02/23/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bohlmann recused himself from discussions pertaining to the proposal. Ms. Wenger said this proposal consists of a detailed plan amendment from the previously approved plans for Building B and the site immediately around the building. At the applicant's previous appearance, the commission requested the applicant provide material samples, specify the plantings for the bioretention areas for Mr. Malone to review, and submit a master sign plan. A number of variances are required for signage. The bioretention detail was forwarded to Mr. Malone for review. Mr. Mitchell said the photometric site plan is code complaint. The light fixture specifications and cut sheets have been submitted and approved. A preliminary review of signage and number of variances required was completed. Mr. DiFranco said the preliminary bioretention drawing shows water ponding for 12-16" of depth. The ODNR allows 6-9" of depth maximum. That may increase the required area of bioretention and should be considered when preparing the final design. Mr. Crook reviewed the proposal. It is intended to incorporate three areas for the bioretention system and meet ODNR requirements. They do not feel a wetlands loolc would work with the site and plan to keep them as simple as possible with plantings that compliment the rest of the center. Concerning signing, they intend to have tenants submit their signage requests to the City. Mr. Rerlco said his requested changes have been made. On the elevation drawings the areas for signage have been boxed out. It was stated if those areas were not used for signage the applicants would submit a minor change to replace sign areas with windows systems. Mr. Malone said there may be confusion on the definition of bioretention cells. They are not swales or wetland-like, but are specially constructed landscape features that act as a mechanism for storm water filtration through the soil. They do not require specialized types of plants. Also, the specification for soil media submitted is not acceptable. He will provide a generic bioretention soil specification to work into the plan along with his notes. He wants to see a final bioretention plan for approval, including a list of specific plants to be utilized and where they will be placed. Ms. Meredith indicated there are ten sign variances based on the plan. Ms. Wenger added that there are boxes and elevations that show a large wish list for two tenants. Ms. Wenger and Mr. O'Malley explained that the correct procedure is for the tenants to approach the landlord and then the landlord would represent the tenant before the City. Each tenant coming separately before the Commission causes a situation where the signage allowance is used up forcing significant variances for additional tenants. The signage requested in the application is excessive and does not allow for additional signage for second floor tenants. Once a master sign plan is approved for a building tenants can work with the landlords within those parameters. This eliminates each and every tenant coming directly to the Board of Zoning Appeals expressing individual hardship because the main anchor tenant gobbled up allowable square footage. Mr. Croolc wanted signage to be a separate issue but was asked to submit a sign package with the proposal. He feels the City ordinances should determine each tenants needs as they apply separately instead of hypothetical situations and future changes. Ms. Meredith said this situation is not dealing in the hypothetical when there are two tenants. Ms. Wenger said she is not comfortable in making recommendations on a master sign plan based on what has been submitted. She would like to lcnow what the two tenants are proposing, together, at the same 4