PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Steve Galster, Bob Diehl, Tony Butrum, David Okum,
Lawrence Hawkins III, Tom Vanover
And Chairman Okum
Others Present: Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
Bill McErlane, Building Official
Pat Madl, CDS Engineering
Jonathan Wocher, McBride, Dale Clarion Planners
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 9 JANUARY 2007
Mr. Vanover moved to approve the Minutes and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice
vote, all present voted aye except Mr. Diehl and Mr. Butrum, who abstained. Minutes were
approved with five affirmative votes.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Report on Council
Mr. Galster reported that an ordinance banning wood burning boilers in the city was passed
at the Council meeting last night.
B. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes 19 December 2006
C. 1/10/07 Letter to President of Council re Zoning Code Amendment for Electronic Signs in
Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts
D. Zoning Bulletin – January 15, 2007
E. Planning Commissioners Journal – Winter 2007
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Ground Sign Setback at Southwest Corner – Springdale Town Center,
Springfield Pike
Jeff Baumgarth of Myers Y. Cooper said the approved location of the sign would be blocked
by a traffic control box and a traffic light pedestal. We are requesting approval to move
the sign to the north and the west to improve visibility. The sign would be moved
approximately four feet to the north and eight feet to the west of the approved location.
Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Planned Unit Development. Planning
approved the final development plan on October 11, 2005 and the applicant is requesting to
be allowed a two-foot front yard setback due to a problem with visibility.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE TWO
GROUND SIGN SETBACK – SPRINGDALE TOWN CENTER
Mr. Wocher reported that our main concern is that Planning make sure that the ground sign
will be located within a landscape island.
Mr. Madl said that the on issue is that the sign is within an existing landscape easement.
We are recommending vacating a portion of that easement so the sign will not be within the
easement. There is a portion of the pavers along Peach Street which are not covered by an
existing easement, and we would recommend that an additional landscape and scenic easement
be provided for along Peach Street.
Mr. Okum asked if this would be at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Baumgarth reported
that there was a landscape island planned, so it will be moved to the new location.
Mr. Galster wondered if Council needed to approve the giving away of an easement and
getting some back. Mr. Madl reported that as long as the applicant is accepting this, it
need not go beyond this board.
Mr. Galster moved to grant the request for the sign to be moved and make the proper
corrections to the easements so that the sign is not in the easement and the pavers are
covered in the easement.
Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.
All present voted aye, and approval was granted unanimously.
B. Approval of Exterior Façade Revisions, Angelic Whispers – 11465 Springfield Pike
Roberto Soria owner of the property reported the staff would like for us to eliminate four
of the five parking spaces in the front. That is something we are concerned about because
we have no side on that lot the back lot is irregular, and there is no pedestrian areas to
walk back to the front. On the south side is Wendy’s and on the north side is the
wood shop. We have approached our neighbors to the north asking to buy or lease parking
spots and they declined.
Taking away the parking spaces would severely restrict our business. We are more than
willing to do some landscaping, but in fairness and to be able to function better, we
would need at least three parking spaces in the front. Also, south on Springfield Pike,
there are many businesses that have front parking spaces as well.
Concerning the percentage of stone on the building, most of the front is safety glass. The
part we are going to cover is 41%. If we put 60% it would not look fluid. It would b both
sides up to the level of the windows and above. The rest would be stucco, slightly mauve,
the same color as the three walls not covered by stone.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE THREE
VI B EXTERIOR REVISIONS ANGELIC WHISPERS 11465 SPRINGFIELD PK.
Mr. Soria added you should have in your packet at least one drawing that shows the
building facades. The north and south façade will be exactly alike.
There will be two types of signage. One will be centered on the top part where there used
to be an awning. It will be centered on the top of the building with architectural
lettering and illuminated by gooseberry lamps. The existing 35 square foot sign on the
southern corner will be refaced with some natural material.
The question was how waste would be handled and we will be retail and will have paper and
plastic trash. We will be talking to Rumpke as to their recommendation, and it will be
according to what they feel is best for a business of this size. The most important for us
is the parking, because we are so limited.
Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to change colors and materials on
the front of the existing building. The existing front façade is painted smooth face
block. They propose to apply a stone veneer to the lower portion of the storefront and a
painted stucco finish to the upper portion. It appears that the sides of the building will
be painted with the “mauve” color used on the stucco.
A wall sign with 24” high “architectural letters” is indicated on the front
of the building. The sign scales approximately 41’ long which would make the sign82
s.f. but it is not clear whether the lower extension of the gap of the lower case letters
of the 3-D drawing are included in the two-foot height of the sign. There is an existing
4’ x 8’ ground sign which would make the total proposed sign area 114 s.f. and
121 s.f. is allowed.
Mr. Wocher reported that parking requirements meet the retail space, and there will be
readings and classes as well. We project 23 are required and there are 25 spaces shown.
There is a concern about the five that access from Springfield Pike and the safety. We
would suggest that they eliminate four spaces and utilize the rest of the area for the one
required van accessible handicapped space and landscaping.
The calculations of stone on the building needs to be provided concerning the
incorporation on the front façade relative to the percentage of the elevation. The
Corridor Review District requires that 60% of three elevations contain brick or stone. We
would ask that elevations be provided for the other sides to calculate the percentage of
the building materials. We also need clarification on how the waste will be handled.
Should Planning approve this modification, for safety reasons they should consider
illuminating four of the five parking spaces that access directly from Springfield Pike.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE FOUR
VI B EXTERIOR REVISIONS ANGELIC WHISPERS 11465 SPRINGFIELD PK.
Mr. Madl said we concur that four of the five parking spaces with direct access to
Springfield Pike should be eliminated. No detention is required for this property.
Mr. Okum asked if there was a doorway into the rear of the property. Mr. Soria answered
there are two doors. One is small going into the rear hallway and the other is an escape
doorway in case of fire. They are only in case of emergency.
Mr. Okum said so your clients would have to walk around the building and into the front of
the building. Mr. Soria responded it is actually a road where traffic goes in and out. Mr.
Okum wondered if there were any safety things that could be done and Mr. Soria reported
that none of that property belongs to them.
Mr. Okum said staff recommends that four of the parking spaces in the front should be
eliminated; can you make that work?
Mr. Soria responded not four. That would be impractical, just for access and the back
parking lot is rolling and would be dangerous in bad weather.
Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had considered reconfiguring the building so there
would be an entry from the rear by the parking field. Mr. Soria responded it would allow
us to function a lot better, but it would be beyond our current budget.
Mr. Okum said if the front parking area is not safe and unfortunately the majority of the
parking is in the rear, a reconfiguration of the entry should be considered.
Mr. Butrum wondered how many customers would be there at one time. Mr. Soria answered it
would depend, from12 to 14 at a time.
Mr. Butrum commented you are proposing three parking spots in the front, and there would
be 12-14 people so there would be 10 cars that would be parked in the back.
Mr. Butrum added the problem is clear, no matter what. If you only want one handicapped
spot, it would make sense to figure out a way to address that problem. Mr. Soria responded
we are still trying to have our neighbor lease or share the parking spaces.
Mr. Hawkins said the issue is ingress or egress and the irregularity of the pavement in
the back. How much would that cost to fix? Mr. Soria answered I don’t know, but
probably I think it would be astronomical.
Mr. Okum said people pulling into and then backing out onto Springfield Pike is a bad
situation, an accident waiting to happen. The way your property is laid out is
unfortunate. You do not have a walk along the side of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE FIVE
VI B EXTERIOR REVISIONS ANGELIC WHISPERS 11465 SPRINGFIELD PK.
Mr. Okum added I am concerned about the safety of people parking in the back, and in all
good conscience, I cannot allow that type situation to occur. Based on the way things are
presented, there are not a lot of positive things in your plan. On the brick and stone,
there is very little brick on the side of the building.
Mr. Galster added 60% needs to be on three sides of the building. There are not a lot of
positive things I see in this.
Mr. Soria stated I thought only one side of the building had to have 60% brick or stone.
Mr. Galster added what you are doing looks better than what is there now.
Mr. Okum commented it gets dark at 5 p.m. in the winter. I am very concerned about the
cars parked in the back and those people going down a dark driveway Mr. Soria stated we
are talking with Duke Engineering to put some lights up for us. Mr. Okum said I don’t
believe that would fall within the Corridor Review District and a lighting plan would have
to be approved. Unless you come up with a resolution for the ingress/egress to your
property, I cannot support what you wish to do. If it were all asphalt, you could put a
5’ wide sidewalk to the entry door with landscaping, but a door in the back would be
easier.
Mr. Syfert said I have to echo the comments concerning the ingress and egress. The reading
I am getting from the board is that you will not get approval of this option. I would
suggest that you ask us to table this, look at it closer and come back. If you want us to
vote, we can do so, but I am sure it would not pass. The main hang up is the cars backing
out onto Route 4.
Mr. Soria said we will ask that this be tabled.
Mr. Galster commented the way the property is laid out, you will have a difficult time.
The only way I see it working is to have an entrance in the rear and, if you have that,
why have the handicapped spot in the front?
Mr. Soria responded everything is framed, the walls are up, and what you are asking is
impossible for us.
Mr. Galster said if there was a half moon turn around in place of the five parking spots
that might be possible. In general if the main access needs to be to the rear, to does not
seem sensible to have the handicapped park in the front.
Mr. Okum moved to table and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye,
and it was tabled to the March13th meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE SIX
C. Development Plan Approval Lakeview Project, Maple Knoll Village (redevelopment of
existing cottages)
Doug Hinger, President of Great Traditions passed out a site plan for the Kensington Place
(formerly called Lakeview Project). We are here to present the final development plan.
We will be removing all the units in this section and replacing them with five new
buildings of two to three stories. This community has a village concept, with emphasis on
pedestrians and residential architecture.
Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to construct 56 dwelling units,
three one-bedroom units, 43 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units. A total of 121
parking spaces are to be provided, consisting of 84 garage spaces and 37 surface spaces.
A total of 591” of trees are shown to be removed. Trees which are within the
footprint of proposed buildings are exempt from replanting, and there are 223 caliper
inches exempt from replanting.
Mr. Wocher reported that the significant majority of the exterior of the buildings are to
be constructed of brick veneer with the balance of rusticated masonry veneer.
Should Planning Commission choose to approve the Development plan for Kensington Place,
the following should be considered:
1. The Landscape Plan should be revised to be consistent with staff comments and
resubmitted for staff review and approval.
2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view.
3. The mounting height and pole/fixture color need to be provided to staff for their
review and approval.
Mr. Syfert asked the height of the poles and Mr. Hinger reported that they are 12 feet
high throughout the project.
Mr. Madl reported that a net increase in impervious area of 0.11 acres has been noted on
the plans. The major storm routing will need to have analysis submitted verifying that
there is sufficient capacity and that it is up to the current code. Mr. Hinger said we are
looking at that right now. Mr. Madl responded we would be lad to help out.
Mr. Madl added that the storm water quality best management practices need to be utilized.
This may include catch basin internal sumps, catch basin inserts, bio-swales, etc. This
would be a good location and we would recommend a rain garden in the vicinity of the
proposed catch basins along State Route 4.
Mr. Galster questioned the construction of Building C, specifically the lower level. Mr.
Hinger responded that they are still finalizing that. Mr. Galster also questioned Building
D on Sheet A 231.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE SEVEN
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OF KENSINGTON PLACE
Mr. Hinger reported that they should look at those in the context of the entire design.
The landscaping will reduce the impact of that, but we could add windows. Mr. Galster
responded the one facing out to Maple Trace should have more pizzazz. Mr. Hinger commented
that is something we can look at.
Mr. McErlane reported that he met with the architect and he mentioned that this project
was being constructed in phases. Mr. Hinger said it will be; we expect the construction to
take two to three years.
Mr. Okum moved to approve the final development plan for Kensington Place including the
following:
1. All staff, city engineer, city planner recommendations.
2. Light fixture and pole color shall be per sample submitted at 12 feet high.
3. All four building elevations as submitted.
4. Color pallet as submitted.
Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.
VII. DISCUSSION
VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
A. Subway – Springdale Town Center – Wall Sign
B. Whiskey Willys – 12185 Springfield Pike – Ground and Roof Signs
C. Cartridge World – 1347 East Kemper Rd. (Kemper Pond) – Wall Sign
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Butrum moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and
Planning Commission adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
______________________,2007 __________________________
William
Syfert, Chairman
_____________________,2007 __________________________
Lawrence
Hawkins III Secretary