10 OCTOBER 1995

7:00 P.M.



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


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Councilwoman Peggy Manis,

Tim Sullivan, Barry Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson

and Chairman William G. Syfert.

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

Amy Gasser, Law Directorís Office


Mr. Tiffany moved for adoption and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.



A. Tri-County Mall requests approval of proposed modification to Entrance A of Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike (tabled 12 September 1995)

Mr. Osborn said on behalf of the Mall, I am requesting to table this. We are still under discussion of alternatives. Our engineers and their engineers are looking at the situation. Mr. Tiffany moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Item was tabled until the November meeting.


A. Springdale Kemper Associates requests preliminary approval of modified PUD Plan at Tri-County Commons (east end of existing building - Roberds)

Mike Flannery of Woolpert Associates stated Steve Lensch of Miller-Valentine and Bob Wilson of Roberds are here with me this evening. We are here to request approval of Lot 7 of Tri-County Commons, Roberds Furniture building.. Our understanding is this would be a major modification of the previously approved PUD for the project. We are proposing the renovation of the existing Kroger building north of the Wal-Mart/Samís project and south of I-275. What I would like to do is discuss some of the site layout and try to address some of the concerns you might have there and turn it over to Mr. Lensch to discuss the building and proposed renovations for the project, and then Mr. Wilson would discuss Roberds and give you an overview of who they are.

Mr. Flannery continued as far as the site is concerned, it is the existing Kroger building, and we would be proposing an extensive renovation of that building to turn it into a very attractive building. The site area is approximately 20 acres, and that includes the building footprint and the site you see in the front and into the rear.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Two


Mr. Flannery stated customer parking is provided in front of the store which is the north side of the building between the interstate. the entrance would be elevated about five feet into the building and you would step down into the building, so it will be a very nice entrance. We do have a rendering we can share with you. Additional parking is to the east side of the building, and below that we have a customer pickup area. This is a proposed furniture appliance showroom, so there are not many pickups at this building. This is the type of facility that you would look at and purchase furniture that would be delivered from a warehouse to your home. Employee parking is proposed in the rear; we have 150 employee spaces. The total number of parking spaces is 939. One of the staff comments dealt with the number of parking spaces; by code we are required to provide 1495. The majority of this building on the west side would be a warehouse type use. Therefore it should probably not be considered as heavily in the parking requirements. We do understand that we still would need to request a variance on the parking. Roberdsí requirements for parking would be in the range of 600 to 700 spaces, so we are in excess of that now, and they feel comfortable that there is more than adequate parking being proposed.

Mr. Flannery stated one of the issues you will want us to address would be some of the traffic situations in the area. We are performing a traffic study for this project. As part of that study, we are taking new counts for the overall Tri-County project. The existing study was based on projected numbers, and we felt it was time that we take new counts for the project to get a truly accurate number on the traffic we have there. This project would generate minimal traffic; the peak hour for this facility would be 57 vehicles per hour. It certainly is not a heavy retail type use. The peaks at a furniture facility occur during the weekends and the evening hours, 7- 9 p.m.; they do not occur during the normal peak hours. The hours of operation would be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Mr. Steve Lensch stated in general, this entire portion would be the retail showroom, and from here back would be a warehouse area as well as some offices and training rooms. Due to the large size of the parking lot, we will have a covered entry; people will be able to come up and drop passengers off and park their cars. We also will have a covered customer pickup area on this side. There will be a fair amount of items picked up from the store; there will be no deliveries from this store to peopleís homes. If you buy a portable television or VCR, you can pick it up and take it with you, but if you buy a couch, it will come out of a Dayton warehouse.

Mr. Lensch continued as far as other renovations, we plan to do a face lift to the building which would include removing all the existing docks, getting rid of the old heating system on the roof, and closing up the windows on that facade and putting on an entire new roof as well as new heating and air conditioning system, which probably will be roof mounted. We also will be reconstructing this parking lot area which is badly deteriorated.

Mr. Lensch continued the front entry of the building will have a large canopy that people can drive underneath that, unload people and park their cars. This kind of a paint theme will go around the remainder of the building.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Three


Mr. Bob Wilson said I am executive vice president with Roberds in Dayton Ohio. Our business was formed in 1971 in West Carrollton Ohio. We operate 23 retail stores around Dayton, Atlanta, Georgia and Tampa, Florida. Cincinnati will represent our fourth major market area. We are publicly held company since 1993 and we sell primarily furniture and bedding products, but we also sell consumer electronics and major electronics. This will be a fairly upscale store, 250,000 feet of showroom space, and about 50,000 square feet of warehouse space. The ceilings are 19 feet, so you will have a tremendous number of cubic feet in the building, it will be very spacious and open and airy and we think a very impressive facility. There is only one other furniture store in the United States of this size, so from that standpoint it is unusual. We are planning only one store in the Greater Cincinnati area. We think with this kind of statement and commitment, we can service the entire area, and we think you will be very proud of the facility both on the exterior and interior.

Mr. Wilson continued our team consists of Miller-Valentine who has built all our stores. We think they will handle the construction in a six-month time period. There will be essentially a complete gutting and remodeling of the building, and it will look nothing like it does today. Our designer is a firm named Connie Post from West Virginia, who is well known in the furniture industry, and we think will bring a lot of publicity and excitement to this facility and make it a fun place for customers to shop. Our target opening is in the Summer of 1996.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated in review of the site plans and requirements for preliminary plan submittals for a PUD, there are a few things missing from the plan. There are some easements that will need to be denoted on the plan, specifically for sanitary sewer, storm water and storm sewers. Part of the plan shows an access for Champion Windows which doesnít currently exist, and I donít know if that is something they are working with Champion about, but there would be an access easement that would be necessary to Champion for that. Some of these things such as the sanitary sewer, since it was all contained on one particular property before this development, it was primarily a private sewer. It still will be a private sewer, but there will be more than one user involved, so it will need some easements for it.

Mr. McErlane continued there are notes on the plan relative to extending right of way, and I think the city engineer has comments on that as well. On this plan they show the right of way up to here; however, the public street actually stops in this location. We have a question as to whether or not that will occur. The city engineer has comments on the termination of the right of way, when it is determined where the termination point will be.

Mr. McErlane reported there is no traffic survey submitted, and there is no real indication as to the total acreage involved in the retail use on this property. One of the requirements under the PUD plan is to designate the acreage and square footage set aside for different uses. We do have a square footage for the portion of the building that will be used for retail, 329,170 square feet, but we donít know how much of that land is dedicated for that use. I donít know if there is an intention of subdivide the land or if it is just a leasehold type agreement.

Planning Commission

10 October 1995

Page Four


Mr. McErlane added there were no construction schedule or cost estimates submitted or color pallet. There were elevations submitted with no indication of colors to be used. There are some color renderings that were shown tonight.

Mr. McErlane reported the elevation drawings we had had a conflict between what was shown on the plan and the elevations as to the entrance locations. They appear to be a reverse image of what was shown on the plan.

Mr. McErlane stated we found an area in the covenants that will require some revisions, relative to the use of this building. Under the original PUD covenants, it specifically states that this building would be only for uses allowable in the GI district. Because of the limited parking spaces and the concern about the traffic, we want to make sure we tie this specific use down fairly tightly. If in the future Roberds would move out, we would make sure we didnít end up with some highly intense retail use that would have an adverse affect on the traffic system as well as not having enough parking spaces to accommodate it. So what weíll need to do is put wording in there relative to the retail use, specifically for furniture appliances and electronics. We probably need to get a feel for the extent of the retail we use. I donít think we can legitimately tie it down to specific users, but we can probably define the use a little more definitely than just retail.

Mr. McErlane commented the applicant talked a little bit about parking. For a strictly retail use, the parking required by code would be 1495 spaces. I think during our preliminary discussions, we estimated they probably would propose less than what they are showing right now, based on the type of use. They had indicated they would need in the neighborhood of 600 spaces. Again, that is another reason why we need to tie the use down more specifically. Personally I think if they can accommodate the use with the 939 spaces, that should be adequate.

Mr. McErlane stated the building elevations detailed in a couple of locations that they have chase lights around the perimeter of the building, and our Zoning Code does not permit flashing or moving lights

Mr. McErlane reported on landscaping, there were a few areas that I would recommend additional landscaping. One is this big green area. One of the considerations is this is retail use, and typically the finish is a little higher in retail use. Possibly another location might be this green area, or if this does not become public right of way, that can be landscaped as well.

Mr. Tiffany said if we change the covenants, do we have to reissue covenants to all the existing properties there? Is that something they will have to comply with also? Mr. McErlane responded as property owners in the Tri-County Commons, they probably are required to sign off on new ones. Mr. Tiffany commented this does affect their site also, to some degree. What legally are we bound to do for those folks? I guess thatís a legal question.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Shvegzda stated that the traffic study is underway. One of the things that it should take into account is the revised conditions at the intersection of Commons Drive and Kemper as it is now as opposed to what existed when the PUD was originally approved.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Five


Mr. Shvegzda continued another question was of whether or not the right of way would be extended to the north from its current terminus, and when or what would take place as far as the extension of the public roadway. If it is a private road, it would go through an area where there was a concrete loading dock, and there was a question as to whether or not that would be removed in total and the new roadway placed through that. It appears from the drawing here that is the case.

Mr. Shvegzda said regarding detention for the site, it is essentially being provided in conjunction with the development immediately to the west, Exel Logistics. There is an existing loading dock area to the east. By the drawings, it appears they are asking for it to be widened as it intersects the public roadway. Currently, it is about 145 feet wide, and the request is for it to be 175 feet wide. The question is whether that additional width is truly necessary; it is considerably in excess of what is normally permitted in terms of the curb cut.

Mr. Shvegzda continued the entire area of the loading dock is draining directly out towards the public roadway. If that is the way the grading is going to work out, there will have to be some type of either catch basin or trench drain to intercept the water before it enters the public right of way.

Mr. Shvegzda said Bill also asked what would happen as far as showing the proposed secondary access from private road or public road whichever it may be to the Champion Windows facility. There was a question as to whether that was going to occur now and what kind of agreements were made.

Mr. Flannery said it is our intent to construct a public roadway to the northern end of the Champion site, so there would not be the need for an easement within that area. As far as the Champion drive connection, that is something they would approach you with, Iím sure. My understanding is that is something they would want to pursue. We are showing it, but not proposing it as part of this project.

Mr. Flannery continued on the truck dock, it would be our intent to vacate the existing truck dock and relocate that to the very southeastern corner of the new building. Mr. Syfert commented that is an area that there was just some concern about the width of that opening. Mr. Flannery responded we can narrow that. Mr. Syfert said you donít really need that much, and Mr. Flannery answered no. Mr. Syfert asked about the water retention running off of there. Mr. Flannery stated we will intercept that before it runs off.

Mr. Flannery reported as far as the necessary easements, we will be providing those as we get into the final plan; at that time, those will be provided. The storm water detention is being provided as part of the Exel project at the northwest corner of the site.

Mr. Flannery stated as far as the chase lights are concerned, I would defer that to Steve; I know that is still in a conceptual stage. Mr. Lensch added that is something the designer would like to see and they really arenít intended to go all the way around the building, but only a small band of them to wrap around this canopy area. Mr. Syfert asked if that were the only place, and Mr. Lensch responded that is my understanding. Mr. McErlane added the plans show them all the way around the building. Mr. Syfert added the plans show a big race; Mr. Lensch commented even Roberds doesnít want that, I am sure.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Six


Mr. Wilson added to be clear, the first set of plans that came in were the very first conceptual plans, and as things have moved along, a lot of things have tightened up; it is down to the area Steve has indicated at this point.

Mr. Flannery reported in the traffic study, we are considering the improvements that are in place today, so it will be a thorough up to date study. We expect to have that complete within the next three to four weeks.

Mr. Lensch reported Woolpert has all the data and can do the traffic study right now based on the old data and projections, but since there has been so much development in the last couple of years, we think it is time to get a true count of what is there today. So we decided to take a little more time land spend a little more money doing that.

Mr. Flannery continued the last comment was on landscaping, and certainly we are willing to provide whatever staff would like to see in the way of landscaping. Mr. Syfert commented I donít think it is just staff, but if you are going to spend this type of money on this type of project, I would think you would want to put a nice dress on it.

Mr. Wilson said our agreement with Springdale Kemper Associates already provides for any and all easements that we need in any direction, so with respect to any property they control, those arrangements are in place and itís a matter of pinning them down. We are waiting for the engineering to be complete, before we go through that process. In terms of access and easements, I think we are in good shape.

Mr. Wilson continued the question was raised about the parking and its form of ownership. We will enter into a ground lease for the parking area when it is finally defined, and we have that arranged with Springdale Kemper. to lease as part of our building lease; it would not be subdivided into a separate parcel; it would be a straight lease


Mr. Osborn said the one item that wasnít rebutted deals with the nature of the land use. When we first heard that more than 300,000 square feet of an existing warehouse was going to be considered for what would qualify as a retail use that obviously generated a high level of concern because of the type of traffic generated from a typical retail operation. Once we met with Mr. Wilson and the other representatives of Roberds, it became very evident that this is unique and different from some other type of retail operation. An example is the Levitz Furniture; I have a picture of the Saturday before Christmas when every parking lot is filled and the streets are very busy; at Levitz parking lot, there are about eight or 10 cars in that lot. In our experience to ate, major furniture operations do not generate high levels of traffic. Mr. Wilson mentioned to me that your average out to door ticket is $800. Given that level of merchandising, the reputation of the store and what we perceive to be a rather benign impact on traffic, this seems like a very good fit for this particular project. It does provide a greater mix of uses on this site. The one reservation we have from a land use standpoint would be its successor. If at some point Roberds decides to move on, we would not want to see this space automatically occupied by some other type of retail user. One of the strongest points that came up in Billís comments deals with some sort of covenant limit on the type of retail use that can occupy this space. Iím sure we can work out the language; I would like to hear a response from the applicant.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Wilson (Roberds) responded for your information, our lease runs for an initial period of 10 years and has a large number of options thereafter. We will be expending a considerable sum of money on this facility, and even though itís leased, and I hope we are there for at least 20 years or it doesnít make any economic sense at all. There are relatively few alternative retail uses for a store of this size. Meiers is 120 to 180,000 square feet; this is double; Wal-Mart is 120-140,000 square feet; ;this is more than double. There are relatively few people moving in a box this size, so from a retailing standpoint, I canít think of too many qualified tenants to go in behind us. Quite frankly, my suspicion is that it would go back to warehouse use if we were to abandon it, because it still would be warehouse on the other side of the building, and the Exel people are building a distribution facility out on the north side. My educated guess would be it would revert to a much lesser intense use if we were to leave it behind. Nevertheless, we will be happy to work out an arrangement and language that in effect limits it to our use. Without naming names, I think we can design something that would do that and at least it would force the successor back through this process before he could move in behind us. Obviously the owner of the property will have something to say about that as well, but from our standpoint, thatís a very easy thing to say yes to.

Mr. Blake commented as I listened to the presentation, and I am quite familiar with the Roberds in Dayton, and with all the space you have there, I am wondering where you will have your loading and unloading of your merchandise. I hear someone say that you will deliver out of Dayton rather than from here. Mr. Wilson responded the merchandise that sets on our showroom floor is never sold; there will be an initial loading of the merchandise into the store, and then it will set there. We deliver into customerís homes about 90% of what we sell, basically because it is big. Less than 10% goes out the store. The only thing going out might be VCRs or small televisions, and that will be warehoused in this facility, in this area here, and it will be replenished daily by our own trucks. They are straight trucks with 28 foot bodies on the back; they are big but they are not huge. Typically we expect those trucks would total only three or four per day, and that is generally in the morning before 10 a.m. The actual delivery in to the Cincinnati consumersí homes will come from our warehouse in Dayton; they will leave Fairborn very early and hit Cincinnati by 8 or 8:30 and never come near this facility. They will go direct from Dayton into the consumersí homes. That is the same system that we use in Dayton.

Mr. Wilson asked about the chase lights, asking if they are really necessary for the decor, or is it something that can be eliminated? Mr. Wilson (Roberds) responded I am an accountant not a store designer, but clearly our store designers are trying to create a level of excitement and impact in this store that is considerable and consistent with its size. If chase lights are a deal breaker from your standpoint, we will withdraw them. We would like to have them if possible but they are not critical by any stretch.

Mr. Wilson asked what the total height would be; when you have the HVAC units on the top, what is the total height, and how are the units be screened? Mr. Flannery answered we will be removing the existing units that are there now that are an eyesore.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Lensch added we havenít made a firm decision on the air conditioning system, but we probably will have roof top units. As you approach this building from Kemper Road, you can see the entire roof, and I donít think any amount of screening would hide all those units from view. Mr. Wilson said you are attempting to do something to screen them arenít you, and Mr. Wilson (Roberds) said the vast majority of the building will be at its existing line. It will actually look smaller from the front, because we will be going upgrade about five feet, so you walk into the store and look down on what is going on. The majority of the building will be as is.

Mr. Tiffany said on the interior finish, will it be a finished ceiling or spray out the web truss? Mr. Lensch answered it will be blackened out and fully carpeted. Mr. Wilson added it is an upscale furniture store. Mr. Tiffany continued I am not for the chase lights. We had a developer come in recently looking to spend upwards of $100 million, and we told him no. You say 50,000 square feet for the warehouse; if this building will be used for selling out of your warehouse in Dayton and everything is delivered, what are you using 50,000 square feet of storage? Mr. Wilson responded there still will be a fair amount of merchandise on site, principally in the form of electronics and some bedding. Mr. Tiffany commented I am familiar with Roberds and when we were talking about it being a furniture store, I think furniture electronics and appliances are more what it is. Mr. Wilson (Roberds) stated furniture and bedding are 2/3 of our sales and appliances are 1/3.

Mr. Tiffany stated concerning the covenants and something to define the use after you are gone, I could see light industry moving in because of the way it is designed. Is that something we want to consider also as an option? There is no signage on any of the plans; what are you looking for? Mr. Wilson stated we are not that far yet, so we have no specifics to present. Mr. Tiffany said obviously you want recognition on the front of the building., Are you going to look for recognition on Kemper Road? Mr. Wilson answered at this point nothing beyond the existing pylon signs, some of which will be available to us. Our emphasis clearly will be on the I-275 side, and weíll explore what we can on the south side of the property. Weíre going to spend our square footage on the interstate side.

Mr. Tiffany commented on your plan here, as opposed to the one we have, on the west side of the parking area there are red circles that I assume represent trees. Itís not on the plans I saw. Mr. Flannery reported we would add landscaping in that area. Mr. Tiffany continued we have another project to the west, and my problem with this is putting retail in the middle between industry. If weíre going to do it it has to be screened off so people donít pull into the parking lot and see trains next door, which they will if we donít screen it off.

Mr. Wilson responded let me assure you that the reason you didnít see much the first go round is because we were not aware of the Exel development. Since we have become aware of it, we have had a number of discussions with the property owner about screening it for all the reasons you have listed and my personal comment was go find the fastest growing Christmas trees you can so Exel disappears from our sight. There also will be a detention pond between us which will provide something of a natural break anyway, and it will be fairly large.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Tiffany commented you talked earlier about the peak times of use. Because it is a retail establishment, it has to be the same as 80% of the site out front. Mr. Flannery responded actually we found that not to be the case. You would not stop on the way home from work and purchase a couch. Mr. Wilson added two-thirds of our business is done on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday, and the balance would be during the week after the dinner hour, so we are really very different. We donít generate the kind of daytime during the week traffic that those people do. Having said that, Saturdays and Sundays we will generate traffic. Mr. Tiffany responded thatís what I am concerned about, your peak times. The only problem I have with this is it is between a couple of different uses, and Iím not sure how I feel about it at this point. I agree with our city administrator that this is an excellent fit for the site, but I donít know how I feel about putting it between a light industrial manufacturer and the proposed item to your west.

Mr. Galster commented getting back to the other proposed project as well, I am curious if the traffic study will include that proposed traffic as well. I would hate to see it done without all that truck traffic. Mr. Flannery confirmed that it would include the proposed project. Mr. Galster asked the finishes for the exterior of the building, adding they had mentioned patching the front windows or closing them up; how will that be done? Mr. Wilson answered the current discussion is drivitt and a complete paint job so the multi-color brick will disappear. Mr. Galster asked if this were the case all the way around the exterior of the building and Mr. Wilson confirmed this.

Ms. Manis said I had a concern about the parking. You currently have 900 or so, and you said you require 600 to 700. I know how Levitz is; we have a sea of parking for all the space that is required and it is empty all the time. There is an extreme amount of parking which we require by our code. If we could go less parking and more green, I would like to see that, because Iím sure you wonít generate the parking that will fill up 900 spaces in a day. As far as the use goes, if you are happy there, I donít see the problem as long as it is screened well, and Iím sure it will be. On the rooftop units, as long as you paint them out it will be fine.

Mr. Wilson said on the elevation, the little front plat that you have, from ground level to the top level of the dome, what are we talking about? Do you have specific heights? Mr. Lensch answered actually designers have generated some now, but we donít have them with us tonight. The existing building is about 23 feet, and we are pushing 40 feet. Mr. Wilson commented everything else will be flat. Mr. Lensch confirmed this, and Mr. Syfert added that is facing on the I-275 side. Mr. Wilson asked where their sign would be, on the building or a pole sign? Mr. Wilson (Roberds) answered probably on the building at one side or the other of the entrance, probably toward the corner.

Ms. Manis asked what are we here for tonight; what are the steps after this? Mr. Syfert answered they are here looking for preliminary approval to modify the PUD. Ms. Manis said then will they have to go to Council and come back here with the final plan. Mr. Syfert confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert stated we have in our midst Amy Gasser representing Wood Lamping. Dealing with the covenants involving this property and the changes to the covenants, is that a major issue? Do we have to go back to all the other people in Tri-County Commons? Is it a major problem; a stumbling block?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Galster responded offhand, I canít answer that. I did glance through this quickly, and did not see anything that specifically addressed that issue, but I did take down all the comments, and I can look at that and whether it would be a problem. As far as having a future restrictive use, I think that is something you need to consider since there are different degrees of retail use. I that is something that could be covered with language. As far as whether it would affect the other owners, I donít know. Mr. Syfert commented I think the applicant agrees with the city that it is not a major problem as far as future restrictions or anything like that.

Mr. Syfert continued when we initially looked at this is from a very preliminary viewpoint, I was of the opinion that some of your distribution would go out of this ware house. Did that concept change? Mr. Wilson answered no, other than the carry away merchandise. Mr. Syfert added I thought this was going to be a small distribution center; that was my concept. Mr. Wilson responded and someone may have said that, but I can tell you from senior management that this will not be the case.

Mr. Tiffany said on the front of the building, you are talking about drivitt exterior. What is Kemperís position on the rest of the building across the fence? Mr. Wilson answered I do not know; remember there is a natural break in the building; there is a notch and a different finish anyway at the edge of our space, so it is not a solid front today.

Mr. Syfert commented it seems we have addressed a number of issues that were brought up by either Mr. McErlane or Mr. Shvegzda. It appears that the applicant is amenable tow working with all of them; we are in the preliminary stage.

Ms. Manis moved to grant preliminary approval and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Ms. Manis asked if conditions need to be stated and Mr. Syfert responded this is a preliminary approval; all the items are in the Minutes and will have to be worked out prior to the final approval.

Voting aye were Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Mr. Syfert and Mr. Wilson. Mr. Tiffany abstained, and the preliminary approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed 360 s.q. Cellular Telephone Equipment Building & 135í Tubular Steel Monopole and Antenna Platform, 12000 Princeton Pike

Mike Jones, Architect with Jester, Jones, Schifer, Feltham stated we represent Cellular One in the request for a conditional use permit for this site. WE have submitted a drawing which may be slightly different from what you see before us, because we got an actual survey done after that drawing was prepared and sent in . Essentially it is the same concept; we are proposing a lease area between the exit ramp from I-275 and the service area in front of Perin Interiors. On that lease area, we would be locating an equipment building to house Cellular Oneís equipment. Next to that would be an 135 foot steel monopole type antenna. Both of those would be in a lease area that is about 8,000 square feet. As you mentioned, the building is 360 square feet. It is an unmanned facility. Once this cell site is in operation, it is turned on; there are maintenance and adjustment visits once a month and those typically occur after hours, between midnight and six a.m.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Eleven


Mr. Jones stated this location came about as a result of the engineering studies the radio frequency engineers at Cellular One developed. They have determined that this particular interchange along I-275 either needs coverage, or there is too much capacity for the system as it now is built. This site will both fill in a weak coverage area in the system and it will provide additional capacity, similar in nature to adding a telephone exchange to the Bell system. This site will work with other sites that have been previously built, and amplify the capacity of those sites.

Mr. Jones continued there was a question about the colors of the materials in particular. This is one that was built in Columbus (showed photograph). The pole itself is off white in color, it is called cloud mist gray, and it seems to blend in with most of the kinds of skyline looks we have around Ohio. This building itself is Fiberglas; it is an off-white beige color. Around that building and around the monopole we have a fence which would be black vinyl coated chain link fabric. At this point, no landscaping is proposed. We are behind Perin Interiors and the service area, and it didnít seem to be appropriate that location, but we are certainly amenable to adding landscaping around the lease area if that is something the board decides is appropriate.

Mr. Galster said I am not happy with that site coming off that ramp as people are coming into Springdale. I donít consider that the back of Perin Interiors; it is exposed to S.R. 747 and I-275. The other side is what I would consider the back of the building. Looking at this picture, I canít see that facility being there when I come off that ramp. I understand that it is a small building, but it is still a structure. If you were going to put it on the other side of Perin Interior where it is not as visible to the residents of the community, Iíd be more in favor of that. This is setting right out in the middle of where 50 to 60% of our residents go by every day, so I have a problem with the location in relationship to I-275. Is this picture, the top, similar to what you are proposing as well? Mr. Jones answered that is low profile platform; it is a six inch high steel channel, triangular shaped platform with the antenna mounted to the face of it.

Mr. Galster continued I hear all this conversation about these poles being a big problem in a lot of communities. I donít have a problem with the pole hidden a little more from the base and the building at the base. Mr. Jones responded in defense of this part of the site, one of the things that was apparent in looking at it is there is a very steep grade and it sets in a low part of that shopping center, and there are some scrub trees that have grown up along that right of way fence, probably 30 to 40 feet tall. It isnít a real obvious site as you come down the exit ramp to the shopping center. Mr. Galster responded itís not treated like that. Mr. Jones continued what was more obvious to me on my first site visit was seeing the entrance at the traffic light with Staples and the other stores at that entrance.

Mr. McErlane stated the interstate ramp is right alongside that location, and at the ramp at that location, you are looking over the top of the Perin building, so there is a severe grade difference between where you are in a car and where that location of that building will be. Obviously you will see the pole, but I donít know how much you will see of the building at that location. Mr. Jones commented it didnít look to me as if you would see it; I think the grade change is at least 30 feet, maybe as much as 50 feet of grade change and this is setting in a low part of that site.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Syfert asked if height or elevation is the key to this? Mr. Jones answered partly; as the number of sites increase, the overall height of the new poles will get lower and lower. If you have driven up and down

I-71 or I-75, you might have seen some of the lattice type towers that are up to 285 feet tall. That is because they are further apart. As the sites get closer together, the height needs to be decreased so the sites donít interfere with each other. The signal strength from the sites has to be modulated so one site doesnít overpower the next one. As you are driving with a cellular phone, that call is actually transferred from site to site to site. In this instance, it was determined that 135 feet would be the optimum height for this site to work with the other cell sites in close proximity.

Mr. Syfert commented it seemed to me that this same tower on the Plains Moving Site would be more appropriate than down in the hole of the Perin site. Am I missing something? Mr. Jones answered no, if the Plains site is up 25 or 35 feet, then we would be suggesting a 100 foot monopole. We are looking for the elevation of that platform to be at a particular point relative to the other sites. Likewise if we were at a site 35 to 40 feet lower than this, we probably would be requesting a 185 foot monopole to get that platform up to the optimum level. Mr. Syfert said Iím not sure you are clarifying my mind. If this is the optimum height here, how does it get above the Forest Fair hill over there? Mr. Jones responded it doesnít necessarily have to; it is working with another site that is probably at a higher elevation.

Mr. Tiffany said personally I am the opposite of Mr. Galster. I understand from the way the site is, we probably wonít see a whole lot of the building from up top because of the existing scrub, but what happens when they take out the scrub, which the state does periodically?

Mr. Jones answered that is why we would offer to do the landscaping and turn that into a permanent part of our site if that is desirable. I know sometimes they do take the scrub out, but not often it seems. We could certainly landscape that back side to supplement.

Mr. Tiffany said I am opposed to the pole. We have so many poles around the city as it is, and as a city we are pushing to go to ground signs and away from pole signs. Has anyone ever approached the state to use the existing light poles for these purposes and make your station off site somewhere? Mr. Jones answered it happens on occasion; the state is very tough to deal with. Cellular One likes to think that they are in the forefront of trying to develop newer technology, using existing facilities and we have done a lot of that. Mr. Tiffany said if this site was moved to Plains Moving & Storage, what would it do to you? If this parcel of land wasnít there where would you go? Mr. Jones answered the engineers would have to redefine what they call a search area. They would look at the topo maps of other parts of the system and define an area where we need to find a site. Then they turn that over to the real estate specialists to find a landlord willing to lease us a piece of ground, hopefully in that search area. If we canít find anything, we have to go back to engineering and they have to relook at things and decide if it is going to be two towers for one, if it is going to be a lattice tower, a 185, other parameters come into effect. What they end up doing is maybe deciding something outside the search area might work, but it has to have other things done to it. The optimum is to find something in the search area, find a landlord willing to enter into a long term lease with us, and develop the site.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirteen


Mr. Tiffany commented to the north is GE Park and great big trees to help hide the pole. There is a tremendous amount of land to the north in Union Township. From the audience, the realtor said I sent out letters, and Mr. Perin was one to respond very quickly. Mr. Tiffany commented personally I am opposed to it because of the location. We are trying to eliminate things that catch the eye, and this is just another pole and Iím opposed to it.

Mr. Jones stated the analogy that I could offer would be that it is not terribly different from the freeway light poles. Mr. Tiffany commented where do we draw the line? Mr. Syfert commented we have no control over the state.

Ms. Manis asked how tall the street lights are on the ramp? Mr. Jones answered I have been told anywhere from 90 to 110 feet. Ms. Manis commented they are tall, and my concern was seeing the building from the ramp, but I think it will look like another light pole.

Mr. Syfert asked what benefit can the City of Springdale gain from this? Mr. Jones answered the city will gain property tax value and personal property taxes, which get plugged back into the school system, I would suspect. Typically, the equipment and site and pole and shelter is valued at around $500,000. Depending on the millage rates, that generates between $20,000 and $25,000 a year in property taxes. The thing the city should like is in five years or less, the engineers tell us they will take all that equipment out of there and replace it with something newer and better, so the depreciation cycle starts over again. So over a five-year period, we have run various calculations that generate between $100,000 and $150,000 worth of revenue back into the city. Mr. Syfert continued other than taxes, what benefit do we obtain? Mr. Jones answered the other plus is there is a phone force of citizens out there helping spot fires and alert the police to wrecks. The fire and safety aspects of cellular communications is a big plus that most communities have recognized. Depending on the needs of the police and fire departments, we have made available space on our poles for them to locate antennas or repeater stations or some of their equipment. I donít know if that is something Springdale would have an interest in, but it certainly is an option. Sometimes, we have provided space for some of their equipment within our equipment shelter.

Mr. Galster asked if the building would fit on the other side of the parking lot so we would not see it? Mr. Jones answered that service drive has to stay there. We might be able to do something back in here, depending on what the creek is doing. Mr. Perin commented youíll see the pole, but that is only an eight foot high building, and that is going into the ground, so most of it will be sort of underground. I think we can landscape so you wouldnít be able to see the building from the turn off. We would not want to put something to hide Rhodes either. That is why I said it had to be starting at the blacktop level so when you are standing down there, I donít think you could see the building itself. In addition to that, we are certainly willing to landscape all around it to totally beautify it.

Ms. Manis said with the new technology, in five years can you come back and change your pole without telling us? Mr. Jones responded I donít believe we can.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. McErlane reported because this is a conditional use permit hearing, you can place conditions on it relative to pole height or if you have a concern about what is mounted on the top, you can cause them to come back in and modify that if necessary. Ms. Manis responded I would like to see that in it.

Mr. Syfert stated for clarification, is this a public hearing, or are they applying for a conditional use permit? Mr. McErlane stated a conditional use permit involves a public hearing, and it was advertised as a public hearing. Mr. Syfert asked if there were anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the conditional use permit.

Joe Perin stated I am in total agreement with it. We will do whatever is requested as far as landscaping, and you will see the pole, but I do not think you will see the building.

Mr. Blake moved to grant the conditional use permit with the understanding that the Cellular One people do everything they can to screen that building with the landscaping. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson commented letís not rely on the scrubs for landscaping; letís act as if that is not even there. Mr. Perin responded we will be happy to take the scrubs out and put some nice things in front of it.

Ms. Manis added please include in your motion that if they decide to change it, they will come back to us. Mr. Blake so modified his motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Manis, and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Galster, Mr. Tiffany and Mr. Syfert voted no. Mr. McErlane reported the Charter requires that any final action of Planning Commission be five affirmative votes. Mr. Syfert reported although the vote was four to three; five votes are necessary, and the conditional use permit is denied. Mr. Perin asked if there were anything they could do to change or help the situation to get your approval? Mr. Syfert responded I believe you heard all the comments that were made, and it appears that the conditional use permit for this site was not favorable. Thatís all I can say.

C. Wal-Mart, 600 Kemper Commons Circle requests approval of the placement of eight storage containers behind their building from October 1 to December 31, 1995

Gordon Shackelford, Store Manager stated I am new to the store, and I was not aware that we could not have outside storage containers. It is a common practice with our stores. I am asking for eight containers to get us through, on a temporary basis, from October 1st to December 30th. These are to house additional merchandise that we have during the Christmas season. With our layaway business at this time of the year, our back room does get full and rather than get offsite storage, we are asking you to let us have the containers at this time. This would be the last time, because from now on we will have to do something definitely different. Mr. Syfert asked how long he had been at Wal-Mart, and Mr. Shackelford answered since November 17, 1994. Mr. Syfert continued so you were aware of the letter that was written last year? Mr. Shackelford answered no, all I knew was there was temporary approval and there was nothing else indicating that this was a one-time shot. Mr. Syfert commented it made it pretty clear in the letter. Mr. Shackelford answered it did when I saw the letter.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Fifteen


Mr. Tiffany stated I am looking at the correspondence weíve sent to them in the past. The letter dated 28 September 1994 states you will need to investigate a different solution for future storage problems. I understand you were not there at the time, and I can appreciate your position. I know how they move guys around in the retail business. I donít have a big problem with granting this one more time. What I am looking for is to insure this doesnít happen again.

Mr. Shackelford responded I am trying to find other sources even now. Weíve been talking with people at the old Samís building but that is being rented on a three month basis. This was the only copy of the letter I had and I do apologize, but this was faxed to us a few days ago.

As I said, this is a one-time shot.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the city received any complaints last year, and Mr. McErlane reported they did not.

Mr. Shackelford reported we are using a flat container that you can step into which makes access easier for us. They are back to back between the back of jour building and the warehouse. There is no public access to that at all.

Mr. Wilson said the 28 September 1994 letter states that it will be placed on the property until 20 December 1994. The letter from North American Properties says through 20 December 1995. What you are proposing is through December 31st. Mr. Shackelford said I am asking for January 1st, December 30th, the day after Christmas, whatever. What happens is as soon as our layaway balance goes down, we can move our stuff back into the building. Mr. Wilson asked about security for these storage areas during the Christmas season. Mr. Shackelford reported they all have double padlocks and an interior motion alarm inside each one, which is quite audible.

Mr. Wilson said you say if we grant this for the second year in a row..Mr. Shackelford responded we have to find another alternative. What is happening in our company is the Eastgate store has 20 trailers, the Fields Ertel store has 15 to 20 trailers; Colerain Avenue has 15 to 20 trailers. However each township doesnít want the trailers, and we can understand this. We have to find a better way to control our business or find an outside storage unit that we can all group together and use. We are trying to avoid is getting a U-Haul and finding storage in one or two locations and having associates that we are paying to run back and forth in a U-Haul getting merchandise. This is something our company has to address as a whole, because it is happening throughout the city.

Mr. Wilson commented I do have a concern; I used to be in retail, and I can appreciate what you are talking about, but my concern is that we not see this again.

Mr. Tiffany moved to grant this for one more year, with the understanding that they have to seek other avenues next year. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Syfert voted no, and this was granted with six affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:35 P.M, and reconvened at

8:47 P.M.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Sixteen

D. Exel Logistics, Tri-County Commons requests final approval of proposed 100,000 square foot storage and distribution facility

Steve Kelly of Woolpert stated I am here with Doug Crim of Exel Logistics. I am here to present the final plan development at the northwest corner of the Tri-County Commons site. This is a project that was approved on a preliminary basis as a PUD plan in August. It was approved with conditions from Planning Commission. One of the conditions was relative to the breakdown of traffic in three-hour increments. Another condition was to locate a gate or fence to prohibit and secure truck access out to Commons Drive, and there also were staff comments relative to the site plan and the bikeway to be dedicated along the west end of Lot 7.

Mr. Kelly continued we have revised the final development plan to address those comments. We spent some time looking at gating the southern access and keeping the site plan predominately the same way we had shown it to you, taking this access drive out to the east and back to Commons Drive. After working with that, we realized in terms of security with the office and maintenance area, we needed to have those areas on the east side. So, this is a similar plan to what was approved, but we did, and I think it was suggested at Planning, flip the building and the refrigeration area and dry goods storage area have been reversed. We have located the office and maintenance area here on the east side. Essentially the site plan is the same, with the concrete pad and dock area, and what we would have for the storage area on the north side.

Mr. Kelly continued this is also showing a storm water detention area, which we call the east storm water detention area, which we have now sized. Seeing what Roberds is proposing over here has given us a better understanding of how this property might develop to the east, so we have centralized this east detention basin in this corner, and have properly sized it for the existing Kroger building and the pipes running underneath the Kroger building.

Mr. Kelly reported the access to this site has a condition. We are bringing our truck routed traffic out to Commons Drive, to the Commons Drive Kemper Road intersection. Our access that would be coming out to Kemper Commons Drive would be gated and secure. That drive is set up for the emergency access that allows continuous traffic movement from the two termini of Commons Drive and Kemper Commons Drive. In doing the connection out to Kemper Commons, we have performed a traffic analysis, with the benefit of the information relative to trucks being generated out of the Exel site. We have analyzed left turn movements out on Kemper Road coming into the project. What that has determined with this particular project, with the change in trip generations and using a factor of what a truck equates to, and using a one and one-half to one conversion factor for trucks to cars, and based on the grades that are out there, we see the actual requirement length of 250 feet of left turn being reduced. Our requirement for this site is 150 feet of left turn movement into the site, and the left turn presently out there is 179 feet. We have gone through that methodology, and I believe we have comments relative to that that I can address.

Mr. Kelly added we have updated our landscaping on this plan, and have looked at adding some of the evergreen trees and ornamental trees on the east side of the detention basin. So now we are separating what could be a different type of use with landscape buffering, with open space in the way of the detention basin, and the Exel Logistics project.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Kelly continued with this project we are proposing a cut up of existing Lot 7. Submitted with this project was a replat of Lot 7 of which we are proposing a 10.16 acre parcel which we would call Lot 10, and the remaining acreage of Lot 7 would be part of the approval this evening.

Mr. Kelly reported these are the existing elevations we have for the project. In rotating the building we did not update a color plan for this. We got some updated versions of how that building is rotated; it is very similar to what we previously submitted.

Doug Crim of Exel Logistics said I am on record as having said we would have no rooftop equipment other than some circulating fans. In the past week we have been reviewing our final construction and interviewing contractors, and we have some budget issues in terms of estimates coming in higher than expected. In the process of trying to render the project economically feasible, we are looking at some alternatives. One of those would have us place some of the refrigeration units on the roof. They would be situated so they would be along the rail dock side of the roof near the old Kroger warehouse as opposed to the truck court side. I mention that because it would be an option for us; it is a less cost alternative; I would ask that the approval allow us to consider that alternative without having to come back to the Commission. We certainly would paint out those units, much as you had indicated for the earlier presentation.

Mr. Crim continued one of the other cost considerations would involve the exterior materials. What we had shown here was what I would call a block wainscoat, that goes up to the height of the truck docks. We can save some costs by doing away with that, and leave a building skin that is the prefabricated metal panels. I was trying to relate this to Champion, for example, because it is pretty much a monotone which they have accented with colors. I think this would certainly come off as well as that if not better, but that would be something that you consider to allow us that alternative. We donít know if we would adopt those options, but we would like to be in a position to do that without having to come back to the Commission, simply from a timing standpoint.

Mr. Crim stated the originally conceived refrigeration system would have a pipeline on the roof that would set up maybe three feet, but would appear as a single line; that is something I did not anticipate when I met with you before. It is fairly unobtrusive, and I would ask those things be considered in your consideration process.

Mr. Tiffany asked the diameter of the pipe, and Mr. Crim answered I have a scale drawing; it appears as a line, and my guess is that itís a minimum of eight inches. Mr. Tiffany commented so itís a pretty good sized tube. The units for the rooftop, if they are typical refrigeration type units for a warehouse this size, these are pretty good sized units, are they not? Mr. Crim answered it would not involve a penthouse. Some of these penthouses get up to 15 feet tall. these units would be more like a rooftop unit that you would see on an office building. There would be a curb that they would set on the roof and the top of the unit probably would be six feet and that would be seven feet wide, rectangular. Mr. Tiffany said you mentioned you talked about taking off the wainscoating at the base. What is left if we donít do that? Mr. Crim responded we had submitted samples of an exterior metal panel system, which would be painted a buff color. It would be what you would see from here up.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Eighteen


Mr. Tiffany asked if the east detention basin were a permanent basin, and Mr. Kelly answered the way we have designed it, we consider it a permanent basin. We are showing fencing around the basin, a low flow channel, seed and mulch, and it is sized properly. Mr. Tiffany confirmed that it is a dry basin. Mr. Kelly continued we are clear on how this property would be utilized and this is a real good place to locate it. Mr. Tiffany asked if they are proposing landscaping to the east of the basin, and Mr. Kelly indicated that they are, adding that it would be supplemented with additional landscaping with the development on the east.

Mr. Tiffany said the only comment I would have is you are asking us to consider a lot of things that arenít in front of us. Iím not real comfortable with giving a final plan approval with a lot of contingencies, we may do this and we may do that.

Mr. Galster stated I wanted a clarification; is the pipeline required with the units on top? Mr. Crim answered no, adding that the system we had anticipated required piping on top; everything else is either inside the warehouse or in an equipment room. Mr. Galster said so weíll either have the pipeline, or have the units on top.

Mr. Blake said my question is to the board. I feel very strongly the sentiments of Mr. Tiffany. I donít know what happened; it used to be a time when applicants came for final approval and it was pretty much lighting, charts, silgnage, etc. I feel very uncomfortable with the request coming - it may be a pipe, it may be units, how large are the units, no one knows. I think any time an applicant comes for final approval, there should be certain criteria, and in my mind, the criteria would not have been met based on what I am hearing tonight. I feel very uncomfortable being asked to approve something in the final stage with so many uncertainties.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane. Mr. McErlane reported I included a copy of the fire department memo asking for an additional private fire hydrant in this vicinity. There is a hydrant at this end, and another in this area, and they felt it was an area that was lacking fire protection.

Mr. McErlane continued the plans that were submitted had indicated that this existing water tank would be abandoned, and because of the fact that the water tank has not been maintained very well, we would recommend that it be removed.

Mr. McErlane stated the building orientation has been changed, and there were no new elevations until Friday. Essentially the building has been turned around, although tonight the applicant has talked about different building materials. The original building materials were split face block and metal insulated panels. There were no sign drawings submitted, and we are recommending those come in separately to Planning Commission when they are available. There was no lighting plan submitted, and with respect to trees, the majority of the trees being taken out are shown in light green; all of the trees that are being removed are cottonwoods, none of which are over eight to 10 inches. Overall they are a little bit short on the number of trees to be replanted. We recommend that the two furthermost trees along the property line be ornamental or something low growing, because of the utility lines. Also, there is no dumpster location shown.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Nineteen


Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda, who reported a clarification on one of the comments we had under traffic, paragraph B, the comment was that 4% grade eastbound on Kemper Road might affect the 1.5 car/truck ratio. In measuring the length of the grade there, it falls below a level which makes the 1.5 passenger car per truck ratio valid.

Mr. Shvegzda continued we have the numbers on the traffic study; we have looked through them and they make sense. However, the traffic study was done based on the intersection of Commons Drive and Kemper being as it was prior to the Anchor Associates development, so it does not take into account the additional movement at that intersection.

On the site plans, Mr. Shvegzda continued, Mr. Kelly mentioned the location of the gate; it was not on the plans that we had. Mr. Kelly said we submitted those plans on Friday, showing the gate at this location at Commons Drive access around the perimeter and a motorized gate here.

Mr. Shvegzda said it appeared that the curves might be a little too sharp for trucks to be able to stay within their own lane and negotiate the curves. On the detention basin, it is noted on one of the grading plans that the overflow point for that is 646. The calculations note the height of water elevation for the volume to be at 646. We generally require a one foot board between the two.

Mr. Shvegzda continued there are questions on the routing; there appears to be a little more grading information required to determine that the major storm would actually get to either the proposed detention basin or the existing detention basin.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the high water storage elevation and the proposed detention basin is indicated at 646. I do not know the finish floor elevation of the existing Kroger building, but the existing storm sewers that come underneath the Kroger building essentially are interceptive, and brought into the proposed detention basin. The top of the grade is only about a foot above the 647 versus the 646. The question was if that affects anything within the building path itself. There was a little discrepancy as far as the initial detention volume to be provided. It was listed at 6.1 acre feet and in another it was listed 5.84. According to what we have seen, it should be the 6.1 acre feet of volume. There was a question regarding the outlet. It appears that the maximum outlet rate is achieved at a lower height within the basin.

Mr. Shvegzda continued on the composition of the private roadway, right now it is indicated at one-half inch of wearing course, three inches of a bituminous base course and three inches of an aggregate base, which without seeing any calculations, appears to be pretty light for a truck accessway.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there was a question as to what was happening on the east side of the temporary drive with regard to the extension of the public road which was answered earlier. There needs to be some clarifications in the profile regarding location of catch basins versus low spots in the roadway itself.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty


Mr. Shvegzda continued with the subdivision pallet, there is nothing that defines the alignment of that easement for the 30 foot ingress/egress easement along the roadway. There is a notation of proposed 30 foot public drainage easement, and I believe the city wants to take over an easement in this vicinity for getting water to the detention basin. Right now the public roadway ends at this location, and there is a temporary turn around in this location, and the question is whether we do something permanent to allow people to turn around.

Mr. Tiffany said on the gate on the west side, where it is located, do you see any problem having that cutting off CG&E from access to their building at any time? Mr. Shvegzda responded I am sure that through whatever easement would be arranged with CG&E, there would have to be some kind of agreement for access at all times. Mr. Tiffany continued I am wondering why it is so far down the road, and not closer to the parking plat? Mr. Kelly responded that it was to keep the project secure, adding that an access drive could be constructed off this open portion to be properly sized for their vehicles.

Mr. Tiffany continued on your comment on Page 3, the 450 foot of public roadway from Champion, what I am looking for is letís say the Roberds project doesnít come to fruition. What are their plans with it at that point? My opinion is we need to tie that down with these folks just in case Roberds doesnít come to fruition, and I donít know if Roberds will be before or after this project is done.

Mr. Kelly responded as best as we can plan, we have shown a roadway which would be the proper configuration for the Roberds project. Going in a location of a future dedicated roadway, we brought it down to the north edge of the existing Kroger dock area. From that point on our plans we show an overlay section on our PUD plans. We have shown that as happening with the Exel project. Mr. Tiffany said only as a private roadway, not as a public, correct, and Mr. Kelly confirmed this.

Mr. Galster asked if there were a fence going around the complete property, and Mr. Crim answered we will utilize what fence exists parallel to I-275, and install new fence around the other three boundaries. Mr. Galster asked where he proposed the fence on the west side, and Mr. Crim answered on the other side of the roadway. Mr. Galster asked if it were possible to move it to the east side and move your gate up to the turn in to your parking lot, and expand that to make the turn around. My concern is if we have the gate way down there by the railroad tracks and somebody gets in there and gets stuck behind the train. I donít know how many cars can fit there before we have to worry about somebody getting hit by one of the trains. If we put the fence on the other side of the roadway and put the gate where the road comes back in, then we could have the turn around right at that curve. I think it would be more practical to have the gate up there so we donít have to worry about the person who gets down there, comes to the gate and is in the middle of the train traffic, plus you wouldnít have to redo the CG&E road.

Mr. Syfert commented the gate was put up to deter traffic from going down there; that was the initial idea. Mr. Tiffany commented it is so far away, I donít know if it would deter traffic. If a truck gets down there, heíll have a heck of a time getting back.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Kelly stated the truck traffic is controlled from this point; they canít go beyond that. Mr. Galster asked how far the gate is from the railroad track and Mr. Kelly answered 30 feet. Mr. Galster continued to keep the truck traffic from coming back out that way was the purpose of the gate, so it still does the same thing at the top; it keeps the trucks from coming out that way. My concern is 30 feet may be enough room to allow a car to get caught there and not be worried about the train, but where are they going to turn around? At least up there they would have a little bit more room to do that.

Mr. Kelly responded we tried to take the comments from Planning Commission and place it down in this location. If the gate or the fence was placed on the inside, Exel would have a difficult time maintaining this roadway. This connection is for the purpose of emergency access. WE have the turn around here; there is the concrete area over here. Once you get to this point, I think you will have a very quick perspective of what is in front of you. We felt that would be the appropriate place to respond to the Commissionís concerns and also keep Exel secure.

Mr. Manis asked if currently where our turn around is at the end of the road is a dedicated street, and Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, here is the end of the dedicated road, and there exists a temporary easement for a turn around. Ms. Manis continued then your road looks the same or similar; would you be able to tell if you got to the turn around, then does it look like a private road? Mr. Kelly responded we are going to change the character of the roadway; it will be an overlaid pavement, and there wonít be curb or gutter. As we rotated the building, our primary access going out to /Commons Drive, employees and trucks were going to go out that direction. Except for this connection in here, there is a need to keep that the way it is. There is the need to upgrade for the Exel site and make it adequate for emergency trucks and vehicles. Ms. Manis responded my concern was if a person got to the end of there, that they would know thatís where the public road ended, so they wouldnít be going back there anyway. Mr. Shvegzda commented if nothing else we could place a sign that says "Private Road" at that location.

Ms. Manis asked why they have the detention basin fenced? Mr. Kelly answered as we have designed on a final basis to complete the storm water on this project, the existing storm sewers going underneath the Kroger building are very deep and they are draining internally the roofs from the Kroger building. As we pick up these lines and bring them into the detention basin, our detention basin is 16 to 17 feet deep in this location, and we would like to fence that. Ms. Manis asked if it would be chain link fence, and Mr. Kelly confirmed that it would be.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Kelly to respond to some of the concerns expressed. It seems we have a lot of things hanging in the air, and I am not sure we are ready for a final at this point.

Mr. Kelly stated this is being proposed as a design built project, and we are talking to various contractors. They have made suggestions, and our conversation with staff was to bring up some of those comments to Planning Commission, not to be presenting those as alternatives, but to get feedback on how well they would be received. So, I apologize if there is any confusion on what we are trying to do here. We do have elevations in front of you with the materials we are showing, and that is what we would like to present tonight for final PUD approval.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Kelly continued I would like to respond to some of the comments. The comments from Don relative to the traffic impact analysis, I believe he is agreeing in (A) and (B) with what we proposed. Relative to (C), Best Buy was put in out onto Kemper Road. To my knowledge, the wasnít a traffic analysis performed with that. It is a right in right out turning movement into that intersection. If it was allowed to go in and not be studied how it was impacting the signal, we donít feel it impacts the left turn movements of this signal, the truck traffic going into Commons Drive. There arenít any conflicts with that access point with our turning movements in our site, and we didnít analyze that in our analysis.

Mr. Kelly continued the comment relative to the gate, we are showing that on our plans and we discussed that. The 75 foot radius curves; we do have them back to back in this area and, given the location of what we are seeing her with the development to the east, those could be flattened out. It was our intent to have the trucks travel and have a slight encroachment into a lane at that location.

Mr. Kelly said addressing the detention basin, we have submitted a final design. Our elevation of the Kroger building is at 652 (six feet above the high water mark in our basin). We are agreeable to the one foot of free board, and we are talking about a 300 year storm here, of which water getting into existing catch basins are going to have a difficult time and we feel comfortable with the one foot of elevation change between the high water mark and the detention basin and the catch basins that are on the other side of the Kroger building, given the six foot of change to the existing Kroger facility.

Mr. Kelly continued concerning the access road going out to Commons Drive, our section would be a heavier section than what we show on the plans. We would propose the same heavy duty section that would be included in the site, approximately 17 inches of aggregate and asphalt; it is a very heavy duty section.

Mr. Kelly stated our detention basin is designed for 6.1 acre foot in storage. I believe we show in our calculations that less than that would be adequate, but we have provided that sufficient amount of storage. As we talked with Barry, we are proposing an access drive in the location of the future roadway extension of Commons Drive. Commons Drive would be extended with the development of the existing Kroger building or some property in front of it.

Mr. Kelly added the subdivision plat, the alignment of the 30 foot ingress and egress easement would facilitate putting bearings and distances on that line to address that and the temporary turn around is what we would like to continue to have at the end of Kemper Commons Drive if it would be agreeable to make that easement permanent. Since we now know where the end of that roadway is occurring, we could certainly do that.

Mdr. Kelly said on the proposed fire hydrant, we are in agreement to that fire hydrant. The water tank on the SKA Lot 7, we are seeing it still needing to be in its location to suppress the fires inside the Kroger building. In my last statements for the preliminary PUD, if we determine that the water tank is not needed, we would assess removing it at that point in time, but SKA, the owner of that ground, hasnít made a determination if they do not need to have that facility.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Kelly continued on the lighting plan, we are showing that we will have 1/2 foot candle minimum. On the landscape plan, and the five caliper inches that we need, we can add the additional caliper inches. On the ornamental trees comment, we are in agreement; I think that is a good comment. A dumpster location has not been shown on this plan. Typically we would place a dumpster adjacent to the building and it would be along the dock walls. We did not want to share with Planning any variables with this site. We would like to receive a final plan approval on the information we have submitted subject to the staff comments and certainly I think some of the reiterations we have heard from Planning would be if there are variables within the plan, we might need to bring those back to you.

Mr. Blake commented in your last presentation, you stated something about the traffic analysis. Mr. Kelly responded engineering made a statement that our impact analysis which we did for Kemper Road and Commons Drive did not include the recently added right in-right out turn lanes for Best Buy. Our statement was we were analyzing left turn movements into the site going eastbound on Kemper Road, and they would not conflict with the right in right out opposite our signalized intersection, so that access does not need to be included in the traffic analysis that we have performed for the Exel site.

Mr. Tiffany said I am looking for the plans from August which we reviewed and gave preliminary plan review on and approval. We have a totally different picture here; weíve added more traffic. What is the current number of trucks that will be parked here; we have added a considerable amount of parking across the front. Mr. Crim reported the truck capacity has not changed; the parking we have changed is for the office area here because we flipped the building. Mr. Tiffany responded I understand, but now we have another leg out to the west of truck to trailer parking. Mr. Crim said this capacity has not changed; there was a capacity for 50 trailers. Mr. Tiffany commented it sure looks a lot different from the other one. The size of the building hasnít changed, and weíve added a future expansion area. Mr. Crim responded we have not increased the capacity for trailer storage. Maybe their drawing showed more than we intended to build. All we ever planned for were 50 trailers, and that has not changed. Mr. Kelly added this general area has the building for storage with the employee parking area, which has been supplemented. Mr. Tiffany stated you proposed 530 feet of tractor trailer parking across the front in your August drawings. Now you propose 663, a difference of 133 feet more tractor trailer parking across the front. Thatís a substantial increase, and I have to wonder why. Mr. Crim responded it will equal what was in the original submission. I do not understand why it was shown as more, but we are not asking for a deviation from the original submission. Mr. Tiffany said it is a deviation from the original submission, because the numbers are different. Mr. Crim said if approval is granted, it can be granted conditional on that. Mr. Tiffany added Iím not complaining that it is too big; Iím saying we have different numbers that we are considering; the plan has entirely changed from what we looked at before. We have four pages of cleanup items to look at. Thatís a lot of items to come into a meeting requesting final approval. We have no lighting plans and no sign plans.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Four


Ms. Manis said say Roberds is there; where will your cars go? Will there be a road behind the parking lot? Mr. Kelly said there would be, and there would be space between that with grass, etc. Mr. Kelly confirmed that there would be, landscaped islands. There would be access islands that you could get in and out of. Ms. Manis responded that was my concern.

Mr. Syfert stated I will entertain a motion, or if the applicant feels he would like to clean it all up and come back next month, Iíll accept that request.

Mr. Kelly responded I know you are talking about some comments from staff. There wasnít a conveyance of a lot of major issues that we needed to clean up. I donít know if we could ask Bill or Don if they are comfortable with what we have to do in order to get tied down for a final.

Mr. Syfert commented I donít know if their comments would do any good. We have been able to work things out in the past. Are there major issues? The plans we had is what these were made off of, so you can tell there were a number of major concerns, and I think probably what is happening is some of the Commission members are a little queasy about the corrections by voice.

Mr. Kelly stated flipping the building, we talked about it being an easy thing, but it created more changes and there were different design considerations that we didnít completely react to. The submission of the 31st is before you today, and that was the first time of being able to see this new plan. It did change; it wasnít a mirror image what we had last time, and there were some differences with creating the condition to access out to Commons Drive.

Mr. McErlane added to explain a little more about flipping the building, I think there was some discussion about that last time they were in, and there was concern that it probably would take more property to do that because of the way the rail has to come into the building. It wasnít a case of just being able to flip the building and keeping it at its present location. They still have to make that access in by rail, so that means they really would have to take that office portion and the west portion and move it to the other end of the building. So it did cause them to acquire more property. With respect to my comments, they are minor enough that I donít know that it presents a problem. I think Donís comments are more of a nature that it may take more study to determine the end point. I know there were some discussions about material changes; I donít know that it is a significant change to go from a split face block with foam core metal panels to tilt up wall type construction, if it is finished properly. Obviously rooftop units are a concern; they always have been, but that is something they will have to deal with. If Planning Commission has a problem with the rooftop units, they can look at it without the rooftop units and if it becomes a possibility based on the direction they go in construction, they could come back in and take a look at that again. Iíll defer to Don to see if he has any major concerns.

Mr. Sullivan asked if he had any concern with the fact that there is no lighting plan or signage plan.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. McErlane responded I recommended that they come back to Planning Commission with signage. I think they probably will require something larger than what our code allows anyway. They are only permitted 125 square feet per the GI district zoning, and for that large a building on a site that is close to the interstate, Iím sure they will want something larger than that, so it will probably have to come back to this board anyway.

Mr. Shvegzda commented regarding the comments I had, I think all the items can be worked out; we have discussed them and know what needs to be done. The one item that is up in the air is concerning the traffic issue. Steve had said that the movement they are analyzing is not affected by the adjacent development; however, the timing on that signal is different now and that hasnít been taken into account. In regards to the fact that they did do a traffic study, I canít address. That is Planning Commissionís call.

Ms. Manis said you were requesting us to approve the plan as it was before us before, without the rooftop units and with the materials the same, and if that changed, you would come back for that - is that what you were asking? Mr. Crim responded thatís not what I asked, but thatís what weíll take.

Ms. Manis continued on the traffic concern, I do understand what you are saying about Anchor not affecting it. The only thing I can see it does is put more traffic on Kemper, but as far as your trucks turning into the property, I think we do have some problems with that signal even now.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Shvegzda what is the cityís position on the traffic study, and Mr. Shvegzda responded just that the study take into account the additional leg in the intersection that is being constructed there.

Mr. Tiffany commented we have some variables here, the rooftop units and the construction materials to consider. Ms. Manis said we are considering that as originally presented to us. Mr. Tiffany continued you are showing split face block on the base, panels on the top and a scored face block accent band between, and around the dock doors also. That is per the plan, and anything different, you would have to come back in.

Mr. Tiffany stated I personally take this very seriously, and these things are supposed to come in as a package deal. The guidelines are there for a purpose; I donít think it is fair to this board to have this come in ill prepared. This is not a case of looking at the code and addressing it. This is a PUD where we have a lot of input, a lot of give and take. I am not comfortable with things coming in that are not prepared and ready to be considered, and I feel that is the way this one has come in. I understand that things happen with the business; you have contractors out there, but I donít personally feel it is fair to this board to put that burden on us.

Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Shvegzda about the composition of one of the access roads; you said it seemed a little soft as far as trucks traveling on it. Do you still have a concern with that? Mr. Shvegzda responded yes, but I believe Steve stated they are going with a different composition. Mr. Kelly added it would be the same heavy duty pavement that we are using inside the project.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Galster moved to approve the final plans based on the following clarifications:

1) Taking Mr. McErlaneís comments into account and providing

adequate answers to his satisfaction, in addition to the

proper screening of the dumpster, submittal of signage,

submittal of lighting plan - in general, meeting all his

concerns and comments;

2) Taking Mr. Shvegzdaís comments into account, straightening

out the ess curve, you have said you have no problem complying

with the detention, and any additional grading information he might require and everything else should be to his satisfaction.

We would grant the approval based on the existing plans we have as far as building materials with no rooftop units. Right now we have the pipe that we discussed, and any changes to that would need to be addressed. We also need a clarification to our Building Department as far as how high or the diameter of that pipe to make sure it is not sticking above the building more than what is allowed. If it seems excessive to Mr. McErlane, it should be addressed at that point. Ms. Manis seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson commented the existing water tank, are you including that in your comments by Mr. McErlane? Does the applicant have any problem with that? Mr. Crim stated the water tank is not on ground that we are purchasing, and it impacts the Kroger building, so I donít know that it is under our control. Mr. Wilson responded so that should be addressed to Steve then. Mr. Kelly stated at this point of time, we do not know if that water tank can be removed because of the fire requirements of the Kroger building. We would have to address this at that point of time if it can in fact be removed. Mr. Crim added that fire tank feeds the fire system for the entire Kroger warehouse. There is an opportunity for the owner of Kroger warehouse to install a new line to supply that building which would eliminate the need for the water tank, but the owner has not agreed to do that yet. We have tried to influence him, but we canít make him do it.

On the motion to grant final approval, voting aye were Ms. Manis, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Messrs. Sullivan, Tiffany, Blake and Galster voted no, and the motion was denied by four affirmative, three negative votes.

Mr. Syfert stated you can work on this, and it will be on Old Business on next monthís agenda.

E. Extended Stay America, Inc. requests final plan approval of proposed hotel at I-275 and Glensprings Drive (Strebel Property)

Rick Horn stated I am here to ask for final plan approval for Extended Stay America. It is an extended stay hotel; 123 units are proposed and we have 128 parking spaces. We have five employees at the peak time and that will be approximately one or two when there are no guests there so there should be sufficient parking for this hotel. These are medium-priced units of an efficiency type. They contain a kitchen area. There are no rooftop mechanics on the building; they are contained in the breezeway and in a mechanical room. All utilities will be underground into that mechanical room.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. Horn continued it is a three-story building, and the height as proposed is 43í-6". The view from the main artery in that area would be I-275, and from the ramp, there is approximately a 25 to 30 foot elevation difference to the site, so what you would see is part of the top floor elevation and the roof elevation. As shown here, it is a peaked roof. The scale building is approximately the same as the surrounding buildings. We have two buildings that are connected under one roof line. All utilities, plumbing, electric, would go through that roof line. If you look at the building, I believe it would flow with the natural features on the site. What is being passed around is the color pallet which shows the color choices that we have, the brick choices. This elevation shows the 40% brick as required by the Corridor Study; actually this is a little more than the requirement. The architects thought if they were going to brick so much, they should go ahead with the ends and everything. This is a prototype building. For that reason there might have been earlier confusion as to what the actual size of the building was, because we started out with a different height. The architectural plans for the building are in progress right now.

Mr. Horn stated we have met the setbacks. The entry way will be off Glensprings Drive, pass through an easement through the Cross County property and into the site; it is separate, but at the end of Glensprings Drive. The materials are natural tone materials so it should blend in with the surrounding buildings and with the natural area around that.

Mr. Horn continued the lighting was proposed to be building mounted, but in recognition of the foot candle requirements and the requirement that no light shall shine into the adjoining residential buildings, we will have to come up with a pole mounted light, a 28 foot cutoff type fixture that would shine back towards the building.

Mr. Horn reported that the landscaping meets the requirement of five percent, and also the tree requirements. There are two existing trees that will have to be taken out; they are 25" and 30" cottonwood that stand together at the front of the site, and all the utilities will be underground.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda for his report. Mr. Shvegzda stated on Sheet C-1-4, there is a note on channel easement on the far right, and there are several parking spaces that are into that easement. The question is whether there is any special permission that needed to be granted from ODOT. Midway along the drive that goes along the edge of the channel, there is a taper to have a transition and I assume to keep out of the channel area, but it looked a little abrupt, and there might be some consideration to changing that so it wouldnít be as sharp a curve in there. There is a concern for providing protection along here to keep vehicles from accidentally going down into the channel. There is a possibility of providing a more massive curb or guardrail. Regarding the accessibility to the dumpster, vehicles would have to enter here, and as it is now, it looks like they would have to back all the way out.

Mr. Shvegzda stated on Sheet C-1-5, there was a note regarding the channel grading, indicating that the adjoining property owner was responsible for everything. The intent at the last meeting was to provide cooperation between the two property owners so that work could be done at the same time basically, both the cleaning of this channel and the widening of the channel on the landominium development.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Eight


Mr. Shvegzda reported there are proposed elevations along this edge of pavement which indicate that there is additional grade back into the channel. We need more information to see how extensive that is. There are miscellaneous drainage comments; we should clarify that all the downspouts need to tie in directly to the storm sewers.

Mr. Galster commented last month we talked about where you draw the line with this water going straight into the creek bed. I tried to think about that a little more, and even though I understand that this water will not be retained very long before it is into the creek, it will get first access to the creek. Wonít it back up the creek? If you have increased more flow into it from this property, wonít that water that used to drain without that improvement on that property be slowed or widened up creek.

Mr. Shvegzda responded basically with storm water you have a delay with that far remote a site from getting to this point. That is why the closer you get to the stream, the less benefit is provided by the detention basin. Mr. Galster responded so when we used to have the backup into the residential areas up creek, this will not crease that backup again? Mr. Shvegzda answered I donít believe it will, but I do not have detailed analysis. We are requiring this property owner to widen the channel to provide a constant channel width. There may be a problem. This is being realigned and at this point limits what this developer can do to continue that channel.

Ms. Manis said when they talk about it doesnít affect it because it is right there, say we have a storm where it all rains at the same time and at the same place, and does not move to the west. Mr. Shvegzda answered that is true; we would look at rainfall with the entire tributary that would be affected at the same time; there are all kinds of possibilities.

Mr. Osborn added assuming that there is less benefit to a detention facility closer to the creek, what about creating additional capacity in the channel, in lieu of the detention basin? Mr. Shvegzda responded I donít know that there is any room to do that; I guess it could be investigated. Mr. Osborn continued in lieu of a detention basin, if it is possible, what about creating additional channel capacity that in effect creates more storage capacity in the channel?

Mr. Horn commented what Mr. Shvegzda said is true and I talked about this before. On this site it is unique in that if we put underground storage where it would have to be because of the size of the site, we couldnít dig traditional detention basin; the water would just back right up in it. To have cover on the pipe, the same thing would happen. When the creek came up, it would back up into the detention basin and we wouldnít have detention any more. Thatís one of the. unique things about the site; it is so close to the stream that there is no elevation change to get your detention out. The way we have it designed right now with storm sewers, they will work, but in times of 100 year storms, that storm water will head off to the level of that storm sewer. It doesnít present a problem on the site, because the buildings are set up high enough that it wouldnít present a problem, but this site has a problem with detention. If we were to have a detention basin on this site, we couldnít have a building. We would have to take half the site away to provide detention on this site if we provided it above ground. If we provided it underground, our outflow is down low enough that it wouldnít make sense to have it in the first place.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Twenty-Nine


Mr. Shvegzda stated Mr. Osborn had asked if it would be possible to somehow expand the channel to compensate. Mr. Horn responded the channel was expanded before to allow for that detention I guess. Mr. Osborn reported the channel was expanded before to displace the grading that was occurring on the site. The channel was regarded, and you had to redesign the channel capacity to allow some filling that occurred on the land. So there was in effect a net gain of zero in terms of channel capacity. My question was, in lieu of the detention chamber or detention facility of some type, is there any way that additional channel capacity can be created as part of this project?

Mr. Horn responded my answer would have to be no, because right now we are at the edge of the channel, and we would have to almost build a vertical wall along that creek, and that would make the project not feasible from an economic standpoint.

Mr. Shvegzda stated we havenít allowed it for quite a while. Would there be any possibility of allowing on lot detention on the surface of the parking lot? Then we would have problems from the standpoint of trying to regrade the parking lot. Mr. Tiffany said depth wise, what are you talking about, and Mr. Shvegzda answered we have held it at six inches on the few we have. Mr. Tiffany asked what happens to the water, and Mr. Shvegzda answered lit would gradually release down through a restricted point in the storm sewer.

Mr. Osborn commented there is a real problem with that, because it takes a very fine effort on the part of the contractor to get the elevations we are talking about to reach a finite amount of detention in a parking lot. Secondly, once you start overlaying that parking lot, you can forget about it. Itís not going to be there, because it will be five or six years from now, and weíre not going to know that they are going to be overlaying. The ones we do have, we ask for as-built engineering plans to show the elevations and even then, it is almost impossible to police. Iíd just as soon say they donít have to have any as to say they should put it in a parking lot, because it really is almost a pipe dream to say we are going to be able to enforce that.

Mr. Tiffany on the first page, item 2, the northeastern parking spaces located within the state highway channel easement - is this permitted? Do we have an answer to that? Mr. Horn stated I did not have a chance to talk to Todd Meyers with ODOT, but it is a squared out easement on the high part of the site. This property at one time was 10 acres, and the state took seven acres as right of way, so the state is aware of this project. It may take a permit from the state, but it is feasible and something I think they would give us. I canít say yes they will, but I think it is something that logically they would give us. Mr. Shvegzda commented the bottom line is before we could permit that to occur we would have to have a permit or letter from the state.

Ms. Manis said on the other side of the creek, do the homeownerís property lines go back to the creek? Mr. Shvegzda answered it appears that the property line is pretty much on the other bank of the creek

Mr. Horn showed the property line of the fence; their fence encroaches on the property somewhat. The trees are along the fence line and along this property . The plans show the top of the bank. Mr. Tiffany commented it is pretty close to the fence, and Mr. Horn confirmed this, adding in these cases, we are not going to disturb someoneís fence.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty


Ms. Manis said that is not what I was concerned about. I was wondering how much land there was on that side to move the creek that way. Mr. Horn responded if we tried to straighten the walls of the side of that creek, we would be taking all those trees out. Ms. Manis commented this plan looks green.

Mr. McErlane reported on the items that will require variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Plans indicate two signs and only show locations; there are no sign details other than Friday I received a fax of the pole sign. The Corridor District does not permit pole signs, and I do not know how high the pole sign is. Mr. Horn reported we submitted an 80 foot tall sign with 38í x 10í-3" mast. That is what we are asking for, but this is representing what we would like to have and it is Planning Commissionís prerogative to tell us what is acceptable.

Mr. McErlane stated one of the things we recognized early on was because of the topography and distance from Route 4 that it was a reasonable request to ask for a pole sign. At that time we didnít discuss heights or areas in any detail, although in preliminary discussions we indicated that since this is an extended stay type hotel, it wouldnít be reasonable to use Cross Country Inn as a benchmark for the size of the sign. Obviously they need to take a look at visibility, because there are some mature trees in that area. One of the items that will require a variance is the pole sign. Prior to tonight, we did not have elevation drawings that showed brick or stone; we will require additional copies of the elevation drawings so we can keep them on file. Another item is the plan shows a fence along this portion of the drive for screening headlights. The Corridor Study calls for plantings. I can understand part of the problem with plantings from the standpoint that the slope of the creek bank would make it difficult to keep anything growing there, or even plant something high enough to screen headlights. The two signs that are shown the other plan are closer than 25 feet to the Cross Country Inn property line. The code requires a minimum of 25 feet. Where they are shown is not an unreasonable location for them. The last item is the building height exceeds the 36 feet permitted in the Corridor District. Since I do have one sign detail, to give you relative areas and heights, Cross Country Inn is at 87 feet in height and 263 1/2 square feet. This sign is 389 1/2 square feet, so they are 120-something over than what Cross Country Inn currently has. They are significantly less than the Howard Johnson sign which was put up in the mid-70ís. It is 453 square feet and 110 feet high. I donít know what was submitted tonight, so I donít know if there were additional signs shown or just that one pole sign. Mr. Horn said we submitted only one, but we do have additional options if Planning wishes to see them. Mr. McErlane responded because there is an additional sign shown near the entrance; is that a ground sign?

Mr. Horn responded since this is a prototype building and there are no existing signs to take a picture of or submit as a ground sign or directional sign, what I showed on the plans were locations where signs would be. The one sign we do know we need on the site is a pole sign that identifies this as Extended Stay America Efficiency Hotel, and for that reason we do have the plans that show what we would like to have. I do have some variations of that same thing, different sizes and different heights. This is what we would like to have; what we are allowed to have is the decision of the Planning Commission. There was some confusion originally about who needed to approve that, and that is the reason I brought it to Planning Commission to let them clarify what they want.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-One


Mr. McErlane stated the lighting plan wasnít submitted, although the applicant has recognized that they will need to do something about lighting glare relative to the adjacent residential properties. The lay of the land is somewhat deceiving. It looks like it is very low, and it is relative to the interstate ramp, but the building elevations are fairly close to the building elevations on Lawnview Avenue, so there is a potential for the parking lot lighting glare concerns.

Mr. McErlane continued on colors, we never had a color pallet until tonight, and the landscaping table was somewhat incomplete on our drawing. What was missing on our drawings is the low growth plantings around the entrances or the stairways on the buildings.

Mr. McErlane stated relative to the trees that are indicated to be removed tonight, they do need the tree replanting requirements for the tree preservation ordinance. I think Don already talked about clearing the creek and the downspout drain.

Mr. Wilson commented I am going back to the September 12th meeting. "Mr. Wilson said the maximum height for a building is 36 feet, and you are going to 40.1 at the peak of the gable. Is there any way to play with that a little bit? Mr. Horn responded we are asking for three stories to get to the number of units required by the developer......" The bottom line is at that time we were looking at 40.1 and now we are looking at 43.6. That is an additional 3.5 over what we had talked about last month. My comment is if this is a prototype, a prototype to me means the first, so that means you could change this. You can either go back to the 40.1 or maybe even go to 36 feet as required. So, I have a problem with this; if this is a final approval and we go with it, we are going from 36 to 43.6. A prototype is the first; you are not looking at an image already in existence but an image you wish to project at this juncture. Therefore, we could be looking at at least coming down a bit.

Mr. Wilson continued I have no problem with the pole sign; I feel that in order to compete in that area, a pole sign is probably necessary. My question is in terms of the sign, is the entire sign lit up or just the lettering? Mr. Mark Haeger of Extended Stay America responded the whole sign is illuminated. Mr. Wilson asked if in terms of wattage, are we brighter than Cross Country Inn or Howard Johnson? Are we brighter than anybody else in that area to compete, since we have a bigger sign than Cross Country? Mr. Haeger answered I do not know; I would think we certainly are not trying to outshine anybody; we will follow any criteria set forth.

Mr. Wilson continued you can address my concern about the change in height. Is that 40.6 to the peak of the gable? Mr. Haeger answered yes, we are looking at a number of designs right now, and structurally we have run into some conditions with our truss system - the thickness of the truss system dictates the height of the building. Through some analysis, we have determined that on the exterior corridor, we need a certain size thickness of truss system, which since September 12th has raised our standard building up to 43í 6" from 40í1". Mr. Wilson responded so what you are saying is when you came in September, you didnít have your stuff together and now youíre getting a little closer to that. Mr. Haeger stated we are getting much closer. Itís trial by error and unfortunately our structural engineer and architects are not perfect.

What we have right now should stay; we donít anticipate changing.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Two


Mr. Horn added the point that he made also is we came in for preliminary site plan approval before, and we were trying to tie down these issues for this meeting. I was under the impression that we had to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get these things tied down. That is what we are doing tonight; bringing these things to Planning tonight to take their recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Wilson commented the problem I have is that you came to us with one list of specs and said you would do this or that, and when you went to BZA it was entirely different than what we had thought about agreeing on prior to your leaving us. When you went to the BZA, you asked for a variance to everything we had agreed upon.

Mr. Horn reported we asked for a pole sign - I didnít specify size; I asked for the existing landscaping to stand as the landscaping requirement; I asked for the building to be considered as stucco drivitt finish; I asked for a building height of 40í1" and at the time that is what I believed to be the actual building height. I found that not to be true three or four days later, after the Planning Commission meeting but before the BZA meeting. I didnít think it would be right to go in and ask for something that would not be built and then build something 43í6". I asked for what would actually be built, and that is where the confusion came in; I was embarrassed because it seemed like I was going for something more than what we had talked about. I had talked about all those things in the preliminary site plan, and approval was given to that preliminary site plan and I assumed that it was based on those criteria I had asked for. I also have comments from Anne McBride, and in her review she laid out all four of the things that would have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. That is why I listed all four of those things at BZA, but I was not heard because it was the perception of the BZA members that these are things that should be taken care of at the final plan approval. That is where we are tonight, and that is what we are discussing.

Mr. Wilson stated the problem we had, and you alluded to it, was that we on the Planning Commission thought you were going to go ask for a variance from 36 to 40í1" on the building height. When we asked about the facade being 40% brick, ..Mr. Horn commented and I said no problem, and Iíve learned to never say no problem because when I went to the architect they said we have to revise this drawing. I said I l needed it for Tuesday night, and that was impossible, so we decided to ask for the drivitt finish. Mr. Wilson commented you could understand how our representative to BZA felt when you came to BZA with something entirely different. Mr. Horn responded and after I knew his perception, I had no problem withdrawing that from the Board of Zoning Appeals and coming to this meeting, because that is where it should have been addressed evidently.

Mr. Wilson continued so now we are looking at 43í6" building height, and you want the pole sign. What about the facade? Mr. Horn reported we are asking for an 80 foot size with approximately 380 square feet, 38 x 10í. The 40% of two facades, this is the design concept that we have come up with that will meet that criterion. A four foot fence is shown to screen headlight glare instead of plantings. In the zoning criteria, and maybe in the Corridor Study, it said that a fence not to exceed four feet or landscaping can be used for headlight screening.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Three


Mr. Horn continued since that curb is almost along the edge of the bank, I did not want to encroach on that stream, because of the storm water problem, the widening that was done in 1987 or 1988, so we kept the top of bank at grade with the curbing there. If we tried to put landscaping along that curbing, it would fall into the creek Mr. Wilson asked what he was proposing then, and Mr. Horn stated I am proposing from here to here a four foot wooden fence with no openings. That will discourage people from hitting the fence and going into the creek, and it also would take care of the headlight sight distance going onto adjacent properties. These houses are about one and one-half feet above our site as it exists, so there would be the headlight issue. The only place that cars entailing the site would have lights shining into the adjacent property would be when they made this turn, and any cars coming back around this way, so the two critical places are the entrance and where they make this turn, but for reasons of safety and because of the code, I thought we should show that fence along the whole edge of the parking.

Mr. Horn continued the signs must be 25 feet minimum from adjacent property lines. We can move the signs if it needs to be out to this area here, and stay 15 from the right of way, but this is the logical location for the sign. The ballast for the sign probably will have to be a block of concrete, probably at least 8í x 8í. There is on the adjacent property, a Norway spruce that is about 50 feet high, so any sign would have to be at least that high to clear the top of that tree.

Mr. Horn stated there were no sign details submitted because I was under the misconception that we had to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for that sign. I talked to Mr. McErlane and submitted the sign to him that we were considering for the site. Mr. Wilson said are you referring to the ground mounted sign? Mr. Horn reported I donít have details for those, because this is a new concept. We did have a pole sign prepared and I was ready to submit it to BZA, but I didnít because I still thought it had to go to them for approval. Mr. Wilson continued but the bottom line is you donít have any details on the ground mounted sign at this point. Mr. Horn responded I showed owed it only to show that there would have to be an entrance sign that shows that Extended Stay is down here. Mr. Haeger added that may be something we could come back for later. Mr. Wilson continued you realize that will be part of your total signage, so if you overextend yourself on one sign, then we have a problem with future signs. Mr. Horn responded it would be something we would want to present to Planning Commission tonight, saying we would like to have a sign here, and we will submit that as a condition of our Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Blake said so we donít get confused again, I think you need to make sure that you have something that you let the Planning Commission know so if Planning says fine, you still have to come to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get the variance. Weíll want to see the same numbers that Planning Commission has seen.

Mr. Haeger said are you asking for us to determine total signage on the property tonight to carry over to the BZA meeting? We have had a sign contractor making calls to get a feel for what is allowed, and what he has been told is we will have to plan for a variance, but until we can show the total building elevations and signage, it would be difficult to determine the exact signage at the site.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Four


Mr. Wilson said my concern is that I donít want you as a business person to go all the way through to early construction, and find out that your sign is not in compliance; if silgnage and height of the building is a problem, then this might not be economically to your advantage. What we are trying to get you to do is get your stuff together, package it and then bring it to us and say this is the signing, this is the way the building will look, this is the elevation, this is the lighting; everything is done, so we donít have to project what might happen. We want to make sure that we donít have any surprises when you come to us for final approval and we say this is out of line, and you have invested all these dollars into a project that you canít complete.

Mr. Haeger responded so what do we need to lay out for next Tuesdayís meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals? If we need to set some parameters, we can set them right here.

Mr. Syfert asked if it were 50 square feet on a ground sign, and Mr. McErlane stated the problem will be determining the total amount of signs permitted to have on the site, and totaling it all up. You can have a ground sign up to 100 square feet; the maximum height is seven feet which makes it an awkward looking sign, but you can do that.

Mr. Haeger said the issue in going before the BZA is primarily the pole sign. Mr. Wilson said any sign that doesnít comply, and as long as you donít exceed total signage. Mr. Haeger commented what we are asking for will exceed total signage. We are asking for a variance on the pole sign, and I guess the rest of it will be looked at separately? Mr. Wilson responded we are looking at total signage. If we grant a variance to the pole sign, and you come back with a ground sign and already have exceeded the maximum, then we have a problem. Mr. Haeger asked what the maximum signage allowed would be? Mr. Tiffany commented it is based on the total frontage. Mr. McErlane commented I am trying to find a front yard on this site. For sign purposes, I think we would have to use the frontage along I-275, that is really the only visible frontage they have. So, we are looking at 187 lineal feet or about 320 square feet total for the entire site. Mr. Horn commented 380 feet is shown on the pole.

Mr. Wilson asked if they can play with the pole sign a little bit? Mr. Haeger responded absolutely. If we have our choice, we would want to maximize pole signage and go with as little monument signage as possible. The pole sign will be the key. Does that include directional signs? Mr. McErlane reported that it doesnít.

Mr. Syfert commented from the sign standpoint, you have the issue of the height of the pole sign, the amount of square footage of it, and the locations of both signs from the standpoint of the code.

Mr. Wilson added I have no problem with working with you on the pole sign; I really feel that is important. My concern is that if you want to have other signage, you canít ask for all your variances on one item, because you have a multitude of things here. We have to look from a business standpoint what would best serve you from what we have experienced here in the ciliate. I feel a pole sign is the most important advertisement. Once you get back in there, you are there, and the building will advertise itself. So if you want to go with the maximum allowable plus a variance on the pole sign and almost nothing with the other signs, I can accept that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Five


Mr. Tiffany said I agree with Mr. Wilson; I think we need to tie down a size for the pole sign tonight so we know where you are going with that. On the rest of your signage, youíll probably have to go to BZA for the total signage variance because of the pole sign. That is something hopefully that you can work out before you go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals on what you will need for additional signage.

Mr. Tiffany continued when you came in last month in your discussion with Ms. Manis, she asked how high you wanted the pole sign, and you had told her 65 feet. That would be about 40 feet over the highway. I agree with Mr. McErlane that because of the difference of the types of facilities that they are, I donít think it needs to be as tall or as large as Cross Country Inn. Can you live with the 65 feet in height? Mr. Haeger answered 80 is not set in stone. If it is granted, we would like it, but if we went with the 65, I would like to at least max out on the square footage for the sign face. We can live with 65. Mr. Tiffany commented Cross Country is at roughly 250 square feet, and you are asking for 380 square feet. Mr. Haeger responded we have quite a few more letters, and it is tougher to read.

Mr. Tiffany commented personally I am not up for going that big. If you add any signage on the building and a monument sign, you would easily be over 500 feet. Mr. Haeger reported we did a quick sign survey, and showed signage on the building. If we could maximize the pylon, I wouldnít put any signage on the building, because you canít see it. Mr. .Tiffany commented we are not talking about visible from the highway; if you have something over the front door - any sign that says Extended Stay is signage. Mr. Haeger asked if an awning with office on it considered signage? Mr. McErlane commented I have a feeling that you would not be able to see it from anywhere on the site anyway, so it probably would not count as signage.

Mr. Tiffany stated if we can tie it down to the height as 65 feet, great. Personally, I think 389 square feet is a little excessive. Mr. Haeger commented total allowable is 320 square feet? Mr. Tiffany stated you will have to go for a variance on the pole sign anyway. Mr. Haeger said without talking to the sign contractor, and I can tomorrow, he can put together a proposal which we can present next Tuesday in front of the BZA; would that be acceptable? Mr. Tiffany responded yes, as long as we nail down the sign on the pole. The size of the pole sign I want nailed down now; the rest of it they canít put together for us tonight. Mr. Blake commented then they wonít be coming before BZA. Mr. Tiffany said they can as long as they put it together. Mr. Blake said for the pole sign only. I have no problem as long as they are the same numbers we agree on tonight.

Mr. Tiffany said so the pole sign is 65 feet. Mr. Haeger stated we are talking about a pole sign and a monument sign; forget about the building sign. We are looking at 280 feet on a 65 foot high pole sign and the rest would be a monument sign. Mdr. Tiffany commented he has 320 feet to work with, and heís going to want something for his sign out by the street, so 280 is probably a good number.

Mr. Syfert said so for the record, do we want to work with 280 square feet? Mdr. Haeger commented we typically put a reader board that says weekly, and gives the rates. Mr. Tiffany said it is included in your signage. Mr. Haeger responded weíll work that out, but total pole sign will be 280 square feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Six


Mr. Tiffany continued we talked about the fencing; when you say they need a higher curb or the guard rail along the bank there, are you considering the fence in with that? Mr. Shvegzda answered not really; that was exclusive of that; it was to protect vehicles. Mr. Tiffany asked how he feels with the fencing, and Mr. Shvegzda responded unless it is substantial, it will not prevent vehicles, plus there is a problem of how close the fence is to the edge of the driveway, and whether it can be damaged by vehicles.

Mr. Osborn asked for a drawing showing the site plan, adding that he has a question. This shows a site easement coming across here. Why do we have this road bellied out all the way to the edge of the creek? Mr. Horn responded that was to get the required parking; actually, the road is built. Mr. Osborn stated I understand that, but if you have an easement that comes across here, why couldnít you build the access along this way here. You wouldnít have to go right along the edge of the creek; you could have some room to direct the channel capacity, and you would have better access into the site. Frankly, putting a fence up here will last about a week. Thatís just not going to happen. You have a 90 degree turn with a 24 foot right of way, and you donít have to do that type of accessing into the site, because apparently there is an access easement across this corner here. Mr. Horn responded the access easement is for this site, and Mr. Osborn asked where the access for this property is, and Mr. Horn indicated where it was on the plan. Mr. Osborn commented there are two access easements shown here. Mdr. Horn reported that was the widening for this place. Mr. Osborn asked Mr. McErlane if that was his understanding, and Mr. McErlane responded I donít know that they acquired any additional access easements when they built Cross Country Inn. There were access easements that existed because all these properties had an access to Route 4. Mr. Horn continued the reason why we have this was to get the required parking.

Mr. Osborn stated I really think this is a bad design; it forces the road all the way up by the creek, and we have the problem of the guard rail, the fence, and you donít have any room for any of it. If there is ownership of an access right across here, I think you should redesign this access to the parcel here, and that would give you room for landscaping at the entrance and it will keep you further away from the creek. Mr. Horn asked about meeting the parking requirement, and Mr. Osborn answered I think that is less critical than the really bad entrance that you have here. Mr. Horn commented I agree with Mr. Osborn; that is something we really would like to look at; it takes care of a lot of issues that I have on the site like access to the dumpster and access on the site.

Mr. Wilson asked how many spots are we talking about, and Mr. Horn responded we are talking about three spaces. We had 128 parking spots and our maximum employees would be five and they would be getting there about one or two to clean the rooms, and that would be the time when there would be no one in the rooms. We probably could do that if Planning would look favorably upon it. I would sure change the entrance, right now. Mr. Tiffany commented I donít have a problem with it. Mr. Horn continued there is a fire hydrant that we might have to relocate, but otherwise we wouldnít lose anything except for these three parking spaces right here.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Seven


Mr. Tiffany asked if this were a backlit panel box sign, and Mr. Haeger confirmed that it was.

Mr. Blake said as I was looking on the main plan, there was not enough room on the back end where you plan to put the pole sign with the dumpster. How can you make room so that the truck can get in and out back there? The way it looks, you have to go in and back out. Is there space enough to swing around?

Mr. Horn answered there isnít really the way it is designed right here. The way we did the access is the most logical access, the shortest point close to the building but not in front of the building. Actually the place that would be most conducive to entering and backing out would be right here by the entrance, but that is not logical so I put it back here where we could at least get the truck in and he would have some maneuverability to back out. There is room so he could back and turn around; if the parking lot werenít full it would be possible, but this is the best of a worst case placement. Mr. Blake commented Iím concerned about that long strip to back out. Mr. Horn responded I share your concern, but I think this is probably the best location for that dumpster. The only place it would fit with a logical swing in and swing out would be at the entrance, and I donít think we would want to put our dumpster there. If we put it anywhere back in here, we still would have to maneuver and swing in and out and have the same problem. Mr. Blake said couldnít he come in, pick up and swing it back in this way? Mr. Horn said that is a good idea, to put it right here Mr. Haeger added typically when they come and pick up the garbage, there will be no cars in the parking lot. With it being a hotel, from the hours of 8 to 6 there is virtually no one in the parking lot.

Mr. Syfert said going one step further, have you addressed the two items of concern of our Fire Department?

Mr. Horn reported I talked to Dan Shroyer about this, and while I do not have written approval explained the situation and said we had access on this side and this side, but the turning room here and here would be limited. He doesnít need to be able to drive around the building, as long as he can access the two faces of the building and the fire plug. Mr. Syfert said Iíd like to read the letter I have dated October 9th. It is from Dan Shroyer to Bill McErlane:

"In reference to the above-referenced project, we would like to request that the developer address two concerns.

First, we would ask that the first fire hydrant north of the valve pit be located as far south as possible. This hydrant is currently shown approximately 70 feet north of the pit. A location further south would permit it to be effective in the event we would need to stretch hose back the driveway adjacent to the creek as there are no hydrants indicated on that south driveway."

Mr. Syfert stated that is his first concern. Mr. Horn stated we can accommodate whatever he needs. Mr. Syfert commented I donít think that is a problem, since you are putting them in.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Eight

Letter from Dan Shroyer to Bill McErlane - continued

"Secondly, I had some preliminary discussion with the developer concerning turning radius where the driveways come together at the northeast end of the project. Upon reviewing the plans we are asking that that proposed radius be defined. The minimum turning radius that would allow for movement of our trucks through that area is 35 feet to allow a 90 degree turn or a 70 foot diameter to allow a 180 degree turn."

Mr. Horn stated I wasnít privy to that letter beforehand, so I canít address that. In talking to Mr. Shroyer, he said as long as he could access two faces of the building, it was not a problem. He may have rethought that and decided he had to have that. Mr. Syfert commented this is dated yesterday. Mr. Horn added I didnít know that he had written that letter, but if we try to put a 35 foot turning radius in there, we are taking up parking.

Ms. Manis asked am I correct in that you said you do not know what the buildings will look like yet? Mr. Horn said the buildings will look like these elevations. Ms. Manis responded elevations, but breezeways, not breezeways - you donít have the final? Mr. Horn answered we have breezeways; this is the design right here. It is a prototype, and what I mean by that is prototype is a building that is designed and everyone is going to be like that one; it may be a little longer or shorter, They design everything on the CAD and everything is set. If they have to knock off a unit, they knock off three, or actually six. Ms. Manis commented so if you would cut this building down, you would cut off three units and it would fit better. Mr. Horn responded then it would be economically unfeasible for us to go onto the site. We had to get parking for that building, and that used up the site. We are trying not to distribute the creek at all. Ms. Manis commented I would think you would want to use the creek as a benefit. You may want to put up a fence to screen it out; that would be nice for the residents. Mdr. Horn responded now we are back to what I said originally. There is vegetation there that could act like a screen, but it is not evergreen. Ms. Manis commented it could act like a screen, but it may not. Mr. Horn responded so I couldnít rely on that as a screen. Thatís what I asked for in my preliminary plan approval request. It wonít act like that in the winter, so to meet the criteria of the zoning code, I have to show something there, and if I show plantings, I am fooling both Planning and myself if I think a four foot tall pine tree will set on that slope. The first heavy rain it will go into the creek. Thatís why I put the fence; it is something that will work. It will block the headlights, will meet the criteria, but it has to be approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Manis asked if there wouldnít be problems with the fence. Mr. Horn responded yes; weíll probably be replacing fence once or twice a month, and Mr. Osborn made the point, and I think it is well taken, that that first curb probably would be knocked out immediately, but I am trying to meet the zoning requirements. On the front part, that is a good idea; we can straighten that out and take care of part of that fence.

Mr. Horn added the fence actually will be bolted to part of the curbing as part of that. Mr. Haeger said I donít agree that awe will be replacing fence once a month. Mr. Horn stated I was trying to find a solution that was amicable to the developer, the commission and the people of Springdale. The Extended Stay would not have wild parties; these are business people who are going to be in town for a week and need a place to stay. Ms. Manis added or construction workers who will be here for three months.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Thirty-Nine


Ms. Manis commented we had Exel here with a lot of questions to be answered and we have this. If we are going to table this, letís table and get on with it.

Mr. Horn said all the comments are reiterations of comments we had before, and most of them deal with items for the Board of Zoning Appeals. We already have preliminary plan approval.

Mr. Galster said if we end up putting a curb on that side of the creek to keep the cars from heading down that way, are you open to the possibility of moving that fence that is supposed to screen the headlights on the other side of the creek? Mr. Horn responded it wouldnít do any good over there. I am saying when we move the entrance, the fence will be along the straight part and shouldnít be run into. Mr. Galster said so what is the reason for the fence along the whole line then? Put it across where the residents are and you wonít have to worry about it getting hit, and those staying at the hotel still get to view the creek.

Mr. Horn responded the only problem with that is we have trees along the top of this bank. This is these peopleís back yard, and if we go over and cut down trees and put a fence up, who are we hurting? Mr. Galster said I believe most of these people already have fence. Mr. Horn said this was my argument during the preliminary site plan review. I asked for approval with no screening and thatís what I alluded to.

Mr. Horn said I think we can work this out; we have everything pretty well taken care of, but if the Planning Commission feels we should table it until next month, Ms. Manis is right; we are wasting time at this point.

Mr. Blake commented I can only speak for me, and you saw what happened to the Exel project.. When you come for final approval, we should have as much together, not a lot of hearsay and I might do this and this may happen. I like to see the lighting plans; I like to see everything laid out so we can discuss it and we can support you in going to the Board of Zoning Appeals and asking for a variance. I think everything needs to be laid out; I am concerned about the turning radius outlined by the assistant fire chief in his letter. I think this needs to be addressed and brought back and let us look at it and go forth.

Mr. Syfert commented in fairness to the applicant, he did not have the benefit of this letter dealing with the radius so he really couldnít answer that. Mr. Horn said thatís one of the confusing things about this whole project. It seems like I have everything I need, and I go to the next step and itís not what I need. If Planning Commission wishes to table, it doesnít make any sense to go ahead at this point and beat a dead horse.

Mr. Wilson said you are telling me that you are not going to make any concessions with the height of the building; you are going to stay with 43í-6"? Mr. Horn responded I think we need that. Mr. Haeger added we canít change it, because the latest structural details show 43í-6".

Mr. Wilson moved to table this and when you come to us next month that you have all our concerns addressed and we can say yay or nay and move on from there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Forty


Mr. Horn said I would like to ask a question. One of the big things on this site is detention. That was requested in the preliminary plan submission, and I thought it was approved that we would not have detention, but it came up again tonight. That is a big money item issue and is something I donít think is relevant to the site. The water that would be released after 30 minutes would be contributed to a flood condition on the site. If it is released at the beginning of the storm, it would be off site before the flood condition happened. I said all this at the preliminary plan review. It is something I donít have in my design, and would change the design significantly. I want to clarify that this is not a requirement.

Mr. Wilson commented last month Mr. Shvegzda had a concern about that, and I thought you said we could live with not having the detention. Mr. Blake said it is in the Minutes, on Page 33. Mr. Syfert added from what I understand, the detention on the site is not something that is a major concern. I believe the cleaning of the channel in conjunction with the adjacent property owner is probably the key. Do you agree with that, Don? Mr. Shvegzda responded if I remember right, the decision was that basically the usefulness of the detention as opposed to what would have to be done on the site wasnít worth it, so the detention was essentially waived.

Ms. Manis added and possibly widen the channel if they change the entrance? Mr. Horn responded if you go in and do anything with the channel, you are worsening the situation we are trying to avoid by cleaning the channel. The whole design of this is to stay away from the creek, because we donít want to do anything detrimental to the creek. It has been widened, and we donít want to do anything else to change the way the creek is right now, except to go in and clear the silt out. The silt in the creek is going to be there; when the next storm comes, the silt from upstream will come and be deposited here. The only thing we can do is clear out the trees that are growing in the middle of the creek and make that stream flow faster and maybe not have as much of a situation problem. We said we would clean out the sediment, and we would like to do that as part of the Hitchcock property stream widening, because we could do it all at one time. There is an agreement with the property, and Cross County is to do this. Paul Strebel said the agreement says we can go in and do this and charge it back to Cross County. It is a condition of the sale contract that the owner complete this. We have two or three agreements that say we are going to do this. Itís just that when I made the comments at the preliminary plan submission, I said we would like to do it in conjunction with the stream widening so we are not doing something twice.

Mr. Shvegzda stated one of the things we had talked about last Planning meeting was either through the use of an easement at the work on the Hitchcock property could be completed through onto the Extended Stay property so that the channel width would be continuous from the Hitchcock property on to the Extended Stay property. Mr. Horn added and right now it is widened across the Extended Stay property and with Mr. Osbornís statement, that alleviates the comment that there is a curve there and that we are interfering with our roadway, because it will pull the roadway far enough back that it wouldnít be a problem. We could straighten the creek out there if it has to be straightened. Mr. Shvegzda responded so we are talking about moving the roadway back closer to where it is currently located.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 1995

Page Forty-One


Mr. Horn said exactly, and that will take care of your statement that maybe we need to look at the closeness of the road as it exists on this plan. we are going to clean the sediment out of the stream; That is something that Planning was pretty adamant about before, and we are going to do that, but we would like to do that in conjunction with the lady who is developing the Hitchcock property. If it takes an agreement with her to do that, thatís what we will do.

Mr. Horn asked for direction to go to BZA, even though we are not going next week? Mr. Wilson responded at this point, if you wanted to go next week, the only thing you would go for would be the sign. Mr. Horn commented we want to go all at one time, I would think. Mr. Wilson said then I would wait until you see us next month. Mr. Horn commented if we change the entrance, we will go for a parking variance. So can awe use those as criteria to go to BZA this month? Mr. Wilson said I think you have to come back and see us next month. If it is being tabled, I donít think you want to go to BZA next week. You have to get some approval from us and then go to BZA. Mr. Horn said so weíll come to you for final plan approval next month, and you will give direction at that point to go to BZA for the required variances.

Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion to table, and by voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to the November meeting.


A. Nationwide Insurance, 11816 Springfield Pike - Wall Sign

B. New York Deli & Bakery, 11788 Springfield Pike - Wall Sign

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be present at the next meeting, November 14th. Everyone indicated they would be at the meeting.


Mdr. Wilson moved to adjourn and Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1995 ______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,1995 ______________________

Steve Galster, Secretary