14 OCTOBER 1997

7:00 P.M.



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


Members Present: Richard Huddleston, Bob Seaman, Councilman Bob

Wilson, Jim Young and Chairman Syfert

Members Absent: Steve Galster (arrived at 7:02 p.m.)

David Okum (arrived at 7:10 p.m.)


Mr. Young moved for adoption and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

By voice vote all present voted aye except Mr. Seaman and Mr. Wilson, who

abstained. Minutes were approved with three affirmative votes.


A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster stated that tomorrow night there will be a continuation of

the public hearing in process on Target.

B. 9/16/97 Letter to Chad Oldfather from David Okum, Acting Secretary of Planning Commission re request for Special Planning Commission Meeting for Target Final Plan Approval

C. 9j/19/97 Letter from Art Harden of Woolpert re Target Project

D. 9/24/97 Letter to Art Harden from Wayne Shuler concerning Target Project

E. Invoice for Pro Rata Share of Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Dues



A. Approval of Record Plat for Pine Garden, Section 3

Mr. McErlane said I donít know if I can explain why no one is here representing them, but the application for approval came in through Donís office and was copied to us. I didnít even get notice until October 3rd when my copy came to our office. I donít know if it specifically indicated that they would be in attendance at the meeting, but they did ask for it for this meeting tonight. They were aware that Planning would act on it, and they have been here in the past for all the other applications. What it consists of is one unit that is part of a two-unit building that was approved at the last phase of the plat. There are some issues involved in it that Don could probably elaborate on.

Mr. Syfert suggested settling this back to the last part of New Business and allow the applicant time to get here. Mr. Galster so moved.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Two

NEW BUSINESS - continued

B. Duke Associates requests final plan approval of proposed Tri-County Marketplace, 11741 Princeton Pike

Mr. Syfert said we have to have five affirmative votes for final plan approval, so a simple majority will not be enough.

Steven Kelley of Woolpert said to assist me tonight is Ted Treesh of Woolpert, Jay Smith and Greg Malone with Duke.

Mr. Kelley continued the final site plan for all practical purposes is consistent with the concept plan you saw earlier. We have eliminated the outlot parcel; it is shown as future development and would be brought in under separate submission and looked at when we have a final plan for that lot. We still have two buildings and parking in the areas around both existing banks on the site.

The access to the site is still the primary access coming in off Princeton Pike in the same appropriate location that served the Swallenís development. We are now showing four lanes, two in bound lanes and two egress lanes and a center median which extends back to our first point of entry to the north side of these buildings. This should improve the flow of traffic coming in and out of the project. There is a curb cut coming into Star Bank and we show some improvement to that creating a median entrance with the addition of landscaped islands on either side. We have access with a left turn around the back side of Banc One. The south side continues to be a four way intersection in front of the building with access cross the face of the building to get into the parking area. Our truck docks are placed in the rear of the property, and they are screened by the building.

We are proposing improvements to the drainage channel; it is an integral part of the engineering design. The balance of the property has been improved. One of the recommendations from staff suggests landscaping to enhance the north side, and we are agreeing to do that. We had shown retaining walls in this area; staff suggested rearranging the parking area which we have done. We have eliminated those walls and agreed to place the landscaping back in that location.

The rest of the property around the perimeter which is currently paved and up to the property on the south will have additional landscaped islands and really be shown on the forefront of the building..

Our pylon sign will be at the southwest corner of the entrance. For the most part the parking has setbacks along the back side of the property, and the setbacks have been increased over what currently is out there.

We are asking for a variance on our parking setbacks. We feel it is an improvement over what is currently out there, and would ask that it be forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

One of the staff comments was to address the buffering of the north side, Building #2 with evergreens, and we have provided that. In the parking area, we have hawthorne trees and honeysuckles, predominantly hawthorne which will be colorful in the fall and flowers in the spring, and spaced throughout the parking lot.

We have talked about cross access with Princeton Plaza and met with them. Duke is committing to work out that access with Princeton Plaza.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Three


Mr. Kelley continued the buildings are as pleasing to look at integrated with sign panels so the mass of the buildings blend very well with signage. Mr. Malone added the copper colored will be utilized along the base of each of the buildings. The dark brown accent will be used to create separations between the entry features and the parapet walls and a separation between the two tenants in the first building. The buff colored block will be along the top. The sign panels behind the individual letters will be a drivitt material that is consistent with the buff colored block. We are trying to go from dark to light as you go from top to bottom. We also are trying to get a cohesive comprehensive look with the building materials while still accommodating each individual tenantís identity and entry feature.

Mr. Malone continued a key benefit is that this entire development is totally leased. We intend to build this phase at one time. The far left building will be occupied by a 26,000 s.f. Petsmart, and in the same building will be a company based out of Oakland California with their first store in Cincinnati, Cost Plus World Market. The best description I have is to take a Pier One Store and add gourmet foods, coffee and selected beer and wines. The northern free standing building will be the Comp USA building.

Mr. Kelley added we brought together plans in the middle of September, received staff comments and resubmitted plans, so we feel we are at a point where we can receive a final approval tonight.

Ted Treesh, Traffic Engineer of Woolpert said I was charged with conducting the traffic impact analysis for this development to assure that the access and internal circulation would work efficiently for this new development. As part of that study we conducted traffic counts at the traffic light during a week day evening and on a Saturday. We took those counts and overlaid what we anticipate this site will generate. We did not assume any cross access with the adjoining center to assure that we looked at everybody coming in and out of this intersection. We then looked at the intersection again for the total picture with the increase in traffic on Princeton to make sure that in the future that intersection would be able to accommodate the traffic entering and exiting this site. The two banks were in operation during our traffic counts, so the traffic entering and exiting the site related to them.

Based on that analysis, this intersection will basically maintain the current level of operation during the two peak periods, the weekday evening and Saturday during the midday peak. We utilized the existing traffic signal timings and the number of traffic lanes that are there. After meeting with CDS and looking at site plans, we added an additional inbound lane. We are maintaining the existing two outbound lanes, the right turn lane and a left-through lane. The primary reason for the addition of the inbound lane was two-fold: (1) the location of this driveway serving Star Bank. This lot is not part of the Duke development, so we had to maintain the operations they have today. The drive through lanes for Star Bank are located on the north side of the building. In order to maintain the traffic flow, this driveway has to be maintained. There were concerns raised by CDS, and we added a second lane inbound to allow traffic to come into the site, allow it to turn into Star Bank as well as travel straight and into the new retail development. Reason (2) was the intersection at this location which was necessary to serve the operations of Banc One. The second lane allows traffic to bypass a car that might be waiting to turn left in to access either parking for these two tenants or the operations of Banc One.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Four


Mr. Treesh stated Banc One has two drive through lanes located on the north side of that building and their traffic patterns will pretty much remain the same. We had two existing factors we had to work with in laying out and designing this site, and we really think this will improve the circulation not only for the new retailers but for the two existing users.

CDS requested a southbound right turn lane into the property. Looking at the traffic study from a capacity standpoint, there is no need for an additional right turn lane. If a right turn volume exceeds 300 cars in an hour at a traffic signal, you should start thinking about putting in a right turn lane. Our right turn volume peak hour is about 200 cars an hour. One of the reason CDS cites the right turn lane is because of the fact that somebody entering Star Bank might be stopped by someone backing out of a parking space. We have eliminated the first three to four parking spaces on Star Bankís property immediately in front of their building, and thus the conflict points near the driveway. In addition we provided that second inbound lane so if a car does stop, there is a second lane that the car can travel around that vehicle waiting.

The last item we looked at was accessibility for delivery vehicles. The three receiving areas are in the back of the buildings, and this driveway is wide enough to accommodate delivery vehicles maneuvers into the docks and exiting the facility.

Mr. Young said if you go through the drive through at Star, how far up do you have to go to get out of the facility? Mr. Treesh answered you have to proceed to the aisle. We are extending this barrier median from the stop bar to approximately this first intersection, prohibiting anybody exiting Star Bank from this drive to get back to the traffic. Mr. Young continued so right behind the building there is no access. In the intersection where it goes from four to two lanes, are there any stop signs or signals? Mr. Treesh answered no. The approaching direction will stop, but east and west traffic will not.

Mr. Wilson commented turning into that section from the north or south, at what point can you turn into the next bank? Mr. Treesh said it is just like it is today. Right now there is a wall and it will remain. Mr. Wilson wondered if when the light changes, the individual would have enough time to pull in and make a left turn without blocking someone? Mr. Treesh answered yes. This driveway isnít in the optimum location, but thereís not a lot we can do about it because of the operations of Star Bank.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if they had agreement with Star Bank or are pursuing an agreement? Mr. Jay Smith of Duke answered we are pursuing agreement with Star Bank. I believe Don and Cecil had a meeting with them this morning, and they have agreed to cooperate as far as losing a couple of parking spaces and getting an access easement from their property through this and back out on the main drive. Today there is no easement through the parking lot, but they are willing to work with us to come up with a new easement.

Mr. Shvegzda said for clarification, we met with Richard Hockzema Vice President of Corporate Real Estate of Star Banc Corporation and went through what is being presented in terms of what would affect their site and he indicated he did not see any problem with it but they still have to go through their people to verify that they can agree to it. As of this time, they think this is a workable situation.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Five


Mr. Okum on the Star Bank continuous right in where you are taking the lanes, on your drawing C-1-6, you do not show any striping or arrows designating that as a lane. It appears that is the width of the lane, but I would think we would want a radius arrow striping. It appears that the entrance would be three lanes wide, am I correct?

Mr. Treesh answered the recommendation I have is to pull the curb back to two lanes wide. The majority of the traffic that will be entering the site will now be destined for these uses. My concern with this third lane is that someone turning in destined for these units suddenly has to jog over. There is no way to alert them that this curb lane is for the bank only. The volume of traffic turning into the bank isnít significant enough to justify their own lane, nor is the geometry there to provide that. I recommend that we pull that curb back and allow a wider opening, but not necessarily the width shown on this final drawing.

Mr. Shvegzda stated it was my understanding that the additional width there was to provide enough of a width in that entranceway for semi trucks to be able to turn in. It really wasnít a separate lane for Star Bank.

Mr. Okum commented I am a frequent user of Star Bank and an enormous number of cars stop at the entrance going into Star Bank. We have to make sure those people donít have rear end collisions by widening that berth, giving them some lane designation or a split arrow so those people get out of the way. Mr. Treesh responded if we leave the width and provide some striping, I think we can work with Don and work out the geometry of this curve.

Mr. Shvegzda reported part of the thing that will help in regards to traffic turning into Star Bank is we will have two lanes anyway coming back, although one will become a left turn but it still will allow vehicles to get around traffic slowing up to turn into the Star Bank. The other issue we really were wanting to address was having enough width for semi trucks to turn. Now that we have the raised concrete barrier in the middle, they wonít be able to swing wide out into the other lanes.

Mr. Okum wondered if he anticipated future adjustment on 747 northbound to accommodate two left turn lanes into the site. Mr. Shvegzda answered anything is possible, but it would involve substantial changes to 747 just because of the geometrics that currently exist with the other lanes heading into Tri-County Mall and the width of the road itself. Mr. Okum added my concern is we will get this built and say we have one lane going straight on the left hand side and one that will go straight and right turn but now we donít have enough stacking capacity on 747. I donít have a problem with that as long as there are not people stopping to turn into Star Bank. I use Star Bank extremely frequently, and I know that stacking lane does not accommodate left lanes turning in there very efficiently. Our most recent study on 747, Kemper and the Corridor Study indicated that all the traffic was not generated southbound on 747 as we always had thought. A lot of traffic is coming from Kemper Road in both directions. Not all the traffic is going to come from the interstate, and we have to anticipate traffic going to this development and my concern is this intersection has to accommodate a potential future double left turn lane into the site and Star Bank might be a problem with the right turn in.

Mr. Okum wondered if there were a reason that there was not a connection on the back of the site for both parking areas to be joined so there could be a continuous flow around the perimeter of the back of the buildings.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Six


Mr. Kelley answered it came down to the proximity of the creek and what we felt comfortable with providing for a two lane flow of traffic back here. We wanted to make sure that the trucks could get back here and egress back out. We had talked about getting this to come around and get the flow of traffic all the way around it but we really preferred not to have that because of backing up to the edge of the creek. Mr. Okum commented so you feel it is better for the tractor trailers to back around back up and turn around at the docks than to flow out. Mr. Kelley responded the number of deliveries to Petsmart may be more than any other user but these are going to be fairly infrequent. We looked at it and kind of like these two dock areas and we think it works more efficiently the way it is set up.

Regarding parking, Mr. Okum wondered if they still had the parking spaces backing out of the two sites into that through lane. Mr. Kelley answered yes. We have looked at it and talked about the numbers of trucks. If there is a delivery backing in here, that is when you would have that conflict, but it should be very infrequent, and because of that it is not a concern. Mr. Okum said so if a truck were making a delivery, he would drive across the entranceway where all the people are going in and out of the stores and go around the building to the back. Mr. Kelley confirmed this.

Jay Smith stated on the proposed signage, Greg and I were here last month. We were a little premature in coming before you then, and we have tried to incorporate some of your comments. There were some issues with the signage on the north side of this building and the south elevation of that building; we have taken those signs out of the picture and are not requesting them. There was a monument sign previously shown in that location and we have taken it off the plan.

Concerning the pylon sign on the front unit, there were comments on the height, and we have cut it down to the 30 foot maximum allowable. In terms of square footage of signs, there are some variances that will be required there. We have several signs that are larger than 150 square feet. For the Petsmart building we are seeking a variance because we are in excess of the 274 square feet allowable. If you look at the total in area shown, there are 936.5 square feet we have shown. According to staff, it should be 992.5 square feet and we are allowed 822 square feet. If you look at the overall development and the signage we are requesting, it is not in excess of what has been approved on the corridor previously.

Mr. Okum said recently in Planning we approved the signage below the Dave & Busterís sign on 275. That will be a solid sign, one big box of light, and I think we made a mistake in approving this. Driving I-275 recently, I went by Florence where Meierís and Office Depot is and they put space between the panels;I took a photograph of this. It eliminates the blanket of light and signage and gives you a little bit more definition to each of the merchants. It may change the sign dimensions a little bit, but it broke that big mass and makes it a little smoother to the eye.

Mr. Smith responded I donít necessarily have a problem with that, but I would ask that we be allowed to go a little higher and keep the panels the size that we requested here. Mr. Okum asked the height of the existing sign and Mr. McErlane reported it doesnít exceed 30 feet. The panels themselves are four or five feet high. Mr. Seaman commented itís a good look, but I do not want to go over 30 feet high.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Seven


Mr. Malone said we are receptive to making modifications to signs. Maybe the solution would be not to go higher but allow us less clearance at the bottom to get the gaps between the two. We are willing to make minor modifications.

Mr. Young commented I have a problem with the proposal being three times what is permitted in signage and I would ask why you feel the need? Mr. Malone responded there is a minor mistake in tabulations. I believe we are permitted 822 square feet and we are asking for 922 square feet. Iíll let Ms. McBride confirm that.

Ms. McBride said the 318.5 should be where the 150 is for Tenant C. The total permitted is 812.5 square feet. Mr. Smith commented I think the 318 should be 328 permitted for Comp USA. Ms. McBride added by my calculations it should be 812.5 square feet.

Mr. Shvegzda reported at the last presentation the applicant indicated 33,000 cubic feet of detention volume would be placed on the site at that time underground detention, which equated to about 25% of what would have been required if this had been a totally new site. That is more or less in line with other redevelopments in the vicinity, including Tri County Mall and Cassinelli Square.

The applicant has asked that the 33,000 cubic foot volume be utilized by regarding the stream that runs along the west and north side of the site. That would be below the 100 year flood elevation. This volume is in addition to the volume that is required because of the amount that they are filling into that 100 year flood plain. Basically it is our opinion that this could provide a better use in the channel. However the one item still needs to be completed and we know the applicant had attempted to get the original study from FEMA, would be an analysis to verify the water surface elevation through the area. In our opinion the amount of volume set aside previously for detention could be better utilized within that channel through regrading that area and providing either additional volume for backwater from the culvert and provide a better channel flow condition through that area.

They show some retaining walls. There is some notation as to what type of system this is to be but we really need some additional information since it will be an integral part of the drainage system.

On the entranceway, we suggested trying to eliminate some of the parking at the Star Bank area immediately adjacent to the entranceway from that main aisle into the Star Bank aisle and the applicant is working on that.

Regarding the traffic analysis, we agree that this will not negatively impact the level of service at this intersection. The request for the right turn lane was solely for safety reasons. As you know we are requiring right turn lanes on Kemper Road into the proposed Target development.. This is a critical issue on this corridor from the volume of traffic that utilizes it. It has become even more critical since the City has spent a good deal of money providing the third lane southbound at the intersection of the offramp from eastbound I-275 so we will have a lot more traffic utilizing the far west lane southbound. This has been required at other locations, and probably will be a recommendation for other developments too.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Eight


Mr. Shvegzda continued initially we looked at 300 feet in length for t his right turn lane. We are working with the developer and there is a ravine area that starts in there, and we felt a 200 foot right turn area would work, so we have shortened that 100 feet.

Concerning traffic northbound turning left into the development that is another reason the cross access issue is so important between the two developments. We realize that because of the two different property owners that this canít be worked out immediately but we feel there is a good effort on the part of the applicant to address this.

Mr. Kelley stated we are in agreement with Donís comments concerning the right turn into the property. Our main concern would be as you come into the development it will harden the u turn into Star Bank. The safety issue is difficult to argue. That would be a decision of Planning Commission. Mr. Shvegzda said to clarify on the widening for that right turn lane, from the actual traveled edge is between six and eight feet.

Ms. McBride reported we met with them and went through the comments earlier. We asked they provide a copy of the cross parking easement between Duke and Banc One and they have submitted that. We also asked for an agreement that would indicate they are willing to provide the cross access with the adjacent development, and they have done so. They have sent a letter of agreement to Mr. Osborn indicating they are willing to go into a joint easement with that property owner as long as that happens within the next five; years. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask them to do.

Previously part of the parking had been shown on another phase of the project. The parking lot area has been redesigned to better accommodate parking and reduce the amount of paved area so it is now all contained within the phase we ware considering this evening.

In terms of the locations and screening of the waste areas, they have located the waste areas but have not provided the screening of those and we have requirements for that.

In terms of landscaping, we wanted to see trees added to islands in the parking area, islands created within the parking area and additional screening on the north side of the third tenant building. All of those comments have been addressed. We asked for a better mix of the vegetation, and they have done that as well. On the prior s submittal, they had shown landscaping in the northeast portion of the site and we would like to see that put back in. There is a striped island to the south of the bank building and we would like to see that made into a landscaped island to accommodate a tree.

On the signage, the proposed numbers that we have are 991.5 requested versus the 822.5 that would be permitted. They have removed signage from the building and eliminated that ground mount sign that is on future phase of development. The only concern I would have is the 40 square foot future tenant panel on the pylon sign and I b believe if and when they have a tenant for the balance of that property it would be appropriate to come before Commission and ask that the tenant be included on that signage. I donít see Commission approving that signage this evening since there is no tenant or development. Without that panel you may have flexibility in terms of creating gaps in that sign area. I would be hesitant to see it lowered much lower than it is but I would prefer that panel not be included this evening.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Nine


Ms. McBride added the lighting plan that was previously submitted did not include the entire parking area, specifically those areas that might be used by employees. They have revised that to include that and almost all of the parking area meets our minimum one-half foot candle. There are a few areas where it goes just slightly below that but not enough to be concerned about. They are using 30 foot high light standards with a dark bronze pole and fixture and that is what we have been asking for in other developments.

Ms. McBride continued in terms of recommendations, number 3 should be deleted because we received a copy of the letter from Duke to Mr. Osborn late this afternoon after the report had gone out, so that item has been met.

Mr. Seaman commented they currently are showing a six foot clearance under the pylon signs. What is the issue of clearance beneath the pylon sign? Ms. McBride answered a lot of times it is a sight distance issue. In this case it is not, but I wouldnít want to have someone walk into that sign. It is a safety concern if that bottom would not be lit for some reason. Most of the communities go with an eight or 10 foot minimum clearance distance so six feet is not at all unreasonable. That is lower than most communities allow them.

Mr. Young said on the first page you have a total of 342 parking spaces required and they have 358. Is there a reason we are going with 358 and not taking the 16 spaces to provide more green? Ms. McBride stated they are sharing nine parking spaces with Banc One. If we were to calculate Banc One today they would be nine short. They will lose one other space if the Commission chooses to have that striped island turned into a landscaped island. It would be the Commissionís prerogative if you chose to delete other parking spaces, and I would make some suggestions as to where those should be to increase the green space within the parking area. I felt they were within a comfortable margin; they are not grossly overparked. Mr. Young commented I am concerned about continuing to have retail space with lots of surface and lack of greenspace in the area.

Mr. Okum wondered if it would it be possible for them to landscape around the sign. If it were fully landscaped it would be hard for anybody to walk underneath the sign. He asked if the applicant could do something with landscaping in that area similar to the way it was done at HQ to get a base around it and be able to get some separation in the sign. Mr. Kelley answered if that would satisfy the six foot height; I donít know that people would walk through the bushes to go underneath the sign. Mr. Okum added a little stone wall, a nice landscaping feature would definitely accent that entrance. Mr. Kelley said we could landscape it in there. I would like to make sure that it meets Anneís concern about people walking underneath.

Mr. Okum wondered about spillage from the lighting or glare from the fixtures and especially light packs on the buildings especially to the back where there are residences. Ms. McBride answered there was no light spillage because of the adjacent property they are holding for future development, and I donít believe there are light packs on the buildings. Mr. Kelley reported we have wall packs on the south end between the buildings but not on the back of the buildings. Ms. McBride stated the plan we have doesnít show lighting on the back of the building. They took the lighting into the parking areas but not into the truck loading areas in term of the photometrics.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Ten


Mr. Kelley added we have no free standing lighting shown on the back. Anything to be lit in the back will be primarily for the truck dock area, but we are not doing that via free standing light pole. Mr. Okum said it is just that there is 30 to 40 feet of pavement area back there that will be pretty dark at night. How would we prevent the glare off the lights from going across that drainage way to the residential properties behind? Iím just saying that photometrics should include glare and should be tied into the lighting plan you submit. In regards to the light packs mounted on the south side of the building, that is where the cross easement will be with potential future driving lanes between the properties. There is a grade change and the line of sight for those lights would make it very difficult for the drivers, so they either would have to be shaded down or directed towards that side of the building. Would you be willing to shield the lights if necessary? Mr. Kelley answered if we are concerned about the glare, sure.

Mr. Okum asked how they intend to maintain the landscaping on the site. Mr. Kelley answered there would be specific irrigation in the project with a well maintained plant material with one or two year warranty on the material for the parking area.

Mr. McErlane reported although the plan shows existing trees, it really doesnít show which ones are coming out s part of the development. Most of the trees occur on the north side of the site with a few in the creek itself. Based on the proposed grading, it looks like there will be a total of 82 caliper inches of hardwood trees removed requiring 41 inches of replanting. What their landscaping plan shows is 60 inches of hardwoods 45 inches of ornamentals and 52 inches of evergreen trees to be planted.

The existing parking setbacks are currently 0 feet in a number of places. The plan actually improves on those. The only exception to that is the loading area on the southwest corner; it encroaches a foot or two beyond what it currently is. Overall there is an improvement to the setbacks from the property lines and from the right of way, but since there is a modification to the parking, it would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Ms. McBride already indicated that there are no indications as to how they will enclose the dumpsters. There will be one for each of the buildings. The one shown for Comp USA looks like it is tucked into the building, but I am not sure.

There are 10 handicap spaces indicated on the plan and only eight are required, although one needs to be van accessible, so there will be some modification that will need to be done to the parking area.

There are two retaining walls in the vicinity of the creek. One is a Gabion wall in the rear of the Comp USA building. A Gabion wall is a mesh grid box which is filled with broken concrete and stones to form a wall. The other is a Sierra wall which I believe is a variation of the Gabion wall; Mr. Kelley might expand on that.

There is a little landscaping shown in the right of way in front of the Banc One facility and some right in the corner next tot he sign. I think we have had some instances where landscaping has occurred in the right of way. The only concern was who would maintain it and what would happen if public improvements would have to be done.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Eleven


Mr. McErlane reported the following variances are required: parking setbacks, wall signs that exceed 150 square feet (all three tenants have them); total allowable sign square footage for Petsmart and the area pole sign, which is greater than 50 square feet and greater than the previous variance that was granted to Swallenís at 106 square feet.

Mr. Seaman asked the concern about the Sierra wall. Mr. McErlane responded I donít know how visible it will be anyway because it is down in the creek and there is quite a bit of brush on the north side of it, but it would be beneficial to know what it may look like.

Mr. Kelley said a Sierra wall is a smaller version of the Gabion wall. Duke has put those in some of their projects on Governors Point. The best way I can describe it is it is a warmer version of a Gabion wall. Gabions are in the baskets and more of a metallic color. What we have seen is more of a bronze look because of the metal put in and the rock used to backfill it. It is an 18 inch version. With the creek we can add grid back, hold it in place better so it is more applicable. The only reason we are specifying a Sierra wall in lieu of a Gabion wall is because we think it will be seen from the roadway. I personally donít like the view of Gabion.

Mr. Kelley said on Billís comments, I think we are in agreement. We will be showing the screening on the dumpsters. That will come with the final detail on our building plans. I think we meet the areas in the landscaping and hopefully we have shown that this will be an improvement to the parking setbacks that are currently out there.

The landscaping in the right of way was something we felt would add to Banc One. That is an area where the parking is currently up to the right of way line. It is not on our property so we put a buffer of landscaping between the current roadway and the parking, and it did fall in the right of way area. Mr. Syfert asked if Duke would maintain that, and Mr. Kelley answered that they would.

Mr. McErlane added Ms. McBride had pointed out that we had given previous comments to Duke and Woolpert to address in their plan. One of the things I had pointed out previously was a modification in their parking lot. If you look at the north side of the parking lot next to Comp USA, and look at that line, the previous plan extended all the way out to the interstate ramp on a straight line. There was a parking area that was of no benefit. It was a paved area that didnít serve parking and had double access aisles to it. I suggested they pull the edge of the parking back towards 747 the way it is right now, angled, and lose about 4500 square feet of paved area and only lose four spaces in the process. They did add some green space back into the plan and lost a few parking spaces in the process. Mr. Syfert commented that was down in the same corner where we indicated some landscaping could be put back in. Mr. Kelley confirmed this.

Mr. Malone said on the pylon sign, we would be willing to take her suggestion and delete the future sign panel from the bottom of the pylon sign until we come back in with a plan for this lot. We also are willing to increase or modify the landscaping at the base of that pylon in order to discourage pedestrian traffic there.

Relative to the number of parking spaces, I would respectfully request that we not reduce any other parking shown on the plan. While we have met and accommodated and exceeded the code requirement, we are at the threshold requirement of all these individual tenants. They all have very detailed and specific requirements for parking, so we would request that we provide the parking shown on the plan.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Twelve


Mr. Wilson said when you did your traffic study to get the counts, did you take into consideration what impact the future development site would have? Mr. Treesh responded the original concept plan showed a restaurant, which was included. Mr. Wilson wondered if this would prompt them to change any lanes, and Mr. Treesh answered no.

Mr. Seaman said the chairman indicated that there was no additional landscaping needed. Addressing Ms. McBride, he asked if number one "striped islands south of Banc One should be revised to incorporate landscape material including a tree". Is that on there? Ms. McBride indicated that it wasnít, adding that this is a recommendation to the Commission to consider requesting that. Mr. Seaman wondered how many parking spaces would be lost, and Ms. McBride indicated probably one, because they have a striped island now.

Mr. Kelley added our comment was that it was too small to landscape. If we were to create a landscaped effect here, we would need to take one additional space which I know Duke independents do not want to lose, so weíd like to keep a striped area in this location. If that could be landscaped, it would be bushes and not necessarily trees. We are concerned about placing a tree and it not surviving. Mr. Kelley added if we could landscape it without losing the spaces there, we would not be opposed to doing that, and maybe that would meet Anneís criteria.

Ms. McBride suggested adding a fifth space fronting on 747 where you have four. That is in the vicinity of the one you would lose. Mr. Kelley agreed with this.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if we are creating a landlocked parcel in this area of future development? Mr. McErlane reported it became landlocked when 275 was built. Mr. Huddleston commented so it is that way now; we are not creating it.

Mr. Okum wondered what would prevent someone from coming out Star Bank and turning left in the ingress lane? Will we do signage there? Mr. Malone responded we can do maybe a right turn only sign. Addressing the applicant and the other commission members, Mr. Okum asked if they had any problem with the spacing between the panels on the pylon sign. The applicants and commission members agreed. Mr. Malone added our concern is with the location and the area, and we can redesign the pylon itself. If it is more desirable to provide open spaces here, we have no objection to that. I try to leave those issues to the sign professional that designs these, but we have no objection. If those are your wishes, it may require us to expand this a little bit lower, but we have agreed to delete the bottom panel.

Mr. Wilson suggested that they be more concerned about the signage on the buildings in terms of proper height and distance rather than that small sign. It seems like the signs on the buildings would give you better visibility and identity. Mr. Malone responded I think they provide dual purposes. This sign located at the south location of the curb cut provides an entry identification feature for the whole development. I donít think these signs have to be as large, because they are helping to define the entry point, and they are perpendicular to the road, so north and southbound traffic can see these. The purpose of the signage on the building is to identify the tenant and attract the customers to the entry. Those signs are parallel to the road so when people pull into the parking lot they see tenant names and entrances. Building signs have one purpose and this signs serve another. Mr. Wilson commented we are not sign experts, but I would think if we just cut off two inches on each sign, we could keep our six foot height and still have three good signs there.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Thirteen


Mr. Okum said we are not going to need the six foot space because that area will be landscaped and stoned. Mr. Malone added we are willing to landscape it to discourage pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Okum stated a question came up at the last meeting concerning 275 the exit ramp and the clearing of trees in order to be able to see the monument sign which you are no longer proposing. Does this development require any removal of trees or brush along the 275 corridor to get exposure to your property?

Mr. Malone responded we donít plan on doing anything in the right of way on the 275 ramp until we know more about what the future development is. At the appropriate time we will have to discuss this, but right now our plan does not contemplate any revisions to right of way.

Mr. Young said if this project goes forward, when do you anticipate it to start and how long will it take? Mr. Malone responded we hope to get formal approval this evening. We already have started demolition on the building. We would be under construction probably the latter part of November and hope to be completed sometime in July. If it is a severe winter, that might be backed up, but these tenants want to be open and operating by the fourth quarter of 1998.

Mr. Okum moved to grant final approval without he following conditions: (1) all recommendations and comments stipulated by the city planner, building official and city engineer be incorporated into the proposal; (2) the pylon sign at the entranceway be modified to include separation between signs, with landscaping and stone features below the sign to prevent individuals from going underneath it; (3) the cross easement commitment from Duke and the adjacent property owner be incorporated in the motion; (4) that the necessary variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals; (5) pylon sign will not indicate that space for future development at this time.

Mr. Galster said to clarify, your motion includes the requirement for the right turn only. Mr. Okum indicated that is part of the recommendations by staff. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes and is forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which meets in this room next Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.

C. Pro Rata Share of Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Dues

Mr. Wilson said these are the jokers that sent us a ballot asking us to nominate people with two days notice. I think it is all set; they have chosen who should be on this board and we have very little time to make our recommendations. That being the case, I donít think we should give them any money this year.

Mr. Syfert called on Ms. McBride to clarify the situation. Ms. McBride reported I contacted the county zoning administrator at Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission and he said the best person to talk to was Ron Miller. When I talked to my friend, I said this person has held this position for 15-20 years and he is from Mariemont. I donít think it is fair for one community the size of Mariemont to monopolize that position. I called Ron Miller to discuss when his term is up and how much notice is given the communities and he did not return my call.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 October 1997

Page Fourteen


Ms. McBride said if Commission agrees, I would like for you to table this until next month when I can find out more specifics on how the process works and why there isnít more notification given. If we have the opportunity to put somebody on the Regional Planning Commission, I think it is worthwhile our being a part of it. If not, the information they make available to the city, they make available to me as a planning consultant or to anybody else in Hamilton County. It is public information that they have to make available to us. Mr. Wilson moved to table to the November meeting and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and this was tabled to November 11th. Mr. Syfert added we looked at the letter we sent last year complaining about the fact that we were asked to vote on something when we didnít even know there were any nominations desired.

Mr. Syfert said we still have Item A (Approval of Record Plat for Pine Garden Section 3) on the agenda, and I believe we should continue our practice of having them here. So I would recommend we table this until next month. Mr. Wilson moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.


Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Galster said at the last Council meeting I brought up the fact that we were requesting a proposal on the land use plan. Are you in the process of preparing a proposal at this point? Ms. McBride responded that they are and you should receive it in the next few days.



Mr. Wilson moved to adjourn and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:51 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,1997 _________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,1997 __________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary