PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
7:00 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

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

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:        Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster,
David Okum, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfertt

Members Absent:        Lawrence Hawkins III

Others Present:        Doyle Webster, Mayor
                Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer
                Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert said for the applicants’ information, any final decision takes five affirmative votes.       

III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 8 MARCH 2005

Mr. Okum moved to approve and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All present except Mr. Vanover who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with five affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster said Council has asked Planning Commission to look at Exhibit “A” which is a change to Section 153.480 of the Zoning Code concerning parking and storage of vehicles. This is Council’s recommendation to Planning Commission. If Planning Commission approves these changes and makes the recommendation back to Council, it will become part of the Code. They are asking for this since there are situations throughout the city that need to be addressed.

B. Zoning Bulletin – March 10, 2005
C. Zoning Bulletin – March 25, 2005
D. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – December 21, 2004


V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Approval of driveway with four driveway connections to the street – 11475 Walnut Street – tabled March 8, 2005

The applicant was not present, and Mr. McErlane reported that we sent a letter to Pastor Harvey reminding him of the meeting tonight. He might be running a little late and if the board wants to, they could move this to later in the meeting. Planning Commission moved the item down the agenda.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE TWO

V. OLD BUSINESS - CONTINUED

B. Final Development Plan approval for Union Savings Bank, 11333 Princeton Pike

John Roll of Roll Associates Architects said we met with Mr. McErlane and Ms. McBride to go over the landscaping issues. There were questions about the landscaping around the building, and moving the trash enclosure. All these were good ideas which we addressed, and we have moved the trash enclosure near the adjacent trash enclosure that the restaurant has.

There is a row of offices on that side of the building and there is an access or exit point also. Right now the drive aisle was past the side of the building which was not safe, so we put the bulk of the landscaping on that side, and added some to the south side. We reduced the amount of parking by 15 to 20 spaces. There are several other areas in the parking lot where we added some landscaping.

We paid attention to the area abutting the other restaurant. There are two access points to the restaurant, one in the southwest corner and one in the southeast corner off Princeton Pike.

O’Charley’s is parking all the way across right now, and they want to keep that parking, so we didn’t think that access point was necessary. We put the trash enclosure and some parking over there, and lost some spaces but created more of a landscape island. The primary interaction between the two properties will be located down near Princeton Pike. We have tried to improve it, but right now the entire area near the driveway on Princeton Pike is all asphalt. This triangular area is just stripes and paving, and what we want to do is create a landscaped area.

We are suggesting to the restaurant that they lose a couple of spaces adjacent to the drive access point, and they seem to be pretty cooperative with all this, because they are getting a safer more attractive way into their lot.

We are trying to shape up the whole area between the two properties and make more of a firm division between the landscaping.

Mr. McErlane reported that last month Planning approved a Conditional Use Permit for the drive-through facility on this site. There have been some slight modifications to the setbacks, but all of the setbacks to the new drive through canopy meet the Zoning Code requirements.

The required parking is 48 spaces and the plan shows 109. The EIFS finish and the brick finishes on the building are intended to be repainted. They have submitted some color samples.

There are signs indicated on the building, but there are no details so we cannot determine the code compliance. There is a ground sign shown at a height of four feet on the uphill side of it so the downhill side will be slightly higher. It most likely will not exceed the seven foot maximum permitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE THREE

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNION SAVINGS BANK 11333 PRINCETON PK

Mr. McErlane reported that the sign face is shown at 2’ x 16’ or 32 s.f., which is within the allowable.

There are two trees shown to be removed. However, there are two additional trees that will be removed from the site, one of which is an evergreen in the northwest corner of the building. It is in pretty poor condition. One of the remaining trees is a 24 inch oak but it is located in the footprint of the new drive through canopy and is exempt from replanting. The remaining two trees are five and a four inch deciduous trees so they would be required to replant nine inches of Category I trees. They are showing 30 caliper inches of trees to be planted on site.

They did move the trash enclosure to the southwest corner of the site which is required to be five feet from both property lines; it looks like it is. They are showing it with a brick finish to match the existing building.

They show an access to the adjacent lawn on the southeast corner which has been modified. I am not sure of the status of any easement agreement relative to the adjacent property and it would require restriping the adjacent lot in order to accommodate that new configuration.

Ms. McBride said one of the questions we had at last meeting was about the steel gates on the trash enclosure. Staff suggested reinforced wood gates, and they have changed that. We also had requested that they do landscaping around that enclosure and they have added that.

We still don’t have sufficient information on building signage, so we would recommend Planning not take any action on that this evening. The proposed sign at the corner of Tri-County Parkway and Princeton Pike is four feet in height and 32 s.f. in area. Sixteen square feet of that is a changeable copy sign. Staff had some concern about it being electronic, and the applicant has committed to it being a manual change. We also had asked that the sign be placed in the landscaping bed, and that has been done.

They were in the process of consolidating the different parcels, so Planning Commission may want to ask for an update on the status of that process. Also there is a need for cross access agreements given the access to the south.

They have revised their landscape plan largely in conformance with our comments. They need to indicate the limits of the mulch beds and we felt there needed to be additional material added to the new bed they are indicating adjacent to the west façade of the building.

They have eliminated some of the parking spaces as suggested by the Planning Commission and added landscape areas in there increasing the green space and decreasing the impervious surface area.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE FOUR

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNION SAVINGS BANK 11333 PRINCETON PK

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant the status of consolidating the lot. Chuck Thornton, Attorney for Union Savings Bank said as I understand it before we can obtain an occupancy permit, we will be able to consolidate the lot. We have talked to Abercrombie & Associates who are engineers, and they are in the process of doing the paperwork to accomplish that. We won’t try to occupy the building until that is done, and if you want to make that a contingency, that is fine.

Mr. Syfert asked about the cross easements. Mr. Thornton reported we have tried to do as much as we can from our side. In the front towards Princeton Pike we added landscaping and tried to reconfigure the entrance to encourage people to go towards us or the other side.

We have volunteered not to park cars in the back. They could eliminate some of their lines and encourage people to drive across the aback and the front. I have met with their manager twice, and their corporate people are supposedly discussing our proposal. We think it would be beneficial for us to have a permanent access between our facilities. We feel that people coming through our lot, if done in a controlled manner, could benefit our bank. Our hand is out and we hope they take it, but there is nothing firm at this point of time.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that staff had some questions in terms of differentiation between existing features that were to remain and some proposed features. Additional detailing for plan construction will need to be included such as dimensions, elevations and those types of things.

There was a question as to what was taking place between those two, in terms of modifications in that southern part of the parking lot, whether the curb was going to be extended where it actually terminated or did it go onto the adjacent property. Also, what will take place between the two lots in that area? Would that pavement be removed and a grassy strip placed there? The applicant mentioned the parking spaces adjacent to the entrance near 747. There is a problem with it being so close to the access point in terms of traffic pulling out of the parking spaces.

The right of way towards the northeast corner of the property didn’t look like it was consistent with the old 747 plans for that, and we are looking at that right now.

On storm water management, there is an existing underground detention there that provides 2500 cubic feet that was placed as a part of the Cookers reconstruction. At that time it was to accommodate the increase in impervious area over the original development that was on site.

The trench drain at the 747 driveway is in poor condition and would need to be repaired as part of this project.

Mr. Galster asked the width of the drive through lane and Mr. Roll
reported that it is 12 feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE FIVE

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNION SAVINGS BANK 11333 PRINCETON PK

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said I understand your comments regarding the cross easement access and the sharing of ideas. Maybe Mr. Tulloch can get involved, since it would be a benefit to the City to keep the traffic from the main road. Maybe somebody from the City could intervene and help.

Mr. Okum said are those four parking spaces in that drive on the south side for the business, or your neighbor? Mr. Roll responded they are the neighbor’s. There are five now, and we are proposing they delete one and help with the transition of the lot. Mr. Okum asked if they would be backing out into the entry lane, and Mr. Roll answered that they do now. Mr. Okum said it’s on their property; I know it’s not your development, but if this happens, they might want to do something different right there. You see shared lots in a lot of developments, and it is good for all businesses.

Are you going to have a sign plan? Mr. Roll responded we intend to submit that separately, and we will be within the square footage allowed by your code.

Mr. Galster said O’Charley’s were in here and had a requirement to be cooperative with this cross easement, because I believe it was Cookers who wasn’t the last time, isn’t that correct? Mr. Okum responded it was part of the motion that I made that they must be cooperative in bringing about a cross easement. They kept saying that Cookers wouldn’t work with them. Mr. Galster commented so it would be a matter of hooking up the right people too get it to happen. Mr. Thornton added I have no reason to believe that O’Charley’s won’t cooperate; it’s just getting the response at this time. It’s beneficial to both parties.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the final development plan for Union Savings Bank as presented, incorporating staff comments and working out the issue on the cross access and understanding that there is no sign package that has been approved tonight, other than the monument sign. The building signage will be submitted separately. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

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

C. Preliminary Development Plan Approval of Proposed Dental
Office, 311 West Kemper Road – tabled March 8, 2005

Dr. Onady said our architect said he would be here by 7:30. Can we be put back one? Item was put back on the agenda.

D.    Preliminary Development Plan Approval of Proposed Pregnancy Care Center, 309 West Kemper Road – tabled March 8, 2005

Mr. Galster said based on the correspondence and information I have received I am assuming that the proper thing to do is move to remove the item from the agenda at this time. Any other future use or additional applicant can reapply, so I would move to remove this from the agenda. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE SIX

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of Proposed Ice Cream Trailer, Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike (May-August, 2005)

Mr. McErlane reported we received a phone call from the applicant indicating that they would like to withdraw their request. We asked for something in writing, but we have not seen anything.

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

B. Approval of Extension of Temporary Banner for 90 days – 895 East Kemper Road (Mattress and Furniture Express)

There was no representative present. Mr. McErlane reported that we have not heard anything from them. We faxed things to them twice, and have heard nothing. I’m not sure if we expect them at a later time.

Mr. Galster asked the next step. Will they be cited to court for failure to remove the banner? Mr. McErlane responded it probably is fair to give them another notice to remove it, since they did make an application and even though they didn’t show. Mr. Galster said so you give them another notice to remove and if they want to appeal it they have to get back on the agenda. So we are talking another 30 days?

Mr. McErlane reported they already have made application, unless Planning Commission wants to consider this in their absence.

Mr. Okum wondered if they were served notice of the meeting tonight. Mr. McErlane stated that they filled out an application that specifically says they are to be in attendance of the meeting. They were advised by fax of the comments. In addition to the comments, on the cover sheet it reminds them of the meeting time and date. We have yet to receive an owner’s affidavit from them.

Mr. Okum commented I don’t see any problem with acting on it this evening. They have been given notice and it appears that it has been going on for some time. Is that correct? Mr. McErlane responded yes. If you will notice in my comments, we advised them to remove it previously and got to the point of citing them to Mayor’s Court. That got some response. They came in and applied for permits for a permanent sign, and we withdrew the complaint we had filed in Mayor’s Court assuming they would act on it. They still owed us some detail on the signs as well as the landlord’s approval for the new signs. As time went on, we did not receive the details or the landlord’s approval so we advised them again to remove the banner. We are now at this point.

Mr. Okum said I personally feel that notice has been served. We have given them numerous attempts. Is this a business that is familiar with the City of Springdale? Mr. McErlane reported that they have been in Springdale before under a different name and actually under similar circumstances.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE SEVEN

TEMP. BANNER 895 E. KEMPER MATTRESS & FURNITURE EXPRESS

Mr. Okum said based on all the notifications that have been given, I have no problem with moving this to the last item on the agenda to give the applicant an opportunity to make it to the meeting, but other than that, I would like to consider it tonight and resolve the issue.

Mr. Galster asked if they had replaced the monument signs, and Mr. McErlane reported that in response to the last complaint we filed in Mayor’s Court, they came in and got permits for panel changes on the monument signs. Mr. Galster said so the only question is the banner.

Mr. Okum said I would like to move this to the last item on the agenda to give the applicant the opportunity to arrive and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was moved to the end of the agenda.

The architect for the dental office still had not arrived, and the chairman went on to the next item.

C. Right of Way Plat – West Kemper Road (Springdale Elementary School Property)

Mr. Shvegzda reported that as part of Planning’s approval of their site plan for the school, they had agreed to dedicate an additional amount of right of way along their frontage on Kemper Road, and that is what this dedication plat is doing.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the right of way plat and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and it was approved with six affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

A. Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Districts

Mr. Galster reported that this is in response to some oversized vehicles that have been parked in residential areas. We have some serious issues with some wreckers being parked that have created sight line issues and aesthetic issues on our residential streets. We would appreciate your consideration and recommendation to Council that it be included in the Zoning Code change.

Mr. Okum asked where the eight feet in height came from. I am thinking of vans and some are higher than eight feet. Mr. Galster reported that they are not higher than eight feet.

Mr. Okum said if I had a race car trailer, where would that fall? Mr. Galster responded that probably would be longer than 20 feet because most race trailers have the car plus the wheel storage in front of it. They are usually 25 to 30 foot trailers.

Mr. McErlane reported if it falls within the definition for recreational purposes as far as a trailer goes, it is permitted to be up to 30 feet.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE EIGHT

PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

Mr. Okum said that is what I am a little concerned about, because I would consider racing as a recreational activity. Mr. McErlane added if it has a commercial message on the outside of it, it wouldn’t be. But that hasn’t changed from the current code.
Mr. Okum said I understand that, but if we are looking at that section of the code, I want to bring that to your attention so that we can address it. I agree that we need to address commercial vehicles in residential areas but if there is other fine tuning needed, I want to make sure we gather that information together now.

In Item (E) there is a section that says “has attached or visible equipment or tools, whether or not the vehicle equipment or tools are covered with a tarpaulin or opaque or translucent covering”. I am thinking of tool boxes on the back of a pickup truck; is that prohibited? Mr. Galster said no, there would be one tool box allowed for each vehicle.

Mr. Galster said it was designed to not exclude the small construction pick up truck vehicles that small businesses or sole proprietors have or even some contractors that drive the vehicles home. It would be limited to the one. There are quite a number of them, but those kinds of vehicles are not anywhere near the same problem. We are trying not to create a hardship for a number of residents.

Mr. Okum said under item (H) shouldn’t there be a time limit for the maintenance? Mr. McErlane responded I think you would run into a problem on a construction site. Mr. Galster said as long as the work is being performed. Mr. Coleman added if it is parked to provide those services, fine. If it is obvious that they are not providing those services, a time limit should prevail. Mr. Okum said if I am building a house in a residential neighborhood, my truck or trailer would be allowed for the period of construction. Mr. Galster said I could have a back hoe in there for as long as it takes to dig a hole for a pool, but once the hole is dug, I would expect the back hoe to be moved out.

Mr. Okum said there is a section in the March 10th Zoning Bulletin that uses the term “primary purpose” and it was upheld by the courts. Should we consider that wording “primary purpose” to describe something recreational? Mr. McErlane responded explain to me how that adds anything to it. Mr. Okum said if the court ruled that because their Zoning Code used the term “primary purpose” in its language, it upheld the decision of their administrator. Mr. Vanover added they were using the trailer as a sign. Mr. McErlane reported that by definition, if it has a commercial message on it, it is a commercial vehicle, but if it is under eight feet in height and 20 feet in length, it can be parked there.

Mr. Vanover said we ended up with this definition because we didn’t want to present a hardship. Al Winkle did some research as did I on some of the manufacturers and there are people using one-ton vehicles for recreational purposes. We didn’t want to restrict anybody, but we didn’t want to have to put up with unsightly vehicles.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE NINE

PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

Mr. Galster moved to accept and submit to Council the changes to Section 153.480 as presented with a positive recommendation to City Council for its adoption. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the proposed change was approved with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert said we will now consider item (C) under Old Business

Preliminary Development Plan Approval of Proposed Dental Office, 311 West Kemper Road – tabled March 8, 2005

Jeff Pearson of Childress and Cunningham said since we met last, Pregnancy Care has dropped out of the picture. They decided not to continue to pursue the 309 West Kemper Road, so the revised development plan has excluded this area here.

At the last meeting, the front parking was of greatest significance. There was some discussion about the access to Hickory Street and the pole height and some discrepancies in our landscape plan.

We met with staff in an informal working session. In that meeting were Mr. McErlane and Mr. Galster, and we came in with a reduced number of parking spaces in the front? Some of the feedback we got from Planning last time suggested that maybe eight would be the magic number and we came in with that scheme. As we talked about it, we were trying to find that delicate balance so we wouldn’t overwhelm the front area. After some discussion, we felt that six might be a good compromise proposal. There is one handicap parking space in line with each of the suite entrances, and two more spaces for each for a total of six parking spaces.

We also talked about locating both of these pockets of parking towards the ends of the building to increase the size of this landscape area and help to soften the front of the building.

We also thought about ways to pursue a Phase I and Phase II. Right now, given the current load and activity levels, we could get by with 38 spaces. With opportunities in the future to expand Phase II, we are showing 38+ seven more at some point in the future.

Other discussion items included the signage. We were trying to find as much area for the signage as possible because we have two dentists with the potential of an associate dentist for each of them in the future. We need to make sure that there is enough area on the sign to provide all of that text.

In that working session, the consensus seemed to be that having two signs would work especially well for the dentists, and if we could split the area, divide it between the two and essentially have two smaller signs that would be less imposing. When we left the meeting we thought that probably would be the way we should pursue our request.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE TEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Pearson stated we discussed the idea of adding some earth berming across the front as another way to reduce the impact of the continuous driveway across the front.

When we came up with this resubmittal, we had some conversations with Alice Todd, and because things have changed and her property wasn’t being developed for commercial at this point, she has some input. I was looking for a little more breathing room adjacent to her garage, and suggested that we could put a bend in the driveway, and that is where those changes came from.

We received the revised landscape plans just in time to submit them, so the dentists did not have the opportunity to review them. Mr. McErlane explained that there were some details on those plans that we still are not happy with, but we thought if you would be wiling to review it at a concept level to see how we are responding to the tree replacement issue and tree loss issue and the screening in general and some of the points about the selections and distribution. That is something we can reevaluate in the final plan. So, what we submitted, still needs some work.

We did provide photometric studies with 10-foot poles; the count went from 14 to 19 poles. Previously we thought we could lay everything from one side and we have distributed them on both sides of the parking areas.

We submitted the water and sewer availability letters. There were a couple of items to be worked on, including confirmation of the capacity of the existing storm sewer. That is in progress; our team is working on that. With that in mind, in order for us to determine where we will run that storm sewer extension, we need to confirm where the utilities are.

Subsequent to that submittal, the doctors are trying to work out an easement agreement with Ms. Todd. We thought it might be more beneficial and easier if we shifted the driveway slightly more to the west. We also could shift the building down a little bit as well.

The beams were supposed to show up on the landscape plan but we continue to pursue that idea. If you look at the grading plan, in order to flatten the parking area, we are already proposing a cut at the northwest corner for a two to three foot drop. So that would create a berm that would hide the parking from the roadway. If this grade starts off higher here and drops off toward this area, if we can extend our contour along, we can create some berm there as well.

There apparently still are discrepancies in the tree removal and tree replacement plan. We plan to put preliminary stakes on the site, indicating where the building is proposed to go and where the parking areas are proposed to go. That will be a better visual test to be sure we can understand which trees are being implicated by this plan. That should happen within a week.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE ELEVEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Pearson said there are some covenant revisions to b made. Some of the clauses in the covenant will depend on your final decision here, but we are prepared to make those final adjustments.

There were comments about paving and curb details and we normally would include that in our construction document package but we can certainly provide that.

There was a comment about screening of the mechanical equipment. The equipment is at the rear near the center, and this wall of landscaping should provide that screening. There was a question about the pole mounted light fixtures that we propose to use. We submitted cut sheets. They would not be a typical shoe box; they would have a much more residential look

Ms. McBride reported that the building you saw last month was 7,300 s.f. and the building this evening is 7,400 s.f. That means the total building area ratio is 10.8% and increases the impervious surface ratio on the site to 52%. It was 43% on the submittal that the commission saw last month. I need to ask the applicant if the 52% includes those eight additional parking spaces. Mr. Pearson said with the eight parking spaces, it will be 55%.

Ms. McBride added they are showing a total of 38 parking spaces. They have removed all but six spaces from the front of the building, and they are showing eight additional spaces that they are labeling as a Phase II expansion. We have talked about the earthen berms that were to be shown between the proposed front parking and West Kemper Road and those were not shown, either on the grading plan or on the landscaping plan, so those need to be added.

The parking areas meet the majority of the setbacks for 20 feet from the residential property lines and 10 feet from the public right of way. The only area that they don’t is to the east next to Mrs. Todd’s property and that is because they are proposing to share that access drive. That is not a change from what we have been seeing.

The applicant continues to show the vacation of the northern portion of East Alley by the City from West Kemper Road down to their southern property line, and staff continues to suggest that the City should look at vacating that property and the southern portion down to Cherry Street as well. The applicant is indicating on their landscape plan that they will plant landscaping in either what is today the dedicated street or what will be adjacent property, so that needs to be clarified.

The building itself meets or exceeds all the setback requirements. The dumpster enclosure location has been shifted. It is now south and east of the rear parking lot, approximately 20 feet from the east property line (Mrs. Todd property line) and 80 feet from the south property line. They have included it in a 6’-2” high brick veneer enclosure with wood gates reinforced on the fourth side. Given the proximity of this dumpster location to an adjacent single family home (Mrs. Todd's), we would suggest Planning might want to restrict the service hours of that dumpster.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE TWELVE

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Ms. McBride reported that the proposed height of the building has been indicated at 26 feet. They have shown the locations for the mechanical equipment on the south side of the      building in the center. Although the landscaping wasn’t indicated, staff would suggest that some of that lattice work screening be used immediately adjacent to the mechanical equipment for aesthetic purposes.

The majority of their plans show two signs, and the landscaping plan actually shows three free-standing signs. I believe they are requesting two free-standing signs, each containing 16 square feet at 4’-7”. They remain to be constructed on stone bases with brick veneer sides. They are set back 10 feet off West Kemper Road as we require. The signs are now not to be illuminated; previously they were.

Staff continues to believe that one sign is sufficient for this development, and would suggest a sign of maybe 20 square feet and five feet in height. Regardless of how many signs there are, we continue to suggest that the materials of the sign would be something soft, something natural, like wood or something similar. There is no on building signage proposed for this development.

The applicant has enhanced the building elevations to indicate that all of the elevations will be constructed of brick and stone veneer. The roof is to utilize dimensional shingles and you can see they provided the color palette and building materials this evening.

We tried to work with their landscape architect. I spoke with her and our landscaper architect also spoke with her. I talked to Dr. Onady shortly after the submittal came in, and he indicated that they would like the opportunity to revise that landscape plan.

I suggested that I would not send that landscape plan over to our architect for review and comment, but I would offer some general comments. Those include that the parking area to the rear of the property does not include any landscaping adjacent to the parking lot, which is required to the east and to the south. They continue to show landscape material that is not on their property. It all has to be contained on this site. The landscape plan does not include the earthen berms adjacent to Kemper Road and we have asked repeatedly for landscape material adjacent to that dumpster enclosure. The plant material on the northeast corner of the site is clearly not within scale of the canopy size of the rest of the plantings.

They have reduced the lighting height. The prior submittal said 10-15 feet and they are down to 10 feet, and they are maintaining the 0.5 foot candles at the property line, and they have submitted a revised photometric lighting plan consistent with that.

We did not receive any revised covenants, and we offered some comments on the draft covenants that they submitted last month.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE THIRTEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Ms. McBride added I would suggest that the commission act on the plans that were submitted to you, not the revised plans that the applicant showed you this evening, because that is what needs to go on to Council. Otherwise, we will end up with all kinds of bits and pieces.

Mr. McErlane reported that Ms. McBride covered the majority of items that are in my comments. On the setbacks to the building, parking and drive area, we aren’t sure what the new plan will change. One of the items that I’m sure that will be impacted is the number of trees removed when that driveway shifts over. I think there are three or four of them in a landscape island directly adjacent to that side that are currently proposed to remain but will be taken out. If the building shifts along with it, there are some other trees that may remain or be removed, depending on how that all happens.

As it is currently shown on the drawings that we received previously, based on the tabulations on the tree removal plan, they are removing 460 caliper inches of Category I trees. Of those 460 caliper inches, 125 inches are exempt from replanting because thy are within the footprint of the building. Of the Category I trees, a total of 167 ½ caliper inches are required to be replanted. There is one four-inch Category III tree that is removed requiring two inches of replanting.

The landscape plan that was submitted shows 69 ½ caliper inches of Category I trees, 54 inches of Category II (evergreens) and 34 inches of Category III (ornamentals) for a total of 157 ½ inches, so they are about 10 inches short that they would need to make up. By the time we get to the final plan stage, that may have changed based on the changes in the site configuration.

There are 38 parking spaces required, and 38 are shown. Eight future ones are shown. Two handicap spaces are required and three are shown.

The plans note that the one residence at 322 Cherry Street currently has a sewer lateral that runs down East Alley that will need to be relocated.

There has been no draft to the covenants, but we would recommend that there at least be some language revised and added to it. There needs to be some language requiring that the owner maintain the storm water detention system and probably also to maintain the landscaping on the site.

The maximum impervious surface ratio should be limited. Now that we know the future parking takes us to .55, maybe we should limit it to .6, just to give them some cushion.

The maximum height needs to be restricted to something less than the OB Zoning District, which is 48 feet. They are showing a height of 26 feet, and it probably makes sense to take it to a 30 foot maximum height limitation.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE FOURTEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. McErlane added the covenant language needs to be modified to accommodate how many signs are being proposed right now. There is language in the covenants that say one sign.

Planning Commission’s action tonight would be to refer it to Council for adoption if they so desire.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the applicant shows an access point on Hickory Street and the concern is that it might create additional traffic back into the residential area. In addition to that, we have an approximately 20-foot wide proposed driveway tying into a roadway that is as wide as or narrower than the driveway which it is tying into, plus it doesn’t have curbs.

The proposed common drive onto Kemper Road will serve both the applicant and the property at 309 West Kemper Road. The drawings show that the driveway between Kemper and some point back into the site will be removed.

For the final plans, we would need details on the curb walk pavement for final approval. There is a sidewalk being proposed in that area, and the edge of pavement of Kemper Road is approximately two feet lower than the ground elevation where the sidewalk is being proposed. As that is being added, additional information is needed to show how it will be graded.

In terms of storm water management, the storm sewer capacities were not submitted as part of the preliminary plan. There is still some detail that needs to be done in terms of the volume of detention provided. There may be some discrepancies as far as what overall area is being used for those calculations, and that needs to be resolved.

We also need details for the underground detention system to be included with the final plan submittal as well as something defining how the overland flow path, how the major storm is being conveyed to the storm sewer system itself.

In addition to the contours for the proposed grading, some additional information is needed in terms of spot elevations in critical areas around the building to make sure there is no tendency for ponding water or water to be flowing against the building.

On the proposed storm sewer that the applicant is providing for the outlet from their detention to the existing storm sewer system, it is about 380 feet to the east from the point where their storm sewer system is entering the Kemper Road right of way. Right now they are showing this storm sewer to be placed within the pavement for that 380 feet. We would strongly recommend if at all possible that it be outside the pavement. We have had numerous utilities installed within Kemper Road and the restoration is always an issue there. It is very much of a concern.

The consolidation needs to be done for the various parcels that make up the development.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE FIFTEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said you have referenced the drive onto Hickory Street. Would a right in right out with a concrete barrier be an improvement of that situation, forcing that traffic, if they were going through the lot, to turn right onto Hickory.

Mr. Shvegzda responded I don’t know how physically you could do that in that location because of Hickory being so narrow. Even if it is back on the property, it would take a considerable length to get that channel to do that. If it could be done, it certainly would be a way to mitigate that particular issue, but I don’t think that it could be constructed. Mr. Okum said what if Hickory were wider along that property line? Mr. Shvegzda answered that would take care of the issue about the additional traffic in that vicinity and the issue of narrow pavement, no curbs and those types of things.

Mr. Okum commented right now I see vehicles parked on the other side of the street, off the street. Mr. Shvegzda responded there is 90-degree parking adjacent to the church in that vicinity. Mr. Okum said so they are parking in the right of way area. Mr. Shvegzda answered that part of their parking spaces is within the right of way.

Mr. Okum said so your recommendation is not to force a right in right out if that driveway were there? Mr. Shvegzda said I won’t say it’s not possible, but it would entail quite a bit of additional work, and we would have to take a look and see how the geometrics of that would actually function.

Mr. Okum said I have heard both positives and negatives to the driveway function. The applicant has come back three times requesting this driveway access onto Hickory. On the other hand, I have the same concern about cars going through there and going into the residential area and cutting off the intersection. If it were right in right out, at least we would have some limitation on what that flow would accomplish for someone cutting through their lot. I don’t know.

Dr. Onady said the whole reason why we wanted to do that was because we have elderly patients. When they leave there we don’t want them to have the stress of turning left onto Kemper Road during rush hour. We would like to suggest that they leave through Hickory Street to go out to Route 4. So, if you did a right in right out, that would eliminate the reason for us to do that.

That is on my side of the building, and I don’t want people driving on my parking lot either because of the wear and tear. If it becomes a pass through to Kemper, I would put a gate up, and we could close it off if we have to. I would be willing to do that as a compromise to allow that access to be there.

Mr. Okum asked the doctor what the catalyst would be that would drive that gate implementation, city complaints, situations observed by the administration, the building department or you? Dr. Onady answered from me, my staff or from the City. I am really particular about that. I don’t want people driving on my parking lot either.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE SIXTEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if that would eliminate the problem. Mr. Shvegzda reported that that would take care of the cut through issue but some amount of the traffic will be on Hickory because of their desire for more direct access to the light at Peach and State Route 4.

Dr. Onady stated the bulk of our traffic would go out to Kemper. We won’t even suggest it until those times and then our front office staff would suggest Hickory. I wouldn’t consider it as a daily, all day long situation.

Mr. Okum commented I don’t think people leaving your business lot would be any different from people leaving the church after services, which would impact the residential area as well. Dr. Onady stated there are a lot more leaving the church after services, and pretty much they went out to Route 4. The Sunday I was there, I didn’t see any of them going to Kemper.

Mr. Shvegzda said as far as the cut through traffic being prohibited by the gate, and the applicant being the person declaring when the gate would be closed, if Planning Commission thinks that is okay, that is fine. Dr. Onady said that gate wouldn’t have to be put up unless we have an issue, is that correct? Mr. Okum answered that is what I was asking, what the catalyst would be to drive the construction of the gate. Dr. Onady responded I wouldn’t want to see a gate there unless we had to use one. The catalyst would be if we were having cut through traffic, which I honestly don’t think we are going to have. The drive is located on the side and back of the building. The only way it will be seen is if people are waiting for the light and notice it.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said your recommendation is because of the configuration of Hickory Street and the narrowness of it, the right in right out would not be functional. The doctor is saying that the right in right out would not accomplish what they want to accomplish, so I guess Planning has to decide if we want to have that driveway going out onto Hickory Street. Based on the volume that this development will have, I don’t see a major impact on Hickory Street that would be any different from the time that the church having a service any other time besides Sunday. This is not something that would generate a dozen cars an hour; we are talking like one or two cars an hour.

Mr. Butrum said my gut feel is that there probably is not going to be a lot of cut throughs. The only logical cut through would be going westbound on Kemper and cutting through to get to Route 4. I don’t think there will be a lot of cut through traffic, and the volume coming out on Hickory will be relatively small.

Mr. Shvegzda said one thing that could be discussed as an interim step before the gate would be some type of speed bump arrangement through there to make it more of a deterrent to people trying to cut through.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE SEVENTEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum asked the doctor if a speed hump would be a problem for him. Dr. Onady answered I don’t see it as a problem except for the wear and tear on tires, if that is what we would have to do if it became a problem. You would suggest that it be at the actual exit? Mr. Okum responded just before the Hickory Street exit. It would be a lot simpler than dealing with administering a gate.

Mr. McErlane said with all respect to Mr. Shvegzda’s concern about the cut through traffic, I think if people are going to cut through, they would be more likely to turn left on Hickory rather than cutting through the parking lot to do it . It seems to make more sense.

Mr. Galster said I don’t have any problem with the Hickory Street access. I think it will actually create less of a problem, because we will have fewer cars trying to turn left and right onto Kemper Road from the main entrance. I don’t think there will be a very large volume at all.

He asked Mr. Okum if he was proposing that the hump go in on day one or only if there was a problem. Mr. Okum responded I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t just be put in there. Mr. Galster commented I don’t want to have to go over bumps that I don’t have to go over. Mr. Okum responded I understand, but I have heard from Mr. Shvegzda and from staff about a drive onto Hickory. So if there is a problem with the drive onto Hickory, let’s address it and be done with it. Either it is a problem or it is not a problem. Personally I don’t think the development will generate enough traffic to cause that issue. Mr. Galster said so can we eliminate the bump if everyone agrees that Hickory Street is not a problem? Mr. Okum responded fine with me.

Mr. Galster said now that there is landscaping across the front and there is not parking all the way across the front, and berming out there, I agree it will not be anywhere near the same attention grabbing area for a cut through. I think the other things that you have done have more than compensated for what I would anticipate to be cut through traffic.

I am a little concerned about carrying some of the stone on the front of the building and wrapping it around the sides of the building because those will be made focal points of where your customers are entering. I would hate to lose that architectural feature right where everybody will come into your building. I think it is a strong nice feature, and I don’t think there is a real cost difference between stone and brick. If we can wrap that stone across the bottom onto the side, I think it would help. It doesn’t have to come all the way around to the back, but your west and east elevations will be what most of your clients see. I would like to see that if the cost is not a major consideration.

Mr. Okum said personally I don’t have a problem with two 16 s.f. signs as long as they are stone based and they tie the stone from the building onto the signs. I agree with Mr. Galster; I really like the idea of carrying the stone veneer on that lower third, the right and left; it will really bring the building together.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE EIGHTEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum said because the property at 309 West Kemper is still considered a residential property, single family, I can’t tell if you are at 0 fall at the property lines. I would be very concerned about being anything other than a 0 fall on the residential side, the east and south sides.

I thought we were encouraging steel framed wood covered gates on dumpster enclosures. Is that correct? Ms. McBride answered we have said wood reinforced gates.

Addressing the applicant, he asked if he had any problem with the 0 fall and Mr. Pearson answered not at all. Mr. Okum said if I make the motion and refer this to Council, I would like to include in the motion to recommend the movement of the driveway to accomplish the 0 fall.

Mr. McErlane said is there some strong feeling that you have in that direction? Mr. Okum said I would like to get the driveway as far away from there. Ms. McBride added even if that means taking down several additional mature trees. I don’t think you should make a recommendation on that. I think you should wait and see when they submit their final plans if they relocate that driveway, what it does to the tree replacement and the landscape beds on that side of the building. Mr. Okum responded so that recommendation has gone away.

Mr. Galster said it seems reasonable to stipulate the 0 fall. Mr. Okum said and Ms. McBride asked for landscaping around all sides of the dumpster. Ms. McBride confirmed this, adding that the landscape plan has a number of issues, and the applicant has issues with the landscape plan. I would ask Planning to reserve specific comments on that until we get to the final development plan. Staff would be happy to work with the doctors to get that to a point that is acceptable. Mr. Okum said that is in your recommendations so if we incorporate that in the motion, we have it covered.

Mr. Galster asked the height of each sign. Mr. Pearson answered it is 4’-7” from grade to the top. The sign face itself, the primary rectangle is about 2’-3” tall by 6’-9”. So when I take that area it gives me 16 s.f. Mr. McErlane said we square off that point, and if it includes a logo, it should legitimately be squared off.

Mr. Galster asked the height of the letters and Mr. Pearson answered about 5 ½ inches tall. Mr. Galster commented I guess I don’t have a problem with the size of the sign. I like the fact that it will be externally illuminated. I assume you will have a soft light on it. I don’t want it spotlighted. Mr. Pearson said we have one light on each side; that didn’t change.

Mr. Okum said I’d like to hear from the rest of the commission on the question of one versus two signs. Ms. McBride has recommended one 20 square foot sign with logo included.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE NINETEEN

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Dr. Onady said the reason why we decided to do two signs is because originally it was two properties, and therefore we can divide the signs up with a nice spacing between them. We would put one towards Hickory Street and one towards the entrance. Also, his business is separate from my business. The only thing we are doing together is this project and we wanted to make sure that they were individual so we wanted the two signs.

Ms. McBride said the only comment I would make to the commission is that I think you need to be very careful about the precedent you might be setting here. You have a number of multiple tenant office buildings, medical buildings, and so forth, and there would be nothing to stop all of them from coming back in and saying we all would like individual signs because we are all individual businesses. It is not at all uncommon to have multi-tenant office buildings; I am located in one and we don’t have our own free standing sign. My dentist shares a sign with another dentist, and I think the commission needs to think about the precedence you would be setting, regardless of the square footage.

Mr. Syfert commented I believe that originally they had one sign presented in front of the dentist property and one in front of the pregnancy care which made sense to me and I would prefer that concept of one sign, larger than 16 square feet.

Mr. Okum asked what typically would be permitted if this was an office use and not residential t overlay district. Mr. McErlane reported that in an office district you are permitted two ground signs, a maximum of 100 s.f. apiece, providing that the building is large enough to allow you that amount of square footage.

Mr. Okum said that is a lot of square footage, and we are talking about a residential flavor. Mr. McErlane responded part of the give and take on this is the fact that Planning Commission is allowing this use to go into what has an underlying zoning district of a residential, provided that the character is such that it is transitional in nature. Certainly something less than 100 s.f. would make sense.

Ms. McBride said staff had originally suggested a ground-mounted sign not more than 50 s.f. and members of the commission thought that was way in excess of what was needed. Staff has tried to reflect some of the comments from the commission members, but this particular staff member wouldn’t have a problem if it was to be one sign and contain 40 or 50 s.f., but I think the number of signs is an important issue.

Mr. Coleman said I support the comments of Ms. McBride. All along I thought we were looking at one sign, and the only question was the maximum area of square feet of that sign. With that in mind, it seems to me that a sign up to a maximum not to exceed 50 s.f. would be appropriate.

Mr. Galster said I would rather see two 16s than one 50. A 50 square foot sign is a big sign.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE TWENTY

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Galster added I’m not saying that I wholeheartedly endorse two signs; I just think that once we go down to one sign, we have to be careful with that number. In a residential area, that would be a big sign.

We still don’t know how this sign will be laid out because we are not sure how the berming will work out front. I’m not sure if this sign is going high in the air, up on a berm, not on a berm and until I see that, I don’t know that I am able to say that a certain height is okay. I like the fact that it is being kept lower; I don’t know that the base needs to be as big as it is. Maybe we could have more square footage on one sign and lower the base. Is that something we can wait to approve until we see how this berming works out? How critical is this issue?

Ms. McBride said you could reserve your recommendation to Council on the free-standing signage pending final development plan review and approval. Mr. Galster said I would like to hold off on that.

Mr. Pearson said if you are concerned about the precedent, we have very little transitional zoning in Springdale. Does that become an extenuating circumstance? Under different circumstances you would go with one 50 s.f. sign, but because of the transitional you want to reduce the scale and allow breaking it into two. Does that have to implicate those areas that are not transitional, that don’t have the same issues or concerns?

Mr. Okum said part of our transitional overlay district is still all the west side of Route 4 across from the municipal building. Those residential homes are a part of that transitional overlay district. Those ideally would be the type of properties that could potentially be this type of development, so we do have to be concerned about precedent.

As Mr. Galster has said, even a 4’ x 8’ sign 32 s.f. is massive if it is put up on a higher elevation. In your case, even without the berm, you will be elevated above he roadway. As you go further east on Kemper, it will be a little higher. I think we need to work the sign issue out. I don’t want to hold up your project, but I want you to understand that if you allow a 50 s.f. sign or even a 32 s.f. sign five feet off the ground in addition to having that on an elevated plane off the roadway, it becomes pretty significant in size in terms of what it looks like. So I think we really need to look at that carefully
and see how that would appear from Kemper Road. I would like to move it forward to Council, excluding the signage until final plan review. .

Mr. Pearson suggested that they take plywood and make mockup signs of a couple of different sizes of letters to be put up on a pedestal. They could stay there a day or two and you could look at them. Obviously it is very important to the doctors’ business and the City of Springdale as well. You can look at the papers and the berms and ideas and color coordinated pictures you want, but until you set it out there physically, you really can’t see the impact you will have.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE TWENTY-ONE

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE – 311 WEST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum said that can be something we do with the final development plan.

Mr. Vanover said am not fond of the two signs. We can look at Sheraton Lane and those doctor’s condos. They have a ground sign out front and each unit has a 2’ x 2’ sign that you can read. I would rather see something more like that than the building mounted two signs. You might argue that this is transitional, but we would be opening a floodgate of potential requests. This is just the start of redevelopment through this section, right down the street. If we want to move forward, the smart thing to do would be to jettison the sign package and forward it to Council.

Mr. Butrum said I would concur with that. While I appreciate that maybe it doesn’t set a precedent for everything, the transitional overlay district is just beginning and tends to be in pretty high profile, high visibility areas. Any precedence we would set could certainly impact those areas and I would be nervous about that.

Mr. Shvegzda said I wanted to make sure that the vacation of the alley will be part of the motion, in that the relocation of the sanitary lateral would be the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant indicated that he understood that.

Mr. Okum moved to approve and recommend to Council the proposed preliminary plan for 311 West Kemper Road. This approval shall include:

1. staff’s recommendations,
2. a lighting plan with a 0 fall at the property lines on the south and east sides of the development
3. the building elevations shall have the stone treatment on the lower right and lower left elevations, similar to that on the front (Kemper Road) elevation
4. .the signage discussed and included in staff’s comments will be excluded and is not part of this recommendation.
5. landscaping shall be excluded from this recommendation as well.

Mr. Galster said you are including staff’s recommendations. What about the Hickory Street entrance being okay without a bump. He seconded the motion.

Mr. Vanover said we should clarify that we specify the date of the submitted plans so we are on the same page.

Mr. Okum modified his motion to include plans “as submitted and reviewed by this commission this evening”.

On the motion for approval, all voted aye, and the preliminary development plan was approved and recommended to Council.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 APRIL 2005
PAGE TWENTY-TWO

Mr. Syfert said let’s move back up to item A under Old Business, the driveway at 11475 Walnut Street with four connections to the street. There was still no representation, and Mr. Galster moved to table the item. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the item was tabled to the May 10th meeting.

Mr. Syfert said we will move down to Item B under New Business, the approval of the temporary banner for 90 days – Mattress & Furniture Express.

Mr. Galster moved to let the applicant know that he needs to take down the temporary banner that has been up since December.

Mr. McErlane said if you want to act on this application, you should either approve or deny. Mr. Galster said so I can make a motion to deny and then we can follow through.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the continued use of a temporary banner for an additional 90 days, with the understanding that I am not going to vote for that motion. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Vanover said it must go. Mr. Okum said based on the information provided by staff, the applicant has been given due notice and has had the opportunity to correct the situation. Therefore I will be voting against the requested extension of time. Mr. Syfert added as will the chair.   

On the motion to approve, all members present voted no, and the motion was denied by six negative votes.

VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

A. Springdale Cleaners – 241 Northland boulevard – Ground Sign
B. Cingular Wireless – 11711 Princeton Pike – Wall and Window Signs

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn. All present voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,2005    __________________________
                        William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,2005    __________________________
                        Tony Butrum, Acting Secretary