PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2004

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Steve Galster, Tom Vanover, Robert Coleman, Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

    Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 9 DECEMBER 2003
  6. Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Mr. Sherry said on Page 1 it says Mr. Coleman was elected secretary. With that correction, all voted aye except Mr. Okum who abstained, and the minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster said Council last Wednesday night heard an appeal to a Planning Commission issue in reference to the Provident Bank signage on their Kemper Road facility, and Council voted 5-2 to overturn Planning Commission. They are on the agenda tonight for the other location on Springfield Pike, but Iím not sure they will be represented.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė November 18, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė December 10, 2003
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė December 24, 2003
    6. Zoning Bulletin Index 2003 Ė January-December 2003
    7. Planning Commission Member Listing
    8. Planning Partnership Update Ė December 2003
    9. Mr. Galster stated that Council is looking for someone to serve as their alternate city representative to the Planning Partnership. If anyone is interested, please let me know.

    10. 12/10/03 Letter to President of Council re Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan for Triad Commercial Properties, 1313 East Kemper Road
    11. 12/10/03 Letter to President of Council re Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan for Triad Commercial Properties, 1313 East Kemper Road
    12. 12/10/03 Letter to President of Council re Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan for Triad Commercial Properties, 1313 East Kemper Road

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 JANUARY 2003

    PAGE TWO

  8. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Approval of neon lighting around building of Jade Buffet, 11499 Princeton Pike Ė Tabled December 9, 2003

    No one was present representing the applicant, and Mr. McErlane reported I sent the applicant a letter on December 10th advising them that they were tabled due to lack of proper documents and lack of representation at the meeting last month. We did receive the ownerís affidavit and application last Wednesday, but I have had no other contact with the applicant or the owner.

    Mr. Galster moved to remove them from the agenda and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and it was removed from the agenda.

  9. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Final Site Plan Approval of Crossings at the Park, 12110 Princeton Pike

Glenn Shepherd, President of Shepherd Industries approached Planning Commission. He said I brought along our engineer who is responsible for the design of the plans and our landscape architect, and they are available at any time to answer questions.

Mr. Okum wondered if Planning was reviewing Phase 1 only. Mr. Shepherd commented that is where I am a little confused too. Our submission is based on Phase 1, but there are overlapping issues that Planning also want to address. There are a lot of things that are interchangeable, but we are specifically here just for the approval of the first phase, which is the independent living condominium phase.

Mr. Okum said the covenants cover all the phases and the covenants should be restricted to how they work together and also there shouldnít be an understanding that based on the covenants the other phases are approved either. We donít want anyone to assume that if the covenants were approved that we were approving all the phases, and we are not. Mr. McErlane responded if you are specific that it is Phase 1 in the approval, even though the covenants may incorporate other phases of the development, I donít think that is an insinuation that you have approved everything else. And similarly he may find when the final development plan comes in for commercial or some other phase that those covenants may need to be amended, depending on what develops.

Mr. Galster said if we are only looking at Phase 1, do we have to make sure that we are not in conflict with any of the other phases in terms of the drawings in reference to the previous submittal. Have we looked at the drawings and compared them with the preliminary plan to see if any of the other phases have changed in any way?

If we approve these drawings as Phase 1, and it is showing other phases of the development, if there is a conflict, have we been made aware of it? Mr. McErlane responded that it has been compared to the original document. There are some minor differences, but nothing to any degree.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE THREE

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. McErlane stated that Mr. Shvegzda probably could bring some information in terms of utilities and detention, but I think they are generally in the same location as they were shown on the preliminary plan.

Mr. McErlane reported that the development plan is for Phase 1 is for Crossings in the Park PUD Plan adopted August 20, 2003 by City Council. It includes 50 Garden Home units, and 58 Village Home units. The total property of Phase 1 is 17 acres of the 23 that were shown for the senior housing development.

At the time of the required submittal, there was no lighting plan; something was submitted last Thursday but was not reviewed.

The plans show a new development of roadways being accessed through an existing parking lot, which is for the gymnasium. It comes in at an off angle and doesnít provide for how that works together with the parking field, and how the parking field will be utilized relative to the driveway approach. That really needs to be worked out in terms of how you can use that parking field and how circulation will work through that field.

There is proposed grading shown where there is an existing swale that runs through the property that is arbitrarily drawn and causes some ponding of water. It ends up being in the area where the future baseball fields will be.

Most of the setbacks meet those that were shown in the preliminary plan with the exception of the rear yard setback on the east side of the development. The preliminary plan was shown at 42 feet, and the final plan shows it at 29.4 feet.

The minimum dwelling size indicated on the preliminary plan was 1,000 s.f. What they are proposing for the Village Homes is 1602 s.f. for the smallest unit. Parking for the Village Homes was shown at 116 spaces in the preliminary plan and the final plan shows 122.

For the Garden Homes, all of the setbacks that were shown on the preliminary plan have been met. The Zoning Code requires 1200 s.f., and what is being proposed in the final plan is 1257 s.f. The parking on the final plan matches what was shown on the preliminary plan for the Garden Homes at 100 spaces. The parking includes one space in front of all the garages.

The tree survey plan shows a total of 2,112 caliper inches of trees to be removed, but it doesnít seem to match the existing survey for the site since there are larger trees that are not included in the tabulation for removal. There are some 24, 28, 30 and 36 inch trees shown on the engineerís survey plan which are not included in that tabulation. I am not sure where they come out in terms of replanting, but it appears that the landscape plan falls pretty far short of the required replanting. They are proposing to plant approximately 630 caliper inches, and they are removing 2112, and that will need to be reconciled in some manner.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE FOUR

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. McErlane said we suggest that there be some modifications to the covenants, specifically subparagraph (a) of Paragraph 1, to remove the word "and", and place a comma in front of the filling station. Right now it says that one of the prohibited uses is automotive service and filling station as if those two have to occur together before they are prohibited, and we are saying that either one is a prohibited use.

Scratch the word "only" from the drive through restaurants, which basically says that the only one that is prohibited is if it is only a drive through restaurant (i.e. Rallyís). We are saying that all drive through restaurants should be prohibited.

In the preliminary plan stage, there was some verbiage in the covenants that referred to proposed uses on the park property.

We had asked that to be stricken; I think it was one of the conditions to the approval. That language is still in the covenants and still needs to be stricken from the covenants.

The Fire Department reviewed this, and their concerns were the turning radius from Park Village Lane to Talouse Lane. It appears to be a little too tight for the ladder truck. They also are suggesting that a fire hydrant is necessary at the intersection of Park Village Lane and Salsburg Lane and two fire hydrants are needed at Edinburgh Lane.

Mr. Shepherd said the first issue is concerning the entrance into Phase 1, and the fact that it is over a part of the parking area for the existing volleyball building. The problem is with the assumed construction on 747, we canít put in the permanent streets that we want to in that area until we know exactly what is going on and can coordinate with it. In addition to that, if we would extend our street any further, we would be cutting into the parking lot and eliminating a good bit of it.

That parking lot is going to be reconfigured, but it will be reconfigured at a later date, because that is park property and they will be doing the reconfiguration. We would be forcing them to make some moves that financially they canít afford at this point.

We have surveyed the situation and feel that there is no problem for us and our residents to come into Phase 1 the way we have it laid out, and that would be the least disruptive to both the park as it exists right now as well as trying to make sure we plan for the future and 747ís widening.

Our engineer can talk in more detail about this and the landscaping issues can be handled by Gail Frasier, who is a registered landscape architect.

Bob Rothert with Abercrombie Associates said concerning the grading in the swale, with the excess dirt we will generate, we will fill that swale in at this time. It probably isnít clear, and we need to show the swale being filled in and either a ditch on top of what we are filling in or some type of pipe system.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE FIVE

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Rothert added on the rear yard setback of the Village Homes, the 42 feet can be recaptured. When we laid out our outer boundary line, we had intended to move that building that is 29.4 feet forward an additional 12 or 13 feet. It is setting back further from the street than it needs to be, so that will take care of that issue.

When we received the first set of comments, we tried to get a copy of the turning radius and werenít able to do that in time for our submission, but I donít see any problem with modifying that intersection to accommodate the turning radius of the fire truck.

In terms of the fire hydrant issues, we will deal with the Fire Department and the Water Works. .

Mr. Okum asked what they intended to do about the issue of going through the parking lot temporarily. Mr. Rothert answered we are showing a proposed easement through that property, which is still owned by the park. We can show striping within the parking lot to channel the people in the proper direction, but the rest of it refers to what Glenn had said on the inability of the park at this time to do certain things until property is acquired and some money is generated so the park can do some of the things that they need to do.

Mr. Okum wondered how the issue can be resolved, if 747 is reconstructed, the underpass is done and you are not ready for Phase II, but you still are taking cars through the parking lo to get to the development. There needs to be some link and time line, some construction schedule to tie a permanent roadway system that would connect to 747 I would think, in the event that Phase II and Phase III get delayed for some reason, so that we eliminate the issue of going through the parking lot. I donít know if the parking lot can handle the traffic and the load of construction and heavy vehicles. It is a parking lot.

Mr. Shepherd responded that there are street lanes through there. Mr. Okum said it wasnít built according to subdivision regulations; it is a private parking lot. Mr. Shepherd stated we have no problem with giving you some kind of an agreement that at such time when we can physically make those connections, we will do that. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if he can work this out with them. Mr. Shepherd added that the street is physically planned; it is drawn out for the future phases. We know where it is going, and we certainly would agree to some kind of calendar to get that done.

Mr. Rothert added that the access point will move on 747 as well, which further complicates trying to make the connection at this point.

Mr. Shvegzda said to clarify, right now it is shown that if you are exiting, you turn right right left left to get to the existing drive. Is that really the way they are going to go? That is the easement, but how the parking lot connection is, I would assume, unless there is some barrier there, that they would go down the first north/south aisle.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE SIX

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shvegzda added it may be more of a means by which this is physically designated to be the route that traffic is to take. Mr. Shepherd said you mean striping and Mr. Shvegzda responded at least that. Mr. Shepherd answered I donít think that would be a problem.

Mr. Okum asked how you would get to the improved surface between Phase 1 and Phase 2. We are showing an ellipse and road changes and dimension, and we donít know when that is going to be built.

Mr. Shvegzda answered I would assume that is the kind of thing that will have to be worked out. There may be a temporary period of time when you wonít have access to 747.

Mr. Shepherd said so you are looking for a phased construction schedule coordinated with the construction work on 747, how we think it will progress. Mr. Shvegzda answered I donít know if we are referring to 747 or the actual internal construction of the different phases of the development.

Mr. Shepherd stated I think the intent was that we would install the new entrance when the 747 construction is complete, since that entrance is moving from its present location, and at that point of time, we can connect it. I guess we need to come up with a coordinated schedule with the construction of 747.

Ms. McBride said my concern was mostly for how to guide people to the units for sale, and I understand that the developer is under some constraints with regards to the upcoming construction on 747, and we need to work with them in that regard..

Similarly I had a concern about the timing. I think they need to provide us with a schedule that will give us some indication as to when they are going to be constructing that roadway. Also, we need to know how it relates into the existing parking lot. The alignment right now is at a 90 degree angle, and part of the parking lot is gravel and part is paved. What we donít want is people zipping every which way because it still will be used as a parking lot for the recreation center with families and kids.

Our final concern is how the construction traffic will be getting in there, and will they be using that same means of ingress and egress.

There were 108 units approved for this portion of the site, which is 6.35 units per acre. .The plan is consistent with this; there are 108 units, 58 Village Homes and 50 Garden Homes.

The internal street system is all to be internally privately owned and maintained. What we recommend is that on those private streets that do not have curb and gutter, there be no parking allowed. That is partly to facilitate our emergency vehicles being able to access those roads and enter units, as well as from a maintenance standpoint. You wouldnít want people parking on the lawns, etc.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE SEVEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

The suggestion was made that the applicant consider linking Lisbon Lane into Berne Lane. It is a pretty short distance, and from a topography standpoint it looks like something that could be accomplished. The result would be the termination of two of the dead end streets and connect them, and from a fire safety service standpoint, is something the developer might want to consider.

On the original approval that Planning and Council saw, there was talk of an internal pathway system. On the plan submitted to Planning, there are four foot sidewalks shown only on Park Garden Lane and Park Village Lane. I thought there would be a pathway system that would link the residential units to other aspects of the PUD. I understand that those linkages probably would be made at a later date, but I think we need to see the beginnings of those now from the residential units to coordinate throughout the entire PUD.

Our PUD District requires that a minimum of 20% of the development be maintained in open space. We had asked the developer to provide that on a phase by phase basis and they have done that. With this particular phase, 49% or 8.33 acres of the property will remain in open space.

Two hundred and sixteen parking spaces are required, and the developer is proposing 222; 108 of those would be contained within garages. That is one garage per unit as approved by Planning and Council.

There also are a number of retaining walls indicated on the site plan, between buildings and along the entranceway at Garden Way. Some of these walls are as high as seven feet. Staff feels that given the height of some of these walls and their location between buildings, and the fact that this is a residential community, there likely will be older people out walking, a number of these fences require wrought iron fencing along the top. I believe the city engineer provided the developer with the detail of what that fencing could look like, and we would like to see that included.

The applicant submitted full elevations and floor plans for all the models that they are proposing. The unit sizes are in excess of what was approved by Council.

They meet all the requirements that Council imposed with one interpretation that needs to be made by this commission. One of the conditions was that there be a minimum of 320 square feet in a garage, including storage space. The garages themselves are anywhere from 267 s.f. to 298 s.f. However, they have adjacent to them storage rooms with the size of 355 to 450 s.f. We need a determination that this is what Council had in mind when they imposed that 300 s.f. requirement.

A lighting plan was submitted January 8th and we were not able to review that so that information is not included in my report.

They submitted a typical unit landscape plan and an overall landscape plan, and we want to make sure that there is no duplication in the plant schedule in terms of the caliper inches provided

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE EIGHT

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Ms. McBride reported that there are several detention basins and a number of wet ponds proposed for the site, and our landscape architect felt very strongly that the edges of those are not being treated in a manner consistent with what we were expecting, and we have asked for additional plant material in those areas.

Some comments from prior reviews include the fact that the landscape plan does not include the existing material that is to be maintained, so it is hard to get a feel for what the landscaping will look like.

We would like to see additional street trees planted on the entrance drives to the development. Any of the evergreens that are going to be counted toward the tree replacement requirement have to be a minimum 10 feet in height.

There was a note on one of the landscape plans that indicated a sign, but that is the only reference to signage that we have so we canít recommend approval of signage at this point of time.

On the covenants that were submitted, we agree with Mr. McErlaneís recommendation on the deletion of specific words with regards to some of the commercial uses proposed to be removed from the development. We also would like to see the use of the word approximately deleted, specifically as it relates to the development, approximately 50 and approximately 58 Ė it is 50 and 58; those are the numbers that we approved.

There is reference to the future redevelopment of the 108 recreational acres that exist today for use as multi-family, office, etc. I donít know if Planning wants to talk about a maximum density on the multi-family or for the office, or minimum buffer areas or if you want to put that in as a part of the final development plan. I just donít want to by virtue of approving those covenants, that they are approved for unlimited multi-family or office or whatever. I donít want to give the wrong impression to the applicant or the property owners, so we might want to put some type of language in like that.

On the screening and the building materials for the commercial area, we had a requirement that they be maintained. The applicant has suggested from view of all the public streets, and we are suggesting public and private streets because there will be a residential area looking into that and we would like to see it included from both public and private streets.

The ground-mounted signs for the entire development should be limited to seven feet in height. Those for the non-commercial part should be 75 square feet in area, and those for the commercial development should be 100 s.f. in area, which is somewhat less than the applicant has proposed. All of those signs should be located on brick or stone bases and surrounded by landscaped beds as approved by the city.

Mr. Galster said for clarifications in the covenants, 1-c, we removed that item already; is it something that hasnít caught up yet?

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE NINE

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shepherd answered we changed that language, and I thought we changed it to what was approved. At one time we had asked that it would relate back to the underlying zoning, the original zoning. I thought we had used the language that you had proposed. I have no problem with rewording that so that it reads to whatever your zoning is or however you want that. But that brings up the issue of the covenants. Do we really want to do them at this point of time for everything, or do we just want to do covenants for Phase 1, and each time we come in with a new phase, do covenants for that phase. It seems to me that might be a better way to do it because it might be more precise because at that time, we would be focusing in on that particular use. Weíll do it either way, however you want to.

Mr. Galster responded at the same time, if we donít focus in on the whole picture, this kind of thing might be missed. Isnít it correct that GE has agreed that the green space, the park, will remain that way unless they would come back and submit a plan that would need to be approved by the city? There is nothing about multi-family or office; these are not in the plans. Mr. Shepherd responded they have a 50-year plan that it will remain as a park.

The point is, and I think it was brought up by Council, that maybe we should do two covenants, one in which I as the developer prepares for Phase 1, because I would own Phase 1 at that point, but I canít give covenants on the remaining property because I donít own it. Maybe you would need to have a second set that would be overall and relate to the property in general, and the park itself would enter into that agreement.

Mr. Galster commented I think 1-c should stop after the first sentence. Mr. Shepherd responded we are willing to do whatever you want, but keep in mind that I canít grant covenants on property that I donít own. The park is the owner of the remaining property at this point of time.

Mr. McErlane reported that the specific condition of the approval of the preliminary plan said delete and strike reference to future development of the park area. It also indicated that underlying zoning does not apply, and specific uses shall be required and submitted as exhibits.

The covenants apply to the entire PUD regardless of who the owner is. Right now the park is the owner, and until the property transfers, the park is responsible for signing those covenants. One of the comments our law director indicated was that the verbiage needs to specifically say that those apply to the successors and signs. There is some language further on in the covenants, but typically that applies in the first paragraph of the covenants. So, once you take ownership of your portion of the property, those covenants apply to you as well, but they still apply to the balance of the property.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. McErlane added that the covenants are general enough with respect to the commercial development that they will not impose limitations that would cause a number of changes to the covenants in the future. They give some limitations on uses; they give some limitations on signs and possibly building treatments, but they donít get so specific that they will need to be changed every time you turn around.

For the purpose of being able to market the property and knowing what can be placed on that property, the use restrictions need to be there. It is not uncommon to have a phased final plan and have covenants in place for the entire project.

Mr. Shepherd responded we have no problem; we can do that.

Mr. Okum said since GEEAA Park is a part of these covenants, they understood this position on the remaining 108 acres, so it is just the verbiage that we need to address to make sure that the covenants reflect that retainage of green space, or recreation usage as it currently is. They are in agreement with that and we need to make sure that the covenants reflect that.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that detention is being provided by five retention basins with permanent bodies of water and one detention basin. This is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The total volume is approximately 176,000 cubic feet, and is to provide protection to the July 1, 1985 storm.

There is a concern about how the treatment around the water line is going to be provided. We do not want to see the rock channel protection arrangement there. We would prefer to have some kind of protection via geotextile and ground cover type arrangements.

One other concern is regarding the design of the outletting structure. It doesnít appear that the tributary area of the stream north of Crescentville Road is accounted for and what will be allowed to be discharged through the basin. That needs to be added to that calculation.

Bill mentioned the embankment for the one detention basin and how that would block the flow of the existing ditch.

We will need volume calculations to verify that the volume provided and the grading plans for the detention basins is in fact what is needed to match the required volume based on the calculations.

We have done a cursory review and it appears that the volume being provided via the grading plans is adequate, but that was just a cursory review and we will need the applicant to submit that information. To verify this, because we have a series of ponds, we will need a staged storage release calculations to verify that the system is working as intended. Weíll also need to have a calculation to verify the post develop runoff coefficient, to verify that with the particular use of the impervious area for the proposed plans, that this is what has been utilized. We need to be sure that this is consistent with what has been utilized in the calculations.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE ELEVEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is analysis for a weir overflow from one basin into the other. It is noted as Structure 1101, and we couldnít locate that.

We need to make sure that we do have analysis and design on outlet structures so we have a multi-level release from this and have an additional more thorough use of detention for the lower level storms.

It appears that the storm sewers are designed to convey the 25-year storm event and the differential between that and the major storm will be conveyed overland. So, we will need the analysis to note what size swale, how deep and wide, that will need to be able to pass it from one area to the other. Also because we have some of these running between buildings, there is a concern that at some time in the future there may be modifications to the site, unintentionally blocking some of these overland flow passes. We will need to have these designated as private drainage easements on the plat so it continues on.

A tributary area map for the various storm inlets was submitted, but it would be helpful to have it on a larger scale so it would be easier to read. This should also include the tributary area to the swales shown around some of the buildings, so that we know that these are sized to adequately handle the flow.

The layout of the private drives appears to be consistent with the preliminary plan, and includes where temporary terminus points to some of these locations.

We have discussed the issue of the temporary connection of the one drive out to 747 and we need to know how that will be physically delineated.

As part of the preliminary approval, left turns were prohibited from exiting onto 747. Realistically during this interim phase, and the only way to be able to do that effectively would be by signing.

There was a note on the plans indicating an 80 foot width for an easement. The intent of the easement is to protect the riparian quality of the Beaver Run Creek. There is another note indicating that the easement is basically delineated as being 30 feet from the top of bank. The easement will have to be included on the plat. Because the banks vary in different locations, we really need to have the environmental consultant go out and delineate the limits of this buffer area. In that way, we can get a more realistic buffer provided to protect the stream area.

On the retaining walls, we have calculations on them but there are two references made. One is called the Europa Collection Block and the other is called Ashlar Blend. Looking at the literature, these are two separate type system. One has more of an intermingling of different sizes, and the other is more of a traditional uniform look. That needs to be clarified. As Anne mentioned, some of these are as high as seven feet, and therefore would need some type of handrail in the vicinity to protect pedestrians.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWELVE

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shvegzda stated that on protection for vehicles, it was noted in areas with slopes above retention basins. The current drawing on the title sheet indicates 10 proposed with a single cable arrangement through it. As it is, there is not enough information on how the attachment is made so we can see if it is adequate in terms of structural integrity of the system. Iíll leave the aesthetic end of it up to the Planning Commission. Certainly it is much preferable to any kind of normal highway guardrail systems, which we donít want in this area.

The private drive section for the on site roadways consist of eight inches of asphalt on the sub grade. We need to note on the plans that this sub grade will be compacted.

The only areas that will have curb are the main drives, Park Village Drive and Park Garden Lane. The rest will have center drainage with no curb.

As was noted, there was a concern about vehicles parking both in the vicinity of the edge of the pavement and into the grass. There is a note on the plans stating that a sign will be in place indicating no parking allowed on street pavement areas and grass areas. We need additional information as to where and how frequent the placement of the sign will be.

Concerning some of the grading area that occurs near the railroad, there is some minor grading work that is noted to occur in the area of a detention basin within the existing storm sewer easement along the railroad right of way. It appears that this grading work will not adversely affect the storm sewer. However there is a 20-foot temporary construction easement that is adjacent to this that is a part of the grade separation project. To coordinate all this, the applicant will have to work with the Ohio Department of Transportation, as they currently have ownership of that temporary easement.

The maximum slope on any of the private drives is on Park Garden Drive, west of Berne. That is approximately 7%, so this is below the maximum 10%.

There was a part of the preliminary plan that required an entryway easement at the corner of 747 and Crescentville. The applicant had some concerns regarding defining that. This is not a part of Phase 1, but it is certainly a part of the overall.

There is a question regarding the ownership of the buildings. Are they solely rental or are they a type of landominium ownership. This goes into the definition of the common area and also concerning the maintenance of the common areas. It is not mentioned in the covenants as submitted.

There is one area where part of the embankment where the furthest southwest detention basin is being constructed that is going into the area where some flood plains are designated. I believe this can be handled through the Building Department just clarifying that it truly is not impacting the flood plain.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE THIRTEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shvegzda reported that another area not specifically mentioned

In my comments, but is an overall comment regarding whichever phase of the development this will occur. As a part of the preliminary plan approval, there was the requirement of the dedication of right of way along Crescentville Road as such point in time that the city deemed it would be necessary for improvements to Crescentville Road. We are in the process of working with Butler County in attempting to seek a funding source for those improvements.

Mr. Sherry said on the preliminary review, I remember discussing the curbs. Didnít we make that a condition of the approval? Mr. Okum said I believe I recall that the applicant indicated that in the area where the garden units are, the homes, they want not to have a curb and gutter environment. My understanding was that there would be curb and gutters on the access roadways.

Mr. Shepherd reported that is what we have done. We are trying to make this look like a European village throughout. We have no intention to allow any parking on these village streets without curbs. They are condominiums, and they will be deeded over to the owners. There will be restrictive covenants that specifically state that they cannot park in these areas. Those are in the hands of the attorneys and are being drafted right now.

Mr. Okum commented from looking at this section that Mr. Shvegzda provided, it showed Park Village Lane as a 24-foot wide street. I would assume that is curb to curb, but I am not sure. Is that based on our subdivision regulations?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that it is face of curb to face of curb, and we havenít reviewed these in accordance with the subdivision regulations because these are private streets.

Mr. Okum said I understand that. I am not worried bout the private access to the homes but I wonder about the primary roadways. I would assume that, even though they are private roadways, they would be built according to subdivision regulations, but maybe that is not required.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that all the streets are private. Mr. Okum asked if there were shared ownership for the whole PUD, and Mr. Shepherd answered no. There are portions that we discussed with the park that would be our responsibility. There are portions that would be their responsibility and there are portions that would be dual responsibility. It relates to who is servicing what.

Mr. Okum commented there was a reference in Mr. Shvegzdaís report regarding gravel base. Mr. Shvegzda stated that the pavement composition is eight inches of asphalt, and this needs to be indicated to be above the compacted sub grade.

Mr. Okum said this makes it pretty close to our subdivision regulations, doesnít it? Mr. Shvegzda answered that it is close, but there is different composition and make up.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE FOURTEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shepherd said I just checked with my engineer, and these are built according to subdivision regulations.

Mr. Okum wondered what retaining walls would be used. Mr. Shepherd answered it is the Ashlar Blend, that gives us the rock look. Mr. Shvegzda said what I have here is the Abbey Blend. Mr. Okum said we have the Ashlar Collection, which are light stones and a cut sheet of Abbey Blend which shows variegated colors and sizes and shapes. Mr. Shepherd answered it is an Ashlar Blend, and we can clarify that for you. Mr. Okum said you said Ashlar Blend in varying colors and sizes; is that what you said? Mr. Shvegzda commented as long as we have the criteria, we can work out the actual specific product.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant about Ms. McBrideís comment about connecting Lisbon and Bern. Mr. Shepherd answered we really donít want to do that. For seniors, we like not to have thoroughfares where people can get confused. We like the idea of private lanes where people can walk around.

Mr. Okum said you will be dealing with some basement spaces or crawl spaces. Mr. Shepherd answered at this point of time, there are no basements or crawl spaces planned; they are all slabs. Mr. Okum commented so the total amount of foundation exposed will be limited to eight to 10 inches. Mr. Shepherd confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said if you were to put basements in, how would you deal with it? Mr. Shepherd answered if we got a large demand for basements, we would come back to you and request that change, but at this point, they are not planned.

Gayle Frazer, landscape architect passed out her literature. You do have a fair amount of issues on the landscape plan.

I worked with Glenn on North Bend Crossings and on his house, and he has a really big idea with the European feel. I took the European feel and made it appear like what Americans think European is. If anything, I have more of an English feel, with the cottage gardens, a lot of continuous color and variety.

My firm is a design firm and I bid the work out. I do have one design build client, which is Glenn. The reason he is my only one is because he really cares about landscaping. Iím not going to do a halfway job. I know your code, and your tree ordinances are written for the developers who are out to make the big bucks and get out, and that is not at all what Glenn wants; he wants a good product, and so do I.

I know I am way under your tree counts, and the reason why I didnít address it was because according to the code, I need 1,051 trees. I canít put more trees in there because of the lakes. Honestly it probably would be less expensive for Glenn to put in the 1,051 trees than keep the lakes, but I donít want to, because people are buying these units to view the water.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE FIFTEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Ms. Frazer said I did add to the plan 35 weeping ornamental trees around the lake. I left it open on the plan as Item 00, 35 two inch weeping ornamentals, to be determined. I am going out to find the most unique plants that I can, i.e. weeping mulberries, weeping cherries, weeping birch, weeping spruce, weeping white pine, wisteria, Japanese maples and a whole host of weeping crab apples. The European feel that I am after is more of an open lawn with the turf going down to the waterís edge. If I can have all those varieties, there will be color going along that lake edge all the time. One of Glennís big goals is to maintain an open sight line from the terrace all the way down, and that is why I donít have a large number of trees in that area. I have to do some research, and if we have to put geotechs out there to maintain that, we will, but I would really like to maintain it.

In terms of the evergreen trees being 10 feet high, I increased my Norway spruce to 10-footers, but I did not include 10-footers for the remaining 11, which are Colorado and unique blue spruces. I want lots of color, and the bluest spruce you can think of is what I am using, and if I wanted to, I couldnít find a 10-footer of those tree varieties.

I submitted the landscape plan at 80 scale, just because it was requested to be the same scale as the engineered plan.

There is no plant material remaining, so I noted that "no existing trees are to remain". Because of the way we have adjusted the grade, there is no way of keeping any of the existing trees in Phase 1.

Under Item B, additional street tree plantings should be installed in the entrance drive. I didnít add any trees in the main entrance drive because I thought that was part of Phase 2. I have no problem with adding those, but it will not happen for a long time because of the construction.

I am not sure if I understand the next comment on the signage, because I did submit the proposed sign (Sheet L-5) with the same field as the buildings with stone to complement, and the stucco look in the field and ironwork carriage lights on top for a European feel.

The fences which would stand on the top of the knolls are split rail, and at North Bend project, I have planted climbing roses and other ornamental vines to cover it. AS we get into the project, I might add even more of that.

The plans for the most part have a lot of color. At this point, I donít specify what the perennials will be, because I donít want to restrict myself to always having the same plants. North Bend Crossings has won an award for city beautification in 2002, and I would like to win an award with this project as well. I donít think 1,000 trees would win the award. I could do it, but I donít think it is the right thing to do. I wouldnít mind adding a few more, but I need some guidance.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE SIXTEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Galster asked how many caliper inches we are short. Mr. McErlane responded I donít know that I can give you an accurate evaluation of that. There were a number of major trees shown on Sheet 2 of 11 that arenít accounted for in the tabulations.

Another thing that I really didnít notice until tonight was the fact that a number of the trees that are proposed to be planted are not in Phase 1, about 162 caliber inches are not in Phase 1. Based on what is in the tabulations, they are proposing to plant as part of Phase 1 465 caliper inches and based on the tabulations, they are required to plant 1,056 caliper inches. But that doesnít account for some 36 inch caliper trees and some 24-inch and 30 inch which will make the numbers climb pretty rapidly.

Mr. Galster said in other projects, we have tried to come up with some ways to rewarding the fact that we are not putting asphalt everywhere. We have 108 acres left for the park, and I like the look of what I have seen. I donít know if it matches the drawings, but the pictures look nice. I think the landscape plan needs to be looked at thoroughly, but I have no problem with trying to come up with a creative way to alleviate the caliper inch problem. I donít know how many caliper inches short we might be, but we could assign an amount to it, that if in fact that 108 acres gets redeveloped to something other than green space, there would be so many dollars per caliper inch to be put into our street tree program, but as long as it stays green, there would be no need to address it. But if suddenly it becomes asphalt and weíve lost all those trees, somebody needs to put money into the tree fund to start putting those trees out.

Ms. Frazer asked if that would be in the form of a letter, and Mr. Galster said yes, but the problem is that we donít know how many caliper inches it is. I think we could say whatever the caliper inch calculation is times x amount of dollars. Do the members agree with that? Mr. Okum asked if he were saying a 50% reduction. Mr. Galster answered that it would be whatever the caliper inches total that they would be required to plant and are not able to meet.

Iím not opposed to what I have seen in terms of the color, but I also want to have decent street trees and trees throughout the facility.

Mr. McErlane commented that the tabulation shown on Sheet L-4 doesnít take into account any of the trees that might be exempt from replacement, because they werenít identified. I donít think it is a large sum, but there are some that would be exempt from replacement because they fall within the footprint of the structures. That needs to be evaluated as well to come up with a total number.

Ms. Frazer asked about the 203 trees on the comments; whose numbers is that? Mr. McErlane said it is mine. Ms. Frazer continued I did a tree survey and Bob did a tree survey and I looked at the categories of the trees. The tree survey was supposed to be done by a surveyor, but surveyors do not know species.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Ms. Frazer said I read in the ordinance that we can ask to walk the property with a representative and come up with the right number, because there is a lot of discrepancy.

Mr. McErlane reported that the 203 trees didnít include what was shown on Sheet 2. The 203 trees were from your tabulation with the corrected numbers on them. You had lined out a number of trees on our tabulation and the totals werenít corrected to take the lined out ones out.

Ms. McBride said this is what you typically see in Scotland and England and it is very lovely, but I want to remind the commission that these all have three to one slopes going down to them, so they really wonít look like this.

Ms. Frazer said in terms of the guard rail, we have proposed a bridge (passed around a picture). This is the concept, and Glenn wants it to be even nicer with an arc and columns at the end. He wants it even nicer with all stone to resemble the building.

If it doesnít look up to your expectations, we still have two more phases where we have to come back to you, so we are going to do it right.

Mr. Vanover said Anneís point is well taken. When we get into the heat of the summer and that detention pond is three or four feet down, you have this mud line area that is unattractive. I donít have any problem with looking at some aquatic material that will take the wet feet and be able to be covered up from time to time. That mud line is not attractive at all, and if we can find something to deal with it, great. I totally despise the crush rock filler and if we can find a compromise, great, but I think we definitely need to do something. It is a given that there will be a water level fluctuation. What you are striving for will not be a reality in July and August, sometimes even June.

You mentioned split rail fence. A split rail fence looks nice, but unfortunately split rail fence has a very limited life span. Climbing roses on a split rail fence look great, but because of safety issues, to replace that is a nightmare.

Ms. Frazer responded that once a split rail fence has served its function, junipers can be put in. They grow together and are prickly so kids donít go through it and it provides a nice color.

Mr. Okum said I think I understand what Mr. Galster is saying, that once a fair amount of the tree planting requirements are achieved, there would be a moratorium on the balance of the 108 acres. Mr. Galster confirmed this.

In your specifications is that you called for 2 Ĺ inch trees, and you could bump those up to three inch and regain some of those caliper inches. Three inch trees look a lot better planted than 2 Ĺ inch.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Ms. Frazer responded I have used three inch, six inch and 10 inch trees, but typically in the industry, we try to use 2 Ĺ inch. I have seen studies where a 2 Ĺ inch tree recovers a lot quicker than a three inch, and that is part of why the industry uses it. So I could bump it up to a three inch, but honestly I would rather not.

Mr. Okum wondered if there was a particular tree that would be the streetscape tree of the PUD. Mr. Shepherd answered we do, but we still need parkís approval to carry the theme all the way through. We want a canopy of trees to frame this whole thing, and there is a specific specie that provides a canopy fairly quickly. Again, I canít tell the park that they have to do that. That is our suggestion and we would carry that theme through on our part of the property.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said based on what Mr. Galster has suggested, does it seem reasonable that you could put it in and tie it to the covenants that would tie it to the entire PUD?

Mr. Shepherd answered I am after the best looking landscaping project that we can have. If that means putting all the trees you want in there, thatís what we will do, but I go along with Gayle from the standpoint that she is a professional and that is what she says would look better than trying to cram trees in there. I have no problem with that at all. My only comment would be that I think we should get an accurate count on the trees. My engineer surveyed and has one number and Gayle was out there and got another number.

Mr. Okum commented we would require that. The only question I have for you and Gayle is that there are specimen trees there, some very large ones. We always get complaints about developers coming in and taking out all the trees and then rebuilds. Was there an effort made to preserve those specimen trees in your design, or was it so difficult that you couldnít?

Bob the engineer for Mr. Shepherd responded that a lot of them are down in the valley where the lights will go. Mr. Shepherd added that if there is a tree that can be saved, we try and save it because a mature tree on the site is worth how many that have to be planted.

Reality would say that the first thing you have to do is try and make the land use work, and then you have all the constraints. We have to provide storage for water and do all these other things to try to make the entire project work. Sometimes the tree that you would like to save gets in the way.

Mr. Okum said one of the things that Mr. McErlane said was that you do get relief when the building is there. Mr. Shepherd added when we get into the next section, there are almost no trees. Mr. Okum responded we realize that, and you will need to put some trees there and I donít have a problem with that transference of inches within the development, as long as you adequately treat each phase. Our landscape architect will have to work with your landscape architect to reach that happy medium.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE NINETEEN

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Shepherd responded we are after the same thing that you are, so we are in agreement. Weíll do what you want.

Mr. Okum asked if there would be a sprinkler system in the planting beds, landscape areas and entry areas, and Mr. Shepherd answered yes, that there would be an irrigated system.

Ms. McBride said I want to make sure that I understand. The trees we are talking about in the circle area, which are 56 of the 62 London Plain trees at 2 Ĺ inch caliper, and nine of the Autumn Flame maples at 2 Ĺ inch caliper are trees that you are suggesting to the park be planted, but you are not going to plant them now, and you canít commit that they are going to be planted, so we really need to back those out of your tree calculations, right?

Mr. Shepherd answered I donít think they were a part of the calculations. Ms. McBride said that they were, and Mr. Shepherd responded that they should not have been. Ms. McBride said so you are going to be considerably less than where we were with regards to tree replacement.

Ms. Frazer wondered if at this time they should do one tree survey for the whole PUD. Mr. Shepherd answered we did, and the majority of the specimen trees are located in the northwest corner of the site, where the commercial development will be and where the park will stay. On this portion of the site, there are a few large trees, a lot of honeysuckle and ball fields and a golf hole. Mr. Shepherd said specifically we need to address Phase 1, and I was under the impression that this was done. We will work with you on this.

Mr. Okum said we want to make sure that the mechanical units will be concealed. The drawings show a reference to a shingled roof, and the sample you have given us is a dimensional shingled roof, so I would want to reference that as a dimensional shingled roof rather than a standard shingled roof.

I had a question on the textured panel finish. That could be a Staccato panel and I donít think that is your intent. Mr. Shepherd reported that it is a troweled on stucco. Mr. Okum asked if they had a percentage of the buildings that will be stucco and a percentage that will be stone.

Mr. Shepherd answered that Ken Bowerman is our architect, and we told him to try to stay within the framework we discussed before. Iím not sure exactly, but I believe it is close to 50% for each. The look we want is exactly as you see on the plans, a European look.

Mr. Okum said lighting will not be reviewed at this time. Mr. Shepherd answered that the problem was that our lighting person was on vacation through Christmas and New Yearís. We want a village look with the same street lighting throughout which we intend to hang planters from.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Okum said Iím going to read this on the tree issue to get some discussion from the board members. "Once a fair amount of tree plantings are achieved and approved, the balance of the trees shall be weighed against the entire development. If the 108 acres were to be developed, the requirement shall be applied for the entire site."

Addressing the General Electric representatives, Mr. Okum said if we add up all the trees that are taken out from all the development that occurs, once you reach a happy medium, the balance of that will weigh on that remaining 108 acres. So there will be a lot of weight on it, and I donít want to reference it in any other way than that. If those 108 acres were to be redeveloped, the weight and burden would fall upon the entire PUD to make up that loss.

The GE representative responded please recognize that when we looked at the plan that initiated this entire project, we recognized that it would be a partnership type arrangement with the developer. He has done a lot of things to really help our situation. The way he is doing a lot of his things will lessen the financial impacts for us. Certainly in terms of the 108 acres, our plan was not to do anything with that for at least 50 years, and hopefully 150 years, and I canít imagine we would have any exception to that whatsoever so we would be in agreement with that. About 75 acres of the 108 acres you are talking about is the current golf course. We want to maintain as many trees on the remaining property as we can with the exception of the recreation center and the ball fields and there will be some trees there but we will minimize them there. However, within the park area itself we want to maintain as many trees as we possibly can. That is the essence of this project.

Mr. Okum responded I just wanted to make sure that you understood that if in five years you got an offer for somebody to come in and purchase these 108 acres, the entire PUD would go through another final plan review, and that burden of that moratorium would apply to the remaining acreage. The GE representative indicated that he understood that.

Mr. Sherry said you donít show any lights in the lanes, only in the main thoroughfares. Mr. Shepherd said every unit will get a post lamp in front, and that was more than adequate at North Bend Crossing; it seems to work really well. Also we have it so they canít control the post lights. Our concern was that the residents might want to save money and turn the lights off. We include water in the association expense rather than individually metering it. We thought the resident might want to turn off the water for the irrigation to save money.

Mr. Hawkins said you indicated that you still are doing more things with the lighting. By the entrance with the signs, I notice the little carriage light. Will there be more lighting than that?

Mr. Shepherd answered yes. That is an accent light. There is an actual street lighting plan. We took the same dimensions that we used at our other project, knowing that it worked extremely well, and gave it to the experts to review it and put it on the plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

Mr. Okum said for your permanent construction of the permanent access roadway, do you need one building season after 747 is done? Mr. Shepherd answered I would say that when they are actually physically constructing the permanent 747, we would want to start the construction and tie it in at the same time. Mr. Okum said so if we gave you a construction season from the completion of 747 that would be plenty. Mr. Shepherd responded I would like to see it tied to 747, since that is what governs when we can do it.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda for his input, and Mr. Shvegzda reported that we havenít had a preconstruction meeting, but right now it is slated to be completed June of 2006. Mr. Okum said so if bad weather hits, you might end up with November of 2006; could they construct their roadway system through the winter; probably not. That is why I say one construction season past the completion of 747 to set the time frame.

Mr. Syfert said staff does need some additional information on a few things, but I believe it can be accomplished without any real problem.

Mr. Sherry said I was pleasantly surprised with your elevations; they were very nicely done.

Mr. Okum said the motion will not include lighting signage or landscaping.

Mr. Okum moved to approve Phase I only of The Crossings at the Park to include all submissions that we have before us this evening and with the following conditions:

    1. Shall include all staff, city engineer, city plannerís recommendations;.
    2. Shall include the staff and law directorís approval of the covenants with the adjustment to the one covenant regarding 1 C, which modifies the reference regarding the remaining 108 acres;
    3. Mechanical units shall conform to the existing Building Code;
    4. All lighting shall conform to the existing code, but approval is not at this time;
    5. Landscaping shall be based on final review by staff and approval is not included at this time;
    6. Tree preservation replacement shall be based on once a fair amount of the tree plantings are achieved and approved, the balance of the remaining trees removed shall be weighed on the entire site. If the 108 acres were to be developed, this requirement shall be applied to that entire site;
    7. Parking/drive conditions shall include permanent drive access for the existing public right of way to be constructed per the preliminary plan within one construction season from the completion of the 747 project;
    8. Traffic and street improvements shall include modifications for access for the fire department vehicles as recommended by staff;
    9.  

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 JANUARY 2003

      PAGE TWENTY-TWO

      VI A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF CROSSINGS AT THE PARK

      Motion to Approve (continued):

    10. All building elevations shall be 50% stucco and 50% synthetic stone
    11. All exposed foundation areas over 12 inches shall be parged and colored with the base building color;
    12. Signage was not applied for and no approval is included;
    13. Where there was a 42 foot setback previously submitted, and adjusted to 29.4 feet shall be corrected to the original 42 foot;
    14. All retaining walls shall be Ashlar Blend in varying colors and sizes to be reviewed and approved by staff. They shall include the staffís recommended railings where safety concerns exist;
    15. Roof coverings shall be dimensional style.

Mr. Shepherd said the reference that we shall adopt all staff recommendations, there were some items that staff recommended, such as connecting the two streets that we have a problem with.

Mr. Okum responded I will amend my motion to exclude the connection of the two streets.

Mr. Shepherd said there was another issue, the 50-50%. It might be 47% stone; Iím not sure of the exact percentage. I have no problem with your giving the Building Department final approval. Mr. Okum said we can make it "approximately 50%".

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

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

Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

B. Approval of Jake Sweeney BMW Expansion, 105 West Kemper Road

Dale Beeler, KZF Design approached the commission. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Sherry said we have had past dealings, and I want to make sure that there is no conflict. I am comfortable if you are. Mr. Beeler indicated that he was.

Mr. Beeler passed around a 3-D model of the project. He said BMW is on McGillard Street with no visibility, and we would open up the corner to see the BMW store.

BMW is owned by the Sweeney family, and two brothers own the other side, and that is the reason why we chose not to consolidate this plat. We needed to increase the lot size and needed a standing alone building on the site.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

VI B JAKE SWEENEY BMW EXPANSION 105 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Beeler said the majority of the site will be for display of new and pre-owned vehicles, and has slightly more hard surface than the code allows, so we will need a variance.

The basic building is 4,000 s.f. with a proposed 2,000 s.f. addition. The site will be reworked to improve the flow to the service drive through a special island in the middle of the curb cuts.

Mr. Beeler passed around the board of finishes, adding that the BMW buildings are traditionally backdrops for the cars.

Mr. McErlane reported that both properties are currently zoned GB (General Business). They are requesting approval of a small expansion to the existing building and demolition of the former Hardees Restaurant to make room for a proposed BMW used car orifice and prep and wash bays.

The color and material palette was not submitted until tonight. We also need a tree survey and removal plan and signage details (existing or proposed).

The setbacks for the main building are: front yard 147í (50í required) and side yard (north) 48í (12í required). For the used car building, the front yard (north) is 70í (50í required) front yard (east) is 117í (50í required) rear yard 97í (30í required) and side yard (west) 12í and 12 feet is required.

The impervious surface ratio is required to be a maximum of 0.75. The Main Sales Building Lot existing ratio is 0.93, and 0.89 is proposed. The Used Car Building Lot is 0.76, and 0.83 is proposed.

Because the used car sales lot is being redeveloped and most of the pavement is being affected, there is no reason why the codes required impervious surface ratio couldnít be met for this lot.

Parking for the new car sales shows a requirement of 66 spaces and 66 are shown. For the used car sales, 21 are required and 22 are shown. Because the vehicles storage areas do not meet the minimum stall and aisle dimensions, customer and employee spaces should be clearly marked.

The existing trees on the used car lot are proposed to be removed, but no existing trees are indicated on the lot. Because this is a redevelopment, the existing trees removed must be replaced at a rate of one caliper inch for each inch removed.

105 West Kemper Road

Ms. McBride reported that the minimum building front yard setback (West Kemper and McGillard) is 50 feet. The proposed building is set back approximately l70í from West Kemper, and approximately 116í from McGillard. The minimum building side yard required is 12 feet and 12 feet is provided to the west property line. A 30-foot building rear yard setback is required, and approximately 97 feet is provided to the south property line.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

VI B JAKE SWEENEY BMW EXPANSION 105 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Ms. McBride reported that the maximum building height for the GB District is 48 feet, and the proposed building is a maximum of 16 feet in height.

The maximum impervious surface ratio is .75 and the proposed development would have .83, so a variance will be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Parking is required at the rate of 1 space per 400 s.f. of net floor sales area, shop and garage, as well as one spaces per employee. Based on the building size, a total of eight parking spaces would be required plus one space for each employee (13) or a total of 21 required spaces. This meets the code requirement and these spaces should be signed so customers will park in the full size parking space as opposed to the undersized display spaces.

Parking areas need to be 10 feet from the street right of way and non-residential property lines. They are proposing 10 feet from West Kemper and McGillard. Parking spaces are located on the property line to the west and are to be accessed via an easement. Parking is also proposed adjacent to the south property line. Variances to reduce the required 10í setback to 0í will be necessary from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the west and south property lines.

Three 400-watt metal halide fixtures are to be mounted on the ground at the northeast corner of the site. There are nine lighting locations on the West Kemper and McGillard Street frontages that would each contain two 1,000-watt metal halide fixtures mounted at a height of 22 feet. These fixtures should be directed away from the public roadways. Also there are nine lighting locations within the site that would each contain two 1,000-watt metal halide fixtures 22 feet high without shields.

The average light level on the site is 39.3 foot candles, with the lowest level, 3.7 at the west property line, and the highest, 98l.2 under the shielded fixtures on the perimeter of the site adjacent to the public right of ways. The Zoning Code recommends a maximum of 15.0 foot candles and a uniform illumination level that should not exceed 15:1. No information has been provided on the type of fixture, i.e. flat lens.

A variance will be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals to exceed the 0.5 foot candles at the property line.

There is no indication of the lighting on the building, and light levels need to be provided to the edge of pavement on both West Kemper and McGillard. Staff would suggest a reduction in fixture wattage.

There are no details on new signage for the site and building. A pylon sign is proposed for the West Kemper Road frontage, and logos are indicated on the north and east building elevations. Details need to be provided to determine Code compliance.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

VI B JAKE SWEENEY BMW EXPANSION 105 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Ms. McBride reported that a floor plan was submitted for the proposed building, which is to include a show room, waiting area, four sales offices, restrooms and fives car prep and wash bays. Building elevations indicate that the construction is of "CMU" and a "composite metal panel". No additional information was provided.

11535 McGillard Street

Ms. McBride said the proposed addition is 2,315 s.f. onto the existing 16,000 s.f. auto dealership. The building height is 23í-3" and 48 feet is permitted. The proposed impervious surface area ratio is .89, which appears to be no increase in the impervious surface area for this site.

The proposed building expansion would impact only the north building setback. A 12-foot building setback is required for the side yard and only 2 feet is provided, so a variance would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Sixty-six parking spaces are required and 66 are shown. These spaces should be signed to properly direct customers and employees.

Building signage is proposed for the new north building elevation, but no details are provided. New signage must meet the requirements of the Zoning Code.

The new building area is to be used as a drop-off point and service center. The addition will be constructed of "CMU" and "composite metal panels", but no additional information was provided.

On the landscape plan for both sites, Shademaster Honeylocust is to be installed at 2 to 2 Ĺ gallon container, and Shademaster Honeylocust shall be installed at 2" to 2 Ĺ" caliper

A cultivar for the Weeping Crab is not identified and is listed to be installed as a 10-gallon container. Identify the cultivar of the Weeping Crab and it shall be installed at a minimum 1 Ĺ" caliper.

Identify the cultivar of Norway Spruces to be installed. Some Norway Spruce grow to 80í high with a30í diameter and would not work in the areas indicated. There are cultivars of the Norway spruce that have different growing characteristics.

Buffer yard requirements for shrubs are not met for the parking area. Shrubs need to be installed to provide for plantings typically 3í on center to screen the parking area or a variance will need to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The landscape areas in the interior of the parking lot should include shrubs, and mulch beds should be constructed with mulch 3" deep. Foundation plantings should be installed for the sign located along West Kemper Road. Additional plant varieties could be incorporated into the landscape areas to add color and interest to the proposed landscape.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- SIX

VI B JAKE SWEENEY BMW EXPANSION 105 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Beeler reported we typically use two 1,000 watt heads, and the Sweeney organization has single 1,000 watt heads on 22í poles. They have been viewed as inadequate in some parts of the lot, and we would like to upgrade that. We can live with having those fixtures on the perimeter.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that detention is already provided on the existing BMW Showroom site (1.55 acres). There is no existing detention for the redeveloped site (1.15 acres).Detention on the existing BMW site is provided via two 60-inch diameter corrugated metal pipes, for a total volume of 10,505 cf. This is slightly less than what is required for the existing BMW Showroom site.

The expansion will be located on top of a portion of the existing underground detention basin. The applicant will need to explore the possible structural concerns for the existing underground detention and access issues to the underground detention.

They are proposing 1609 cf of detention provided via 128 LF of 4í corrugated metal pipe for the former Hardeeís site.

To compare, the approximate detention volume required for the entire site (considering the existing condition to be undeveloped) would be 7000 CF, and the approximate detention volume that would be required when considering only the proposed building footprint (3,570 SF) would be 600 CF.

Concerning associated development, the Chrysler-Jeep expansion approved by Planning in July of 2003 needed 2400 CF detention based on the building expansion at that time. Based on the requirement of Planning Commission, detention volume in the amount of 4800 CF was required in order to accommodate future expansion.

Considering the 1608 CF detention proposed for the former Hardeeís site, plus the 2400 CF of additional detention volume at the Chrysler-Jeep site, a total volume of 4008 CF is provided. This is approximately 60% of what would be required for the entire former Hardeeís site.

Proposed catch basins are shown but no storm sewer sizes are noted and storm sewer capacity calculations are not provided. A drainage area map to each existing and proposed catch basin will need to be provided for review, which should include storm sewer capacity calculations.

The former Hardeeís site would have three full access points to McGillard Street and access to Kemper Road via an existing shared drive (and associated easement).

The only proposed modification for the existing drives would be at the northernmost McGillard Street drive. The existing 15í one-way drive, which is located 90í from the Kemper Road radius return to McGillard Street, is being widened to 24í and will become a 2-way drive.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- SEVEN

VI B JAKE SWEENEY BMW EXPANSION 105 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Shvegzda said we would recommend that this drive remain a one-way entrance drive; however since auto dealerships are low traffic generators and McGillard Street is a low volume roadway, maintaining this driveway as a one-way drive is not critical.

The applicant is proposing a paver walk through drive access points and clarification is required.

It is unclear what is existing and to remain and what the proposed features are. Existing site features need to be noted with a dashed line type, and proposed features should be shown as a continuous line type.

Grading information in the area of the expanded building is required. As the building is being expanded, this information is required to ensure that drainage still works properly.

Site details will need to be included in the plans, including but not limited to paver typical section, concrete drive aprons and curb details.

There is a concern regarding vehicle display stalls along the entrance drives off McGillard Street, and the first main aisle way south of Kemper Road. The applicant will need to confirm that displayed vehicles will not extend into the traveled lane as the width of this display area is only 16í.

Clarification is required regarding whether the two parcels are to be consolidated and sediment control details will need to be provided.

Mr. Galster asked about the McGillard Street entrance and the vehicle display. Mr. Beeler answered that it probably would be closed off in the evening. It is a curb cut that lines up with a major one, Saturn Chrysler across the street. It is there, and we would like to keep it. It is valuable to us.

Mr .Galster asked if the vehicle shown on the corner would be on ramps, and Mr. Beeler answered that it would not, it would be slightly elevated and landscaped.

Mr. Okum commented you have a wide aisle for your cars and then narrow it down compared o the original, and you did the same on the front.

Mr. Beeler responded that Hardeeís had 15í from the property line to the pavement. We have 10í to the BMW, and there is 40 feet of grass by our pavement. When you drive on McGillard Street, those cars do not look like they are overhanging the street. It is a wide right of way.

Mr. Okum asked if they had landscaped areas in front of the cars. Mr. Beeler answered that they will have street trees on the roadway plan and very low shrubs around the bases of the lights. It is first and foremost for car sales. We need to display the cars, and we hope to keep the shrubbery very low around the poles.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- EIGHT

VI B JAKE SWEENEY BMW EXPANSION 105 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum said so you are taking five feet of grass out and not putting anything back there to block the vehicles. However, you are taking out and adding more impervious surface. We are going from 70.76% to 83%.

Mr. Beeler answered we are not getting much display space out of the lot as it stands now and we would like more. We would gladly augment the landscaping .

Mr. Okum said prior to going to the Board of Zoning Appeals you are asking for relief, but you are not providing anything for that relief.

Mr. Beeler responded we have been through one round of comments from the staff and tried to get that aisle to 25 feet, but it was not working. The 24í is the standard, and we would like to keep 24í aisles everywhere. I think it looks a lot wider than it is.

Mr. Okum commented that this building seems closer to Kemper Road than Hardeeís, which means it blocks the front yard of the neighbor next door.

Mr. Beeler answered that there is an overhang that sticks beyond the building, but we intend that it not get any further out than the front of his building. I do not think we would be blocking his signage or anything like that.

Mr. Galster wondered if there is an existing pole sign, and Mr. Beeler answered that there is and it stays. We have not submitted this, but I do not think we will need any relief on the signage.

Mr. Okum wondered if they would be able to replace the trees they would be taking out, and Mr. Beeler answered that he had not completed a count, but that they are proposing more than they are taking out right now.

Mr. Galster said I think it is an improvement, and moved to accept the plan submitted with the modified lighting fixtures to be approved by staff and subject to obtaining the necessary variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Ms. McBride asked if the commission wished to include staffís comments because of the parking spaces, and also reference the photometrics. Mr. Galster modified his motion and Mr. Okum seconded the modified motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Approval of Proposed Sign Change at Provident Bank, 11525 Springfield Pikes

    1. Mr. McErlane reported I received a call this afternoon from Andrea Ward of Holthaus Signs saying that she had an emergency this evening and couldnít attend, and the representatives from Provident Bank also could not attend, but she would like to see the plan acted on.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JANUARY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- NINE

VI C SIGN CHANGE AT PROVIDENT BANK 11525 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Osborn said we do not feel it is ready to go before Planning because there is an issue we still have. We could have addressed it this evening, but with no one here, we need to table it.

Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to February 10, 2004.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Okum said that the legal department has indicated that motions to deny are not proper.

    Mr. McErlane added that if it is to deny and you are voting against it, you should express your reasons why.

  3. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
    1. Creative Wood Furniture, 12117 Princeton Pike Ė Wall Sign
  4. ADJOURNMENT
    1. Mr. Sherry moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________, 2004 __________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,2004 __________________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary