PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

7:00 P.M.

 

I.                     CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

 

II.                   ROLL CALL

 

Members Present:†††††††††††† Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Lawrence

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Hawkins, David Okum, Tom Vanover and

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Chairman Syfert

 

Members Absent:††††††††††††† Tony Butrum

 

Others Present:††††††††††††††††† Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director

Bill McErlane, Building Official

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Anne McBride, City Planner

 

Mr. Syfert reported that Mr. Butrum called in and he and his family are not well.For your information, final approval takes five affirmative votes, so a simple majority of 4-2 would not approve a final plan.

 

III.                  MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 13 DECEMBER 2005

 

Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

 

IV.               CORRESPONDENCE

 

A.          Report on Council

 

Mr. Galster reported that Council approved the preliminary plan for the Tri-County Mall Redevelopment and it is on our agenda.We also had the first reading at the last Council meeting on the blighted property and there will be a second reading at the next meeting.

 

B.          12/14/05 letter to President of Council re approval of Zoning Code Amendments

C.          Zoning Bulletin Ė December 10, 2005

D.          Zoning Bulletin Ė December 24, 2005

E.          Zoning Bulletin Index Ė January Ė December 2005

F.           Planning Partnership Update Ė December 2005

 

V.                 OLD BUSINESS

 

VI.               NEW BUSINESS

 

A.          Approval of Exterior Elevation Changes, 11345 Century Circle West

 

Mike Lange of Neyer Properties the owner and applicant stated we recently purchased a 106,000 s.f. warehouse and office facility on Century Circle.It currently is vacant and largely overgrown with landscaping and in need of general maintenance.In order to actively market and lease the property, we have hired K-4 Architecture to do some modifications to the front entry (Jim Gelis is representing them tonight).

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE TWO

 

EXTERIOR ELEVATION CHANGES 11345 CENTURY CIRCLE WEST

 

Mr. Lange continued in terms of internally, a very small portion of that building is office facilities for what is largely warehouse. We intend to gut that for the time being so it shows better as a larger open office space and we will tenant finish it when the appropriate tenant comes along.

 

Stepping to the drawing, Mr. Lange showed the roof line of the existing building and the roof line mechanicals are all visible from the street.We are proposing to put a parapet around the front office portion to help hide that.

 

We propose to cut the roof line over the entryway, and raise that roof to bring some daylight into the office facility.†† Your staff comments say that the awning comes out 96 feet, but that is not an accurate dimension, and we do meet the setback requirement.

 

We intend to comply with the landscaping ordinance.We hope to preserve and maintain much of the landscaping.We recognize that some will be damaged during the construction and repair.We will submit an existing landscaping plan and a new landscaping plan.

 

He showed the color pallet, stating right now it is a dark brown aluminum clad building, and we propose to lighten it and freshen it up.

 

Mr. McErlane said it sounds like the applicant has clarified one of my comments with respect to the setback.Because this is a General Industrial District, there is a 100 foot minimum setback to the front of the building, and the applicant is indicating that the proposed canopy will be 100 foot 4 inches.We had asked for a color pallet and they provided that tonight.

 

Ms. McBride reported I would add that on the original submittal they turned in a landscape plan and we had commented.The applicant came back and said they werenít going to remove any of the plant material and therefore they werenít going to add any plant material.What I am hearing tonight is in line with what staff requested in that they are going to document the existing plant material so we will know what is removed or damaged during the redevelopment phase.They also will submit a landscape plan which staff feels comfortable reviewing and approving without the commission and we can go from there.

 

Mr. Galster said it looks like a wonderful improvement to the building, and I would like to move to approve the applicantís request as submitted, pending a landscape approval by staff.Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

 

All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

B.†††† Approval of Development Plan for Westminster Cottages, 11199 Springfield Pike (Lifesphere)

 

Jim Obert introduced Jim Formal and Ken Huff of Lifesphere and Tim Greive of Thomas Graham Associates our engineers.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE THREE

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Obert stated we are proposing to demolish the existing senior center and build 22 new units on the property.We fit all setback requirements with one exception, the front yard setback.You call for a 100 foot setback and we will have to come in to the Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for a 50 foot setback.

 

We have worked extensively with the landscape architects, and we discovered a math error in the staff report and I think Bill will confirm that we are in compliance with the tree replacement requirement.

 

Mr. McErlane reported there was a clarification that the landscape architect had provided indicating that his current evergreen stock is 5 inch caliper trees and that is a major difference.There was a math error in the removal of the trees.For the redevelopment trees Category I there is a math error; it should be 42 inches of required replacement instead of 62.If the spruce trees are truly five inches, which is pretty hefty for a 10-foot tree, then they do satisfy the tree replanting requirements, and we would verify that at planting.

 

Mr. Obert added we will have to relocate some utilities and coordinate that with the cottages in the back.

 

The one question was the extension of the sidewalk.We want to tie the sidewalk coming from the existing cottages back to here.Because of the proximity of the driveways, it is not very practical to bring it out to the street. The driveway to Unit A-16 is very long, and we are proposing to extend the sidewalk to the approach area of that driveway.†† That is one item that does not 100% conform to the CDS comments.

 

The other item is the sidewalk along State Route 4 down to the terminus of the project.†† We do not object to that; our question is timing.We are dealing with elderly residents, and if they go on a sidewalk that ends nowhere, they may get confused and try to cross Route 4 at an unmarked crosswalk.

 

We understand that the City is planning on improving that section of Springfield Pike, probably not this year but possibly next year, so we would like to work out a way with the City to accomplish the goal, but we donít want a sidewalk to nowhere at this point of time.We would like to work that out some way, and I think there are means to do that, be it bonding or whatever.

 

On the storm water and grading, the engineer has asked us to show some flow routes and that will be done in our final plans.

 

Part of our project is combining the existing ponds and we are proposing to take away the land between the two ponds and combining them.We had planned on using both existing outlet structure, and CDS has asked us to replace that one, and we will do that; that is not a problem.

 

We had noted rock channel protection around the edge of that lake, a two to three inch decorative stone around the edge, and CDS and Anne McBride asked us to use, and that is not a problem.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE FOUR

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Obert added the last item on their list is turning movements in and out of the project.We have been working with CDS and our engineer to come up with an alignment of the intersection using the existing light.The frequency of crossing will be minor, smaller trucks to pick up garbage.The only time there will be trucks in here will be small delivery vehicles and when someone moves in or out.We think we have the basis of a solution. We want to make sure that roadway looks residential in character and doesnít get too wide, so there is a happy medium there that we can work out with CDS.

 

Ms. McBride raised the question about the sign.Currently there is a sign out there and we are proposing to reuse that base and redo the top of it.It is internally illuminated and was submitted as part of the package of what is proposed.

 

On the landscaping, there are a couple of trees that may be questionable in terms of whether we can save them during construction.We are going to try to save every tree possible, but if something is damaged that we intended to save, we will make good on it.

 

Another item was the fact that on the south end we donít show any trees on Springfield Pike.That is where the dam structure for the detention pond is, and it has been our experience that you donít plant woody materials on the faces of dams because the root system can get into the dam and create a dam failure.

 

The number of trees required along Springfield Pike is all on the plan.We have only eliminated them on the south end to keep from planting trees on the dam structure.

 

Anne asked us to look at doing aquatic plants around the edge.I talked with a landscape architect.He has a listing of some plants, and we are willing to look at that.Our issue is to make sure it looks good.Over time, some of those plants become unsightly, but we are willing to work with the City on adding aquatic type plants around the lake edge on our portion of the property.

 

These are all single family cottages, very much in keeping with the lifestyle of the elderly resident. ††Part of the goal is to bring younger residents into the Maple knoll Village.†† Presently the average age is early 80ís.It is a very nice looking cottage with all the masonry requirements that the City has asked for.Our company specializes in empty nester housing.

 

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is currently zoned Public Facilities Ė Medium Density and is also part of Subarea D of the Springdale Route 4 Corridor Review District.††† They are proposing 22 additional dwelling units which would bring the total to 43 units on this property.That averages out to about five units per acre.

 

There is one setback variance that would be required for the front yard.In the Corridor Review District Subarea D the minimum front yard setback is 100 feet, and they are proposing 50.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE FIVE

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. McErlane said there is a maximum building and structure coverage requirement for Public Facilities Ė Medium Density Districts of 25% and they are proposing 23%.They meet the impervious surface ratio requirements and exceed the parking requirements under the code.Their current drawings show that they meet the minimum 50% of three facades of the structure as brick or stone.They also meet the pitched roof requirement under the Corridor District.

 

There is also a front yard setback landscaping requirement under the Corridor District that would require for this frontage 26 deciduous trees and 20 evergreens.I initially indicated that it looked like it had been met.It now looks like they may be missing one of the deciduous trees, but that can be worked out in the landscape plan.

 

Assuming that the evergreen trees that will be planted will be five-inch caliper, it looks like they do meet the requirements under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and we will verify that when they are planted.

 

Ms. McBride said one of the concerns that I had was how they would regulate this in terms of clearly providing that it was going to be elderly housing.Apparently there is a provision in their residency agreement that says you have to be 60 or older to be admitted into the project.

 

We asked the applicant about how they would handle trash, and they indicated that it would be picked up and taken to a central point in Maple Knoll and the cans returned.

 

On the photometric lighting plan they submitted, we recognize it is a residential area and we want to keep it with soft lighting but there are several places where there are parking spaces that donít hit the .5-foot candles.†† They go down to about .2, which, given the fact that it will be older residents, we would like to see that light level come up, even if it doesnít hit the .5.

 

They will reuse the existing base, and put a new sign on it.It will be included in a landscape bed and is already set back over 10 feet from the right of way.The only question we had on signage was how it was going to be illuminated, and the applicant has indicated that it will be internally illuminated.

 

We had a number of comments on the landscaping, nothing major.We did want to see plant material put around the rim of the retention basin to try to soften that since it is a residential development.We would be happy to work with the applicant to select plant material that would be easy to maintain and give the appearance we are looking for.We also had some concerns about some plant material that may or may not survive construction, but we can work with them as they go through that phase.We would suggest a revised landscape plan should be submitted to us for review and approval prior to their moving forward.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE SIX

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the applicant indicated that they have a note in there that they will sequence the construction to allow the existing driveway to be maintained until such time that they can open up the new one.They will do a similar type process with the utilities in place.

 

On the sidewalks, we had noted that we wanted the sidewalk that connected between the existing and proposed to come out to the private drive.It is now shown coming out to the apron end of the drive itself.The concern there was if people are parking in that driveway will they block the use of the sidewalk and cause people to cut through the landscaping instead of traversing a hard surface.

 

Mr. Obert responded that driveway is longer than normal.The people who live here typically would have no more than one car in the driveway at a time anyway.The driveway is long because of how the house is setting, so there is ample room on that driveway.Itís not a perfect solution, but I think it is a reasonable solution to making things tie in.We will do what we can to get as close to the road as possible, but we donít want to sacrifice the landscaping.Thatís the only issue there.

 

Mr. Shvegzda said in 2004 the City constructed the sidewalk along State Route 4 to its current location, which terminates at the bus shelter in front of this property.The future construction of the remainder of the sidewalk along State Route 4 is planned for no sooner than 2007.I think it would be reasonable if we could get some type of bonding arrangement for the applicant to have that so the City could construct that when the remainder of the sidewalk is constructed.

 

The major storm flow is going to be conveyed via a combination of the proposed storm sewer and overland.It is critical to define where those overland flow paths are, as we do have some openings to the basement areas in some of the units.

 

In terms of the consolidation of the ponds, one of the things we will need is some kind of agreement between the two property owners as far as maintenance and those types of things, so there is an understanding of who is responsible for that.

 

The applicant will combine the two structures into one outlet structure.There were several concerns about the functioning of it as well as the aesthetics.

 

There was a little confusion early on about the driveway.I donít think the configuration of the striping on the east leg of the intersection quite reflects what is there, so we were really concerned initially that the proper realignment of that driveway might affect one of the front units of the north segment of the buildings.Looking at the striping, a lot less revision needs to be done to the driveway alignment, so it is not nearly as significant an issue as we originally thought. We just need to make sure that the turning movements are accommodated and that we have reasonable alignment at the intersection.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE SEVEN

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Okum asked where the outdoor a.c. units would be placed.Mr. Obert responded I donít know, but we are trying to build a quality residential community.Most units will be small heat pump type units and they probably will be out the doors of the residences, and they would be screened.

 

Mr. Okum commented I donít have a problem with perennial type plantings over fences.Ms. McBride added once they have a final location of those, we can work with them when we look at that revised landscape plan as well.

 

Mr. Okum said where the walkway terminates into that driveway, would it be possible to widen that driveway apron somewhat there if they do have a car parked there?Mr. Obert answered they are substantially wide now; it is a double wide.Mr. Okum said if you added a foot and one-half on that side towards the sidewalk, could you do that without affecting the landscaping?Mr. Obert responded we would be happy to look at it.Mr. Okum commented I would just ask that you look at widening it a little bit.Mr. Obert said we will do everything in our power to make sure that walkway doesnít get blocked.

 

Mr. Okum said you are accommodating the requirement of the trees for 100-foot setback but there is a reason for the 100-foot setback and there is a reason for the number of trees in that 100-foot setback.My logic says something additionally needs to be done along the Route 4 Corridor because you are coming closer than the 100 feet recommended by the Corridor Review District.Something needs to be done, maybe mounding or additional trees.This gets referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals next week, and I would like to see a recommended remedy coming out of this body.

 

Mr. Obert answered we do have mounding along that corridor wherever possible.We also are saving the existing large trees that are there.We are happy to look at it, but we also want to be careful that we donít over plant it so that in five years it doesnít look like a jungle.We need to be careful so that it is planted appropriately.†† We are working with the City for a quality project.It may make sense to add a tree here or there in association with the mounding.I think we need to be careful in using some sort of arithmetic formula because as the trees grow, it doesnít always work out well.We will be happy to work with it.

 

Mr. Okum commented I donít know if that answers my question or not.I know you are happy to work with it, but arenít there patios in the back?Mr. Obert confirmed this.Mr. Okum said so there would be shrubs or hedges around the patio areas.Mr. Obert showed the drawings, adding in addition to the trees, there is a lot more landscaping on the back of the patios.

 

Mr. Okum commented I look at the Code and the Code recommends a 100-foot setback, and there must be a reason.This is 50% less of that recommendation.We had the wall issue on the other side of the street that we were concerned with, and they created vegetation along the wall that was into that 100-foot setback.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE EIGHT

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Okum said I understand that you donít want to make it overgrown and I agree with that, but you are doing just what the Code calls for.If you are granted the 50 foot closer in order for the development to happen, there is a happy medium that we need to get to.†† Can you work with staff prior to next week before it comes to the Board of Zoning Appeals and do something along there that can be presented to the Board that would show a remedy?

 

Mr. Obert responded we would be happy to talk with Anne.I want to make sure that we are all happy 10 years from now with the way this looks.I think we can all work towards that and come up with something that satisfies everybodyís needs.

 

Mr. Okum said my feeling is there is a reason for the 100-foot requirement, and letís come up with a remedy of why we are encroaching into that by 50%.Iíll leave that with you to work out before Tuesday night.

 

Mr. Okum asked about the color pallet and Mr. Obert said it is here.They are all neutral colors.We have some samples of bricks.We may want to get the bricks a little closer to the brick color of the existing cottages, with a little more red in them, but basically following your guidelines.

 

Mr. Hawkins said I think the project looks good and I am excited about what you are doing.For clarification, are you saying the driveways are long enough to park two cars front to back?

Mr. Obert said because of the way this building is oriented to the drive, this driveway is extra long and double wide.The rest of these are standard one car in the driveway.

 

Mr. Hawkins said I notice you have 15 spaces back there.Do you anticipate any problems with regard to parking; do you think that is enough?

 

Mr. Obert answered I think there is more than enough.†† These are people who tend to be very social, and if they have a Super Bowl party or something like that, we want to make sure there is ample room for their guests to park and not clog the drive aisles.We are also cognizant that we are talking about an elderly population and we want to make sure there is ample room for safety equipment to come and go.

 

Initially we had proposed all on-street parking and after some early staff comments and some internal discussion, we thought it more appropriate to have some extra parking spaces.

 

Mr. Vanover asked the construction of the sidewalk, and Mr. Obert answered concrete walk.Mr. Vanover said on the northern end crossing the ring road, are those striped pedestrian pathways?Mr. Obert answered they would be crosswalks.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE NINE

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Vanover commented if they were paver stones you could continue that and bring that down to where the sidewalk comes into that driveway and have a visual break that would delineate it.

 

Mr. Obert responded that is a very good solution, and we definitely will take a look at that as a possibility.

 

Mr. Galster said the north sidewalk is the one that you anticipate people from the older development will come through to get to Route 4.That connects to a sidewalk system internal to the development.The lower one used to be there to bring people down to the senior center.Now there is no draw, and it looks to me like the southern sidewalk is leading them out into the street.There is no sidewalk system to tie into, is that correct?

 

Mr. Obert answered there is not internally.People are walkers, so we wanted to create connectivity to these people.We are seeing this as one community, so walkers who want to get their exercise could use this.

 

Mr. Galster said I am not concerned about a sidewalk crossing over the driveway; that happens in every residential community.If in fact you are trying to get out to Route 4 and the bus stop, this will be a shorter path.

 

Mr. Galster commented I am a little concerned about the elevation of the back of that building to Springfield Pike.Now that I can see the landscape around the patio, maybe itís not quite so bad.

 

Mr. Galster said in the corner building with only three units, the left side of that building is the only one that has the side showing out to the public.Everything else is connected, is that right?So that will be the only unit that will have that blank look side.

 

I understand Mr. Okumís concern on the number of trees along the street, because itís so much closer to the roadway.I understand we donít want to overbuild it, but we also want to screen it as much as we can, not only for the motoring public but for your residents as well.†† Route 4 is a pretty good size road, and any vegetation we can put out there to screen those residents from that traffic would be a benefit.

 

Mr. Syfert said my only question was dealing with your roofing material.Had you considered the textured type asphalt shingles?Mr. Obert answered these are shadow line shingles which give the appearance of a dimensional without being a true dimensional.That is a requirement in all of our communities; we donít allow standard three tab shingles.This roof is a mixture of prairie and bungalow style and is very reflective of what their lifestyle wants and needs are.

 

Mr. Obert on the pond maintenance agreement, we do have a draft of that easement.Once we get the approval, we go back to the church and everybody signs.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE TEN

 

WESTMINSTER COTTAGES 11199 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Okum said the existing 21 residences in the back will use that thoroughfare to access Route 4, is that right?Mr. Obert confirmed this. ††Mr. Okum added Iím thinking of an elderly person backing out of those driveways into that roadway section.Delivery people will come in and make a dogleg right and going past those driveways.I am a little concerned about that particular unit. The other ones are sort of on a private lane but those units are somewhat of a difficult situation.I hope you can do something to help those people because I would hate to see somebody backing out into that driveway lane.

 

Mr. Shvegzda said if your concern is for the speed on the drive, there may be something that can be done, some kind of traffic calming type of arrangement.

 

Mr. Obert said now that we will work on the lane configuration with Don and the movements, it will do some traffic calming because of the curvature of the roadways.Keep in mind that we need to keep the trucks where they need to be, but the narrower we can keep the pavement, the more it keeps people driving slower.Thank you for bringing it up; it is something we will need to watch.We hope not to have to get into something like rumble strips or something like that.

 

Mr. Okum commented it is no different than many of our town home communities.It is just that the proximity to Route 4, on a roadway with a lot of speed issues currently there, I think we need to look at it.We also have to make sure that the sight distance issues are not a problem.I am an advocate of more landscaping, but in that case, I think those units need as much visibility as possible at that roadway.

 

Mr. Obert commented the good news is that with this user group in there, we will not have that many deliveries, hopefully a UPS driver delivering Christmas presents will be the preponderance of the deliveries made.

 

Mr. Okum moved to approve the senior residential development at 1199 Springfield Pike, Westminster Cottages.Included in that approval are the specifications and exhibits 1 of 20 through 20 of 20 and the recommendations of staff.Additionally the mechanical units shall be staff approved enclosures or plantings.Also, the applicant shall look at the parking site plan for the unit where the sidewalk terminates in to consider possibly widen the drive to accommodate it.Also, that all four building elevations shall accommodate the color pallet as submitted, and that the sidewalks on the south portion along Route 4, south of the existing bus shelter, shall have bonding set aside with the city for the future sidewalk cost.This approval is conditional upon approval by the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals of a variance for a 50-foot front yard setback versus the 100 feet required by the Corridor Review District.Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

 

On the motion for approval, all present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE ELEVEN

 

B.          Approval of Church of the Nazarene Parking Lot Addition, 11177 Springfield Pike

 

Cheryl Vandewater and Adam Berner, civil engineers, approached the commission.Ms. Vandewater reported we brought this plan before you at the last meeting and we have taken into account your comments and staffís comments, and have worked with staff to develop this final plan for your approval.

 

Mr. McErlane said these are pretty much the same comments I had last month.They are proposing 187 parking spaces for a total of 532 on the site.They meet the impervious surface ratio requirements.They are proposing to plant 75 caliper inches of trees, which exceeds the required amount of tree replacement because they are meeting the landscaping requirements around the parking area.

 

Mr. Galster asked if there were any time restrictions to the driveway that went through the residential area out on Sharon Road.

 

Ms. Vandewater said we discussed that after the last meeting, and they werenít aware of any restrictions; it was basically used for Sunday church.Jeff Parker of the church added as I understand it, there are some restrictions on that drive, but I donít know exactly what they are.

 

Ms. McBride reported that the applicant submitted a revised landscape plan that addressed all our comments.We did not receive a revised lighting plan, and we still have some concerns about that.

 

If youíll recall, the maximum permitted mounting height according to code is 22 feet with cutoff fixtures.The applicant was indicating 28 foot poles.This is considered a low intensity use which recommends pole heights in the range of 10 to 15 feet.We also had some issues on the average luminance as well as the maximum luminance.

 

Mr. Berner reported the lighting plan revised comments were submitted last Wednesday.††† Ms. McBride reported the whole package was submitted after the submittal date and that came in as an addendum to the late submittal, so we did not look at the addendum to the late submittal.

 

Mr. Shvegzda said the last comments indicated that there was concern that the applicant work with the engineer at the adjoining CMHA site to verify their increasing the height of the field adjacent to that wall on the parking lot area of the senior housing.They indicated that they are in touch with them, and to verify that we would ask for a letter confirming that there are no issues be issued.

 

They have noted a barrier type curb to take care of the issue of vehicles overtop being a normal height curb on the east corner of the parking lot.The detail submitted was a nine-inch and typically we use a 12-inch height curb so we have given them a detail that we asked that they include as part of the plan.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE TWELVE

 

NAZARENE PARKING LOT ADDITION Ė 11177 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Shvegzda added the other concern is coordination with the adjoining property owner for modification of the detention basin and working out the final agreements.

 

Mr. Galster said in relationship to the Metropolitan Housing project, what is in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the parking lot?Mr. Shvegzda reported there is a green space between the property line and the wall down to a parking surface that rings around the buildings.

 

Mr. Okum said I was hoping I could see the development on this map so I could see how that lighting would affect those residences as well.Ms. McBride added if you look at the requirements for the photometric lighting plans, it requires that you show those buildings.

 

Mr. Okum added I think that is really important, and I think Ms. McBrideís recommendations are that if we do approve thisthat it be contingent upon staff reviewing and approving a modified lighting plan.†††

 

Mr. Berner said I spoke with the staff on the lighting issues and we will use an 18 foot pole on a two-foot base for a total height of 20 feet.We have reduced the wattage to 250 watts on those fixtures, and we will provide shields on the fixtures to help mitigate against those glare issues.

 

Mr. McErlane reported that the conditions of the conditional use permit for the driveway into Sharon Road included a limitation on when the gates could be opened.That was Sunday services, Wednesday evening services, and Christmas Eve services.Any other major event would have to be cleared through the Building Department for the gates to be left open.

 

Mr. Galster I tried to call the property owner to see if there were any problems, but in my drive bys, I have never seen the gates closed.Mr. Parker said there I really not much use there, but I do not think that the gates have been closed.

 

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Nazarene Church parking lot expansion to include all staff, city planner and city engineerís recommendations, including the lighting plan that is yet to be provided.Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

Planning Commission recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m.

 

C.          Approval of two signs with a total height of 31 feet at Mallard Lakes, 12100 Lake Circle Drive

 

Mr. Syfert said during the recess the applicant requested that this be tabled until net month, and the chair would entertain a motion.Mr. Vanover so moved and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.All present, except Mr. Okum who abstained, voted aye, and the item will be on the February 14th agenda.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE THIRTEEN

 

TWO SIGNS AT MALLARD LAKES Ė 12100 LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE

 

†† Mr. Galster asked Mr. McErlane to advise the applicant that if they††††

can show where the sound wall is in relationship to their property,††† that would be helpful at our next meeting.Mr. McErlane commented I would guess they donít have that information, nor do they know how high it will be.

††††††††††††††††††††

E.     ††Approval of Final Development Plan, Tri-County Mall††††

††††††† Redevelopment Ė 11700 Princeton Pike

 

Ms. McBride reported as you know, Thor Equities has acquired the mall and preliminary development approval both from Planning Commission and City Council.The plan is basically the redevelopment of a portion of the mall.They have filed for final development plan approval, but unfortunately they do not have all the information that staff needs to make a recommendation to this commission.

 

The applicant has asked if there was some type of action that Planning can take this evening, and we have suggested some verbiage.If you choose to, you could make a final approval of the preliminary development plan which you basically have already approved.If you desire to do that, I would ask that you use this verbiage as it does reference the plan that City Council approved in December.

 

I know this is unusual and is not something that the Commission typically does, but it would be helpful to the applicant at this stage of the game.We are working closely with the applicantís representatives to make sure that the different materials that they were lacking are submitted in a timely fashion so we can review them and make a complete short report to you in February.

 

Mr. McErlane added I know it is a matter of semantics, but what Planning Commission did with the preliminary plan was refer it to Council, not necessarily an approval, but a referral to Council for their action.This action tonight would actually be an approval of that preliminary plan.

 

Mr. Galster moved to grant final approval of the preliminary development plan for the Tri-County Mall Redevelopment as approved by City Council on December 21, 2005.Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.†† All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

F.     DISCUSSION

 

 

G.    CHAIRMANíS REPORT

 

A.      Durangoís Mexican Kitchen Ė 316 Northland Boulevard Ė Wall Sign

B.      Chase Bank Ė 11745 Princeton Pike Ė Pole and Wall Signs

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 2006

PAGE FOURTEEN

 

H.     ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion.All present voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††† _____________________,2006†† __________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††† _____________________,2006†† __________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary