PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MARCH 2004

7:00 P.M.

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

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

    Others Present: 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 10 FEBRUARY 2004
  6. Mr. Galster moved for approval and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council Ė Mr. Galster stated that the Kemper Pond PUD and preliminary plan were approved by Council 7-0. Issue 2 was passed almost 70 to 30 and I want to express my thanks to everybody on this board for their contributions; I really appreciate it.
    2. Zoning Bulletin ĖFebruary 10, 2004
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė February 25, 2004
    4. Updated Springdale Zoning Map
  8. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Landscaping, Tree Removal, Lighting and Signs at Crossings at the Park, 12110 Princeton Pike (tabled 10 February 2004)

    Glenn Shepherd President of Shepherd Industries said we have submitted the three plans. As I understand one we have no problems with, one there are some staff comments and the third with more comments.

    Ms. McBride reported that they met with the applicant, his landscape architect with our landscape architect. Most of the comments focused on how that perimeter around the ponds was treated. Based on that meeting, the landscape, signage and lighting plans were revised to what you are looking at this evening.

    There are still a number of comments on the landscape plan. Some of them are clear cut but the bulk of them continue to deal with how the shore lines of those ponds are treated. There is a note at the bottom of the planning schedule that indicates that 40 of the trees are gong to be planted at 3 Ĺ caliper inches, and there is an issue regarding the number of replacement inches of trees that will be accommodated on this site versus what will be required.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 MARCH 2004

    PAGE TWO

    V A CROSSING AT THE PARK Ė 12110 PRINCETON PIKE

    Ms. McBride stated we need to know which of those trees are going to be planted at 3 Ĺ inches. We canít deal with a note that says that 40 of them are going to be planted at 3 Ĺ; it needs to be revised.

    The rest of the comments deal with how the perimeters of those ponds are shown. At the last meeting it was to be primarily wildflowers seeded around the perimeter. Everyone had some concerns as to how that would look and be maintained. So they have incorporated some of that and some formal beds, but we still have a number of issues with these.

    There are some drainage swales indicated between some of the buildings with an 18 wide path of stone, and we want to see how wide that would be and how it would be treated.

    There still seems to be trees indicated on some of the plans that are identified one way and are identified separately on another plan. That is a clarification issue that needs to be resolved.

    I donít think any of this is insurmountable. It is a question of the applicantís landscape architect getting on the same page with our landscape architect.

    On the lighting, they had suggested some shoebox fixtures last time, and the applicant indicated that wasnít what they meant. They have come back with a much more appropriate residential style fixture. It is one 175 watt metal halide lamp mounted at 12 feet in height. The only comment we had was that right now the fixtures are located from six to 20 feet from an actual residential building unit, and that would give us 6.3 to 2.4 foot candles at the corner of the building. That is too bright, so whether the fixtures are relocated or shields are put on one side, that issue can be clarified with the applicant.

    They are still going with three Crossings at the Park signs which will be incorporated into three separate entryway walls. Two of the walls are on Crossings at the Park Drive, and one of them is on Park Village Lane. The stone walls will be 10 Ĺ feet in length and a maximum 7 Ĺ feet in height at the top of the stone column.

    The signs themselves are 22 square feet in area or a total of 66 square feet. They are comprised of four and six-inch aluminum letters mounted on the stucco and stone walls that will be either black or green. The applicant indicated that the carriage lights on the top of the stone columns would light the sign, but they have asked to reserve the right to put a small floodlight on there should it not properly illuminate the signage. Staff is very comfortable with that, and they are locating those walls within nicely landscaped beds. Mr. Sherry asked if that type of light fixture could be shielded. Ms. McBride answered that she didnít know. Itís not a typical fixture that we see, but they might be able to relocate those or go with one that can be shielded. I would think the easiest thing to do would be to stagger them a little more.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 MARCH 2004

    PAGE THREE

    V A CROSSING AT THE PARK Ė 12110 PRINCETON PIKE

    Mr. Shepherd said I brought the revised lighting plan directly to your office without reviewing it, and looked at those locations and totally agree with you. They are not even spaced the way we had originally told the engineers to space them, so we intend to move them.

    Mr. Okum asked the color of the poles, and Mr. Shepherd answered we are thinking in terms of a dark green. Mr. Okum asked if staff had a problem with that, and Ms. McBride answered no. It is going to be a separate residential part of the community. When we get into the retail, we probably will look for those to be bronze as we have in other developments. I am assuming that the coach lights will be the same color. Mr. Shepherd answered we want that old European look, and typically that is some shade between black and dark green, and everything would match.

    Mr. Hawkins asked if the light fixture base was concrete, and Mr. Shepherd answered that it is bolted to a concrete base, but you wonít see the base. It is up maybe 1 Ĺ inches, but the grass is up two inches, so typically you wonít see it.

    Mr. Okum asked if the glass in the lights were frosted; do you see the bulb? Mr. Shepherd answered that the ones we used at North Bend Crossing were clear and you had an ornamental type bulb. Mr. Okum asked if it were a frosted lens, would that cut back on some of the over lighting issues?

    Ms. McBride answered it is my opinion, and I think the applicant agrees with me that those fixtures just need to be relocated. Mr. Okum wondered if at that height there would be glare issues for drivers, and Ms. McBride said I donít believe so, and Mr. Shepherd stated we have not had any problem at North Bend.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if there is an issue of glare with those lights since we havenít seen them functioning, would you have a problem with testing that out prior to ordering the lights and having them installed? Mr. Shepherd answered we are using the same fixtures that we used at North Bend Crossing, so if there is a question, someone could go over there and take a look.

    Mr. Okum asked if the grass would be sod placed or seeded, and Mr. Shepherd answered that it would be sod immediately around the building. Iím sure there will be some areas that will be seeded, but in most cases we sod wherever we can, and it all will be irrigated.

    Mr. McErlane reported that there are 3403 caliper inches of trees being removed. Of that total, 873 caliper inches are exempt because they are in building areas. That leaves a total replanting requirement of 1265 caliper inches. Out of that 1265, 120 are resulting from trees that are over 24 inches in diameter, which requires a minimum of 3 Ĺ inch caliper inches to replace, so we are looking at 120 inches of 3 Ĺ inch caliper trees that need to be replaced.

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 MARCH 2004

    PAGE FOUR

    V A CROSSING AT THE PARK Ė 12110 PRINCETON PIKE

    Mr. McErlane stated that the replanting as proposed on the plan shows 570 caliper inches of deciduous over story hardwoods, 12 inches of evergreens and 158.5 inches of ornamentals, for a total of 740.5. However, there is a note at the bottom of the schedule that indicates that 40 of the trees will be 3 Ĺ inch caliper. The schedule itself doesnít indicate any of the 3 Ĺ inch caliper trees. My understanding is that the planting schedule total does not include those 40 trees so we need to add another 40 caliper inches to that total, so the total proposed to be replaced is 780.5 caliper inches.

    It is my recommendation because we are short on the evergreen plantings that are required; the number of evergreen trees that need to be planted on the site should be supplemented, and should be at the minimum of 10 foot planting height. We have a shortfall of 54 caliper inches of evergreen trees. Typically we donít see a lot of replanting of evergreen trees because they are not commonly natural in our area. In this case, the ones that are being removed were actually planted by the park. Normally on a planting plan we see a lot more evergreens planted than are being taken out. In this case, it is the opposite of that, and so it would be my suggestion that they supplement the number of evergreen trees at the minimum planting height. Even if we meet the minimum requirement, we are looking at a total of 834.5 caliper inches of trees as opposed to the 1265 required, so there is a shortfall of a

    over 400 caliper inches.

    Planning Commission in the preliminary plan indicated that the shortfall could be deferred onto the 108 acres of the balance of the site, so that when it gets redeveloped that shortfall could be made up during that period. There is wording that is being drafted for the covenants to address that.

    Mr. Galster has the site taken as many of the trees they are short that they can, or are there additional areas where we can make up some of that shortfall?

    Mr. McErlane responded that it comes down to whether or not it is a reasonable planting plan and I would have to defer to the city planner.

    Ms. McBride reported that there are places where they can still put trees, but I think the applicant has some reluctance to utilize all of the space with trees, because they want to be able to keep the view of the ponds free for the residents. They want to have some lawn area.

    Mr. Galster asked if it were her opinion that with this new landscape plan the site is significantly treed? Ms. McBride responded I d donít know that it is significantly treed; it is treed.

    Mr. Galster asked about the modifications going to these 10 foot evergreens. Will it change the 780.5 final count? Mr. McErlane responded if we require them to plant the minimum 66 inches of evergreens, we are looking at an additional 54 caliper inches, which would take them to 834.5 caliper inches.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 MARCH 2004

    PAGE FIVE

    V A CROSSING AT THE PARK Ė 12110 PRINCETON PIKE

    Mr. Galster commented that we talked about putting this over into the golf course area, so if that would ever be developed there would be some kind of penalty to make up for whatever we are short. If we are using the standard rate that we can go out and buy a caliper inch for, would that be sufficient to be the penalty? Letís say that they are 484.5 short. Usually what we would do when the applicant canít plant the trees is put it into our urban tree program at x dollars per inch and purchase the trees and plant them throughout the community. However, we are not doing that here because we want to keep the golf course and hold to this plan as long as possible. If we put in a stipulation that the golf course now carries this burden, will it carry a burden of so many inches, or a financial burden?

    Mr. McErlane responded they are kind of one and the same. At this point, it is just the number of caliper inches that they carry the burden for. If it turns out during redevelopment that they canít accommodate it, Planning Commission would have to consider at that time whether or not there would be a monetary burden.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he had any problem with getting the evergreens up to the 66 inches. Mr. Shepherd deferred to Ms Gale. Fraser, the landscape architect. Ms. Fraser said I am not sure I understand that you wanted 66 caliper inches in evergreens; how many trees do you want?

    Mr. McErlane responded what we are really talking about is upsizing some of the other trees and supplementing to get to 66 caliper inches.

    Ms. Fraser commented I could get a 10-foot tall Norway spruce. Mr. McErlane responded that still wouldnít get you 66 inches. Mr. Okum did some calculations and indicated that 66 inches would mean 13 trees. Ms. Fraser said I probably could find a home for that many; I could do that. Mr. Okum commented that would put us at 834.5 caliper inches.

    Ms. Fraser said I could add those, but when it goes back to the 40 trees at 3 Ĺ inch caliper, the reason I put the note at the bottom of the page is because unfortunately there is a shortage of trees right now. I talked to three different nurseries about what is available in the 3 Ĺ inch caliper size, and I adjusted my plan and made all my pears the 3 Ĺ inch size. The other tree that I can get at the 3 Ĺ inch size is the ash. We donít use ash any more because there is a borer into the country from China that is wiping out ashes all over the place. Itís not here yet, but we are trying to avoid the potential problem.

    I would hate to say I am going to put whatever tree I would choose for the other 10 trees and not be able to find it, or find it and it look not that good. I would rather come upon a specimen and use it; I would like to have that flexibility. That is my motivation; it is not that I am being evasive.

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 MARCH 2004

    PAGE SIX

    V A CROSSING AT THE PARK Ė 12110 PRINCETON PIKE

     

    Mr. Okum said what if we made it evergreens without being specific. There are a number of different evergreens that possibly could be blended into the site. So you can fill the evergreen slot. Ms. Fraser responded yes, I am going to add 13 Norway spruce at 10 foot tall. And your deciduous issue is to be resolved with Ms. McBride and staff on what those trees are and the specifics of the 3 Ĺ inch trees.

    Ms. Fraser continued I donít know which trees to call for, because I canít find them at the moment. But, I also see this project happening over three to four years, so things can change. The market with trees goes up and down. I get a lot of compliments because I am a realistic landscape architect, and I donít ask for trees that are hard to find. I could change to more pears; call out the 40 trees as pears. But then I would be changing the variety, and I took a lot of time to put a variety of trees in there; you tell me

    What I should do.

    Mr. Okum commented I think you can work those items out with staff as long as you give them the locations and meet the 3 Ĺ inch requirement.

    Ms. Fraser responded that the problem is that I canít name what they will be at this time.

    Ms. McBride asked at what point she would know what species she would like to use. Ms. Fraser responded maybe next year. Ms. McBride continued my point was that if the commission felt comfortable once you knew which ones you wanted to use, if you came back to us with the choice, as long as our landscape architect was comfortable with that and where they were going to be placed, maybe we could leave it at that. They could come back on a phase by phase basis as they are coming in for their permits and review with us what the mix will be and what sizes and we sign off on it at that point.

    Ms. Fraser responded forget it; Iíll just commit to 30 pears. Actually I already revised the plan and left it at 10, and the other ten Iíll find a tree that calibers up quickly would be a maple. Maybe Iíll have to hire a nursery to hold onto 10 trees, and Iíll take the risk that those 10 trees will hold. They may look bad next year or the year after, but Iíll just do it that way. Is it okay if I have 30 pears and the other 10 maples?

    Ms. McBride responded that is part of why we wanted to know what they were so we could review it. We can get back with you on that and make sure that is all right.

    Mr. Okum said I want to get back to the deferral of the plantings that Mr. Galster mentioned. We knew there would be a burden. This is the least populated site for trees, and I am glad Mr. Shepherd has agreed to get it up to the 834.5 caliper inches. We are already shifting the burden onto the other properties of the site As we move further into the development,

     

     

     

     

  9. NEW BUSINESS
  10. DISCUSSION
  11. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
  12. ADJOURNMENT