PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Tony Butrum.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: David Okum, Richard Bauer, Lawrence Hawkins III, Tom Vanover,
Steve Galster, Carolyn Ghantous, and Chairman Tony Butrum.
Others Present: Anne McBride, City Planner, Don Shvegzda, City Engineer and
William McErlane, Building Official.
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 11 DECEMBER 2007.
Mr. Vanover moved to adopt the Minutes from 11 December 2007, and Mr. Galster seconded the
motion; all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.
IV. REPORT ON COUNCIL
Mr. Galster reported that Council did pass Ordinance 4-2008, which is also in reference to
the letter to Marjorie Harlow regarding the Zoning Code amendment Ordinance #4 –
which everyone should have. This was the adoption of those Zoning Code amendments, and
also Council did adopt a new Ordinance that is based on square footage for maximum
occupancy in a house. It used to be that we had to base that strictly on square footage of
bedrooms and how many people that you could put in each bedroom. The problem we got into
as far as enforcement is how we know how big each bedroom is. So we had previously made a
change to make it also include a number based on total square footage which we could
obtain from the Hamilton County Auditor’s Website. Then there was some clarifications
to that so that we were actually in line with the verbiage of Hamilton County Website. So
now we have something that is a lot more easily determined as to what the maximum
occupancy for adults should be for any given dwelling.
We did look at buying some $1.00 HUD houses as they become available to municipalities
however I believe we were too late on one, and I believe there is nothing on the horizon
right now. We did pass an ordinance to allow the city to purchase up to six of those.
There was a Housing Board officially formed that had its first meeting that will address
property maintenance and upkeep and values and those type issues.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Copy of Ordinance No. 4-2008
B. Zoning Bulletin – December 10, 2007
C. Zoning Bulletin – December 25, 2007
D. Zoning Bulletin – January 10, 2008
E. Zoning Bulletin – January 25, 2008
F. Planning Commissioners Journal – Fall Issue
G. Planning Commissioners Journal – Winter Issue
H. The Planning Partnership Update – December 2007
I. Letter to Marjorie Harlow Re: Zoning Code Amendment
Mr. Galster: In reference to the Planning Partnership, the Hamilton County Regional
Commission, we are set to name our representative – we used to have two
representatives and it was Dave Okum and myself with Mr. Osborn as an alternative –
and Council did vote to bring that down to one representative and I need to find out if
Dave Okum is interested in being a representative?
Mr. Okum asked, can I do both? I am not able to do both.
Mr. Galster: I will put my name forward, unless someone else is interested in being the
Springdale representative to the Planning Partnership. I will submit that back to Council.
Planning Commission decided to become more involved in Hamilton County’s Planning, to
make sure we have some representation. It is pretty much an annual meeting, unless there
is a particular activity that is of interest. There are still subcommittees that the City
is actively involved in.
I will continue to do it, if nobody else wants to.
Mr. Okum added; please update me on all the information.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE TWO
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. FINAL PUD PLAN FOR RENAISSANCE NORTH PROJECT CROSSINGS AT THE PARK / GE PARK (PHASE II)
Chairman Butrum asked the representative for the Renaissance North
Project to come forward.
Mr. Glenn Shepherd introduced himself as the manager for the Renaissance North LLC. This
is our plan second phase at the Crossings At The Park project in which it is going to be
an independent and assisted living building consisted with what we originally submitted
when we got our preliminary PUD approval.
Chairman Butrum: We have some staff comments.
Mr. McErlane: Thank you Mr. Chairman, the proposed development is located in a Planned Use
Development zone at Crossings At The Park PUD. The drawings show that the applicant is
proposing a 146,651 square foot, 3 ½ story building. It is three visible stories in the
front of the building and four stories in the back – it steps down on the sides.
There are some retaining walls in the front of the building where actually, if you were
closer to the building you would see four stories exposed there. The preliminary plan was
approved by Planning Commission for the Crossings At The Park PUD on June 20th 2003 and
was approved by Council on August 20th 2003. That particular plan showed a building
similar in shape in that same location and the plan indicated it would be assisted living
adult day care, and would house 120 to 140 units. These plans show 131 dwelling units.
There are 73 independent dwelling units, 55 of those are one bedroom, 18 are two bedrooms,
and then there are 73 units – there are 58 units that are assisted living units, 30
of those are generally assisted living units.
Thirty of those are two bedrooms and then there are also memory impaired assisted living
units at 18 studio units and 3 – one-bedroom units. Even though the plans indicated
assisted living and adult day care, the covenants did include independent living in that
building. The restricted covenants did say approximately 140 independent and assisted
living units, so it is consistent with the preliminary plan on the covenants. I’ll
defer to Ms. McBride when we talk about the parking spaces but we are going to ask that
the applicant give us some assurance that the parking spaces that they are proposing are
an adequate number. The covenant used our zoning code parameters for nursing care
facilities which would require one parking space for every six beds and one for every
employee. This building has a lot of independent units, 73 independent units and the
applicant has indicated that the largest number of employees at any given time would be
30; that alone is 103 parking spaces. As long as Planning Commission is assured that we
are going to have adequate parking and I’m sure that is important to the applicant as
well; the Planning Commission can approve that. As far as the tree removal and tree
replacement they are removing 112 caliber inches of deciduous hardwood overstory , 38
caliber inches of evergreen type trees and they are required to replace 45 caliber inches
of hardwoods, one of those a 22’ ash tree falls within the footprint of the building
so that it is exempt from replanting. They are required to plant 19 inches of category 2
trees, the evergreens. The Planning plan shows that they are planting 132 ½ caliber of
hardwoods, 18 inches of evergreens and 20 inches of ornamental trees. So they are planting
more trees than would be required from tree replacement ordinance.
The applicant has proposed at the suggestion of staff a covenant revision that would have
an age restriction on the residential use portion of this development that says that at
least 80 % of the occupants would be 55 years of age or older. The Fire Department has
indicated that the Fire Service Pit and the Fire Service into the building needs to be
located from Crossings At The Park Drive or from the parking lot so that they can hit it
with their apparatus as they enter into the site. Where it is shown on the drawings is
actually on the back side of the building where there is no vehicular access to it.
Lawrence Hawkins: Has it been checked with our legal staff, if there is any issue as far
as the age restriction?
Mr. McErlane answered, we have discussed this in the past but I don’t believe it ever
got into the covenants the first time around. I think there were some discussions on
limitations.
Ms. McBride: We have worked with other clients in the past where we have put them in and
they have been part of a PUD or a development agreement, without any problems.
Mr. Shepherd added that is under the Fair Housing Act. That is the regulation that we are
complying to.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE THREE
FINAL PUD PLAN FOR RENAISSANCE NORTH PROJECT CROSSINGS AT THE PARK / GE PARK (PHASE II)
CONTINUED
Ms. McBride: Mr. McErlane already walked you though the unit breakdown for the building;
with regards to parking, as he indicated they have got 93 or 94 parking spaces for the
development. The covenants that were approved as part of the original development did
require the ratio of one space per six beds as Mr. McErlane indicated, is our requirement
for nursing homes, convalescent homes, those types of facilities where you don’t have
a lot of drivers. The applicant has provided us with some information that they will have
approximately 25 employees on the property which would leave, assuming they all drive
independently, 68 spaces for the anticipated 156 residents. Obviously those in the memory
assisted units and the assisted living units, we hope are not driving, but that still
leaves 73 independent living units that a percentage could have cars. What we would like
to do is work with the applicant and just make sure that they are comfortable and the City
is comfortable we don’t want them to pave a bunch of asphalt for the sake of doing
that. At the same time we want to make sure that there is adequate parking. What we would
like to do is work with them just to make sure that we are confident and they are
confident that we do adequately provide parking for the facility. The other concern that
we have is the location of those spaces, because they need to have controlled access into
this building for security purposes and so forth, but there are no accesses on the wings
of the building where a lot of the parking is proposed. They had one location for proposed
a dumpster on the Southeast side of the building; we did not receive any details about
enclosure. They are pretty specific in our Zoning Code and supplementary information that
the applicant has given us. It appears that they will meet that, but they will need to
give us a detail of that enclosure. The only other question we had about the dumpster was
whether or not it was going to be a roll-out unit, because it is kind of a tight turn
there – that is more of an operational issue for the applicant. There was also a
proposed double dumpster and enclosure on the Southwest corner of the site, I think that
is a mistake I don’t think that is to be included in this, but we just had to ask.
They are proposing a loading area near where that dumpster is proposed on the Southeast
side of the building. We had asked for some additional information about that; is that
going to be heavy-duty pavement. I think we can work with the applicant to get that
information to make that clear. The loading area does not show up on the landscape plans
either, so we want to make sure that the landscape plans match the site plans.
Access to the development is proposed through the existing access drive off of 747 which
is split by the landscape island and you come up, turn right then go into a paved parking
lot, but at this point and time it is in very poor condition it is very poorly illuminated
– part of it is gravel, part of it is paved; given the type of residents that are
going to be living in this facility that could be very confusing. Staff has suggested that
one of the conditions 8A of the covenants conditions and restrictions requires and I quote
“construction of the private street connecting to 747 and to Phase I of the Senior
Housing project which is already constructed obviously, shall be initiated no later than
one building season after the completion of the realignment of State Route 747 which has
already happened and in accordance with the approved PUD plan; so I think it is time to
pull that trigger. That road needs to go in as part of this development.
Mr. McErlane indicated the applicant has provided at our request, an age restriction to be
added to the covenants that would obviously require the City to sign the amended Covenants
as well as the applicant; it does provide that at least 80% of the occupants within the
PUD will be 55 or older. That was the understanding when we approved the development and I
am sure the applicant is living up to that. But, at some point and time, we may all be
gone – he may be gone and we just want to make sure that happens. So we need to get
that added.
They are proposing several retaining walls on the property and they have provided us with
the color of the block that is to be used with that, but we have identified the pattern
that we want to have done and that is done primarily to match the other walls that are
within the development for the continuity of the PUD.
There are a number of memory impaired units. We have done a lot of work with these types
of facilities and typically they would have a secured outdoor area where those residents
could go.
In that outdoor area there can’t be any poisonous plants or plants with thorns; it
has to be a very controlled environment. We asked about that because it did not show up on
the site plan. The applicant has indicated in further information that they are proposing
an area like that and it will be fenced in and contained also by the retaining wall. So we
will need to get that added to the site plans and then if you are going to put any
restrictions with regards to landscaping in that area in terms of plant material and then
a detail of whatever the fence is going to look like.
There is also a number of places on the site where there is a grade change and there is
potential pedestrian activity immediately adjacent to that, so we would like to have
fencing or railing along the top of that. We are dealing with a little bit different
residents than you might find in a normal single family subdivision; we want to make sure
that everybody is protected.
There is a walking path that circles the building; but at the Southwest corner of the
building it has about a 12% grade which is a lot given some of the resident’s
mobility; I think the applicant needs to take a look at that.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE FOUR
FINAL PUD PLAN FOR RENAISSANCE NORTH PROJECT CROSSINGS AT THE PARK / GE PARK (PHASE II)
CONTINUED
With regards to comments we made on building elevation and floor plans, most of them are
pretty minor. We have asked for some additional information about some of the building
materials. There were a few minor errors on the plans. With regards to the height of the
building it is going to be a pretty tall structure. We just want to point that out to the
Commission; it is consistent with what we talked about. It is going to be a big building.
We did get a material sample board. (Glen Shepherd held up the sample board for the
Commission to view.) They are using earth tones; they are using stone and EIFS. We have
asked for and they have agreed to do dimensional shingles on the roof. The photometric
lighting plan they have revised to staff satisfaction they are using the same type of dark
green coach kind of lanterns that they are using elsewhere in the development. This is
what, by our code, we would call a low activity level use and you want to balance that
because it is a residence; but at the same time you have a heightened awareness of
security and good lighting. The average maximum illuminations are fine. They have dropped
the mounting heights but yet they are still providing adequate light levels in the parking
lot and on the circular path. The only question we had about that was that they were
showing some fixtures on parts of the parking lot that weren’t going to be instructed
with Phase I and I don’t think they will be putting the lighting in if they are not
putting the parking in. That is a minor detail that we can work out with the applicant.
Signage - there is only going to be one sign for this portion of development, 22 square
feet. It will say “Renaissance North” and it will be on a stone wall flanking
the main entrance into the development. It will be similar to other signs within the PUD.
It will be illuminated by a carriage style light, mounted also on the wall and it is
located within a landscape bed.
The landscape plan - we had a number of pretty minor comments; the most significant is the
landscape plan presented is 15 to 20 years out.
Mr. Okum: The heating and cooling for the facility, it will be handled by which method?
Mr. Shepherd answered; it will probably be a combination of through-the-wall type units
and public areas.
Mr. Okum: There are a number of mechanical units that are located on the plans, but they
are also located on the landscape plans and they are showing adequate screening and
buffering.
Jeff Black with PFB Architects: There is one unit that is perhaps the size of a small car,
but everything else is almost more residential scale.
Mr. Vanover: Are there any plans for security cameras in the parking lot?
Mr. Shepherd answered, not at this time.
Mr. Shvegzda: On the parking lot that is to the South of the building there is an
extension plan for that in the future. The comment in regards to the Fire Department was
that there would be some type of improved surface that they can travel basically the
length of that future driveway so that they can have better access to the side of the
building where there is no parking lot, no improved surface; so that would be one
requirement. Ann mentioned the issue of the final driveway configuration out to 747, as
far as the Fire Department comment in regards to the access to the main parking area as
you come in off of the drive that we have some additional analysis to verify the turning
radius of some of there larger apparatus.
We will need additional structural detailing for some of the walls as they are
approximately 10’ in height.
As far as water management, one of the issues with this site in the Phase I plan for the
PUD, the majority of the drainage for this site was going to be handled on site. A small
portion went through some of the other facilities that were in place. With this particular
plan, about a third of the drainage area is handled on the retention basin that is
surrounded by the building on three sides. The rest is basically going to be handled in
this configuration through some of the existing facilities that are in place so that it is
taking up the volume that originally technically was reserved for the area that is to the
retail area that was part of the original PUD and it is to the North and to the West of
this particular site. With that in mind if that is to be pursued we are going to need some
kind of letter from the property owner committing that they are all agreeable to those.
Essentially some of their volume that they were counting on is going to be utilized for
this particular development.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE FIVE
FINAL PUD PLAN FOR RENAISSANCE NORTH PROJECT CROSSINGS AT THE PARK / GE PARK (PHASE II)
CONTINUED
In addition we are going to need the storm sewer calculations – the final
calculations for the detention analysis to be submitted for the final review of that.
There is a storm sewer easement that parallels the railroad right of way that there is a
basically a 66” storm sewer that outlets the sag area of the grade separation through
there. There is some landscaping that was noted to be in there. It is just a matter of
making sure that it does not interfere with the drainage in that area.
One other drainage item, there is a catch basin that is noted in one of the yard areas
that is kind of draining internal – it is noted for sump pump; probably not the most
desirable kind of arrangement just because of maintenance and those types of issues. Some
other type of method could be utilized whether that’s using gravity flow or redoing
grading, or whatever. We would recommend that.
Mr. Chairman: I will open it up for discussion amongst the members.
Mr. Galster: I have a couple questions, are there issues that you have or are you willing
to address pretty much all of the items; where are we deficient in what staff has
requested?
Mr. Shepherd: The primary issue is the issue with the connection to 747; and the issue
there is that the original PUD plan that was approved actually has the location of 50 or
100 feet further North than where the existing access is and it is our understanding that
another developer is under contract to purchase that portion of property to the North of
our development and they are planning an office park in there. We have subsequent meetings
to make sure that we coordinate what we’re doing. They actually show the entrance for
the project being where it is now. So we would do it in accordance with the PUD plan, it
wouldn’t fit their needs. So what we are really asking to be able to do, is to extend
the street all the way to where it connects where the two streets come in right now and at
such time that Bear Creek project is ready to start, we can work on construction of the
remaining portion going out to 747.
Mr. Galster: And what if that project takes five years?
Jeff Black: Well we do have the existing entrance now that is in pretty good shape.
Mr. Galster: My question to Ms. McBride, is there a way for us to allow a little time to
see what happens with the adjoining development before a permanent road is built, or can
we put a time frame on that if that development doesn’t happen by a certain time that
there has got to be something done?
Mr. Shepherd: This is to our advantage, too. If that development doesn’t happen, we
will go back in and finish the rest on that.
Ms. McBride: I think staff’s concern was not so much the actual physical entrance off
of 747, but I think in our discussions that will remain where it is and it needs to wait
until we have a plan coming in for the office development to the North. That is not a
problem. The issue that staff has is how do we get from this development to that roadway.
Now, what the applicant submitted was just basically putting striping down through that
parking lot but if what Mr. Shepherd is saying and what he has said is that he is going to
construct a street from the entrance of this development to where that access road comes
in off of 747. I think we are good with that, but it is going to have to be a street.
Mr. Shepherd answered, that is what we are saying. We would put the street in according to
the original PUD plan.
Mr. Galster: Where you show the expanded parking; where it will be expanded later, is the
smaller field supposed to be employee parking.
Mr. Shepherd: Keystone Seniors is our partner in the project and they are also the manager
of the operations of the project. They have facilities around the country and they give a
detail analysis of what they felt based on their experience with the assisted, independent
and memory impaired living as to what our parking requirements would be. What we show
(referring to the chart displayed) about twenty units more than what we really need. If it
is a case of concern then I know we could address two issues, one is fire apparatus, what
we can do is extend the street.
Mr. Galster: I am not interested in putting in parking spaces just to put in parking
spaces, there is concern that the fire truck has access but I am more concerned about the
residents and their capabilities to get to a front door. If those back spaces are used for
residents, where are they going to enter the building?
Mr. Shepherd: The independent parking has a fair amount of parking. We really want to
control the entrance, the egress to the building from a security standpoint, and we really
don’t want them to have the ability to go in the side doors.
There is another parcel that we envision being a nursing or extended care facility at a
later date. Our original PUD application we said there would be as many as 120 units, well
that has changed to something like 60 units and this parking would now facilitate that.
Mr. Galster: Could we designate some of the parking the farthest away for employee
parking?
Mr. Shepherd: We would have no problem with that.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE SIX
FINAL PUD PLAN FOR RENAISSANCE NORTH PROJECT CROSSINGS AT THE PARK / GE PARK (PHASE II)
CONTINUED
Mr. Galster: My next question, I am having a hard time getting an overall appearance of
the building. I just want to make sure that we do not end up with a lot of very blank
long, tall walls that don’t have a whole lot of break to them.
Mr. Shepherd: To the contrary, we are going to have a combination of balconies and
projections all up and down, using different materials in combination with the stucco.
Mr. Galster: I am having a hard time pulling that off of these drawings. I am looking at
drawing (A) 7.1 for example, I see a straight roof line with a couple spots.
Mr. Shepherd: The projections are about 6’. We are doing basically the same building
over at Northbend Crossings on the western side of town. It is in the process of being
built, but I do not have that drawing with me.
Mr. Galster: I just don’t want to have it institutional looking and I know that you
don’t either and you took great care in Phase I to make sure that that didn’t
happen. I don’t know if it needs to come back before Planning Commission, if that is
the only issue that is left unresolved. My concern is I want it to have residential
character. Could that rendering be submitted to staff for review?
Ms. McBride: What the Commission could do, Mr. Galster because it will be subjective, they
could approve everything and ask the applicant, with the exception of the actual building
design, to come back. That would allow them to move forward. They could come back at
another meeting if the Commission desired and bring renderings on the exterior of the
buildings.
Mr. Shepherd: My major concern is the financing market, right now. We do have a
commitment, and we are trying to get this thing approved and closed out as quickly as
possible before that goes away.
Mr. Glaster: What if it was granted and then it was based upon supplemental approval of
the exterior elevation?
Mr. Shepherd: Then they wouldn’t allow us to proceed.
Ms. McBride: Any approval is going to come with a whole bunch of conditions anyway.
Mr. Shepherd: So how do we meet those conditions?
Ms. McBride: You are going to have to provide a lot of calculations. You are going to have
to provide the letter from the property owner to the North that says that you can use the
basin storage; all of those kind of things. The Commission could act, but ask that you
bring that back for a final review, which wouldn’t be any different than the
landscape plans that you are going to modify to meet the comments.
Mr. Galster: What I want to see is what the finished product is supposed to look like.
Mr. Shepherd: Again, the rendering that we have is not this building, but it is very
similar to it. It is a combination of brick and stucco rather than stone. I can get that
over to your office tomorrow.
Mr. Black: Some of the units are projected 6’ and then we also have the balconies
that are projected 6’ and they have a different roof system. There will actually be
three pitched roofs.
Mr. Okum: The Northbend project is not the same footprint as this project.
Mr. Shepherd: It is very similar to this.
(At this time Jeff Black, the architect for the Renaissance North project described the
submitted drawings to the Planning Commission.)
Mr. Okum: I am fairly comfortable with all the elevations, except for the ends. Because
the stone and the EIFS sort of absorb into one another.
Mr. Black: I think there will be quite a distinction; because of the texture of the stone.
Mr. Okum: You won’t pick that up from 300’ or 400’.
Mr. Shepherd: Part of it is going to be blocked by the old Pat & Joe’s structure.
Mr. Okum: If I am looking at the parking diagram in the back area we have 22 parking
spaces and I think from the report we had 28 for employees?
Mr. Shepherd: Twenty-five.
Mr. Okum: That just takes care of the employee. I don’t see those other parking
spaces on the expanded area.
Mr. Shepherd: What we are saying, if the Fire Department wants us to extend this street on
down, we have no problem doing that. Before doing that we could put additional parking
over here (pointing to the diagram). If it goes in now, it is there for the next Phase.
Mr. Okum: Are your drive lanes 24’?
Mr. Black: Twenty-four foot.
Mr. Okum: If the Fire Department is comfortable with it, I am comfortable with it. That
internal section of that building would be a hard area to fight a fire. I saw the report
and they said, as long as you give them their pumping locations access, they are fine. It
is just hard to facilitate manpower into that area because of the pond. I love the pond, I
think it is great.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE SEVEN
FINAL PUD PLAN FOR RENAISSANCE NORTH PROJECT CROSSINGS AT THE PARK / GE PARK (PHASE II)
CONTINUED
Mr. Shepherd: That is a wet pond. We have a gazebo we want to put out there.
Mr. Okum: As far as parking, are you going to put parking on both sides of the drive lane?
Mr. Shepherd: We can, unless we don’t have to.
Mr. Okum: I think for right now, one side, if staff is o.k. with that. I don’t see
any reason to carry any more than that. And that would give the Fire Department access
– you are going to need a “T” turn around if you do extend it. I don’t
want to put a lot of asphalt in, but I think you need to look and think for guests and
visitors to have a place besides their residence.
Mr. Shepherd: We feel comfortable with what we have shown right now.
Mr. Okum: I think you need to add on the lower area; at least I would make that designated
for the employees on that field and for overage for visitors.
Mr. Okum: There will be a railing across the top of the wall?
Mr. Black: Yes.
Mr. Okum: Is that wall climbable?
Mr. Black: No.
Mr. Vanover: Mr. Shvegzda, how much in deficit as far as water retention is this site?
Mr. Shvegzda: I really don’t know what the volume is, because the final calculations
weren’t completed, but like I said about 1/3 of the area is being detained on site,
with the remainder going through the adjoining existing facility.
Mr. Vanover: We have a proposed emergency spillway, are we channeling that down through
basically a grading ditch?
Mr. Black: The emergency spillway will go down to the existing ditch where that 66”
storm sewer is that takes it down to the creek.
Mr. Shvegzda: Basically there is a very swale kind of area that is above the 66”
storm sewer. There are catch basins every so often through that, so that’s really
where that is channeled to and it will head down the Beaver Run, a little bit down from
where it goes underneath the railroad bridge.
Mr. Vanover: We don’t have any calculations, on how that will affect the underpass.
Mr. Shvegzda: The 747 grade separation underpass is designed based on the 100 year
elevation. If the storm exceeded that particular location and headed down there it would
have no effect on that particular elevation. This PUD has the July 1st 1985 design.
Mr. Okum: Ms. McBride, your comments said that staff would review the railings for the
retaining walls; you will make the final approval based upon that?
Ms. McBride: Yes, based upon that.
Chairman Butrum: I’ll entertain a motion.
Mr. Okum: I would like to make a motion that the final PUD Renaissance North Crossings At
The Park be approved with the attachments submitted to include staff, City Engineers, City
Planners recommendations and the Law Director’s approval of the revised covenants as
requested by the applicant. All four building elevations shall include surfaces and
materials as presented, color palette as submitted. An additional parking as indicated by
the applicant shall be constructed on the South portion of the building.
Ms. McBride: Mr. Okum, did you want to add anything about the designation of the
employee’s parking spaces on the Southeast portion of the building?
Mr. Okum: I think I will make that more specific; the additional parking will be expanded
on the Southeast portion of the building and shall be designated for employee parking with
the majority of that parking being to the Southwest portion of that field.
Mr. Galster: Seconded the motion.
Mr. Hawkins poled the City of Springdale Planning Commission and with a unanimous vote the
Final PUD plan for Renaissance North Project Crossings At The Park/GE Park (Phase II) was
approved.
B. FAÇADE CHANGES TO STAPLES STOREFRONT
Mr. Chairman: The other item under new business, approval of façade changes to Staples
storefront.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE EIGHT
C. FAÇADE CHANGES TO STAPLES STOREFRONT
Mr. Joe Perin, applicant for the façade changes to Staples storefront, stated I received
a call from Mr. McErlane on Friday. We have a real simple request; Staples and we have
agreed that we would like to paint it white, just change the black to white. A year from
now we will know whether Staples will stay or not. This used to be their number one store,
now it is at the bottom.
If Staples moves out we will make another strip center. This wasn’t our idea to
change it, it was Staples and they made a mistake.
Mr. Chairman stated that there are no staff comments concerning this.
Mr. Galster: Where the black tinted windows are you want to basically paint those windows
white?
Mr. Joe Perin: Yes. I’m getting calls thinking it is a dead center. Staples are
getting calls thinking it is a dead center. Even the Kenwood store gets calls asking if
the Tri-County Staples is closed. Staples believes this will help and we believe this will
help.
Mr. Okum: Mr. Perin, it appears that you have eliminated the red around the windows and
made it black?
Mr. Joe Perin: Yes.
Mr. Okum: Quite frankly, I think that probably gives some difference to that elevation on
the building. I think if you are going to paint it white you might as well block over it.
This entire Commission said that they didn’t want that. What is the difference?
Mr. Joe Perin: We have those expensive pots for the trees giving elevation.
Mr. Okum: I understand. I was on this Commission when Staples came in and we argued the
point of them moving that entrance. I can’t help that they did that. I don’t
think the City should suffer any more than we are already. Making it white in my opinion
is not going to make it any different. It is definitely not what we envision. They could
put a window wall of light across that top to let light in and let light out. They made
those decisions, Mr. Perin and we didn’t. I can’t support that.
Mr. Perin: They changed our entrance from coming in off of 747 to coming in off of
Progress Place.
Mr. Okum: Yes. I go to Staples about once a week, and I appreciate that entrance being
signalized and being the way it is. I think it is a major improvement.
Mr. McErlane: Mr. Perin called me and asked if, as an alternative, if
they could paint the windows white. I indicated to Mr. Perin that
I thought it would take Planning Commission approval to do
that. I emailed Mr. Butrum and asked him of his opinion, and he agreed that it would take
Planning Commission approval to do that.
Mr. Galster: As far as any break up in elevation, as far as the recommendations that were
made six months ago, five months ago, two months ago or last meeting, none of those things
have been able to be incorporated into it?
Mr. Joe Perin: The architects have come up the idea that the white would be the best bet,
even the block wall would be better than some of these faux windows.
Mr. Chairman: I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Okum: For purposes of bringing it on the floor Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to
approve the applicant’s request to change the black window wall on the west elevation
of the building to a white window wall as requested.
Mr. Galster: I second the motion.
Mr. Lawrence Hawkins polled the Planning Commission Board and with a unanimous
“no” vote the request was denied.
DISCUSSION:
A. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Ms. McBride: What the Commission has this evening is 10 pages worth of amendments to the
Zoning Code. They are broken down into a number of different categories. Some of the
amendments are set forth to address the issues of size of garage; that request has come
from the BZA. Some of the amendments that deal with parking are an attempt to start to
address the best management practices and to start to reduce the amount of asphalt in the
City. Some of the amendments have to do with the doggy day care issues that have not
previously been addressed. Some of the amendments address the “PODS” storage
units.
a. The first group are four additions that we are proposing to the definition section of
our Zoning Code, the first is a definition of the doggy day care; the second is a
definition of “POD” type storage units; the third is a definition for the repair
in Corridor Easement; and the last is a definition for vehicular use areas – this is
a term that we already use in the code, but we did not define it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE NINE
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CONTINUED
b. The next five proposed changes are all changes to different single family zoning
districts within the Code, and they all deal with creating a provision for the minimum
size and maximum size for garages. This is in direct response from comments that we have
heard from the BZA. We have added language to say “it is intended that garages be
proportional to both the size of the lot and dwelling and therefore garage may have a
larger maximum floor area that does not exceed the average of 2.5% of the lot area and 55%
of the area of the dwelling unit. However, in no instance shall the floor area of the
garage exceed 75% of the area of the dwelling unit. What this change attempts to do is it
takes into account both the size of the lot and the size of the dwelling unit when you are
looking at the garage size, so that it is relative to both of those issues.
Mr. Galster: I know the Planning Commission debated the issue of these garages and sheds,
and that was at the request of BZA. We came up with these numbers because we were
concerned about a garage being bigger than the house. Did it then go back to BZA?
Ms. McBride: It did not go back to BZA. We did a lot of staff research and we worked
internally with staff.
Mr. Okum: It is pretty close to what Board of Zoning Appeals recommended, but Planning
Commission added “not to exceed 75%”.
Mr. McErlane: Actually, two differences to what BZA saw. Board of Zoning had an either or
2.5% or 55%, they did not have an average.
Mr. Galster: Do we know how many of the approved variances that were granted…
Mr. McErlane: Out of the last seven years, this would have precluded a variance being
necessary for two out of five.
Mr. Okum: It is not BZA’s position to make that determination. It is our duty as
Planning Commission to make a recommendation to what we resolve is the right way to go and
that gets moved forward to one step further, which is Council’s deliberation on it.
Mr. McErlane: If you approve these amendments, they would be subject to the Law
Director’s office.
Mr. Okum: Then Council can deliberate on it.
Mr. McErlane: Originally, when Jonathon drafted these he took the maximum out and we were
going to use the formula as a maximum, but we have some small lots, for example the lots
on Cloverdale are 50’ X 125’, so we are looking at 60 to 150 square feet and
then some of the houses may only be 1100 square feet of livable area. If you work the
numbers on that it comes up less than 400 square feet so basically they would be stuck
with building a 400 square foot garage – no bigger, no less. So we left the maximums
in there so it gives them some flexibility in the garage size. If you have a larger lot it
would allow you to go beyond that.
c. The next two addresses that same issue, only the multi-household district.
d. The last item on page 2 starts to define where the doggy day care uses would be
permitted, and what we are suggesting is the “GB”, the “SS” and the
“GI”, that is where you are seeing most of them go and in terms of when you
think of those types of uses and potential nuisances and noise that seems to be the most
appropriate districts for those to go into.
e. The change on the PUD to add the promotion of the water shed protection; I believe that
also goes in with the best management practices.
f. The item under Section 153.480, those are the actual regulations that we are suggesting
for the “POD” type storage units when they are located within a residential
district. We tried to look at how long they should be there, where they should be located,
how big should they be. If there is a catastrophe the length of time that they are allowed
to be there can be extended by the Building Official.
Mr. Galster: When I read paragraph A(1), that tells me that I can keep it there for up to
30 days and then you have to go to subparagraph A(5) to get the fourteen days. I
don’t think that is clear.
Ms. McBride: We can certainly move 5 up as part of 1.
Mr. McErlane: If it is there for more than 14 days they need a permit, but it can’t
be there more than 30 days in a year unless they want to come to the Board of Zoning
Appeals and ask for more time.
g. The next one, the permitted accessories is residential. We added the fixed electric
generator equipment and concerning things like air-conditioning heat pumps and so forth.
h. The next Section 153.490 is for “POD’ type storage that would be used for an
office building or industrial district; and we will make that same change, Mr. Galster,
moving 5 onto the end of number 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE TEN
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CONTINUED
Mr. Okum: What about commercial storage containers?
Ms. McBride: That is not what those are in reference to. This deals
with the “POD” type storage
units.
i. The next item is 153.42, the residential accessory use standard, that change to number
3 there actually deals with the concern that BZA has with the shed.
j. The next section sets forth the requirements for the doggy day care, things like the
hours that they can be used, the noise levels, when the dogs can be outside, where the
outdoor runs can be.
k. The next change on page 6 has to do with car overhang. If they have a landscaped area,
grassy strip that you can reduce by 2’ the overall length of the parking space. We
have tried to clarify that and be consistent throughout the code.
l. The next item allows that residential driveways may be constructed of porous pavement
at the discretion of the City Engineer.
m. The next one is a change that a lot of communities are making; we are starting to
establish maximum number of parking spaces. Right now you have to have 5 square feet of
landscaping for every 100 square feet of vehicular use area; if they go 31% over our
required parking then they have to add 10 square feet of landscape area for every 100
square feet of vehicular use area. This is to try to discourage the sea of asphalt. Boone
County has adopted this, Anderson Township has adopted this, a lot of communities are
doing this right now.
n. The next section 155.506 deals with parking. We allow shared parking today. We list out
the types of uses that can share and how far apart it has to be. We have set up, what we
think is a better system where they have to come forward to this Commission if they want
to share parking and they think it is compatible.
Mr. Okum: Does that address safety for connectivity in that area? Did we address
connectivity issues? That should be a requirement. That burden should be on them for
pedestrian safety
and cross-easement requirement, shared access easements. It has to be a practical
application not just to meet parking standards.
Ms. McBride: We had a requirement that was 250’ within walking distance; these cases
are going to come to this Commission. We will put some verbiage that pedestrian
connectivity between parking spaces and proposed uses must be demonstrated.
o. The next item has to do with off-street loading designs and also porous pavement for
the loading areas.
p. The next item are changes under 3 and 4. These are items that our landscape architect
wanted to see added in here so that people are aware that we want to see a mixture of
deciduous and evergreen shrubs. It is in the code that we want to see a mixture. The other
part has to do with plants that provide storm water filtration within the detention basin;
and also seasonal color needs to be incorporated into the landscape beds.
q. The next sections are the changes that I referenced relative to the maximum parking
requirements. Part 2 of that, we had in our Code a maximum landscape island size and we
have eliminated that. What we have done is we said we want the landscape islands dispersed
throughout the field.
r. The last item under “D”, addresses the vehicular overhang.
Mr. Galster: I’m just wondering where decorative front yard fencing clarification
comes in?
Ms. McBride: We did some research on that and I believe that our discussion at staff was
that we were not going to be recommending any changes to that.
Mr. Galster: If we want to disagree with that, what can we do?
Ms. McBride: We have spent an awful lot of time doing research on the internet and codes,
but that gets into an area of “what is fencing?”, “what is
decorative?”
Mr. McErlane: We can probably determine something relative to where it can be located, we
have some language that it can’t be a certain distance from a corner because of site
line things, but trying to define what type of fence is o.k., how much of it is o.k., then
you need to have some dialogue about that and then define to the point so that you can
actually enforce it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 FEBRUARY 2008
PAGE ELEVEN
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CONTINUED
Mr. Galster: It is just frustrating to me when I see the variance granted for all the
super size garages and all that kind of stuff, and when somebody does a nice feature that
is an attractive addition to a home, then I think that type of a situation would be viewed
in a little bit better light.
Mr. McErlane: I want to give a little insight into some of the changes that are in this
document. There are Federal regulations that have come down relative to the storm water
regulations. The first phase of that is controlling storm water. The current phase is
trying to look at water quality and by doing so reducing some of the run off, which is why
we are talking about a maximum percentage over and above the minimum for parking
requirements. Why we are saying you can use 2’ of grass strip for your parking space.
Don is going to bring a lot more technical stuff; it will include some of the rain garden
things as best management practices. This is coming from some of those clean water type
issues.
Mr. Okum: Do we allow “green” buildings in Springdale?
Mr. McErlane: We allow them; there is nothing there to encourage them.
Mr. Okum: The only question I had Bill is about the cross-access easement requirement,
being mandatory for adjoining parcels and there are communities, Anderson Township is one,
that has that language in their code and I don’t see why we don’t have it in our
Code.
Mr. McErlane: I know we have discussed it in the past, the possibility of making it
mandatory; I think we have to run it through the Law Director’s office.
Ms. McBride: We can take a look at that and some other codes.
Mr. Okum: I do have one other comment, on the first on the household pet domestic day
care, I think it should say, instead of during the day between the hours of, I would think
that you would want it to say, “during permitted hours”.
Mr. McBride: The reason there is a restriction here is that it makes the difference
between a kennel and a day care.
Ms. McBride: I need a motion to recommend to Council the amendments to the Zoning Code.
Mr. Okum: And a review by the law Director’s office.
Ms. McBride: And with the revisions that have been discussed this evening.
Mr. Galster: I make a motion.
Mr. Vanover: I second the motion.
All members of the Planning Commission unanimously voted aye to recommend to Council the
amendments to the Zoning Code with revisions addressed during discussion.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Mr. Chairman approved a sign at 380 Glensprings for Sakura Restaurant and a sign was
approved at 11711 Princeton Pike for Soccer CSI.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye
and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:05.
Respectfully
submitted,
_______________________________, 2008 _______________________________
Tony
Butrum, Chairman
_______________________________, 2008
_______________________________
Lawrence
Hawkins III, Secretary