parking spaces backing out and gave us the opportunity to provide additional landscaping on West Sharon.

Planning will need to include the modified setbacks for the building on West Sharon and the parking on the west in their motion.

They changed the gates on the dumpster. They are doing the decorative wrought iron fence around the detention basin in the rear and across the front of the detention on the east side of the site.

On the cross access easements, that is something that the city has been trying to achieve throughout the Corridor District. Sometimes we don’t always know what is going in next door but if the City doesn’t place that requirement on there, we have no ability to go back to them and ask for a cross access easement should we feel that the redevelopment next door is compatible. I would strongly urge the commission to make that a provision of any approval.

The signage meets all our requirements as does the lighting. We met with the applicant and their landscape architect on the landscape plan and they were very agreeable to making changes and revisions to the landscape plan. The only thing we would add is that the fence around the detention basin needs to be incorporated on the landscape plan. The plant material that they are showing, even though it may not meet the exact letter of intent particularly along West Sharon Road, we think it is very acceptable and will create a very desirable development in the city.

The applicant has asked for relief from replacement of the ash trees on site. Those are healthy trees at this point in time, and staff does not think relief should be granted for the replacement of those. They have removed the inclusion of new ash trees from the landscape plan which was our concern last month but those are still healthy trees and there is no reason to take them down at this time. So they should be included in the replacement calculations.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE SIX

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Mr. Syfert asked if she was suggesting that the cross easement access should be handled in the covenants and Ms. McBride answered that would be fine. We don’t know if we are going to ask for it and we don’t know or where it would be most beneficial because we don’t know how the property would redevelop. I do think we need to have some mechanism to use to go to these people and ask to have continuity between the two properties.

Mr. Syfert commented I can see their concerns in terms of the liability and the maintenance. I am guessing that unless it was a competing type office building, it probably would be to the benefit of everyone.

Mr. Galster said with the cross access if that property to the west is developed, I would assume that it would be our intention to lineup the driveways with the golf course entrance, going back to what the applicant was originally asking for. That is their western most entrance, and would open up the possibility of having another entrance on the east corner of their lot. It seems to me that those covenants that would facilitate those conversations taking place would be to the applicant’s benefit.

Ms. String fellow said we will maintain our western curb cut, but wouldn’t those two curb cuts be too close together? Mr. Galster said I think it is important that we continue to look at it. I don’t know that there is anything in there that would require certain actions. We don’t know what will be there, other than a cooperative atmosphere to try to get it done. I don’t know how you legally tell somebody that they have to be cooperative. Is that what we are asking them to do or are we asking for something more than that?

Ms. McBride responded I think we are asking for the commitment that if the city feels that it would be beneficial to both parties that they would be agreeable to providing a cross access easement that would have shared maintenance, shared access and those kinds of things. I don’t think at this point in time it is practical to say where it is going to go or how wide it’s going to be. If we don’t leave that door open, it will be closed forever.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said in talking about this in general terms, are you okay with that? In listening to your presentation, it seems like you are reluctant to have that kind of statement in the covenants. In terms of having general terms in the covenant that state that if in fact there is a mutually beneficial application…..Ms. Stringfellow responded mutually beneficial would be key for us, and we would probably want our real estate attorney involved in drafting some of the language. If you could keep it as broad as possible, it would be okay.

Mr. Galster commented we have similar language on other properties so we should be able to provide a good starting point for that.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE SEVEN

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the detention basins there are a
Number of final design issues that need to be accommodated. The issue of the emergency spillway was addressed. On the north basin it is more of a final delineation of where it is, the width and the fact that it would be directed to an adequate location to the north. On the south or east detention basin, it was more of a critical issue there because there wasn’t any existing drainage course in the area of the storm sewer and there is a structure fairly close to the property line. It is a matter of having that oriented in the location so that it will be a minor flow and directed in an area away from the structure. Mr. Vandenbosh indicated that they are willing to provide that.

The last letter we received from CMHA was a preliminary commitment to it. An e-mail was sent noting that at this point they don’t have any issues but a final document will need to be prepared.

The level spreader which is the discharge arrangement from the southern basin has been greatly improved. It is a much more definite way to physically spread out the flow from the concentrated flow to more of a sheet flow. The key with the installation of those things is that it is done correctly and located in the right format. The construction is key, and then the maintenance to make sure it operates correctly and is not a nuisance to the area.

There is a catch basin located towards the northwestern end of the site. Part of its tributary area was offsite to the west. Initially the grading there had a landscape mound along that western property line. It is my understanding that with the new configuration that is gone.

Mr. Vanderbosh said we will adjust those contours to bring the water into the parking lot. Mr. Shvegzda responded the concern before was that it was damming up the flow from offsite and it was going to flow in a concentrated way to the north. As long as the contours are modified so the flow continues on to its intended location, which is fine.

Another point was the discharge points in each of the detention basins. Previously each of those locations had a pretty high velocity coming into the detention basins. The fact that those are all sodded or grass bottoms, there would be an issue with potential erosion at those discharge points. Now it is my understanding that those storm sewer slopes will be modified to reduce the velocities as they enter into the basins so it is taken care of.

Mr. Vandenbosh had mentioned the issue of grading into the public right of way and we would verify that the dish capacity on Sharon is taken care of.

Mr. Okum said your landscape architect indicated that the landscaping on the site will be fully irrigated, is that correct? Ms. Durbin confirmed this, adding that this goes back to these owners wanting to take pride in their landscaping.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE EIGHT

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD


Mr. Okum added I have to agree with staff on the cross easements and I agree with your comments that it needs to be mutually beneficial for purposes of public improvement.

I still am a little concerned about the 10-foot bushes versus the 20-foot on the west. You have done a pretty good job of showing us an example of how the cars will come in at a different level. How close is the house to the property line? Mr. Vanderbosh said it is approximately 35 feet.

Mr. Galster thanked the applicant for addressing so many of the issues. I am okay with the relief of the 35 inches of trees, providing the cross access easement is written to your satisfaction.

Mr. Okum said what will we do with the 35 inches of shortfall? Ms. Stringfellow responded we would appreciate relief on that. Mr. McErlane said they would make up some of the additional toward the 35 inches and 70+ inches if they upsize the trees. Ms. Durbin said we can check on the Bald Cyprus in the field and get back with you on that.

Mr. Okum asked how many are being planted and Mr. McErlane said six. I am sure Ms. Durbin will verify that a lot of these trees won’t be available larger than 2 inch.

Mr. Okum I think increasing some of the tree sizes is a reasonable approach.

Ms. Durbin said you are talking about going to the larger size trees. We may be able to push that caliper up in a couple of instances, but keep in mind that we get into that bigger ball and we have such limited space especially on the west side. We are adding a lot of shrubbery that we did not have on the previous drawing.

Mr. Okum said I think staff is recommending absorbing some of the 35 inch shortfall into the tree size. I’m not asking the applicant to get the 35 inches; I am asking them to work with staff to come up with a reasonable number, instead of a contribution to the tree replanting program.

Ms. McBride said my question to the commission is are you going to allow them to make up whatever they can of the 35 inches and make up the rest as a contribution to the tree fund, which with one exception every other development has done in the city. Before you waive that, I would ask you to very carefully think about the future impact of that, what makes this development than all the others. I think you’ll have trouble if you waive the tree fund donation in this instance. What happens next month?

Ms. Durbin added we are so limited on the amount of green space we do have here. Ms. McBride answered I do not disagree with the quantity of material going on the site. My caution is if you waive the donation for this development, you need to be prepared for every development that comes forward from this point on to ask for similar consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE NINE

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Ms. Durbin added in your consideration to that shortfall of the Category I trees, we picked them up in Category II, which are considered ornamental trees. So we have this height dimension and we don’t have this overcrowding 10 years down the road. We also would like to recommend that you take a look at the fact that in working with Anne, we also have given a lot more perennials and a lot more color. That is not in your mandatory specification. We have done that to improve that property. The owners have taken this to beautify this.

Ms. McBride said Julie is correct in that but staff has also taken the position that you don’t have to plant exactly what is required on West Sharon Road. I think you will agree that this has been a give and take situation, and the product we have turned out is a great one. The development will be a tremendous asset to the city and I hope it is very successful.

Mr. Okum said I am not one to give up on getting trees replanted, but I have to say that we have a fully irrigated site that the applicant is contributing to the upkeep and vitality of the entire site. There is a cost to that.

Part of my motion would be to have a fully operational irrigation system for the entire site. They have made the commitment to do t his and I think it will add to the vitality and growth of the trees over five or 10 years and this 35 inches will go away pretty quickly.

Usually I would say make the contribution, but if we have a fully irrigated site, once they have absorbed into the landscape plan as much as they can, the irrigation system in itself will make up some of that difference; 35 inches of trees is not a lot of money.

Ms. McBride commented if it is not a lot of money it wouldn’t be a significant contribution to the tree fund and the precedent wouldn’t be broken. Mr. Okum asked the formula for contribution and Mr. McErlane said it is $100 for each tree. Mr. Okum said so it would be $3,500.

Ms. McBride added my concern is that we have other sites in the city that are irrigated. You see the concern I have about the precedence. Mr. Okum responded if somebody tells me they are going to put a $15,000 or $20,000 irrigation system on a site where it is not required, versus contributing $3,500 to a tree fund, I would take the irrigation system. Ms. McBride responded that is fine. Then the commission needs to look at reworking the tree replacement ordinance because we have people in the city who have put irrigation systems in and have had to contribute to the tree fund. I caution the commission that there are other cases that will be coming before you and you need to think about that as well as the cases previously.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Butrum said I am satisfied with the landscape plan. If you can eak out a few more inches, fine, but in terms of the shortfall which at most would be $3,500, is that a problem?.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE TEN

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Ms. Stringfellow responded it doesn’t sound like much, but every additional cost makes the project a little bit more difficult for us. We are negotiating with several prospects right now. There is a medical office condo project in Evendale that we are competing with, and we want to be competitive. Every little bit that we add to our cost makes it harder for us to be competitive. The sprinkler system will probably cost about $14,000. That is a substantial investment we are making in our landscape plan. I know you have the ordinance, but we would ask that you look at our development on its own,

Mr. Butrum commented the problem is we can’t completely look at it on its own. I agree that it is a beautiful site, but we might be opening a big can of worms. I am more concerned about the next development and what this exception would mean.

Mr. Syfert said in the past we have had contributions to the fund from developers who had a much greater shortfall than in this case. I believe we could defend ourselves because it will be unique and will beautify the property.

Mr. Butrum said a small shortfall equals a small contribution. If we could add a few inches here and there, it might be $2,500 or less.

Mr. Galster said I am willing to look at the 35 inches and whatever you can make up, give a discount to the standard rate. Based on the uniqueness, I would make it $50 per caliper inch.

Ms. Stringfellow said I would like to suggest that we try to bring those 35 inches down, and whatever is left we will buy starter trees and place them on the Springdale Elementary School property. We thought that would be a nice location.

Mr. Hawkins said I agree that the applicant has done a great job with the landscaping, but I agree with Ms. McBride that it is important to follow the tree replacement policy set up by the City. If it means that you contribute trees to a different location, fine or if it means a discounted amount, I would be okay with all that based on what you are doing, but I do think it is important to follow the tree replacement policy instead of forgiving you of the entire amount.

Mr. McErlane said when we get to that point, we will need to know how the applicant defines starter trees so we know what we are getting if we go that route.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the final development plan to include specifications and design contained in the exhibits submitted, to include staff city engineer and city planner’s recommendations and the law director’s approval of the covenants as modified.

The applicant has indicated that all the lighting shall be of non-glare type. The landscaping condition shall include a fully irrigated operational sprinkler system for the entire site.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE ELEVEN

OFFICES AT GLENVIEW – 250 WEST SHARON ROAD

Mr. Okum continued that the tree replacement program shall include some of the 35 inch shortfall being absorbed into the planting plan, and a contribution into the tree fund to go to the Springdale Elementary School tree program and to be approved by staff.

Cross easement conditions set forth in the covenants shall be reviewed and approved by staff and the law director and they shall be mutually beneficial to both property owners.

Railings around the basins as submitted this evening shall be UAF 200 Pearl Black and the Allan Block wall shall be Canyon 3- color courtyard pattern per the picture presented this evening.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Butrum said if the school is not receptive to the trees, will we haves an alternate site? Mr. Okum said that is why I moved that it should be approved by staff. The location is to go to the Springdale Elementary School Tree program as approved by staff. So they are tied to the tree replacement formula. They offered it to go to the elementary school. That is part of the motion. If the school refuses it, there will have to be an adjustment made, but at this point, that is where it is going.

Mr. Butrum said Anne’s comments dealt with the fence being placed on the landscape plan, so that would be included in the staff recommendations.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify the tree offer, it sounded like they were providing a contribution to the school. Mr. Okum said it was to contribute into our tree fund. Mr. Okum said we should add or to the emotion.

Ms. Stringfellow asked if they would be able to provide the trees for the city to plant. Mr. Okum responded I don’t believe they have any tree program right now, but you will create one by this contribution.

Mr. Hawkins said concerning the discussion about the cross easement being mutually beneficial, will there be anything else that will be wordsmithed by the law director? Mr. Okum responded I said approved by staff and/or law director.

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

Planning Commission took a five-minute break at 8:15 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 8:22 p.m.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

An    Approval of 38,000 s.f. addition, John Morrell & Co., 805 East Kemper Road

.   
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE TWELVE

JOHN MORRELL ADDITION – 805 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Jeff Wesseler, Mark Redmond and Charlie Kuhn from John Morrell approached the commission.

Mr. Wesseler reported that this is a process manufacturing addition. It is anew process that John Morrell will be using to make product. It also has a shipping dock on back.

We have a landscape plan and nave attempted to match the landscaping we are taking out and with the additional paved areas, we are adding unpaved areas. We have tried to balance the paved area that we will have when we are finished with what is there now.
We are trying to keep our ratio about the same as it was before.

We also are attempting to keep the storm water detention the same.

We came up with al little shortfall, and we recalculated our ratios and changed very slightly. We will try to keep the green space equal to what it is now.

Staff had a concern about lighting. The site has pole lamps throughout the site and there also is wall mounted lighting. We intend to put more lighting on the building itself and no more on the site. We believe the site is lit fairly well now. We have a typical wall mounted light fixture which would provide enough lighting for operations and security on site.

We are proposing a compactor with a dumpster box attached to it. This is essential for the process, to remove their waste materials. It will be on the back of the building where it won’t be seen by anyone, so we are questioning whether we could do away with the screening requirements. It will be in the truck parking area with trucks parked on each side so it will not be seen by anyone. It is not visible from the street or from the rear or from the Best Buy side, so if possible we would like to do something other than a complete screening of that dumpster.

The only other concern was the colors and materials. This building will be an insulated metal panel system (showed a typical panel). It has a very good insulating value and is an excellent product to use for this type facility. .

We haves color samples (showed samples). This comes in a limited number of colors but with a refrigerated building, it cannot be a very dark color because of the heat from the sun. We want to go with this beige color which goes well with the brick but does not exactly match. the brick. John Morrell uses red in their logo and he showed the shade).

Mr. McErlane reported the property is zoned GI, General Industrial, and the applicant is proposing to construct a 38,000 s.f. addition to the existing 212,250 s.f. food processing facility. There will be a net decrease of 74 parking spaces, 299 spaces and the applicant has shown that they have adequate parking for the needs of the facility.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE THIRTEEN

JOHN MORRELL ADDITION – 805 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. McErlane added we didn’t receive a detailed landscape plan. The plan just shows planting some evergreens and some shrubbery and it doesn’t show sizes. We also are missing a lighting plan. There were some things distributed tonight but there are some relocation light poles and we would like to see a photometric plan to show that they are getting adequate light coverage in their parking field and driveways.

There is no tree removal replanting plan submitted. Some trees are being removed under the footprint of the proposed building. Typically a new development site will exempt that area for tree replanting, but because those trees were planted as part of a development plan previously, we would expect to see those replaced in kind, inch for inch.

There are two office trailers on the south end of the site that were erected in July, 2004 for the purpose of accommodating some construction occurring at the time and they were to be removed at the end of the project, which concluded in May of 2005, and this plan indicates that they will be removed.

Ms. McBride reported that the GI District allows a maximum impervious surface area of .7 and with the expansion they will be just over .5 so they are in compliance.

Right now there are 273 parking spaces on the site. With the addition they would require 231 spaces and they will have 299.

The city requires that all dumpsters and compactors be screened consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. If the applicant didn’t want to do that, the matter could be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance consideration. Otherwise they would have to do that.

On the landscaping there are areas of particular concern, most notably the area around the existing John Morrell sign, the landscaped island in the drive and the area of white pines that were put in to try to screen that propane tank. Well need more details on that for staff’s review and approval.

There appears to be some free standing lighting added or relocated and we would need to see details on that.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that through the reconfiguration of the parking fields and the asphalt to be added, there is a minimum driveway width to the west of the proposed building of 25’-9”. As part of that, it would seem prudent to add some type of protection along the edge of the building, because we have the semis traveling alongside the building. So some type of pipe protector should be added to the side of the building.

There are no dimensions on the plan to indicate the width of additional asphalt and that needs to be added to confirm what is to be done on the site.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE FOURTEEN

JOHN MORRELL ADDITION – 805 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Shvegzda added we also need to know how the trucks will circulate in the loading dock area. We need to make sure that the wheel path is accommodated by the pavement provided in that location.

One of the comments was clarification of some of the areas that were noted as new green space and what they were before. Some of that has been addressed by the information submitted here this evening. Part of that was the whole issue of what was included in terms of new pervious area versus new impervious area. This also breaks that down into a format that can be easily reviewed.

One question is how the areas where we have parking stalls and how the pavement markings in place are to be removed and what new pavement markings will be in place to delineate the drive aisle.

On the storm water management, the existing basin in place was constructed in 1988 and has both a basin and storage and pipe and goes as far back as the area of the proposed building expansion.

There is a small amount of additional pervious area being added to the site. The total volume provided right now is 127,000 cubic feet.

In general there is no grading information provided for any of the locations, and it is particularly needed in the vicinity of the building and where the new pavement is provided. In addition there’s a note that existing drainage patterns wall be preserved. There are modifications to where the catch basins are so we need some kind of tributary drainage area map to make sure that we are not unevenly loading up different areas where we are changing drainage patterns, so that needs to be included.

There is a note that indicates that storm water quality post construction best management practices shall be followed during construction. Obviously during construction we do need to have the silt fence and those types of things in place. In addition, particularly in his location, a post construction management practice or quality device should be implemented. It seems like this would be a good location for some type of oil grid separator located in the loading dock area for instance because of the nature of the possible contaminants that would be on site. .

The site plans note that the building expansion will go over the existing storm sewer. It is now noted that this will be replaced I am assuming with a higher strength material. That is not noted, nor are the elevations and that type of detail information.

There is a new storm sewer around the perimeter of the proposed buliidng, and the same issue is true in terms of detailed information, pipe material, size and those types of things. That as well as calculations will need to be submitted.

The water and sanitary sewer availability letters have been received from the utilities for the site.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE FIFTEEN

JOHN MORRELL ADDITION – 805 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Galster asked if the applicant had an approved expansion in the last couple of years that wasn’t built. Are there any plans to continue with that, or is this replacing that?

Mr. Wesseler responded this is a completely different expansion. The previous one was a warehouse and it has been tabled. It is still desired but has not gotten beyond the concept stage. Mr. Galster wondered if there was any way to incorporate that with this one here. So we have an approval for the northwest corner, and I don’t know if it ever expires. At the next get together, it would be nice to show that so we can make sure there are no additional conflicts should that warehouse expansion happen.

Mr. McErlane reported that the plan was a concept plan, so it really wasn’t an approval of a final development.

Mr. Okum said that sign out on Kemper Road went through the Board of Zoning Appeals, and never lived up to the presentation. So that will need to be addressed with the landscaping plan.

Additionally I wanted to ask staff about mechanical units which are required to be screened, but most of the mechanical units on this building are not screened. What do we do about the mechanical units that are added to this new building? Are there units being added?

Mr. Kuhn from John Morrell said we expect to tie into the existing system that is there. The worst case would be to add another unit.

Mr. Okum said the community has grown up around that building, and things have changed a lot along Kemper Road. We have an industrial application in the middle of a retail district. Our code does call for mechanical units to be screened from the public right of way and adjoining properties and I don’t know how we can address that. I’ll put it back in your hands to come up with some type of solution, especially since I would anticipate some additional mechanical equipment being added to the building. At the least I would say any new mechanical equipment or modification to the existing mechanical equipment should be screened.

Mr. Galster said I think any new mechanical units would need to be screened. There are some fumes from the facility; is there any way to work on that? I have no problem with this expansion; I look forward to it and I hope it increases jobs in the city. I appreciate the fact that you are putting green space back in there.

Mr. Syfert said there are a few things we will have to leave in the hands of staff, like the lighting and landscaping, but other than that I think it is pretty straightforward and a good addition.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the expansion excluding the items presented this evening that have not been reviewed by staff until staff can approve the same. Approval includes staff city engineer and city planner’s recommendations.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE SIXTEEN

JOHN MORRELL ADDITION – 805 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum added any new or retrofitted existing mechanical units on the existing or new structure shall be screened from adjoining property owners and the public right of way.

Pole lighting and all lighting shall be reviewed by staff and shall be shielded and down lit.

Staff shall review and approve the entire site landscaping and replacement plan. Tree removal and replanting shall be as required by code. Dumpster and refuse enclosure shall be per code, and the color pallet shall be as submitted by the applicant this evening.

The existing Kemper Road signage landscaping plan shall be modified and replaced with staff approved landscaping based on a plan reviewed and approved by staff.

Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Syfert said for the applicant’s information, it did include the enclosure of the dumpster. If you wanted to appeal that to the Board of Zoning Appeals, you have the right to do so.

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

B.    Approval of Wall Sign – Riley’s Restaurant, 11568 Springfield Pike

Ken Riley owner of Riley’s, Jim Meyer of Meyer Signs and Jeff Baumgarth of Myers Y. Cooper approached the commission. Mr. Riley stated I am here to get approval of a sign above the main entrance to the restaurant. We have about 80 feet of frontage, and it is an ideal location for us.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is requesting a 41 s.f. wall sign on the tower element for the Town Center. The reason it is before you tonight is because the original plan did not show a sign on that location. In your packets you have an illustration which is part of the approved plan. I superimposed the Riley’s sign on the architectural plans so you could see how it fits into their entire storefront.

On both of these drawings, the sign location is shown on the parapet over the standing seam metal roof. I brought in the model that was provided us so you could see what that would look like and where the sign would be if approved.

The sign is considerably less than what they would be permitted to have per code. They could have 160 s.f. of signage so it is a quarter of what they are permitted to have.

Mr. Galster commented I do not have a problem with where the sign is located. I am just a little concerned about the area over the space right now that is designated as sign area. As part of the motion could we have that part eliminated so no additional signage is added there?


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE SEVENTEEN

WALL SIGN – RILEY’S RESTAURANT 11568 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said in this illustration the tenant space runs between column lines 7 and 11. If you are facing the store, the far right is the entry to the bakery. Do you intend to put signage over there?

Mr. Riley indicated that they were and we understand that we would have to come beck before you for permission on that. Tonight we are just trying to get this sign approved tonight.

Mr. Galster said so the sign shown here between column lines 9 and 11 would be abandoned in exchange for the sign to be located on the tower. Mr. Riley commented I don’t know that I would necessarily abandon it. Mr. Galster added that would be if anything would happen other than the Riley’s; if something is proposed there, you would need to come before this board.

Mr. Okum said I disagree. I put this before my wife and she said I thought the name of the mall would be up there, because that is a feature element of the mall. People will think this is Riley’s Mall or Town Center. I wanted to bring this up this evening. I would like to see your sign lower and more even with the rest of the signs on the building. You are a big tenant holder, but there may be another big tenant holder in another part of the development as well.

I am suggesting giving you more than the 41 s.f. but we have to look at the fact that if you put that sign up on the tower you may be naming the town center. We have to consider how that looks, because it certainly is the focal point of the center. At this point I would rather see the signage above the bay window and that door entry. Riley’s needs that because it is the primary entry. They also will need signage above their bakery entrance

Mr. Syfert said that is exactly why you are looking at it because that is the same opinion I had.

Mr. Galster said if you take the Riley’s sign and shrink it down to fit between the window and the awning it will be a very little sign. I t won’t fit on that tower. It has to be properly spaced. If down the road this becomes known as the Riley’s Center and they are doing great, I don’t have a problem with it. They are the major tenant, the centerpiece. The center was designed originally to attract a sit down family restaurant that was a good centerpiece, and if being the centerpiece means the sign is on the tower, I am okay with it.

Mr. Butrum said it will be quite a bit elevated over any other sign and look like that is the name of the center. You said you wanted it to be there because that is the entrance. I am wondering if there is something we can do to denote the entrance between that window and the awning. If we went with something where the sign was initially intended and somehow denoted that entrance as being the entrance to Riley’s in some other way, would that satisfy the applicant and mitigate the issue?



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE EIGHTEEN

WALL SIGN – RILEY’S RESTAURANT 11568 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Diehl said I disagree with Dave’s wife. The sign should go just the way it is. If you go to Tri-County Mall, Macy’s has a big sign up there and I don’t think that’s Macy’s Mall.

Mr. Galster said LaRosa’s in Princeton Plaza is higher than everything else in the plaza; Dave & Buster’s is up higher than everyone else as well. I’d like some tenant names on the monument signs, but I think the Springdale Town Center is well represented on all three of those monument signs.

If in fact the center’s owner is okay with giving up the tower feature to the main tenant and that is part of his consideration for landing a lease of the size and nature that he wants to have in his facility, I don’t see where that is a problem.

Lawrence Hawkins said as the town center gets fully occupied and u and running and everybody is patronizing everything in there, it will be less of an issue. I think the sign looks good where it is on the tower.

Mr. Diehl asked if the landlord had any comments on this. Mr. Baumgarth said the Springdale Town Center name is identified on both sides of all three monument signs. I don’t think there would be confusion as to what the name of the center is. The reason we supported Ken’s request to put his sign on the tower is in looking at the original development proposal with the restaurant name over the parapet portion of the bulding, that frontage is much smaller and would end up leaving Riley’s with a much smaller sign than many of our other tenants that have smaller spaces. It really would not give them the presence that an anchor tenant would feel necessary and appropriate. So, we did not think it was inappropriate at all to identify their name with a sign the size of everyone else’s directly over their entrance.

Mr. Galster said can we talk about the landscaping that is dying? Mr. Baumgarth said the drought has not helped, but our landscape provider has a one-year warranty on all the materials, and will be replacing it in the fall once the temperatures cool down and we have a little more moisture.

Mr. Diehl said so if I understand you, you had no intention of putting a sign up on the tower. Mr. Baumgarth answered we did not have any shopping center name planned for the tower area.

Jim Meyer of Ray Meyer Signs said I think the entrance is the main thing; because 98% of the signs we do anywhere, the signs are above the doors where the people are going to go in.

Mr. Okum asked if there was a reason why the panels on sign cabinets along the street are cockeyed looking? Mr. Meyer said we didn’t put those in, but there are different sized panels and not all intended to be the same size. Maybe it just needs signage, and that is forthcoming.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE NINETEEN

WALL SIGN – RILEY’S RESTAURANT 11568 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Galster moved to approve the Riley’s sign on the tower as submitted with the understanding that the bakery sign still has to be submitted between columns 7 and 8, and would go through the standard approval process. I would also note that the sign area presently shown on the drawings between columns 9 and 11 shall be excluded from signage for this tenant unless the tenant comes back before this board with such a request.

Mr. Butrum seconded the motion, adding if we would grant this, what would this mean in the future? If another tenant went in there and that space gets clogged up into three different spaces, would this carry over to the tenant immediately below them ? What does that mean?

Mr. Galster responded the owner of the property has the ability to move signage a little bit, based on how much space you have. In any strip center, that is a part of the lease negotiations. If you are a big enough tenant you get the top spot, and if you’re not you don’t.

Ms. McBride added if something would happen to Riley’s and they went away, as long as the user who went into that space had the lineal frontage of the center to support that square footage, they could leave that sign up there and swap out the panels.

Mr. Galster wondered if the commission could tie it to a certain amount of square footage independent of that. Ms.McBride answered it is PUD, so you could tie it to that if you chose to. Mr. Galster asked how many square feet, and Mr. Riley answered approximately 6,000. Mr. Galster continued what if we modified the motion to allow a minimum of 5,000 s.f. Mr. Syfert responded you would be taking over the prerogative of the owner. Mr. Galster added we would be saying that anything other than a space smaller than 4,000 s.f. would have to come back for approval. Mr. Syfert commented it is a PUD. Mr. Galster responded in general we allow sign face changes without ever coming back before this body, even in a PUD. Mr. Syfert said that depends on who your chairman is, and that is your control right there. It would be my opinion not to put a limitation here.

Mr. Okum added we do that on a digital sign or for a major feature billboard sign. To say that the feature element of this mall requires a minimum amount of square footage, that is a precedent that any future tenant would have to be pretty significant in size to dictate a significant signage issue on this development other than what has been approved. Mr. Galster has set a 5,000 or 4,000 minimum square footage to be able to absorb and utilize that high feature element of the mall, and I have to agree. I think it is reasonable.

Mr. Butrum added I agree as well. It is the feature tenant, the anchor so let’s require that. If that really justifies it, why not make that a requirement? That is a very prominent area and much higher than any other sign.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
14 AUGUST 2007
PAGE TWENTY

WALL SIGN – RILEY’S RESTAURANT 11568 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Galster moved to amend his motion that would only allow a tenant who occupies a minimum of 4,000 or more square feet to be on the tower. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Webster asked what if a tenant took 4,000 s.f. in another area? Mr. Galster answered then lit would be off-site signage, so they would have to be located within the tower and be 4,000s.f.

On the motion to amend, all except Mr. Syfert voted aye, and the amendment was approved with five affirmative and one negative votes.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye and the amended motion was approved with six affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

A. Standard for Variances Referred by the Board of zoning Appeals

Mr. Okum reported that the Board of Zoning Appeals reviewed the recommendations of the law director and have forwarded this back
to Planning for approval and to bring forward to Council.

Mr. Galster wondered if this made it easier and Mr. Okum responded it is not a checklist that you have to answer yes to all seven questions. The law director said that is not required. It is that all those factors have to be considered during deliberation.
Mr. Galster said so if you meet four of those seven and don’t meet three, it is still okay. It doesn’t mean that you have to pass all seven of them, as long as they are considered. .

Mr. Galster moved to recommend to Council to accept the modifications to the Zoning Code as requested by the Board of Zoning Appeals and modified by the law director. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and it was recommended to Council.

VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Butrum moved to adjourn and by voice vote all present voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

                    Respectfully submitted,



__________________,2007    __________________________
                    William Syfert, Chairman



_____________________,2007    __________________________
                    Lawrence Hawkins III Secretary