PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
11 JANUARY 2000
7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.
Members Present: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover,
Dave Whitaker and Chairman Syfert.
Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator
Bill McErlane, Building Official
Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer
Anne McBride, City Planner
III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 14 DECEMBER 1999
Mr. Okum moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By
voice vote, all voted aye except Mr. Galster who abstained, and the Minutes
were approved with six affirmative votes.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Galster stated that the public hearing for the new Zoning Code will be on February 16th. It was discussed at the last meeting and there didn’t seem to be a great number of objections. Thirty days after the adoption the Code will go into effect.
B. Zoning Bulletin – December 10, 1999
C. Zoning Bulletin – December 24, 1999
D. Listing of Planning Commission Members
V. OLD BUSINESS
(tabled 14 December 1999)
Mr. Ric Shteiwi approached the commission, stating that he apologized for missing last month’s meeting; he had been ill. He added that we submitted the paint samples to you for the last meeting, and I was asked to come and discuss it.
Mr. Syfert said what we were represented as the color combination didn’t turn out that way, and that was a concern to some of the members of the Planning Commission and I believe they wanted to have some discussion to verify in which direction we were going.
Mr. Galster said in the October meeting, there was a motion to have Mr. Shteiwi repaint the building. At the November meeting, we discussed the look the repainting of the building would be compared to the existing stucco look. I understand the need to enforce the color sample that was brought in, but I believe that there was an honest mistake made. I also believe that if he had brought the color sample in of the color that the building was painted, it would have met the Route 4 Corridor District standards for an earthtone color. I also believe we would end up with a worse product if in fact we caused him to paint that building to get the original color presented at Planning, because we would lose all the depth of the stucco.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11 January 2000
Page Two
V A REPAINTING OF GOLD STAR CHILI BUILDING 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. Galster added I believe that a lot of the reason that Mr. Shteiwi was cited, had more to do with the yellow accents painted on the building and which have been painted out.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked why it came out a different color than we thought it would be, and Mr. Shteiwi answered to be honest with you, I never saw the sample that was on those plans. The sample called for a STO and by media research for the STO color, I came up with that color.
Mr. Darby said previously I was concerned more because of the manner in which this came back to us. I looked at the Route 4 Corridor Study, and I would like to read a short portion of it concerning the color palette:
"Earth tones, muted and natural tones are preferred. Colors in brighter hues are permitted for building accent features only such as awnings, doors and trim. A mixed palette on a single building should be carefully selected so all colors harmonize."
Using that as the basis for a decision, I think the building as it exists does fit, but I think this board should strongly state that we will be making an exception if we vote in favor because this precedent could come back to haunt us.
Mr. Galster commented in that earlier meeting, we had a drawing, we had a model, we had a picture and we were taking a little from each. To be perfectly honest, I didn’t know what color it was going to be when we left here.
Mr. Huddleston said we were upset about the way this came down, but I think we will give you the benefit of the doubt that this was a misunderstanding between the parties. As Mr. Darby indicated I believe it does conform to the Corridor District and while I don’t like the fact that it is there, I certainly think what is there is better than trying to develop something that wouldn’t satisfy us or serve your purpose any more.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said there were two individuals who presented your plan; are those employees of your business or Gold Star? Mr. Shteiwi answered Gold Star. Mr. McErlane continued so what they presented, you were left with trying to develop and if you didn’t have their color chips, you ere stuck with trying to determine what they were. Mr. Shteiwi confirmed this.
Mr. Okum said after the last meeting, I did some thinking about the Corridor Review District and how it resembled earthtones and colors and blendings. On the other hand, I can understand some of Mr. Shteiwi’s difficulty with the fact that we were presented with this color palette here, and it is in the custody of the City. I would have a problem with the gloss that would result. We already have a painted white building next door, and a painted beige or green building would not be good. I think Mr. Shteiwi took a negative pieces of property and made it positive so I am going to support the re consideration. I think we need to be more observant while the construction process is ongoing so these kinds of things can be confronted earlier, especially when the color palette is involved.
Mr. Okum moved that the building remain its present color and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was unanimous.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11 January 2000
Page Three
Mr. Huddleston commented it is fairly easy to come up with a standardized paint spec number, and perhaps that is what we should be looking for in these kinds of cases. That might be the appropriate way to address this in the future.
Mr. McErlane reported that the application was received on December 7th too late for the December meeting, and we advised White Castle that we would tentatively put them on the agenda for this month’s meeting, and that we would give them comments in advance of the meeting. We sent them comments on the 22nd of December, which gave them a little bit of time to revise. WE still didn’t hear anything back from them and kept them on the agenda; I heard from them on Tuesday of last week and they indicated that they would like to submit revised plans at the end of this month for the February meeting. Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. Item was tabled to February 8th.
Sofa Express requests final plan approval of alterations to 117570 Commons Drive (Champion Window Building)
Mr. Syfert reported that in the staff review, we elected to ad vise them that if they wanted to come in to discuss this sign and parking that would be okay, but everything else was so incomplete that we could not give any final approval. I guess they decided not to come in.
Mr. McErlane responded we did not get a definite answer. I faxed them comments and indicated that the best thing was the discussion and possibly parking. I got a call yesterday from their consultant saying that Sofa Express was going to call and ask to be tabled. Today I received a call, returned the call and left a message on their voice mail to call me back. Subsequent to that, Mr. Parham got a call from Sofa Express and they indicated that they were considering tabling it to next month. Mr. Parham called them back, got his voice mail and left a message basically saying that would be a good idea, and never heard back again.
Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item will be on the February 8th agenda.
Mr. Okum said for the past seven days, the MARS lighting has been flashing on their building. It is either all lighting or no lighting, and I think they need to be notified.
Mr. Galster asked for quotations on the land use plan to get that moving. Ms. McBride stated we wanted to get the zoning code to the point where we could see the end, and we are now at that point. I don’t know if the appropriate body to request that is Council or the commission but we can start to put that together and have it for your consideration next month.
Ms. McBride said in conjunction with the Zoning Code, we had talked to the Commission before about fee schedules, and we need some direction as to how you wold like to proceed.
Mr. McErlane added currently se have no application fees. However, on site plan review, PUDs and major developments, we require a deposit of from $1,000 to $5,000 depending on the size of the project. This is to reimburse the City for expenses by the City Planner, the City Engineer and the Law Director for their review.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11 January 2000
Page Four
VII – DISCUSSION – FEE SCHEDULE
Mr. McErlane added there are other applications that come into the City that have no fees attached to them. We don’t impose those fees on a rezoning request or a conditional use permit or a concept discussion by Planning Commission. We also do not charge a fee for Board of Zoning Appeals requests. The last time we briefly discussed the Board of Zoning Appeals fee; we didn’t discuss the other applications. I think Board of Zoning Appeals and rezoning requests should include a nominal fee to cover advertising expenses if nothing else. I’m not sure what you would want to do with the concept plan review.
Mr. Syfert asked how much it costs to advertise, and Mr. McErlane responded a legal advertisement is $54 so $50 might be an appropriate amount for a variance request. Anne probably could bring us information in terms of fees from other municipalities for both Board of Zoning Appeals and rezoning requests.
Ms. McBride commented I don’t have that information with me this evening, but the fees range all over. Looking at zone changes, some are flat fees, $500, some are $500 plus so much per acre, some are flat fee so much per acre and so much per unit or square foot. If the Commission wished to do a flat fee, most are around $500. Some vary between residential and commercial. For a concept plan discussion, a lot of communities don’t do it, and if they do, it is $150 to $200, but no one is doing these things for free any more. One route to go would be so much per acre or square foot plus cost or just a flat fee, and the flat fee is the easiest way to do it. If it were up to me, I would recommend a flat fee.
Mr. Galster said the idea of going into the Board of Zoning Appeals for a request for a shed 3 feet off the property line and to have to pay $50 for that seems high. Ms. McBride responded in most of the communities BZA fees are $250 for commercial and some are $50-$75 for residential.
Mr. Galster commented I would like for the residents to be able to come before the BZA at the most reasonable cost. Ms. McBride responded I would suggest that the City look at covering the cost for the shed 3 feet off the property line or $50. I don’t think that is outrageous, and I also don’t think it is outrageous to ask the business community for $250 if they need a variances for a larger sign or parking closer to the right of way; there would be significant benefit to them if the variance is approved.
Mr. Vanover said I think we should cover our costs and I have no problem with weighting the charges on the commercial side. I think the residents should be spared; we don’t charge for a number of permits. If we have to do something on the BZA side to cover advertising costs, I think we should and I would be interesting in hearing an average figure on time spent reviewing site plans. I would include the concept plans, because you spend nearly as much time on that, sometimes even more because they are more nebulous than an actual presentation would be.
Mr. Darby I would like to see us in a position of being applicant friendly. Also, keep in mind that we do have salaried people to do much of this work, especially in a residential area.
Mr. Huddleston said I agree with minimizing residential impact to the most extent possible. As Mr. Darby mentioned, in some of the permits the City is in the business of creating the proper development environment, and to the extent that the staff cooperates with applicants, it is important for the City to remain user friendly. I don’t think you can charge for everything; you have to be proactive and to some extent that is overhead expense in developing businesses in the City.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11 January 2000
Page Five
VII – DISCUSSION – FEE SCHEDULE
Mr. McErlane reported in the case of the request for BZA, a lot of times they are already in place and too close to the property line, so they don’t have any thing to lose in coming before the Board of Zoning Appeals and asking not to have to move that shed two feet. If it cost them $50, they might move the shed the two feet to comply with the code.
Considering the Board of Zoning Appeals, I don’t know if it is fair to charge a different fee for commercial properties than residential, because the costs involved probably aren’t that much different. If the variances are involved in a development plan, they already are being billed for review when they come through Planning Commission, so we are recouping our expenses in that respect. If somebody comes in for a sign variance, there is not a lot of review involved, so we probably are covering our expenses.
To discuss concept plans, as staff sometimes we are in a position to say we are not sure what Planning Commission will think of this and we suggest you take it in as a concept plan and get feedback before you spend a lot of money on site plan development and find out you can’t live with it. I don’t know if it makes sense to charge some big amount of money to discourage them from even looking into it when they don’t know if they are going to get anywhere with it.
Ms. McBride added I understand the commission’s position about being user friendly but at the same time you are probably the only ones that don’t charge for some of these things. While I don’t think planning and zoning should be self supporting, I think the City should begin to look at making some charges with some distinction between residential and commercial uses. With the Commission’s support, maybe Bill and I can put together a recommended fee schedule based on surrounding communities, what you are doing now and what the costs are now and let you consider that next month. Commission agreed.
Mr. Vanover said tonight I think we learned a good lesson with Mr. Shteiwi’s situation of the franchiser making the presentation and trying to combine the two. I can see how that situation developed and it could have been a very honest oversight. In the future, we need to make it well known to the applicant because it will save us some headaches and embarrassment with not having to live with something that is not what we wanted.
Mr. Vanover moved for adjournment and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________,2000 ____________________________
William G. Syfert, Chairman
___________________,2000 _____________________________
David Whitaker, Secretary