PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

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: Donald Darby, Richard Huddleston, Councilman Tom Vanover, David Whitaker

    And Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: Steve Galster (out of town)

    Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

    Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Mr. Syfert stated that it takes five affirmative votes for any final action,

    so a simple majority will not suffice.

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 13 FEBRUARY 2001
  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Vanover stated that Ordinance 103-2000 approved the amendments to the Zoning Code. We also had a presentation on the Springfield Pike Corridor and the landscaping plans. It is a very big step and I think it is taking the corridor study to the next level and dressing it up.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – January 16, 2001
    4. 2/21 Letter- Regional Planning Commission nominating Dave Okum

D. Election Ballot for Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission

E. Zoning Bulletin – February 25, 2001

F. Ordinance No. 103-2000 Amending the Zoning Code

G. Planning Commissioners Journal – Winter 2001

H. Updated Springdale Zoning Map

Mr. Huddleston moved that the Springdale Planning Commission endorse the ballot in favor of David L. Okum. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the motion was adopted with six affirmative votes.

 

  1. OLD BUSINESS
  2.  

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MARCH 2001

    PAGE TWO

  3. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Maple Knoll Village requests variance to allow the construction of a brick wall in front of their building at 11100 Springfield Pike (Deferred to Planning Commission by Board of Zoning Appeals)

Margaret Beckwith, of Beckwith Chapman Associates, Architects and Landscape Architects said with me is Lena Mares, Assoc. Executive Director of Maple Knoll Village.

Approaching the drawing, Ms. Beckwith stated that this is the garden associated with Bodman Pavilion. It is a composite of three gardens. The one closest to Route 4 is bounded by fence, including the six-foot high brick wall. It is a garden for people with dimentia, a space that is calming. We created the six-foot high wall to hide the traffic and help cut down the noise. The second part is a play garden for the children at the Montessori School and the third is an enabling garden for planting and doing horticultural therapy.

The elevation shows the planting on the outside of the wall. The variance is needed because it comes out in front of the building, and another variance is needed because the code doesn’t allow brick walls.

Mr. McErlane reported that this application originally appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the front yard variance and BZA felt it should be handled by Planning Commission first for review of the wall itself and the landscaping and whatever other issues might be involved. At the time it was before the Board of Zoning Appeals there was not a request for a variance from the type of wall. Subsequent to that we found there is a statement in the zoning code that talks about the construction of walls in the front yard. I think Planning Commission intended that to apply to retaining walls and not necessarily a screen wall like this be. We struggled with what types of retaining walls we wanted to allow in the front yard and we talked about stone type retaining walls. Unfortunately when it was worded in the code, it makes it sound like it applies to all walls in the front yards, so the applicant will be required to get a variance until we can adjust that to make it say what we really want it to say.

In the Route 4 Corridor District, the Zoning Code requires a 100-foot setback for the buildings. This wall is shown to be 27’-10 ˝" away from the right of way on Springfield Pike. The building is 83’ so it is a legal non-c9nforming use. There are a couple of other issues that relate to this application. One is the removal and replacement of trees under jour Tree Preservation Ordinance. The other is the elimination of four parking spaces. We need to get a clarification as to whether or not the parking requirements in our Code are being met.

On the removal and replacement of trees, there wasn’t a summary to go by, but from the existing survey what is being removed, it looked as though there were 153 caliper inches of trees being removed. I don’t have a summary of the plantings going in their place, but the required replacement would be 76 ˝ caliper inches.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE THREE

VI A MAPLE KNOLL VILLAGE – BRICK WALL IN FRONT OF BUILDING

Mr. McErlane continued that in Ms. McBride’s absence and to report on her comments, she would like to see the plant material identified as well on the site. I don’t think she had major problems with what they were proposing but it is hard to determine that without the plant material sizes and types on the plan.

Ms. Beckwith said I have a list of the trees that were taken out. Maple Knoll has an ongoing program of memorial trees, and a lot of those trees are located in the area that we are dealing with. Over the last 10 years they have placed a lot of trees in here, mostly ornamentals. There are two large trees that are major trees that we should replace according to your code. What we are asking is that you give us a break on these other trees. Most of these trees, just because they are memorial trees are being relocated. We have evaluated all these trees, and there are some that because of size we can’t relocate, so we are asking that for those trees, you allow us to replace them one for one. This program will continue on, and more trees will be given in people’s names and we will replace the ones that are taken out by other trees of the same species.

Ms. Beckwith passed out a listing of the trees, saying that there is an oak tree and a Norway spruce that would be replaced according to your code. Looking at the remaining trees, there are those marked "replace" and they would be replaced one tree for one tree. The others are marked "relocate". The two trees that would be replaced according to your code total 25.5 caliper inches in replacement.

The other trees that we are replacing, the ash, linden, red bud, crab apple, we are requesting to replace on a one to one basis. We probably would have the same species.

The problem is that there are so many trees on that site right now that we don’t want to have too many trees, because it is too shady and we want to have a lot of perennials for this garden. Also, that site is more appealing if you have more trees combined with clear open spaces to allow the sun to come in.

Mr. Syfert asked if any of the members had any problem with this, and no one did.

On the replacement trees, Mr. Okum asked the diameter of trees would be replaced, and Ms. Beckwith answered that it would be not less than 2 inches in diameter.

Mr. McErlane said there are a number of trees either coming out or being relocated. A number of those were trees that were planted by Maple Knoll as memorial trees, and range anywhere from two to ten inches in diameter. What Maple Knoll is asking for the memorial trees is that they are only required to replace them with one tree instead of half the caliper inches. Then there were two trees that they are asking to replace at the required replacement value of half the caliper inches, and that is a 36-inch oak and a 15-inch Norway spruce. So for replacement requirement, that totals up to 25.5 inches, and they are providing 26.5.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE FOUR

VI A MAPLE KNOLL VILLAGE – BRICK WALL IN FRONT OF BUILDING

Mr. McErlane added that one of the other requirements that we have is that the minimum tree height is 10 feet. On your pines, they probably will be larger than 2 ˝ inches, if they are 10 feet. So if you plant three pines, they will be more than 7 ˝ inches total probably.

Mr. Okum said it amounts to 30 inches of trees being replaced with six inches. You are taking out a 15-inch Norway spruce for a sidewalk, and I have a little trouble with that. That actually screens that wall as well. I would like to see as much screening as possible. This wall is encroaching close to the right of way, and that tree is a break in the line across the wall, especially heading northbound.

Ms. Beckwith commented that there are two quite close together and the branching spreads out very far and hangs down quite low. If it is an issue, we will move the sidewalk around it.

Mr. Okum asked the pedestrian use of the sidewalk; is it for maintenance vehicles? Ms. Mares said presently we have a walkway there, and residents use the walkways quite a bit, so we would continue to have it.

Ms. Mares said on the parking question, we presently have 752 parking spaces, 179 are at the Senior Center. That leaves 573 spaces and we are required to have six spaces per resident. We have 684 residents which means 114 spaces required. As a point of reference, that 684 includes 160 nursing residents that do not have automobiles, but have visitors, and 60 residents in our assisted living building that do not drive. We have 300 to 350 full time equivalents and we calculated that at any given time the most congested parking time is from 9 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon. We have 285 employees on site, so 114 for residents and 285 for employees or 399 spaces required, and we have 573 spaces.

Mr. Syfert said other than open house, do you ever have a parking problem? Ms. Manes answered we do have a parking problem at shift times; it is not a parking problem, but a convenient parking problem. There are always places to park.

Mr. Vanover said on the Norway spruce, it looks like there is about seven feet from the edge of the sidewalk up to the tree trunk. What could you safely put underneath that? Mr. McErlane answered that the newer drawing doesn’t show the trees being removed. It only shows existing trees that remain. Mr. Vanover commented my thought was that if that was the tree concerned at that size, they should be able to trim the branches up enough to allow pedestrian traffic underneath them.

Ms. Beckwith responded that its roots are not really deep, so that putting paving or a drip line could be a problem. Mr. Vanover said that was the reason for my question.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE FIVE

VI A MAPLE KNOLL VILLAGE – BRICK WALL IN FRONT OF BUILDING

Mr. McErlane stated that the evergreen trees are a little more compact in terms of their top growth; I don’t know if their root growth mirrors that or not. Typically on deciduous trees, the root growth mirrors the overstory on it. They can survive some damage tot heir root system, but not a great deal of it. As it is planned right now, the walk goes right through it.

Mr. Huddleston said I would like to speak strongly in favor of the plan in general in terms of the landscape architect attempted to deal with the Alzheimers patients and screening them from the confusion. I am not comfortable with how that 15 inch coniferous tree is represented, and I don’t understand how there could be a 15 inch in that location. I would strongly endorse the plan as it exists, subject to resolving that one issue.

Ms. Beckwith stated that if that tree is an issue, we will save it.

Mr. McErlane said the tree is directly adjacent to an 18-inch deciduous tree. Are they growing into each other? Is the 18-inch also a spruce tree? Ms. Beckwith answered yes, and they are very close. Ms. Mares added the spruces grow into each other; they are huge. Ms. Beckwith added that they will keep that and reroute the walkway.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the City has plans for improvements to State Route 4 in that vicinity. The sidewalk area that they have shown proposed here does not impact on the proposed construction limits for those roadway improvements.

The other issue is that within the confines of this area, which is approximately one acre, with the proposed walks and different areas for pedestrians and other features, there is probably about a 20% increase of impervious area in this vicinity. However, the detention basin that serves this area has about 8,000 cubic feet of additional volume within it beyond what is required. The only caveat we would have is that proper storm drainage is provided to these areas so that it may be a usable facility, but it doesn’t appear that it would require any additional detention on its own.

Mr. Okum said since the wall is encroaching so closely to the roadway I do have some concerns. Besides these little shrubs you are going to be planting around the outside, you really aren’t doing much except for the medallions on the wall, would you consider some mounding that would lower the depth of the wall? There is an area coming southbound where the wall makes the biggest radius that you have the biggest view of.

Ms. Beckwith responded a lot of berming here might look artificial, but we could easily put more of our plants in this area. When we relocate our memorial trees, we could cluster more of them here to cut down on that view going in this direction. Mr. Okum said so you suggest that the memorial replantings would be clustered outside the wall. Ms. Beckwith confirmed this.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE SIX

VI A MAPLE KNOLL VILLAGE – BRICK WALL IN FRONT OF BUILDING

Mr. Okum said so you will work around the 15-inch spruce so it is not removed. Mr. Beckwith answered we will relocate that sidewalk to keep the spruce.

Mr. Okum said with those changes in mind, the only thing we would like to see is identification of the plant material against the wall. The review has not been finalized by the City Planner, so the motion would include the condition that the plant material would have to be reviewed by the city planner prior to final approval, and that the memorial plantings would be clustered outside the wall, and the 15 inch spruce would remain.

Ms. Mares said for clarification, because they are memorial trees, and if the people are still around, we like for them to choose where their trees would be planted, so we may look at planting replacement trees there as opposed to the memorial trees. Mr. Okum said so we should say memorial plantings and/or replacement trees. Ms. Mares added I think if a person has the opportunity to make a choice as to where they want the tree replanted, we would like to give them that choice.

Mr. McErlane asked for a copy of the parking summary.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the approval of the Maple Knoll Village screen wall modifications with the following conditions:

    1. That the parking summary identified this evening be submitted;
    2. That the plant material and size be reviewed by the city planner prior to final approval;
    3. That the memorial plantings and/or replacement trees be clustered outside the wall;
    4. That the 15-inch spruce tree identified to be removed will not be removed.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert said you will automatically be on the Board of Zoning Appeals agenda next Tuesday evening.

B. Final Approval of Mike’s Car Wash, 11910 East Kemper Road

Joe Trauth, representing Mike’s Car Wash, introduced Gary Murray, Bill Dahm, and his brother and Jeff Simmons and the manager of the Oil Lube.

Gary Murray reported the site plan has been revised slightly from the preliminary development plan. When we first came before this board it was requested that because of the right of way that would be needed for the future widening of Kemper Road, that we move the buildings back 5 ˝ feet to preserve some green space.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE SEVEN

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Murray stated that the oil lube has moved back the south curb line in front of the Mike’s Car Wash 5 ˝ feet to provide that greenspace. We did that by shortening the conveyor for the car wash, and with that shorter conveyer, we were still allowed to have that 65-foot length for the cars to line up on the conveyer. If we had moved it all the way north, we would have had some turning radius problems to get to the vacuum cleaners at the exit end. So, we did a compromise without moving the building, but we made changes to the site to accommodate that greenspace.

We will grant the 11-foot right of way that is needed for road improvements. We have added an extra dumpster location north and east of the Oil Lube. They will have their separate dumpster and we will have our separate dumpster.

We have reduced lighting drastically from what was originally submitted. We have added the additional landscaping, an additional red sunset maple which was requested along Kemper Road. We believe our latest landscape plan does meet the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The latest letter said we needed to plant another 11 caliper inches. I think there is a mutual understanding of whether something is a tree or shrub because of the height it grows. Our landscape architect took it as a tree that should count toward the caliper inches. If not, we will meet the requirement and plant the additional caliper inches.

We have added a five-foot sidewalk out front, which is something Mr. Shvegzda added, and we have used the city detail for the right in and right out on the access drive to the east.

We do have some sign issues. There is a sign that says "Mike’s Car Wash" on the west elevation of the tunnel north of the self-serve bays. We would like to take that sign as well as the "Open" sign and put them on the north face of the self-serve bays. The reason we are doing that is because we didn’t think that sign would be visible from Kemper Road when we first did this. We did an elevation study, and for about 200 feet up at the light of Century Boulevard you can see that sign. We are going to bring it around to the back and see if we can still keep that sign.

There is a typo on the Mike’s Car Wash signs on the west elevation. They are listed at 2’-9" in height and they are 2’-6", as well as that open sign, which brings our total down to about 205 s.f., and the site is allowed 201 s.f.

The Oil Lube has their three signs, and we are agreeable to Ms. McBride’s comment about taking the open off the directional sign on Kemper Road and let that be an enter silgn, but we would like to maximize that to the six square feet allowed.

Mr. Trauth added Mr. McErlane raised several points, two (the sign issue and the tree replacement caliper inches) we are discussing tonight. The cost estimate has been submitted, and is $2.5 million, and we had changed the two covenants to comply with the request of Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane and submitted those by fax today.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE EIGHT

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Trauth passed around an elevation, showing cars from Kemper looking north toward the facility and showing the trees in the right of way area and the trees with the mounding that we will be planting. Mr. Murray added and there is a directional island, and those plantings will be about four feet high. And if you end up having a canopy, the height would start about six foot on the ornamentals, which would grow about 15 feet and should do a pretty good job of screening those self serve bays.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that although we still feel that the volume of the detention basin probably will be adequate, we still need additional calculations to verify the detention volume and the size of the proposed storm sewer.

Where there is rock channel protection proposed, we need the velocity from the outletting storm sewer to confirm the size of the rock and the depth. The rock channel protection is shown to be onto the Kemper Dodge property, so we will need a letter permitting that work to take place.

On the proposed Oil Lube facility, it is not shown whether the downspouts will be piped directly to the storm sewer. This is required so it will have to be added to the plans.

On the drive to Kemper Road as the raised concrete median comes back, the site plan shows it as a solid two foot raised concrete median and on the landscape plans it is shown as some type of landscaped area. Some clarification is needed on that.

On the retaining wall that ties back into Costco’s wall and the proposed fill that is to be done in that vicinity, we have received a letter from Costco’s consultant indicating that it appears to be acceptable, but we have not received any letter permitting this work from the property owners themselves.

Mr. Murray said the majority of the raised concrete median that is beyond two feet in width, and we would like to keep in grass, but where it is very narrow, the site plan indicates that it would be concrete. Mr. Shvegzda commented we were expecting that the two-foot section would be solid concrete.

Mr. Murray reported that they talked to Costco about the wall and they deferred it to their site design consultant to review our design and asked them to write the letter, and that is what we got as a response, through Civil Environmental Consultants.

I thought a lot of the storm sewer information had been sent directly to your office. Mr. Shvegzda answered we did receive some information, but it wasn’t all what we needed. Our offices can discuss that, and we can send some sample information.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE NINE

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Syfert asked if it were a major problem, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that he didn’t believe so regarding the volume. The primary concern would be the size of the storm sewer and how the major storms would get to the detention basin, whether it would be totally through the storm sewer or a combination of over land and through the storm sewer.

Mr. Trauth stated that they would be happy to accept that as a condition of the approval.

Mr. McErlane reported that they received the cost estimate today by fax. I would like to clarify the sign package. Ms. McBride and I look at signs totally different. In the definition for signs, it says signs are devices that are designed to be read from the right of way or an adjacent property.

In the definition of area of signs to be calculated for compliance with the Zoning Code, it says that the signs are only considered if they are designed to be read from the right of way. It is not a disparity, but for the purposes of determining your gross maximum permitted area of signs, it is only signs that are designed to be read from the right of way. So, the only signs that we are considering against the Zoning Code requirements are the ones that are on the south, east and west sides of the buildings, and only the ones that are designed such that you can read them from the public right of way. There are some menu boards and some instructional signs that don’t count.

The allowable sign area for the car wash is 200.5 square feet. We have a freestanding sign for Mike’s Car Wash that is 55 square feet, the south elevation is 2.5’ x 15.10’ and we have one sign on the west elevation at 2.5’ x 27’, so that is 62.5 s.f. The other sign was moved to the rear of the building, so it doesn’t count.

The open neon signs are not 2’-9" but 2’-6". Are there still two of them on the west side? Mr. Trauth reported that both would move to the north side of the self-serve bays. Mr. McErlane said so there is only one "Open" sign on the west elevation. That would be 16.25’ for two "Open" signs. The total signage would be 189.6 s.f. which is less than the allowable (200.5 s.f.) for the car wash.

Mr. McErlane said you indicated that you are taking the open sign off the directional sign, but you want to upsize it to the six square feet allowed, and the height would come down to four feet per code. Mr. Trauth confirmed this, adding that it would look just like the other one without the open.

.

Mr. McErlane reported that there were no setbacks indicated for directional signs, and the code requires five feet from the right of way. The ground sign is shown at 9’ from the right of way (10-foot requirement). Mr. Murray said we could move that one.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TEN

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. McErlane reported that the allowable sign square footage for the Quick Stop Oil Lube location is 121 s.f. The freestanding sign is at 30 s.f. Is there a sign on the west elevation of the Oil Lube? Mr. Murray indicated that there was the same size sign on the southeast and north elevation. Mr. McErlane said and that is 3’-7" x 11, so that is only two counted towards the code allowable, which would put us at 108.7 s.f.

On the tree preservation requirements, although Anne McBride said she was satisfied with the landscaping requirements, she didn’t review it for tree replacement. There are 259 caliper inches of trees being removed. Forty-one are exempt from replanting because they are within the footprint of the building or a 10-foot perimeter. The required replanting is 109 caliper inches, and the landscaping plan shows 98 caliper inches to be replanted, so there are 11 more caliper inches to be replanted. The applicant had talked about arba vitae which is not a tree and it is only six feet in height, and we require 10 feet in replanting. Mr. Murray said we will meet the 109 requirement.

We received some revised covenants that revised some of the language. The previous draft has been forwarded to the law director’s office, and I haven’t received comments back yet. The law director’s offices did the initial review, and they didn’t have a lot of comments. I would recommend that we approve it contingent on the law director’s approval of the covenants.

The lighting plan has been cut back from what the preliminary plan showed. Ms. McBride reviewed it, and although it doesn’t meet our new code requirements, she felt they had made a very good effort to try to reduce lighting levels. The fixture proposed is a flat lensed type light. The color is intended to be bronze with a light gold metallic stripe. Ms. McBride had indicated that the light fixtures at the Beechmont Avenue location looked more like a yellow stripe. Is this the same? Mr. Murray indicated that it was; the bronze is really almost this brown (passed around the folder).

Mr. McErlane continued that Ms. McBride had indicated that the building elevations don’t call out the colors to be used. I realize we have some samples, but typically those things coincide. Mr. Murray responded we did in the letter to you today. Mr. McErlane said what she is looking for is for the drawings to reflect what colors you will be using. Mr. Murray said we will add that to the elevations.

With respect to the covenants, Ms. McBride’s only suggestion is there is a prohibition on painting of building windows, which now says "The painting of any building windows on the property intended as advertising" and she suggests adding "or signage". Mr. Murray said I believe we have already stated that in the covenants. We changed the covenants per her requested language. Mr. McErlane added that the covenants sent to us today do indicate that "the display of owner’s trade name on waste containers, vacuum centers and other site fixtures" is included in there as well.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE ELEVEN

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. McErlane reported that the considerations she poses to Planning, the applicant did indicate that one of the conditions of approval at the preliminary plan stage was to move the car wash building back. The primary purpose of that was to accommodate additional landscaping in front of the building, and the applicant was able to accommodate additional landscaping and berming in front of the building without having to move the building back, so that is something Planning Commission needs to consider.

Ms. McBride is asking that additional berming be provided in front of the self-serve bays, although that says automotive bays, and I’m not sure if that is Oil Lube or self-serve bays.

Mr. Trauth said the elevations we are passing around show the berming.

Mr. Okum said that drawing doesn’t give us any locations nor does it give us heights of the berming. The objective was that the overhead doors be screened by the use of mounding to separate it. They are showing a mound 15-foot wide with no height dimension on the drawing, nor does it indicate exactly how that mound is placed. On the drawing, Mr. Murray showed that the 15’ wide mound is two to three feet high from the grading plan.

Mr. Okum said so this is the mounding going in this area which addresses eastbound traffic, but nothing westbound. There is no mounding for westbound; is that correct? Mr. Murray responded it goes along this whole length. Mr. Okum said I think Ms. McBride is referring to a northwesterly view of all the bays across the front of the site. We had some discussion about that because I believe there was a landscaped island on that original drawing. Mr. Murray said there still is a landscaped island in here. On the large drawing, Mr. Murray indicated where the landscaping was stating that it is all built up. Mr. Okum responded we don’t know where that buildup is and where the high line is on those. At the preliminary plan discussion, one comment was the need for mounding to block the direct view into those bays. The mounding on site plan C202 dated 1/15/01 keeps the mounding at about the same plane as the street. When someone is looking from the right of way, they will not see a mound there. Mr. Murray commented if you mound it high when the city comes through and widens Kemper Road, you would have to have some sort of retaining wall. Mr. Okum responded I don’t disagree with that; the problem is we have roughly two feet of mound; that is not more than thick mulch. Mr. Murray said we could increase that to 31 but that would the maximum. If we have 3 feet of mound and 4 feet of plant material it should do a pretty significant job of screening the open bays. Mr. Okum said I just want a point of reference.

Mr. Murray said in the area close to the bay, we could put that on a two to one slope. That is all plant material and mulch, so 2 to 1 will be acceptable there. Three to one is typically as steep as you want to go for a maintainable slope.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWELVE

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum stated so the island in front of the drive through bays has gone up to 683, and the island in front of the Oil Lube has gone up to 683.5.

Mr. Vanover said in the photometric plan dated March 8th on the back line, which would be 30 feet beyond the back line, we are almost at .5 foot-candles, and in some places we are exceeding that. I know Anne has mentioned that she is happy, but I am not overly pleased with this. I am concerned about the east side, where Performance Dodge is; in about every instance we are over on the western boundary. The only spots we are not are the southwest corner and the northwest corner; everything else is high.

Mr. Trauth responded that safety is a big concern for us. Where you have self-service and cash we want to be certain. We have reduced considerably what we would prefer to have. Both the Beechmont and Fields Ertel stores are much more illuminated.

Mr. Vanover responded security issues can be dealt with on the interior. These are all on the exterior. Why couldn’t we move the poles on the eastern line inside some. You still would get the lighting flow over there; it would bring it onto the lanes themselves. You have a lot of bleedover.

Mr. Murray said if we put those on the other side and tried to light that drive they would be facing that drive and you probably would have more spillage over the property line. There are reflectors that we can put on the back sides of those to cut it down. There is a kind of a hood that will go down the back side of that; it’s not shown on the cut sheet, but they make one, and we can do that to reduce the light levels on that east side. As far as a pole and head orientation to light that access drive, that is pretty much the way it needs to be, but they do have some sort of hood that comes down that would drastically cut that down, and we can have our lighting consultant look at those. Mr. Vanover responded that or even change the angle of those fixtures on the standard and pitch them out more into the property. Mr. Murray commented that our best bet would be to look at the hoods that go on the back side of those to cut it down.

Mr. Huddleston said you gentlemen do a good job of operating clean and sparkling facilities. You have tried to amend this landscape a little bit so it works, and you do a good job of maintaining that from what I have seen in the marketplace.

What I have a real problem with is the real bright lighting you put around these places. I recognize that is a part of your signature. What I would like to see us attempt to do here is reduce this lighting level to a maximum of say 10 foot candles at the hottest spot you have on the property, down to a half foot candle at the bleed line at the property line. You have spots here that are as high as 35 foot candles outside those buildings, and that is ridiculous. Those are daylight conditions. You have first-class facilities, but they are way too bright.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE THIRTEEN

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Dahm said we worked with Anne and we dramatically reduced it from anything we have ever had; we reduced it 200 to 300%. One of the things that we are concerned with is when customers do pull in, our attendants walk out to the car with money. You do have people at nighttime walking around your lot, and it has a good safe feeling. Before I came to this meeting, I felt we had totally compromised. Beechmont and Fields-Ertel have over 120 foot candles.

Mr. Huddleston responded if you look at this compared to any other convenience stop, you are looking at a maximum of 5 to 10 foot candles on any of them. Mr. Murray responded not directly under most of the canopies over a gas station type service. Mr. Huddleston answered but that is very limited and down lights at 10 foot heights. These are 22-24 foot poles. I have no problem with your facility, but I would like to see us bring it down to 10 to 15 foot candles maximum on that site.

Mr. McErlane said it looks like the extreme high levels are immediately adjacent to the Oil Lube place. The 34.6 aren’t even under one of the parking lot light fixtures. Do we know what is causing that? Mr. Vanover said it is building light packs. Mr. McErlane said that out in the lot areas, we are looking at a maximum in the neighborhood of 17 as opposed to 34. On average, in the vicinity of the building they are on an average of 10. There are a couple of hot spots, particularly on the Oil Lube project.

Mr. Dahm said we thought we resolved this issue with Anne, so we didn’t bring our sheets. Mr. McErlane reported that the Oil Lube has numbers like 34.6 and 23.6 and 26. When you get away from that and near the car wash building, the maximum we are looking at is 18 to 19. Once you get a little further away from the building itself, you are in the 12’s. There are a couple of hot spots that are really high.

Mr. Dahm said we would like to work with Bill and get his full permission and get rid of these hot spots. We will agree upon a level that any place that is hot to him we will go back and make it more consistent throughout.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree partly with what they have pointed out and what Bill has pointed out, that those are probably off building lights and things of that nature. Even those, I would find pretty offensive, so if you can reduce those to some level, and have the overall light levels max out at 15 or 17, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Mr. Murray said that the average for the entire site is 4.4. Mr. Vanover said if you could come down from the 400-watt bulbs to a 250 watt that would reduce the lighting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE FOURTEEN

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Dahm said we use thousands of bulbs for safety of the people who work for us with money. I respect everything that you gentlemen are saying, but we dramatically came down to the 400-watt bulbs. It will almost look almost dark to us, but I realize that to you it looks bright. If we gave you our word that anything you circled that looked like a hot spot we would bring it down to the 15 or 17 or whatever number works, we would be appreciative.

Mr. Murray said those back end islands do have money; there is a coin changer on the walls. Some of those things help cut down vandalism also.

Mr. Vanover said I understand the self-serve over here, but when we are 30 feet out. Mr. Murray said that hot spot doesn’t look right to me. I don’t think they use wall packs anywhere. Mr. Syfert commented that they look like wall packs. There shouldn’t be any wall packs there to start with. Mr. Murray said they are saying that they don’t need them. Mr. Dahm said we’ll take those off. Mr. Syfert commented that would take care of a preponderance of the hot spots. Mr. Okum commented they may need some downlit lighting in those bay areas, and if they do I don’t have a problem with it if it is straight down and there is no glare. Mr. Murray said everything will be downlilt.

Mr. Okum said I would suggest that the lighting on the site with existing highs to be lowered to a maximum of 15 foot candles down to a .5 foot-candle at property line. Hot spots are to be reduced down to balance the lighting. Mr. Vanover said I could live with that.

Mr. Huddleston said for discussion purposes, I am not sure if we permitted it at that height that the 15 foot candles, you could logically get it down to a .5 foot candle at the property line. It probably would be something in excess of 1 or 1 ˝ in most places I would think.

Mr. Trauth said on three sides you have streets and on the fourth side you have the Dodge dealership. I’m not sure they would object to having some spillage for security purposes.

Mr. Okum suggested modifying it to no more than 1-foot candle at the property line. Mr. Trauth said and you are saying no spot above 15? Mr. Okum responded it should be lighting on site, with existing highs to be lowered. The reason I say that is I don’t want readjustment to all these 4.3’s and 5.8’s. I want this to remain, but with the highs to be lowered to a maximum of 15 foot candles.

Mr. Dahm said we can work towards that; we’ll do that. We think these hot spots can all be addressed, and I appreciate the compromise.

Mr. McErlane reported that in Ms. McBride’s comments even though it is not in her considerations, she refers to rooftop equipment on the Quick Stop location. We found a photo of your car wash, and it doesn’t look like you have any rooftop equipment.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE FIFTEEN

VI MIKE’S CAR WASH FINAL APPROVAL – 11910 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Dahm responded we do, but we have a parapet wall that screens it. It is invisible from the street. Mr. McErlane added that the recomendation was that the rooftop equipment be screened.

Mr. Okum moved to approve all documents presented to us this evening with the following conditions:

    1. That the lighting shall be per lighting diagram CB0425D 12401 with the following additions:
    1. That all lighting on site is to remain as is with existing highs over 15 foot candles to be lowered to a maximum of 15 foot candles and shall be no more than 1 foot candle at the property line. Hot spots shall be reduced down to balance the lighting on the site.
    2. All light packs if used on the site shall be downlit, with no glare to the public right of way or adjacent properties.

2. Mounding on the site indicated on Grading Plan C202 shall be

modified as indicated to 683 and 683.5 top of mound in the indicated areas.

3. That the final engineering calculations be approved per Mr.

Shvegzda’s report.

4. All lights shall be lit or shall be turned off.

5. Signs for Mike’s Car Wash shall be 189.5 s.f. and Quick Stop

shall be 108.7 s.f.

6. Trees must meet the 109 caliper inches replanting

requirement.

7. Covenants shall be contingent upon the law director’s approval.

8. Color pallet shall be submitted and/or samples presented shall be part of this site.

9. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from the public right of way and the city planner shall approve that screening.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Final approval granted with six affirmative votes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE SIXTEEN

C. Approval of a 10’ x 38’ temporary banner at Pictoria Island for

longer than the two weeks permitted.

Rusty Meyers, representing the owners of the Pictoria Tower project said we need a For Leasing banner to be placed on the building during construction and the lease up of the building. He showed a picture of the banner requested. We want to make sure everybody knows what the building is and where to call for leasing.

Mr. McErlane reported that banners are for special event type sales, but also they are for a maximum 100 s.f. real estate sign that can either be mounted on the building or a freestanding sign. If you look at it as a real estate sign, it exceeds the square footage that it is permitted to have.

Mr. Okum said the building is 300 feet long and we are talking a 30-foot banner. I would prefer it that it not advertise the leasing company. I don’t have a problem with "Available", the phone . ow longHow number, and the name of the development on the sign. How long do you want this up? Mr. Meyers answered certainly through the lease up effort and until we get some percentage of the building leased, maybe 70%. Mr. Okum responded that could be a long time; I would like to see it up and then you come back. What about 180 days, or six months? Mr. Meyers said that would be before the building is finished. We would like to put it up now on the steel, and as the building is finished, have it up there. Mr. Okum commented I wouldn’t want to see it up any longer than six months after the building is finished.

Mr. McErlane asked the predicted completion date, and Mr. Meyers answered November 1st.

Mr. Huddleston said in fairness to Mr. Meyers, we certainly need this kind of activity on a building that is going up, and I don’t think it is unreasonable to have this during the construction period and at least six months afterwards.

Mr. Syfert asked the material of the banner and Mr. Meyers answered it is canvas. Mr. Syfert wondered how it would stand up in the weather, and Mr. Meyers stated that until the skin is on the building, they cut the earflaps in it to make sure it stays on the building as opposed to blowing away like a kite. Mr. Syfert commented I don’t think the request is unreasonable, and I would agree that six months after completion of the building, see how it goes, and we might have to extend it a little longer.

Mr. Darby moved to grant the request for the banner to go up immediately and remain up six months after completion of the building. Any subsequent request would have to be brought back to Planning. Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. Mr. Syfert added and that is with the understanding that the sign is maintained in a proper manner. Mr. Darby added and it would indicate the name of the property for lease and the phone number.

Voting aye were Mr. Darby, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Approval granted with six affirmative votes.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE SEVENTEEN

    1. Approval of temporary banner at Cheap Bed & Furniture, 11360 Princeton Pike (former Home Quarters) for longer than the two weeks permitted

Bill Sharp, owner said we have a location at Seymour and Reading that is two years old next month. The signage there is identical to what we have placed on the front of the HQ building. It is professionally done, approximately 12 x 32’, almost the exact square footage in the sign box that must have been approved for Home Quarters in the past.

We are a cautious operation, so we have a temporary lease with Kimco with the understanding after 90 days that we have the ability to sign a lease and have their blessing or back out. On the signpost, someone had taken red paint and painted out where the theatres were very haphazardly, and we professionally put the white letters against that red background so it looks quite pretty.

We are dominant buyers, so we are good for the community. We are a good little company, a driving business and so far in the 30 days it looks as though we will want to be a long-term tenant there. So we are requesting to have six months to leave the sign we have up there now.

I just received my estimate on the cost of putting a 20’ x 20’ sign face in the plastic, and it would be $5-$8,000. We are prepared to do that if we become a long-term lessee.

Mr. Huddleston said I have a problem with the way the building is being maintained by the developer/owner, the exterior of it. My concern about granting your extension of the temporary signage is not so much with that, as it is with the exterior condition of that building. Are you renting the entire premises? Mr. Sharp responded that he was, adding that there will be no subletting.

Mr. Huddleston said so it would be your intention to continue to lease the entire premises. Mr. Sharp responded if things go as they have started, absolutely. We started under the same arrangement at our Seymour location and we have no intention of leaving there for the next five or 10 years. We would anticipate the same thing here based on the first 30 days.

Mr. Huddleston said my problem is how do we approve your request and lose any leverage we have with the developer to clean up his landscaping and exterior of the building and everything else that is in a very deteriorated condition? That is your problem and is our problem, and it certainly affects you in this case. I would be very reluctant to approve anything there without the developer coming in and stating clearly to us what he is going to do to clean up the exterior of that property.

Mr. Sharp said I didn’t know he was in a bad posture with this body. Mr. Huddleston said it is very poorly maintained, whether it is the landscape, the building interior, where sheet metal is ragged and fallen off and where masonry has been damaged, those kinds of conditions.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI D CHEAP BED & FURNITURE 11360 PRINCETON TEMPORARY BANNER

Mr. Sharp responded that the building has not been inspected since 1997. Mr. Huddleston added we have no idea how the exterior area will be used. If it is in your best interest and the community’s best interest, I would like to see you maintain your business there, but I can’t encourage that without seeing something that can be done to properly maintain the premises.

Mr. Sharp asked what he would like to see. Mr. Huddleston responded a plan to do that. Mr. Sharp commented it looks like the aluminum is discolored; I don’t know what else needs to be done

Mr. Huddleston said I haven’t personally done an inspection, but there are a myriad of problems. When these things are redeveloped, we encourage that they are done right and brought up to date. That was in a pretty deteriorated condition when the old lessee abandoned it, and it is even more deteriorated today. You didn’t cause that, but we all have to live with it. I would need to see a plan before I vote positively for any long-term temporary signage.

Mr. Sharp said I can tell you that the roof inside is in perfect condition; it doesn’t leak in 107,000 feet, which I think is unusual. The lighting seems to be impeccable. I had the fire protection people come in and go through the property 100%; (it hadn’t been touched since 1997), and we’re having the fire protection system within the next seven days. If there is something there, I don’t know what to do other than go back to Kimco and have them meet with you.

Mr. Syfert said I am glad Mr. Huddleston brought that up, because I think all of us feel the same way. Are there any orders out on the property?

Mr. McErlane said not at this point, and we would have to research any outstanding covenants that might require them to upkeep the landscaping. That was something that we started to add into covenants at one point. Certainly we could look at it from a property maintenance standpoint and issue orders to Kimco to do something about it.

Mr. Darby said I agree with the comments made earlier on the condition of the property, but help me understand this. You are to make a decision with Kimco within 90 days, but your requesting the banner for six months?

Mr. Sharp answered that after 90 days, there is a 60-day window that one of us can give to the other, yes or no. Moving in or out of 107,000 square feet isn’t something you do very rapidly. I was covering the time frame with six months, what I know to be for sure to be five months.

Mr. Darby continued you have been at the Seymour location for two years, and you still have a temporary banner. Mr. Sharp responded I have never had to go before a group such as this. Mr. Darby commented obviously you have chosen to maintain the temporary banner at Seymour, which wouldn’t be your intention here.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE NINETEEN

VI D CHEAP BED & FURNITURE 11360 PRINCETON TEMPORARY BANNER

Mr. Sharp responded that at Seymour the owner said it was fine to put up and I did so and no one has ever said a word to me from that day to this. It looks as brand new as the one over here today. I don’t know that I did anything wrong. I didn’t have a sign requirement that I knew of.

Mr. Syfert commented that he saw the banner at the Seymour location and it does still look good, even though I don’t like banners as such.

Mr. Okum said I thought when a business was vacated the sign box was to be blanked out. Mr. McErlane reported that it specifically says to remove the sign. When we revised the code, I recall discussing it because we used to have language in there that was different from non-conforming signs, but I am not finding it in our current code. I found language dealing with non-conforming signs, which does not apply in this case.

Mr. Okum said the temporary sign is not bad looking, but we have this 20’ x 20’ box that has multiple fluorescent tubes in it that are partially lit and some are busted out. I wouldn’t mind your having a 20’ x 20’ temporary sign over the top of that box, but right now we have a box with a hole in it that has some tubes lit and a nice sign in the middle of the building.

I have to agree with the other members of the commission that we want you to succeed. But, there is nothing we can do to the developer at this point to force them to do their due diligence and maintain their PUD, except to encourage you to go back to them. It doesn’t look like you will get a positive motion in favor of your request. You could come back next month, but you will need five affirmative votes, and it will be tough to get that. Unless that sign were changed and moved to cover that 20’ x 20’ box, I would have a real hard time approving it.

In terms of the sign on the right side, I am a little bit flexible about that temporarily to help you get your business up and going, but it was never approved for that site, and I would have some difficulty approving that on a permanent basis.

Mr. Okum said I am trying to resolve the problem of the 20’ x 20’ box that is partially lit and not lit. Mr. McErlane asked if he verified that it was a 20’ x 20’ box, because in looking at the photos that we have, it doesn’t look to be that much larger than your sign. Mr. Sharp stated that it is about the same. We went up there on an extremely windy day, and I think it is 18 feet high and 20 feet wide, but in that rough breeze, we couldn’t get up there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY

VI D CHEAP BED & FURNITURE 11360 PRINCETON TEMPORARY BANNER

Mr. Sharp added I have had difficulty finding anybody who wants to tackle a 20’ x 20’ sign face for that sign. If you make me do it, I will spend the other money. That vinyl sign is about $2,000, and I will have one made square to put over that box if I must. I would rather have a little more time to prove up the business, but I will do what I have to do.

Mr. Okum said under the PUD, we could hold Kimco responsible for the maintenance on their site. On the other hand, I still have a problem with one sign on the building and an empty box. If a consideration were made this evening, I would be in favor of the box being covered with a sign that is fitted. Mr. Sharp responded I can have a sign made any size so whatever the exact size is, it can be done.

Mr. Vanover said I have Kimco/Cassinelli Square’s covenants dated 3/11/94, and on page 3 under landscaping, "All landscaping must meet applicable requirements and the developer shall maintain or replace as necessary all landscaping to be located on the shopping center. .. All source signage shall be mounted to the landlord’s fascia, utilizing individually and internally lit channels..Letter mounted on exposed raceway containing transformer and employing full welded construction and translucent acrylic faces..exposed raceways shall be painted in the same colors as the landlord’s fascia. Storefront signs shall conform to the following:"

Mr. Vanover said if these are at least a part of the covenants, I think we have some teeth that we can apply to the current landlord. Addressing the applicant, he said you happen to be at the wrong time and the wrong place. I agree wholeheartedly and by the outside lawn and garden area there is conduit hanging down from the fencing and poles and everything else. If the conduit has live circuits, that is a health/safety issue that concerns me, but other than that, it looks bad. There needs to be paint on the exterior wall. We would be amenable for you to request for us to table this for a month, and then we can get Kimco in here too.

Mr. Sharp said my contact, George Petrovich is out of town. He will be back Thursday. Maybe I can bring pressure to bear to either bring him in or get them off dead center. I didn’t realize you guys were upset with them in terms of maintaining the property. From the inside, it looked like a decent tenantable property, and I didn’t look a lot at the outside. He has a voice mail message on his system right now and his secretary told me he'd call me Thursday morning the first thing when he gets back. You tell me what to do to proceed to be compliant, and I'll get it done..

Mr. Huddleston said Mr. Sharp is kind of in the middle here. I’ll ask you a question; do you lease the outside premises, the garden sale area? Mr. Sharp answered the whole property is mine. Mr. Huddleston wondered if he were utilizing that area, and for what. Mr. Sharp indicated that he wasn’t doing anything with it, and he wasn’t planning on putting a sub business there.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VI D CHEAP BED & FURNITURE 11360 PRINCETON TEMPORARY BANNER

Mr. Huddleston said then for discussion, I would propose a motion that would grant you an extension of 45 days, subject to some suitable covering being placed over the existing sign fascia and subject to review next month when you and the owner/developer would come back with a plan on how they would bring that into conformance with what they were granted originally.

Mr. Huddleston moved to extend the existing banner signs for a period of 45 days, subject to the applicant covering with some suitable material the existing sign fascia and that the applicant and developer come back next month with a plan to bring the exterior of that building, parking area and landscape up to the requirements of that PUD. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Darby asked if the motion was stating that the applicant, prior to the end of this 45 days, would have to put the aforementioned sign up and take the existing sign down? Mr. Huddleston responded that wasn’t my intention. I was just going to let him maintain the status quo with his business and with his signage and cover the box with something. It looks terrible out there now; it looks like an abandoned building and that is the condition it was left in. The interior may be fine for his business, and I respect that.

Mr. Darby commented I am thinking in terms of expense. If you are going to cover it, you may as well cover it with a sign. Mr. Sharp said I am three steps ahead of you. If I am going to spend $2, I might as well spend $5. Mr. Huddleston added bear in mind that the approval we are granting you, whether it costs you $2 or $2,000 is for 45 days. I believe if we don’t see some satisfactory response from the developer/owner, I would not be in favor of extending anything there. That is pretty clear cut in my mind.

Mr. Sharp said the question I have is if I bit the bullet and spent the $5,000 or $8,000 I have been led to believe it takes to put the professional sign back in there, doesn’t that meet your requirement in terms of my position with the sign? I don’t want to be in bed with the developer on the exterior; I don’t know why that is my province. If you say it is, it is, but he owns the property and he has the responsibility. If I put a new sign up there with the proper plastic face, the way it is supposed to be in the existing box, haven’t I met all of your criteria from my standpoint?

Mr. McErlane responded if you had applied for permits and did that initially, you wouldn’t be before this board tonight.

Mr. Okum said if the banner on the south side (facing Tri-County Parkway) is not approved, and if this motion goes through it would be for the 45 day period, and it would be at the board’s discretion whether or not to extend that banner.

Mr. Sharp said there are two boxes on that side, and the board would have already approved the fact that they were there previously, so as long as I do the right thing as far as your law goes, I’m okay.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

VI D CHEAP BED & FURNITURE 11360 PRINCETON TEMPORARY BANNER

Mr. Darby said if it is his intention to go ahead and put the permanent sign in, would that need to come before this body? Mr. Syfert said no. Mr. Darby said if it were permanent, would we be satisfied with canvas? Mr. Syfert responded canvas isn’t allowed for a permanent sign. Mr. Sharp added I wouldn’t consider that permanent. To be professional, it should be plastic.

On the motion to grant the 45-day extension, voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Extension was granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert said we have approved it for 45 days. Hopefully we will see you in here next month with the developer. I would like to see him come in, unless he wants to submit a plan and not show up.

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Amendment of Tree Preservation Ordinance to Include Proposed Redevelopment Requirements

Mr. McErlane said the one you have in your packets is Anne McBride’s version. I would submit the one you received tonight with revisions I suggested to her original document.

We did see a version of this last month, and the primary changes are that in paragraph A under 156.15, there is an additional requirement for removal of trees that are over 24 caliper inches. I did recommend modifying that to a degree. I contacted the Public Works Department to find out how reasonable it is to require four-inch caliper trees to be planted. They feel they can handle a 3-˝ inch caliper tree. It is not an easy task to plant one, but they are available and can be planted. So, my recommendation was to change it to 3 ˝.

I also deleted the requirement for Category 3 trees, because you are not going to run across too many 24-inch caliper ornamental trees.

The other requirements for redevelopment sites are that you are required to replace one caliper inch for every caliper inch removed. Ms. McBride indicated a minimum of three caliper inch tree sizes as opposed to what we require on new sites. I changed that to two inch for Category 1 and 2 trees to be consistent with what we are doing in new sites, and one-inch trees for the ornamentals to be consistent with what we are doing with new sites.

Similarly, for removal of trees without permission or any kind of development activity, the requirement is to plant one caliper inch for every one removed, and I modified her language to back it off to two caliper inches for the minimum size plantings, again to be consistent with the new sites, one inch for Category 3 trees, which are ornamentals.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

VII DISCUSSION – AMENDMENT OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

Mr. Vanover said I made a note on the legality of the term donation. I would think contribution might be better, but maybe we could say up to $200 per caliper inch. Mr. Syfert said I don’t think that would work, and Mr. Okum wondered at whose discretion that would be. Mr. Vanover said it would have to be Planning’s. I think we should have some monetary penalty there. I was very pleased with everything else.

Mr. McErlane said there is a penalty for intentional tree removal at $200 per caliper inch for trees removed. Ms. McBride indicated to me that she ran that by the law director, and although the law director hasn’t looked at it in a lot of detail, he seemed to think that we would be able to do that. That is a pretty sizeable sum of money. If somebody cuts down a 24-caliper inch tree, we are talking $5,000, in addition to planting one for one back in their place.

Mr. Okum said I think that three inches is appropriate for the redevelopment and the intentional because they are mature trees that are being removed and 2 inches as a minimum is very small. I think there has to be a clarification on what constitutes intentional tree removal.

Additionally I think the word contribution would be a little bit more sensitive than donation. Mr. Darby suggested payments. Mr. Okum added this is an administrative action, and a dollar figure should be set. We have tried to have a schedule attachment for most permit fees within the city. Maybe that should be the same way and could be adopted when we adopt our fee schedules. Mr. McErlane added that there is a general statement in the Zoning Code that says fees established by. Mr. Okum suggested referring to that and putting the fee in there. Mr. McErlane responded it is a totally different document that we are talking about. This isn’t Zoning Code; this is a different ordinance altogether.

Mr. Okum said I was thinking that if it was listed with that fee schedule, a developer coming in would quickly see that fee. Mr. McErlane said this is a penalty for someone who is not doing development activity.

Mr. Okum said I don’t have a problem with the $200, but I would wonder where the relief would be if they violated this. Mr. McErlane responded that Planning Commission has the responsibility for variances from the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Mr. Okum wondered about specimen trees. Mr. McErlane responded I guess you would have to define specimen trees. Mr. Okum said in my opinion, specimen trees are any tree over 20 inches. Mr. McErlane said so a 20 inch osage orange is a specimen tree? Mr. Okum answered no. I am saying we were talking about the sycamores and beeches and the oaks that are 36 and 48 inches in diameter. Where is the encouragement, besides paying a fee, for them to work around them? That is tree preservation. It takes a lot of 3-inch trees with canopies to come up with something that a 36-inch diameter trunk will produce. So I don’t know if we really have it.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

VII DISCUSSION – AMENDMENT OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

Mr. McErlane said the only thing we are requiring for those trees is that they plant larger trees, not more caliper inches, but larger trees.

Mr. Darby said this relief is after the fact? Mr. McErlane responded it would only be after the fact because we are talking about something unintentional. Mr. Darby commented I don’t like that. Mr. McErlane added they have relief from anything that is in the Tree Preservation Ordinance from the Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum commented that Wendy’s took down the trees and were brought before Planning, and Planning forced a replanting program and added vegetation and hedging. Mr. Darby said if that is the case, why are we using shall. Mr. McErlane answered just like when we put shall in the Zoning Code and the Board of Zoning Appeals is allowed to give a variance to it. Mr. Darby added so far we don’t have any history, because this wasn’t in place with Wendy’s. Mr. Syfert added that the fine wasn’t in place.

Mr. Vanover said any tree removal has to be approved, so that could get us around that intentional. We should refer that to the legal people, but that might be a possibility.

Also Subnote C-3 says it is desirable that the replanting of trees be compatible with the sites and that native trees be used. We might have some leeway with that.

Mr. Huddleston commented that there seems to be no relief in here for diseased or damaged trees. Mr. McErlane reported that it is in the body of the code. These are just some changes to the replacement requirements.

Mr. McErlane stated I think one of the things we are missing here, and it may fit under C or we retitle C. You will notice that in C 1 it says no trees shall be removed unless provided for in Section 156.04 without the prior written approval of the City of Springdale. There is a process by which you can request the removal of trees from the tree administrator. But that also doesn’t provide for requirements for replacement of that tree, and maybe this needs to be massaged to say "Tree removal without development activity" and then leave 5 the way it reads where it says " Intentional tree removal without City permission" as a penalty for not getting permission in advance.

I think Anne and I can massage this and get it in a little better form, but there are questions I need to get answers on. It sounds like Mr. Okum is happy with 3 inches rather than 2 inches for redevelopment site and non-development activity. And we need to know if you are comfortable with the $200 per caliper inch penalty on it.

Mr. Syfert said I have no problem with that. Mr. Okum added I still have a problem that we are still not doing anything to encourage the developers to do what they can to preserve those large trees.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

VII DISCUSSION – AMENDMENT OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

Mr. Vanover suggested a preservation clause in that if you save this, there may be some relief in the number of caliper inches you have to replace. Mr. Okum commented that it could be one to one, and that the tree be no smaller than 4 inches.

Mr. Huddleston said my comment would be if you get pretty punitive from a developer’s perspective, I wouldn’t want to make the preservation so strong or limiting that you might also limit what we would consider good development.

Mr. Okum said I can’t disagree with that, but on the other hand the golf course was a good example; they built the golf course around the specimen trees. If you have a roadway, there are certain exclusions anyway. There are certain exclusions anyway. The building and 10 feet around that building is exempt from tree replacement. If they place a building where a 36 inch tree is, too bad.

Mr. Huddleston said you might be right. Mr. Okum added I agree with you; I don’t want to see a situation where we are making it so punitive that a good development can’t occur. Mr. Huddleston said maybe we do what you are suggesting and still build latitude in it. That might make enforcement that much tougher.

Mr. McErlane commented some of it is dependent on the type of development. WE see a lot of retail developers who have specific maximum slopes on their parking lots and limited landscaping beds. To try to accommodate those and still get your grades to work out and fit the landscaping in where it is reasonable, you end up losing most of your trees, at least in the major parking field and the building field. About all you can do is try to save the ones around the perimeter.

Mr. Okum said realistically we have two developmental parcels in Springdale left, Glenmary Missions and GE Park. Mr. McErlane responded depending on how GE Park develops, certainly with residential uses you have enough latitude and flexibility that you can work around some of them. You still are going to lose la number of them. Similarly the golf course worked out fine because you can work the holes around and work with grades. >But when you are talking about a semi-level site and you are doing a lot of filling and cutting, there isn’t a whole lot left when you are done.

Mr. McErlane said I believe the consensus is to leave it at three inches for the redevelopment and Planning members agreed. Mr. McErlane added that even though we may get a little different wording from the law director on the penalty, $200 sounds reasonable? Members agreed. Mr. Okum suggested getting a consensus on the one to one for trees over 24 inches. Members agreed.

  1. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
    1. First Site, 80 West Kemper Road – Wall Sign

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MARCH 2001

PAGE TWENTY- SIX

  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,2001 _______________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

 

____________________,2001 ________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary