PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 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, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman

    Tom Vanover, David Whitaker and Chairman

    Syfert

    Others Present Mayor Doyle H. Webster

    Asst. City Administrator Derrick Parham

    Building Official William K. McErlane

    Asst. City Engineer Don Shvegzda

    City Planner Anne McBride

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 10 APRIL 2001
  6. Mr. Vanover moved for adoption and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were approved unanimously.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council – no report
    2. 4/11/01 Letter from Dave Whitaker to Kathy McNear, President of Council re Regional Planning Commission Planning Partnership
    3. 5/3/01 Letter from Bill McErlane to Lazarus Real Estate re Tires Plus, 11700 Princeton Pike
    4. Ordinance 23-2001 – Reestablishment of Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission and Establishment of the Planning Partnership
    5. 4/20/01 Letter to Bill Syfert from Planning Partnership re Steering Committee
    6. 5/7/01 Letter to General Revenue Corp. from Bill McErlane re Conditional Use Permit for Creative Kids World
    7. Zoning Bulletin – April 10, 2001
    8. Zoning Bulletin – April 25, 2001

On the conditional use permit, Mr. Darby asked if typically this type of hearing would be scheduled by the administration and not go before our commission. Mr. McErlane reported this is the first time we have ever had the opportunity to have to revoke a Conditional Use Permit because of failure to comply with conditions laid out by this board. We checked with the law director as to procedure, and there is no established procedure in the Code, and he suggested that we follow the same procedure we did for issuance of it, in terms of advising adjacent property owners and legal advertisements.

Your question was relative to who initiates it? Mr. Darby added we have had discussions about it previously, and this commission had not gotten to this point.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWO

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – CREATIVE KIDS WORLD - continued

Mr. Galster said we had established conditions that they were going to comply with, and the Building Department is in charge of enforcing the conditions. They have found them not to be in compliance, and therefore are bringing them back before this board to address the potential of revoking the Conditional Use permit.

Mr. Syfert commented procedurally I don’t have any problem with it. They were marshalling what conditions we had put down, and they obviously did not comply.

Mr. Okum added if the Building Department took administrative action by notification of the Conditional Use applicant, we will advertise for the meeting and that makes it a public issue. Parliamentarily, I think that is appropriate. If a person is in violation it is almost like a violation to the Zoning Code, orders would be issued and a citation would occur. Mr. McErlane reported that two citations have been issued, one to the operator and one to the property owner. Mr. Okum asked if the hearing on the citation would be handled prior to our hearing the case, and Mr. McErlane responded that it depended on the continuances in court, they are scheduled for first appearance tomorrow. Mr. Okum commented in any case we are giving a public notice of the conditional use hearing. I think it should be a notice of a conditional use permit hearing so it would be an open forum for comment. Mr. McErlane said we can advertise it as a reconsideration of a conditional use permit, not revocation.

Mr. Webster said I received a call on Sunday the 29th from one of the residents in the cul de sac. He held his phone out, and it sounded like the kids were in my back yard. A police officer and I went down there, and by the time I got there, the kids were back in and it was quiet. Before we left, another class came out and you couldn’t stand in the driveway and carry on a conversation.

I went over there with the officer and toured the grounds. They have done absolutely nothing. That fence is still broken down, and they have done nothing that this commission ordered them to do, no plantings, no moundings, no shadow box fence, nothing.

Mr. Whitaker said they were not supposed to be out on Sundays. Mr. Webster responded the residents know that, and that is why they called me.

It appears that they are adhering to the 4:30 deadline. When I talked to the operator the following Monday, she said she was not aware that was happening on Sunday, and wished somebody had told her.

Mr. Darby said my only concern was procedurally, since this is uncharted turf. We need to do it the right way, because we don’t know where we will wind up, and we want to make sure that all the Is are dotted and T’s are crossed.

  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Sam’s Club requests approval of additional signage on store at 800 Kemper Commons Circle – tabled 4/10/2001

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE THREE

V SAM’S CLUB ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE – 800 KEMPER COMMONS CIRCLE

No representative was present, and Mr. Galster moved to withdraw from the agenda. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and the item was withdrawn by unanimous vote.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Bing’s Bar and Grill 11649 Springfield Pike requests approval of Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales of food and beverages on a proposed deck to be built onto their establishment

Mr. Syfert said this is a public hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before the commission is to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this commission is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium and state his name address and nature of concern. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said issue is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing for anyone concerned about this.

Sue Eades, owner of 11675 Springfield Pike said Bing’s Bar has been in Springdale for as long as I can remember. I grew up with the aroma of Rose Bechtol’s chili wafting across my yard as a child. It has always been a gathering place for town gossip and drinking.

Now as a landowner whose property is adjacent to Bing’s, I have serious concerns and objections to the proposed addition of outdoor dining.

Several years ago, picnic tables were located on the south side and to the rear of the bar. It was a place for crowds to congregate, drink and play loud music into the early morning hours, sometimes past what I understand to be the official closing time of 2 a.m. On several occasions the police were called to quell the noise and disturbances. The picnic tables have been removed and have given way to a parking area.

I would like each of you to answer how you would react to cars driving through your yard frequently, not once, not twice, but many times, to exit the bar instead of using the proposed driveway. After an evening of revelry, the patrons choose to exit through my property, often leaving deep ruts and grooves in the grass and lawn, particularly if there has been a rain or snow in the winter. This situation has been reported on several occasions to the authorities, to no avail.

I would wager that not one commission member has had to pickup debris in the form of broken glass bottles, beer cans and paper wrappers in their yard before they can cut their lawn. Sometimes we have even had a garbage bag half full of such items. This has to be done almost before every cutting, not just occasionally.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE FOUR

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mrs. Eades added my mother who owns the property next door to mine, has found drunk drivers in her yard, having removed her mailbox and damaging a tree to get there. The police traced the driver as to have been a patron in Bing’s. She has also experienced the ringing of her doorbell at 2:30 a.m. by those who aren’t quite sure where they are or where they are going. This can be very frightening to a woman who is 101 years old and has lived in this community for 75 + years.

In closing I would like to say that none of you in the room have had to deal with the debris, the damaging of your property and your lawn with drivers crossing your property as a result of owning land adjacent to this bar.

I have found over the years that unless a circumstance really impacts an individual personally, there is a lethargy to being concerned about those who experiences this situation on a daily basis. I find it rather amusing that several years ago when Springdale did an in depth study of the Springdale Route 4 Corridor, the goal was to be beautification of our city. When those who approached our city from 275 would see things which enhanced the nature of our community.

I looked up the definition of beautification, and I would like to share that with you. It says, "That which is pleasant to look at and to hear" I will allow all of you here this evening to make your own judgment and to draw your own conclusions."

Mr. Syfert asked if she had seen what they intended to do. Ms. Eades answered this was discussed about a year or so ago. I understand that it is a deck that is to be extended onto the present building.

Mr. Doyle Webster said I am an adjoining property owner, even though I don’t reside there. I think Mrs. Biddle is the closest owner-occupied person in that whole area. All the houses along Kemper Road are non-owner occupied, and I would like to speak on behalf of those people. They may not own the property; they rent and for the most they take care of the properties that they occupy, and I think they are entitled to some peace and enjoyment. I feel the same way about Bing’s expanding a deck on the back towards the residential area and opening up that area to the noise as I do about some of the things that Hooters has come in and asked for. I think it is enough for the establishment to be there, and there is some confinement. Keep it in there and do what they want; it has been there for years and I have no problems with it, but when they expand and inconveniencing the residents with the noise and the traffic, I have a problem with that. I think we as a City owe it to the residents to not let that happen.

Mark Schafer, renter at 11675 Springfield Pike (adjacent to Bing’s) said numerous times, I have called the police because of the people driving through the yards. My kids walk the dog out there, and my daughter has almost been hit by a car because she came out from the bushes where they came in our driveway and cut across the lawn.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE FIVE

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mr. Schafer said before I mow, I walk it. Last week alone I picked up 14 unbroken bottles; I didn’t count the glass. There is trash constantly blowing over into the property, loud activity constantly, the squealing of the tires at 2 or 3 in the morning as people are vacating the premises – it is a nuisance. From a beautification standpoint, even from a city standpoint it would be something you would want to give heavy consideration to.

Mr. Syfert closed the public hearing.

Tom Hall, owner of Bing’s, 11649 Springfield Pike I would like to have a deck on the outside of the building, and we have revised the plans a couple of times to make it fit with the conditional use. This includes a fence the size of the one that is out here now, which would be the same as retaining walls on the freeway. If there were any noise, it would go up.

As you can see on the last photo, we have taken a considerable number of measures to block the parking area because there was one instance in the last two years where an individual had driven through the grass.

Included with the deck, we want to stain the front part, repave the parking lot, add additional parking spaces and generally clean the place up. I am here to ask your concurrence to be able to make those improvements.

Ms. McBride reported that you heard a similar request on March 12, 1996 for a 22’ x 35’ deck added to the south building elevation of Bing’s. The Commission approved that request, subject to a number of conditions, one of which was that the applicant obtain variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. I understand they did grant the variances with an additional number of conditions, but that project was never done.

Since then the City has adopted a new Zoning Code, and the outdoor sale of food and beverages is a conditional use within that district. The way our conditional use permit system is set up is we have six specific items that need to be addressed by the applicant. In this case, not all six pertain to the outdoor sale of food and beverage, but four do and they are if the sales are incidental to the main use, if the area used for outdoor sales are within a compound screened from the right of way and any adjacent residential area, that the screened area containing the outdoor sales is attached to an integral part of the main building, and that there is only a negligible adverse impact on adjacent properties. This portion of the staff does not believe that the applicant has provided us with adequate documentation that those four conditions, particularly the last one, have been demonstrated.

Our Corridor Review District requires a 50-foot front yard setback, and they are proposing 35 feet for the deck addition. We also require a 50-foot rear yard building setback where adjacent to a residential district, and they are proposing a 12 foot 7 inch rear yard for the deck. The side yards meet or exceed the requirements.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE SIX

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Ms. McBride added that the applicant would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to obtain variances for both the front and rear yard.

The new code also has specific requirements where non-residential use abuts a residential district. We require a 20-foot buffer with specific screening requirements, and we don’t feel the applicant has addressed those requirements.

We also have a maximum impervious surface ratio of 75% in this district, and we have no idea what the impervious surface ratio is. We asked the applicant at their initial submittal for that information, and we still have not received that.

The issue of parking is equally vague. The 1400 s.f. addition require 28 parking spaces and we are not clear how many parking spaces are there to date, how many spaces are required for the existing Bing’s facility and we are not sure how many spaces they are proposing. The plan they submitted showed existing parking to remain in front of Bing’s, but the spaces drawn on that plan don’t meet our Code in terms of size. They are showing some of them 7 x 12, and access lighting landscaping or surface type as they pertain to the spaces sketched in on the rear of the site plan. They also have arrows denoting additional parking. Staff has a lot of concerns regarding parking, and these concerns have been expressed to the applicant in our initial review, so we are a little frustrated because we are not getting the information we are requesting.

There are a number of dumpsters on the property that are just out in the open. The applicant is proposing a dumpster location on the northwestern portion of the property set 20 feet off the property line and screened by a six foot high wood fences with gates and that complies with code.

Given the proximity of the proposed deck addition to the residential areas and residential zoning, staff would suggest that there be no outdoor speaker system or live entertainment permitted on the deck if Planning approves the deck. I think that is important since it goes to the adverse impact of the adjacent residents.

Also, I think the commission might want to consider limiting the hours in terms of months of the year and hours of operation that the deck would be allowed to be utilized, due to the proximity of the residential area.

We had asked the applicant for a landscape plan, and this goes to the adjacent residential uses. I think it is most appropriate that we receive a landscape plan with the plant schedule. The applicant has indicated that there would be a 10-foot greenbelt between the deck and adjacent property, with pine trees and bushes. Staff needs a little more detail before we can make a recommendation on the landscaping.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE SEVEN

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Ms. McBride reported that they had asked for lighting information; we can’t have the light bleeding over into the residential properties. The applicant provided us with the information that the area would be illuminated with the existing 400-watt high-pressure sodium light, and three to four rows of Italian type strip lighting. Given the sensitive nature and location of this property, I think a photometric lighting plan is definitely in order with detailed information on the existing and proposed lighting.


The applicant submitted a sketch of what the deck would look like from Springfield Pike. We also would like to see how that would appear from the adjacent properties. The plans submitted do not meet the graphic requirements for our concept plan approval as established in the new zoning code.

Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant received a copy of Ms. McBride’s report, and it was indicated that they did and also received the earlier comments about two weeks ago. Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if he wished to respond to this report.

Mr. Hall said I don’t know what to say. I did respond to the earlier report and then she responded back again and the time has run out on it. If lighting is an issue, I’ll omit the lights. The lighting that is there now is sufficient. I just want to put this deck on the outside to improve the place and financially enhance it to make it look better.

Mr. Shvegzda said my report deals with the parking and the access to the parking. The 17 parking spaces in front of the building are deficient in size. When State Route 4 was widened originally, there was a plan drawn up that indicated at maximum 12 spaces could be provided at most, and two or three of those were questionable because of their proximity to the roadway. So, there is the issue of how many spaces truly exist in front of the building. There also is the issue of how many spaces existing the rear lot area and how many spaces are necessary as proposed parking spaces and how they can be accommodated in the lower area.

In addition, there is also a question as to how the access to the lower parking area is provided. Right now the lower parking area appears to be partially on the subject property and partially on the adjoining property to the south. The question is if easements or access agreements are in places to provide that allowable access to the lower lot.

In getting to any additional parking that may be required in the lower area, the question would be should that new parking be an improved surface that would be asphalt or concrete. In that case, we get into the issues of storm water management, how to convey the water across this site and how to contain and control the water on the site in regards to detention. Those are the other issues that need to be developed if those parking areas expand.

Mr. Hall said as far as the parking is concerned, I believe that was a problem with this drawing when I reduced it. I am aware that the parking spaces are required to be 9 feet wide, and the person who drew it for me drew them to scale.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE EIGHT

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mr. Hall added that the plan is to go over further where there is a ramp going in now, where the old house used to be, and pull the parking lot over to provide additional spots.

Mr. McErlane said the rear parking as it is today is an existing non-conforming gravel lot, and the only gravel that exists is the loop that goes over to the property line to the east. He asked if there was gravel towards the retaining wall, and Mr. Hall indicated that there wasn’t really; that needs to be cleaned up and is part of the plan. Mr. McErlane added that a lot of the parking spaces shown on the plan are not gravel and to make those gravel would require a variance as well, because our Zoning Code requires improved surfaces. If we are talking about a paved surface, we would get into the issue that Mr. Shvegzda brought up relative to storm water drainage.

Ms. McBride pointed out the variances that are required, the 50-foot front yard, 50-foot rear yard and also a 20-foot buffer yard requirement, which the applicant shows at 10 feet.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said that on a previous plan, it showed a slightly over 2 foot setback to the deck from the property line. You reduced the size of the deck by eight feet, but that setback grew to 12 feet. Were the dimensions wrong on the first plan or on this one? Mr. Hall did not know.

Mr. McErlane asked where the walkway from the deck enters the restaurant, and Mr. Hall answered it would be through this window. Mr. McErlane asked if it were a public access and Mr. Hall indicated that it was. Mr. McErlane determined that it was in the bar area and that the applicant would have to do some modifications.

Mr. Galster wondered if the deck would be at the rear parking lot level and the access from the rear parking lot to the establishment is through the deck? Mr. Hall answered that it would be through the front door, because we will move the steps to the other side of the fence and retaining wall. I had an emergency exit off the deck that will have a push bar on it so everybody could get out.

Mr. Galster wondered if it were a liquor control issue to have the patrons leave the deck and exit through the establishment. Mr. Hall indicated that it was and that is one of the reasons why we proposed a seven foot high fence, which would block any sound from the deck that would annoy the adjacent property owners. It also would prevent any bottles from being thrown over or being brought in.

Mr. Galster said you referred to them working similar to the interstate walls, and we had the interstate wall proposal in Springdale a while ago and we checked the effect of those walls in Montgomery. What really happened was that the sound vibrated back off those walls and affected a different property owner rather than shooting straight up in the air.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE NINE

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mr. Hall responded I don’t think we would have the noise level you would have from Interstate 71. Mr. Galster asked the deck capacity. Mr. Hall answered he didn’t know how many would be allowed, and Mr. Galster commented that there would be an awfully lot of people close to an adjacent residential property. I’m right on the interstate, and I can put up with a car. I don’t know if I could put up with 100 people talking on a deck next to my house.

Mr. Hall responded I don’t think that would be any different than whether it would be Outback Steakhouses or wherever. I live in Springdale and frequent those places all the time, and I’m not offended; I eat on the deck. The noise and disruption out there do not offend me. Mr. Galster responded looking at the Outback as an example, Outback doesn’t have a deck. Mr. Hall answered Tumbleweeds does and Mr. Galster said but they don’t abut a residential area. I like eating out on the deck as well, but I don’t know as a property owner I would want to look out my front door and see a wall and hear the conversations of a large number of people. Those are my concerns. Are the railings for the parking right on the property line? Mr. Hall confirmed this, and Mr. Galster added that we would have that whole corner almost to the property line, and the deck will be 10-12 feet off. Mr. Hall answered from the retaining wall, it would be 20 feet out. Mr. Galster commented and we’re not sure whether it is 10 or 12 feet away from the property line. Mr. Hall answered there is a discrepancy on the plans.

Mr. Galster said you say the deck comes out 20 feet but there is also the access walk that goes up the back of the building. How close is that to the property line? Mr. Hall answered very close. Mr. Galster said if it is a typical four-foot walkway, it probably would be right on the property line. Mr. Okum commented the utility pole is probably on it. Mr. Hall added that it would be between the utility pole and the building. Mr. Galster said even if you could build right up to the people, we are still talking about being right on the property line.

Mr. Galster said in redoing your parking area in the front, are you proposing that all the existing parking spaces as they are today remain the same? Mr. Hall answered it is hard to tell how they are because the lines are all worn off. Mr. Galster said my concern is the parking that is more towards your larger front window that is right at the front door. Mr. Hall answered those are two handicap spots that will stay. Mr. Galster said right now don’t those backup onto the sidewalk? Mr. Hall said I believe they are within the 19-foot depth. Mr. Galster said I think the first three parking spaces have a serious problem, and I have a hard time looking at redoing the parking and not addressing the other problem parking areas.

Mr. Okum asked the seating capacity of the facility, and Mr. Hall answered 49. Mr. Okum asked the square footage of the dining area, and Mr. Hall did not have that number. Mr. Okum said I would say you have about 400 square feet for restrooms and kitchen and that means your proposed deck is 1 1/3 times larger than your existing facility.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TEN

VI A BING’S 11649 SPRINGFIELD PIKE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mr. Hall said I certainly would entertain the idea of amending this. Mr. Okum asked about an easement for the access to the parking area. Mr. Hall answered that is unclear to me because the records indicated that Pear Street between the shopping center and the property.

Mr. Shvegzda said from previous information we had, it was a paper street that subsequently had been vacated to common property owners.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said basically you are showing a parking area that has no access, and it would be very hard for me to consider this as a parking area. Whether or not it would be an improved surface or a gravel surface, I would have some difficulty with that. I know it currently is being used as that.

I think what we are looking at is far from a conditional use request. It may be a concept discussion, because there are so many open areas and unanswered issues. I would be very uncomfortable even considering it as a conditional use permit based on the information provided. At this point and based on what I have seen, there is no way I could possibly vote in favor of this. I also have some very big concerns about how you are impacting the residences, and how this would push you into an outdoor gathering area that would affect those residences. Additionally, I think about the idea that we have a parking lot that has been proposed that has no access. At this point I would not be voting in favor of this.

Mr. Huddleston said I would like to make a motion to deny the conditional use permit based on the fact that the expansion of this outdoor activity would have a significant negative impact on the adjacent residential properties. The activity would further be offensive and intrusive to the residential district abutting it with noise, voice or laughter, lighting, traffic, trash and debris. Also, the establishment currently exists non-conforming insofar as the parking lot, storm water management, and trash enclosures. That the establishment has an existing history of being intrusive and objectionable to the adjacent property, and should not be further encouraged, and that the significant lack of accurate or correct data on the application makes it impossible to act on this.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Darby said I will vote favorably for the motion, but I want to indicate that my main reason in addition to all the inadequacies on the submission is the impact on the surrounding neighbors. I have a question about previous calls to the police and seeming lack of corrective action there. One or two meetings ago, this same commission denied a request by a church to do some expansion basically because the property to be developed was inadequate to be done in such a way that it would really have a negative impact on the residents. It is in that vein that I cannot support this.

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Motion to deny was adopted unanimously.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE ELEVEN

B. Steak ‘n Shake, 11470 Princeton Pike requests site development plan approval and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive through window at their restaurant they propose to redevelop

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing, asking anyone who wished to speak to come forward. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing

Joe Chambers, Senior Construction Project Manager with Steak ‘n Shake stated we would like to raze this building and build a new facility on the same site roughly in the same area of the parking lot but face the front of the building toward Princeton Pike. There is a utility easement that runs east and west through the middle of the property that somewhat limits our choice of locations to put the building. That is part of the reasons why we will need the variances for front and rear setbacks and east and west side setbacks. We think we will improve the appearance of the property and we hope also the service of the restaurant and general outlook of the area.

Mr. Syfert said I would like to proceed with staff reports at this time. We looked at this proposed alteration a few months ago and they have now decided to approach it a different way.

Mr. Chambers said this is what we wanted to do in the first place, but some upper management didn’t think we ought to. This kind of helped out.

Mr. McErlane reported that the existing property is in a GB General Business District and is currently used as a restaurant with a drive through. It is currently a non-conforming use with respect to rear yard setback and the drive through. After development of this property, our Zoning Code began to require conditional use permit for drive throughs. Because of that we are holding a public hearing for conditional use permit for the drive through.

The proposed development involves demolishing the existing building and rebuilding the building and configuring it to have the front door towards Princeton Pike instead of towards the south as it currently is. At the same time, they would relocate the drive through to the north side of the building instead of being at the front of the building facing Princeton Pike.

We did not receive a lighting photometrics plan. Mr. Chambers indicated that the building is in the same area of the footprint of the existing, and with the exception of some reduction in paved areas, that the lighting locations remain as is.

A color pallet was not submitted, but we received a brick sample which is here (sample was passed among the members). The front yard setback is proposed at 39.57 feet, and the Zoning Code requires 50. The rear yard setback is 18.37 feet and 30 feet is required, so a variance would be needed for both of those.

The dumpster enclosure is shown at the north property line and a minimum 5-foot setback is required, so a variance would be needed for that as well.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWELVE

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. McErlane reported that the parking is based on a 1 per 50 s.f. and we apply that to the public areas of the restaurant. For the public areas it is required to have 32 spaces. For the service areas, 12 are required for a total of 44, and there are 57 spaces shown on the plan.

The plan only indicates one 15-inch tree in the southeast corner of the lot to be removed, which would require 7 ½ caliper inches of replanting. However, because of an excess of parking that is being provided, I would recommend that the tree be retained and we lose the one parking space that is being gained by removing that tree. That probably is one of the larger trees on that property and the Cassinelli tract. It is a 15-inch ash tree.

There are a number of areas in the parking lot that are shown as striped pavement that we believe could be redone in planting. One is in the curve of the drive through and there is an area where the utility easement comes through that is shown as all striped pavement. Obviously there are some areas immediately adjacent to what utility actually goes through there, but it looks as though it could be reduced and some plantings placed in that area.

There are four illuminated wall signs shown on drawings. Only three of them will count towards the permitted square footage as allocated towards permitted sign area. (The one on the east side is not visible from the public right of way so it isn’t attributed to the maximum sign area). The signs on the building total 201 square feet. I believe the existing building only has two wall signs non it, one facing south and one facing west. There is an existing pole sign on the property at 10’2" and 102 square feet. Although there is drive through shown on one of the drawings of the new canopy, there are no dimensions shown. We approximated it at 7’ x 4 ½’. The total sign area proposed will be 334 ½ square feet and the total allowable sign area is 123 s.f. There is an existing variance to allow 262 ½ square feet of signage from a previous variance.

In addition to the setback variances, there also will be a variance for sign area that will be needed.

Mr. Syfert asked if part of the reduction in signage was because of changing the building. Mr. McErlane responded there is that as well as the proposed signage exceeds the previous variance.

Ms. McBride stated that maximum impervious surface ratio of 75% is required, and the applicant is about 30 feet short. We would suggest that the area that Mr. McErlane was mentioning to save the tree would make 30 s.f. and save the tree and meet the impervious surface requirements.

The applicant submitted plans that indicated there is 3,640 s.f. of habitable floor area. Our code says one space per 50 s.f. of net floor area. Based on that, using the 3,640 a total of 70 parking spaces would be required. On the site plan, the applicant indicates that there are 1,116 square feet of net floor area, but that is not documented. I used the net floor that requires 70 and they are providing 57.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE THIRTEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Planning Commission has the ability to modify the amount of parking required or ask the applicant for further clarification as to the square footage that we should be using to calculate these requirements.

Our new code requires a minimum of 5 stacking spaces and that is from the point of pickup, not from the point of order. They do provide the five, but we do have some concern regarding the proximity of that drive through lane to the existing accessway and also to the southern access point.

The dumpster enclosure is a 6’6" tall concrete block enclosure on three sides with chain link gates on the fourth side. This is very visible from Princeton Pike so we have concerns regarding its appearance. The code is very specific in saying that it is to be constructed with materials similar to the main structure. We would assume that it would be constructed of the brick and we would rather see solid gates than chain link gates.

A variance would be necessary for the dumpster location that can’t be located in the front or side yard and is to be five feet off the rear property line. That enclosure needs to be sized to include all their dumpsters (their grease receptacle is continually outside the enclosure). The dumpster enclosure also needs to be positioned so it can be serviced without blocking that access drive. It is a main way of accessing additional retail properties in that area.

We did not get a photometric lighting plan although the applicant has indicated that all site lighting will remain as exists. There will be no new poles or fixtures and that the photometric lighting plan would be extremely difficult to produce. Then, I would hope that the commission would require some additional information.

We forwarded comments to the applicant on the landscape plan. Their pear trees they are proposing at 6 feet in height at installation and our landscape architect didn’t feel that acceptable, and they should be substantially larger than what the applicant is proposing. We also have suggested that all plant materials be incorporated into a mulch bed. The applicant is proposing bedding material of black lava rock and white marble chip. That is up to the commission. Staff and the landscape architect felt that the mulch bed was more appropriate and within keeping with other city standards.

We asked that additional trees and shrubs be installed along the western and southern perimeter of the parking lot. We asked that the striped pavement areas closest to the north side of the building be eliminated and established as additional landscaping beds. We asked that additional plant material be installed at the base of the existing freestanding sign in the northwest corner of the site, that some plant material be added to the area adjacent to Princeton Pike to screen and soften that. We also suggest that the striped pavement area on the east side be eliminated and established as additional landscaped beds.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE FOURTEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Ms. McBride added we did get building elevations for all the building facades and we received a sample of the brick material, but that is the only color or building material sample that we were provided. We did not receive any information on how the HVAC or mechanical equipment would appear or how it would be screened from view, and the development plan as submitted did not meet our submission requirements.

Mr. Okum said on the landscape setback along Princeton Pike, since we do have direct parking facing that roadway, wouldn’t it be appropriate to have a row hedge of shrubs across that as we have indicated in a lot of other developments?

Ms. McBride responded that we have asked for additional planting material. That is what is required by the new code, that parking areas be screened. We had provided these comments to the applicant earlier, and hadn’t received a response to them.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant what he thought about that. Mr. .Chambers answered I am really surprised, because I was told

by my landscape architect that they were in discussion with Ms. McBride, and they would be supplying a revised landscape plan that showed a line of shrubs between the parking and Princeton Pike.

Ms. McBride said we did not receive that. Your landscape architect did contact me, and I put them directly in touch with our landscape architect, but we did not receive any additional information. Mr. Chambers said I was told that a revised landscape plan would be in your hands by Wednesday at the latest. I apologize for that, but we had concurred that we weren’t meeting the landscape requirements and we would provide an additional line of shrubs along that west property line, provide additional landscaping at the base of the sign. I don’t have a problem with even 40 s.f. more landscaping area somewhere. We have a couple of opportunities.

Mr. Okum said the dumpster area has a striped out area alongside it. You could do some breaks in that masonry element with some vertical deciduous type trees or ferns in the area.

Mr. Shvegzda said on the site layout, the dumpster location should be reconfigured to open up the potential landscape area adjoining the east parking field and the north/south access drive.

As the drive through lane is currently configured, there is no physical separation between the drive through lane and what would be the southbound lane of the north/south access drive. In this area we will have opposing traffic basically on the other side of the normal opposed traffic situation through this area, so we feel this definitely is a safety concern that a two foot wide raised concrete divide needs to be constructed at least one foot off the property line.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE FIFTEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shvegzda said the current drive area that is now west of the building and 24 feet, could be reduced to 22 feet because it does not have parking backing out into it.

On the drive through traffic, it is queuing back into the area where it is accessed from both the drive of the site and could be accessed from the north/south access drive. By code, there is the required number of queuing spaces behind the pickup window and it is indicated that is the normal amount of traffic that backs up from the pickup window. However, the few drive through windows that do exist in the area, when it comes to lunchtime, it sometimes queues back beyond the normal, and we are concerned that this will lead to blockage of the north/south access drive in this area. Even potentially more serious would be the traffic blocking the main access to the Cassinelli Square development. So, we would request that some type of physical barrier be constructed either within the driveway itself to prohibit the traffic on the north/south from turning left into that particular area or some type of divider out into the access drive itself.

On detention, the area is under one acre in size. It is its own lot and the required volume for the footprint of the building would be approximately 650 cubic feet which is very insignificant in nature. We are not aware of any existing drainage problems in the immediate area downstream from this site, so we do not feel detention on this site should be required.

The existing storm sewer is being reconfigured with the reconfigured parking lot. One catch basin is physically being moved and another one is being adjusted vertically but we do need some tributary analysis and catch basin inlet capacity analysis to verify that the reconfigured arrangement still functions.

Mr. Okum asked about the driveway barrier configuration. Mr. Shvegzda sketched it on the large drawing, adding that the concern was that people would block at least the northbound lane. The only suggestions would be to construct a raised concrete median in that location, or do a raised island to make that a right in and right out. Mr. Okum commented if you right in, you will right in across their drive through. Mr. Shvegzda added the other thing that could be done is a raised median along the perimeter of the drive through that could be connected up to that so you wouldn’t have a right in.

Mr. Okum said from looking at this, this should be an exit out right turn only at this point. People wanting to get into the drive through queue should go down to the other entrance, around the building and in that way, go over to the north portion entrance and swing back in. If this was a right out only point, that would eliminate the issue of congestion on the drive through. So the southern driveway point should be egress only, right turn only.

Mr. Chambers responded our normal drive through volumes (peak at lunchtime for example) are very seldom more than three cars beyond the menu board. Obviously I can’t guarantee you that it wouldn’t happen with this one, but it is only a remote possibility.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE SIXTEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chambers added I understand in general the nature of his suggestion. My only objection would be the fact that you have a car that would circle the building twice to go through the drive through and get out.

Mr. Okum answered not necessarily; they could exit, turn right and come out at the northern point. Mr. Chambers said yes, but if they came in on the drive south of our property they would leave by that same drive. It’s hard to say what they would do, but people in a situation where you have been there for a while learn the best way to get in and out.

Mr. Okum said based on the information we have been provided, there does not appear to be an alternative that would prevent stacking across that southbound lane. Therefore my motion would be to make that egress right out only at the access point. I think it is something that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Huddleston asked the size of this building versus what was there before. Mr. Chambers answered it is roughly the same size, within 300-400 square feet. Mr. Huddleston wondered if it was larger, and Mr. Chambers did not know.

Mr. Huddleston said the concerns I have is that you have about 9/10 of an acre, and this maximizes it out and requiring a number of variance considerations. My question to you is why can’t we design to the requirements of the ordinance rather than asking for the variances. Go back to the drawing boards, and in some appropriate manner, whether it is reducing the size of the prototype and the ancillary parking, why isn’t it approached on that basis? Also, I think your lack of landscaping shows a lack of sensitivity to the streetscape as well as the neighborhood. I have a serious concern, based on the staff reviews that say we need to grant all sorts of variances. I am not opposed to working with applicants for win-win situations where they make sense. My sense here is we have tried to overstuff the bag a little bit, and we need to go back to the drawing board and look at that so when it comes back with the staff reviews, that they are not two pages of exceptions rather than something more conforming.

Mr. Okum said there has been no discussion of the mechanical units. How will they be screened from the public right of way and adjacent properties? Mr. Chambers answered they are on the roof, and are not visible from the street. At the very least there is a 36 inch foot variation between the roof level and the top of the parapet wall and at the most, it is about 53 inches, so all the mechanical units are screened when you are standing at street level.

Mr. Okum wondered if the canopies were translucent and Mr. Chambers answered that they were. It is like all the rest of our stores, black and white striped, drive through canopies are red and internally illuminated.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Okum asked about a maintenance plan for the landscaping and Mr. Chambers answered that the landscaping around the building is irrigated, and we have regular landscaping maintenance contracts for each store.

Ms. McBride said Mr. Huddleston asked the size of the existing building, and scaling it off, it appears to be about 2,640 s.f. The new building is 3,985 s.f. or 1,345 s.f. larger.

Mr. Okum said you were prepared to upsize the building slightly and the only kink was an outdoor refrigerator. Now we have a larger footprint.

Mr. Chambers said the remodeled facility would have given us 90 seats and this one will have 99 seats. We would have a greater amount of storage, which would decrease the number of deliveries. We have the walk in freezer and cooler inside the building that we were trying to put outside. In essence we think it is all accounted for. This is our standard building that works well. As far as sizing for this property, that would increase our costs. We could turn it and face south again and probably eliminate all the variances, but we felt this was not presenting the best face forward to the City.

Mr. Okum responded I have to agree with you that facing your building to Princeton Pike is a plus for Steak ‘n Shake. Do you only have one prototypical building? Mr. Chambers answered we have another one that is in test right now, but it is longer and narrower and wouldn’t fit facing Princeton Pike.

Mr. Okum said so you are only increasing your seating by nine. Mr. Chambers answered and getting a much more efficient much better looking facility. Mr. Okum asked how much higher the new building is and Mr. Chambers answered probably about two feet.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you have heard the city planner’s comments on the signage numbers. Do you have a solution to bring that more in conformance?

Mr. Chambers answered I wasn’t even aware that we were on a variance for signage. We were not going to propose a sign on the east side because it is not visible and serves no purpose. We have some variation in signage sizes for the building letters. On this building, if you go down to the two-foot letter, it looks strange because it is too small for the building. That or eliminating a sign would be the only method of reducing the signage. We would prefer to include the sign quantity into our variance. I was not aware that the term drive through on our canopy was considered signage, but we can drop that and have a plain red canopy. Mr. Okum said that would reduce it 31.5 s.f. bringing you closer to 300. What if you reduced the letters down to the two-foot size instead of three? Mr. Chambers answered I would have to get our sign company to calculate that, but I have to believe it would bring it down to 262, which is the variance number.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Okum said I don’t have any problem with your maintaining your existing variance on signage, 262.5, but I would be a little uneasy about increasing it again. Mr. McErlane reported that 123 s.f. is allowed and there is an existing variance for 262.5.

Mr. Chambers said I wasn’t prepared to answer that because until I received this second set of comments I wasn’t aware that we were on a variance and that we were over our allowable signage.

Mr. Okum said since you are over signage, and you will require some setback variances, do you offer anything to remedy that? Mr. Chambers answered turn the building 90 degrees and face it south. That is our only possibility.

Mr. Okum commented I understand your position. Once this goes through Planning, it would need to go through Board of Zoning Appeals for the variance. I chair that commission and would expect some type of remedy, but on the other hand, if you were to turn this building sideways at this larger footprint, I would have some reservations. Mr. Chambers said we do too; that is why we have it turned this way. Mr. Okum commented from a Planning Commission point of view, the building is facing the right way.

The only other remedy would be to make the building smaller, and you are only gaining nine seats. Mr. Chambers responded we are gaining much more than the nine seats. We are gaining a building that is 100 times better looking, more pleasant for the customer to be in, and more pleasant for the staff to operate out of.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, the existing variance for sign square footage (262.5 s.f.) was a variance from a larger number than the 123 we are looking at today. The allowable sign area was larger because of the width of the building facing Princeton Pike. By reorienting it, you get less frontage and therefore less allowable sign square footage.

Mr. Chambers said on the landscaping, I apologize. I believed staff would have a revised landscaping plan in their hands. That landscaping plan does address the landscaping along Princeton Pike and it does have a line of shrubbery. I don’t think it has additional trees over what is shown on the landscaping plan you have in terms of trees along Princeton Pike, but it does address the Princeton Pike space. If we gain approval, I can assure you that there will be a line of shrubs along Princeton Pike and there will be a landscaping around the base of the pole sign.

I have some reservations about landscaping that area that is right now striped on the west side of the property where the utility easement is. I’m not sure what all is in there, and I feel like there is a potential for a fair amount of traffic or disruption of the landscaping in that area if we landscaped it. We have enough other areas; I can lengthen the island beside the drive through to gain 30 or 40 square feet; that is no problem. Landscaping the two striped areas at each end of the parking north of the building presents a problem when you are trying to clear snow.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE NINETEEN

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chambers added the main reason for those areas being striped is in consideration of the snowplow. On landscaping the area around the dumpster, we intend the area west of the dumpster to be the access point for the crew when they carry the trash out. There is a four-foot opening in the wall, which is a walk opening.

We have a thirty-foot slab approach area to the dumpster. The typical dumpster pickup truck is not that long and that is why we have the concrete so he can set on the concrete rather than asphalt. Therefore he would not be in the access drive while he is there. We feel we have addressed the landscaping. I would ask Ms. McBride to take another look at the landscaping plan and I will see that she has one tomorrow. We would like to stay in this location. We feel it is a good one and we feel we have been good citizens of Springdale and would like to continue to be. We feel this is an addition to the area rather than just making a change.

Mr. Galster said I don’t have a problem with it being a little over if we can move that pole sign down to a ground mounted sign. Would there be consideration for that?

Mr. Chambers asked if it would be in the same location, and Mr. Galster indicated that it would. Mr. Chambers responded we could certainly take a look at it. Mr. Galster continued with the site lines you have, the building signage will get plenty of exposure. Mr. Chambers said I agree; we could certainly take a look at it. I think that would be at least a good possibility for our consideration. Mr. Galster commented you might have to go down a little bit in size for the ground mounted sign, but it could be dressed up in that landscaped area and look really nice.

Mr. Okum commented I’m not sure how much square footage he is suggesting. Mr. Galster said first take off the back sign (east side) (not in the calculations anyway), the drive through canopy sign would be eliminated, saving 31.5 s.f.. Right now they have three-foot letters on that building, and to me it’s an okay size for the building. Maybe we could take the pole sign down to a ground-mounted sign, reduce its size and save some of your overage there.

Mr. Okum asked what the total would be and Mr. Galster answered I haven’t sized the ground mounted sign, but right now it is 10 x 10 so it would be 100 s.f. If the ground mounted sign is 7’ x 7’, it is basically a square sign. Mr. Chambers responded we could configure it and do a 5’ x 10’. Mr. Okum said height is the issue on a ground mounted sign, it can only be 7 feet tall. Mr. Chambers said one of the signs we are doing is 5 x 10’. It is setting a couple of feet off the ground, so it would be seven feet overall. Mr. Galster said so we would get that down to 50 s.f. as opposed to 102 s.f., so you would be under your 262 s.f. anyway. Mr. Okum said so it would be the east sign would be removed, the drive through sign would be removed, reduction of signage to the original variance of 262.5 s.f. and pole sign to be changed to a monument sign.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride what she thought of this, and Ms. McBride answered in terms of the signage, I think that is a real fair tradeoff. If we can get the pylon to a ground mount, that would be a real achievement on Princeton Pike.

Mr. Chambers said Ms. McBride said she wasn’t sure how we came up with the 1116 s.f. I asked Mr. McErlane about the net square footage, and he said basically the public area (the dining room) plus service area (mainly the front counter area where they are served across the front counter), and that is how we came up with 1116 s.f. of net area.

Ms. McBride said in rough scaling it the 1116 didn’t seem to encompass that area, and on the flip side, it didn’t seem like there was 2800 s.f. that would be non public accessible.

Mr. Chambers said we consider the public area to be about 1800 s.f. (rest rooms, entry foyer and things of that nature). I understood that the restrooms and entry foyer wouldn’t necessarily be counted in the net area. If I’m wrong, that is fine, but that is how we came up with it. We didn’t just pull a number out of the air.

Mr. McErlane commented even at that, I came up with 1585 for seating area. The total parking spaces still came out less than what you are providing.

Mr. Huddleston said we have a conflict between Mr. McErlane’s report and Ms. McBride’s report. Regardless of those two reports, my question is are we comfortable with 57 parking spaces for this facility. Is that a manageable situation wilth99 seats?

Mr. McErlane said with respect to the square footage I used for parking numbers, I actually measured the floor plan. Ms. McBride used a number placed on the drawing by the architect, and I’m not sure what he was trying to represent there. Ms. McBride added that she felt comfortable that the 57 parking spaces for the 99 seats and with employees, will be adequate for that restaurant. Mr. Huddleston said even if we were to attempt to reduce those somewhat further with some landscaping? Ms. McBride responded if two or three spaces were to be lost to save that significant tree and those kinds of things, I still don’t think they would be close on parking.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Shvegzda recommended a curb system along that drive through. Does the applicant have any problems with that? Mr. Chambers answered they suggested moving the building two feet forward, and that is a possibility. It would increase our variance two more feet and it reduces the drive width by two feet. As a first blush suggestion, I thought maybe we could erect some flexible (PVC or vinyl or rubber bollards) along that separation, a raised curb much as you have on Springfield Pike. Mr. Okum commented they get hit all the time too and they are up on a big curb.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chambers answered we find that a raised curb doesn’t help a whole lot. It tears up tires and under carriages. I think there may be a minor possibility that there might be some problems with the way it is shown on the plan now. We certainly can take a look at moving the building forward and increasing the space. The one problem with curbing the east side of the drive through lane, putting a curb between the drive through lane and the access drive, is that we feel any time you curb both sides of the drive through lane, you need to increase its width to 11 or 12 feet. Typically we go 12 feet, because people start bouncing off the curbs if it is only 10 feet wide. So, we have increased the size of the curb two feet, and now we want to increase the size of the lane two more feet. We have some problems there too, but we certainly could take a look at that solution.

Mr. Okum said so what you are agreeing to is working out an amicable solution with our city engineer.

Mr. Shvegzda said we were recommending the two foot wide raised median and that would subtract two feet from the width of the drive through lane. That was part of the statement that we made in terms of moving the building forward two feet into the drive aisle to the front of the building. We are not asking for a reduction in the drive through lane.

On what you feel is a required width with curb on both sides, I would have to defer to your judgment on that, but certainly some additional width in the radius area and curve area would be justifiable with the curbing on both sides.

On any kind of vertical delineator in itself without those being raised off the pavement, they probably would last a week or less, and they certainly wouldn’t provide any physical protection between oncoming vehicles.

Mr. Chambers commented the car itself setting there would provide as much protection as anything.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Steak ‘n Shake development plan, to include specifications and designs contained in exhibits SP1 dated 4/24, SP2 dated 4/24, SP3 dated 4/24, SP4 dated 4/24, SP5 dated 4/24 SP6 A1 and A3; to include all staff, city planner, city engineer recommendations; and Conditions 1 to 11 of the city planner’s recommendations

That mechanical units shall be screened from view from the public right of way and adjoining properties;

That the applicant must submit a photometric lighting plan;

That all lighting shall maintain a minimum .5 foot candles, and hot spots shall not exceed existing foot-candles;

All exterior lighting shall be non-glare type to be designed so as not to diversely affect adjoining property owners or the public right of way;

Pole lighting is to be downlit and non-glare with flat lenses set within the case;

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Motion to Approve – Continued:

Wall mounted light packs if used shall be shielded and downlit only and shall not affect adjoining property owners and/or the public right of way;

Access lighting, translucent canopies and awnings shall be maintained at all times;

Accent lighting shall not be brighter than the basic building lighting;

Landscaping shall include planner’s recommendations;

Striped out areas shall be changed to landscaped areas;

Tree on the southeast corner indicated to be removed shall remain;

Landscaping plan to be modified to show row hedges across Springfield Pike and final review shall be by the city planner;

Maintenance of the landscaping shall be handled by irrigation and ongoing maintenance;

Dumpster enclosures shall include all dumpsters and be constructed of the same brick as the buildings and solid wood face and steel framed doors shall be placed on the enclosure;

The walk opening shall have a door of similar material;

The southern access drive shall be a right out egress only with no ingress;

All four building elevations as submitted shall be faced with Alpine brick. The remainder must be submitted to the city planner for approval. Our understanding is that it will be a white image with black accent;

The accent color red on the small canopy over the drive through shall be the only approved accent color;

The east sign shall be removed;

The drive through indication shall be removed;

Signage shall be reduced to the original variance of 262.5;

The pole-mounted sign shall be changed to a monument sign;

An agreement between our city engineer and the applicant to be reached on the drive through separation and the public right of way or the access drive.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster said is the only thing red on the building to be the canopy and the signage? Mr. Okum answered yes, they are accent colors on the building

Mr. McErlane said in this case, I am not sure if we shouldn’t be acting on the conditional use permit separately from the site plan approval. At least the site plan approval should be contingent on acquiring necessary variances.

Mr. Okum added to his motion "that this approval is conditional upon approval of identified variances by the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Galster said so we are considering this as site plan approval only, and not conditional use. Mr. McErlane responded it is probably more appropriate to consider the conditional use first, and then site plan approval.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Okum said then I will defer my motion and make a motion to approve the conditional use, contingent upon a site plan approval as proposed. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

On the approval of the conditional use permit, voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. The conditional use permit was approved unanimously.

Mr. Chambers said in Mr. Okum’s description of the dumpster area, he said that the dumpster gates should be metal-framed wood faced. Mr. Okum said that is pretty traditional. Many of the applicants use that same type. Mr. Chambers said obviously we can do that, but it is not our typical, which is what is shown on the plans.

Since you are lumping all the staff comments in as either do it or don’t do it, on the landscaping, there was a comment about the mulching. All planted areas to be mulched – we agree with that and it was to be shown on the revised landscaping plan. However, around the building, we typically use black lava rock and white marble chips to carry out black and white theme.

Also, we have found on many occasions if we have hardwood mulch in the area immediately adjacent to the drive through lane, we probably will have several fire department runs in a six month time, because of people throwing cigarettes out. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to the marble and lava rock chips around the building. I would ask that you at least entertain the opportunity of letting us keep that, number one because of standardization of our image, but also because of the problem of fire around the drive through area.

Mr. Galster said so immediately around the building would be the rock, and all the other landscaping would be mulch. Mr. Chambers responded yes, and we have that island north of the drive through lane. Mr. Galster commented that is an awfully big island to be putting stone in. I would like to see that one remain mulch. Mr. Chambers responded we could certainly do that. Obviously there is less concern about fire in there because it is removed from the building. I would not be as adamant about wanting to go with stone in that island.

Mr. Syfert asked Ms. McBride if her comment excluded all lava rock, and Ms. McBride answered that it was intended to, but it is up to the Commission’s discretion.

Mr. Okum said I can’t disagree with the applicant’s concern with mulch directly up against the building. I do have some reservations about that large landscaped area where the drive through sign is, the other area to the south, and certainly where that large striped out section area is along the north portion. That is large enough to put grass and trees in.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Ms. McBride responded the area directly to the west of that is noted as sod, so I would assume that is going to be a continuation. In terms of mulch against the building, an awful lot of restaurants and retailers do it. We have asked and had an awful lot of restaurants and retailers in Springdale do it, but that is up to the Commission.

Mr. Okum commented there are other media used on landscaped areas, like shredded tires which is also black. Ms. McBride said Bahama Breeze mulched right up to the building with their landscaped beds. They have a number of people waiting around outside for tables, and it didn’t seem to pose a problem for them in terms of fire safety. Mr. Okum said we have never excluded that from our Zoning Code, and other developments have been using mulch.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I think our city planner is recommending mulch instead of the lava, and I will not change my motion in that regard.

On the site plan approval, voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Site plan was approved unanimously.

Mr. Galster moved to reconsider the removal of Item V A from the agenda and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Commission went back to item A under Old Business..

A. Sam’s Club requests approval of additional signage on store at 800 Kemper Commons Circle.

Mike Walker, General Manager of Sam’s Club said this is for the tire signage. We have a small sign that says "Tire and Battery Installation" above the doors. Our building is faces into a hill where the tire shop is, and the small sign is facing into this hill. We are proposing to put Tires with an arrow at the corner of the building, so we would have something facing frontward. That is the only place we have, except for the one facing the hill.

Mr. Syfert said are you saying you want it on the west elevation in that little notch? Mr. Walker answered yes. Mr. Okum said that is different from what we have. Mr. Walker responded since April, they have changed this. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane where he understood it to be.

Mr. McErlane reported that the original submittal was on the west side where it was shown six to eight months ago. Then we received a subsequent submittal that showed it on the south elevation (on the corner).

Mr. Okum said but that is not where the applicant wants it. Mr. Walker said it would be facing that street that curves up around. You actually would get a better view with it facing the front of the building.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

VI STEAK ‘N SHAKE 11470 PRINCETON RESTAURANT REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. Syfert asked the size of the sign and Mr. Walker answered that it was 38.8 square feet.

Mr. McErlane reported that when the whole sign package was approved, Planning Commission removed this sign as part of the sign package.

Mr. Okum said Plan A6 dated 7/21/2000 that shows just Tires with an arrow, and that should be the only item to consider. The right elevation does not show any signage on it, but in fact the right elevation does have signage on it (the Kemper Road side).

Mr. Okum asked the number of Sam’s Club members, and Mr. Walker answered that it was 83,000; we had over 100,000 but Fields-Ertel opened up and took 20 some thousand members from us. Mr. Okum said so how many of those 83,000 doesn’t know where the tire department is. Mr. Walker answered you would be surprised, especially now that we have remodeled, it’s amazing how many people do not know. It is not where it used to be. We have been closed since October, and right now our tire business has been cut in half.

Mr. Okum said the way the aisles are set up, it is awkward to get to that tire department. I was over there Saturday, and I didn’t know that the tire department was open. The way it is laid out, it is an obstacle to get there, and whether or not you had a sign on the outside of the building that said tires wouldn’t help me.

Mr. Syfert asked if the sign were really necessary. Mr. Walker answered as big as we are, a lot of members don’t know we have tires. We run into the same thing every day. Even before we remodeled, you would be surprised how many people do not know that you have tires.

Ms. McBride reminded the commission that they specifically excluded this sign before. I also would remind the commission that there is a similar use in the near vicinity that could also come in for a similar request for an increase in signage.

Mr. Galster asked how often members shop? Mr. Walker answered we break it down to about once a month, and the advantage business members shop at least once a week. Mr. Galster said so 80% of your business go there once a month? Mr. Walker responded about 75%. Mr. Galster continued and most of them don’t know you have tires. Mr. Walker reported that it is about 45% that don’t know. Mr. Galster commented so it might be a good idea to advertise that you have tires.

Mr. Galster suggested a temporary banner for one month that says Tires. By that time, everybody has come into the store, and then it comes down. Mr. Walker liked the idea.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY- SIX

SAM’S CLUB ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE – 800 KEMPER COMMONS CIRCLE

Mr. Okum said I think that is a great idea; I am a member, and I didn’t know that the tire department was open. I will say that there are two tires on a display in the entry of the building, so I think I know you sell tires. On the other hand, I think Mr. Galster has a very valid point to let people know that your tire department has now reopened. Will Sam’s be doing some type of promotional reopening? Mr. Walker answered absolutely. We will be coming in for banners and inflatable permits as well. Mr. Okum said I would suggest that you should consider inflatables carefully, but banners would be a good idea. Mr. Walker asked why not inflatables, and Mr. Okum said if they are movables. Mr. Walker continued we do the Michelin guy in the parking lot or the Goodyear blimp for a three-day period with re grand opening.

Mr. Okum commented I don’t have a problem with a temporary banner. Mr. Syfert asked the size and Mr. Walker answered 3’ x 10’.

Mr. Galster moved to allow Sam’s to put up a temporary 3’ x 10’ Tires banner for a period of one month.

Mr. Walker asked if it could say Goodyear or Michelin, instead of just tires? Mr. Galster commented it would be hard to put Goodyear on a 3’ x 10’ and scrunch those letters. Mr. Okum said I was thinking Tire Center Now Open. I think that is more important; it doesn’t really matter what brand.

Mr. Galster said let’s reconsider the size. Mr. Okum commented 3’ x 10’ is pretty small. Mr. Galster suggested 6’ x 20’. The commission agreed that was rather big. Mr. Galster stayed with his motion for a 3’ x 10’ banner saying Tires. Mr. Darby seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Motion was passed with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission moved back to New Business.

C. Dedication Plat – Walnut & Pear Street

Mr. Shvegzda reported the preconstruction meeting for the project will be this week and the City will improve and widen Walnut and Pear Street. To accommodate the improvements on Walnut, the right of way that is noted on the dedication plat is being provided, actually donated by the affected property owners, both the school district and the owners of the We Care Home Facilities, Optimum Development. We had some difficulty with UPS on the original document, and we may have that back for signature by the end of the week or early next week.

Mr. McErlane asked if this is the same right of way that was accepted by Council last week? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, and M r. McErlane said it is not dedicated yet, and they accepted it.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY- SEVEN

VI C DEDICATION PLAT – WALNUT & PEAR STREET

Mr. Galster moved to accept the dedication plat and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the plat was accepted unanimously.

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Modification to the Tree Preservation Ordinance – tabled 4/10/01

Mr. McErlane reported that both he and Ms. McBride have difficulty understanding what was proposed at the last meeting. Ms. McBride added there was a lot of talk about developing overlay districts for the two large undeveloped parcels that we have left in the city. There was discussion about a bonus system to reward developers instead of penalizing them for removing trees. There was discussion on requiring people to develop around specimen trees and there was a lot of discussion about landmark trees. In looking at my notes and reading the Minutes and consulting with Mr. McErlane, the city planner needs clarification as to exactly the direction the commission wanted to go.

Mr. Huddleston said homogenize, distill it and give us a recommendation. Mr. Okum said I thought the chair suggested that you look for models from other communities. I think Mr. Osborn brought up the landmark tree issue, and I thought that very valid. My position was that the specimen trees, the healthy hardwoods that are over 24 inches need to be preserved and encourage developments to work around them instead of through them. When they would take a tree out as a result of building placement, shift the building so the tree could be saved and they would get rewarded for that. I thought that was a wonderful idea, especially on those two items, landmark and specimen trees.

Mr. Syfert commented I think we were looking for guidance along those lines. I am sure some other cities do have something similar to that.

Ms. McBride said now that we have a little bit clearer direction we would be happy to provide the commission some options for next month, and I apologize for the confusion this month.

Mr. Huddleston said on the city having joined the Planning Partnership of the Hamilton County Regional Planning. I am involved in that; it is a humongous task and I am still very excited about the opportunity but also very realistic about the negative side of it, the opportunity to fail and not be an effective organization.

Having said that, they have done a lot of work and it has been pretty productive work. Our charge now is to go forward without trying to get consensus out of the 50 municipal planning agencies in Hamilton County. One of the committees and programs in existence is the Community Compass which is a survey of citizens, organizations, municipalities, public and private sector and get involvement to get input and direction as to what issues we should partner on. There are other things on the table, but this is an ongoing effort so we can really become collaborative.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY- EIGHT

VII DISCUSSION-HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Huddleston said each member jurisdiction that has joined the partnership is invited to appoint a member of their commission to that Compass Committee. This will be a pretty intensive six to ten month process in its formation stage to try and get this survey and feedback. The information is available; staff could call it up on the Internet from Hamilton County.org through the Regional Planning Commission and distribute that to the members. The Commission is trying very hard to look for inclusion in all areas and beyond that, you almost would have to read the charter. Certainly if someone on the commission has an interest; I know Dave was interested in making a run for the commission itself, but that would be available.

Mr. Syfert commented I’m glad you brought that up, because I brought that along tonight. Dave’s name came to mind as I was reading this; are you agreeable to this? Mr. Galster nominated Dave Okum and Mr. Vanover seconded the nomination. Mr. Okum accepted the nomination. Mr. Syfert commented I think Dave will be a good representative.

Mr. Huddleston said from the standpoint of the work that has been done already, the good news/bad news is that they have generated a ream of paper. In one sense that is bad news, but the good news is that there is a lot of beneficial information to go forward with if the committee can sort it out and get the focus we need.

Mr. Vanover said when we talked about the Tire Plus letter that has gone out concerning the requirement to have the color pallet. It appeared that there may have been a loophole that didn’t give us any teeth to hold their feet to the fire on it. There has been some discussion in the administration, and we are actively referring that to Council’s Rules and Laws to see if we can’t develop something with a bite.

Mr. Galster commented that it seemed that this issue should be something we would address in Planning Commission as a change to the Zoning Code that any change to the color pallet wold need to be resubmitted to Planning. I think the key to the debate is should the applicant have to resubmit the color pallet if they make a major change to it.

Mr. Okum said I have a checklist for motion items so we have something in some type of order to identify items. I have given copy of it to Ms. McBride and I wanted to try it tonight. I did not read it because it has not been before the law director and I would not put it in the form of a motion. But as part of a motion, I would have said:

"Failure to comply with the above conditions now or at any time after this approval, will require compliance within 30 days of notice of said non compliance. Changes to any of the above conditions referenced shall constitute a change of the approved plans. Such changes shall require approval of the Planning Commission of the City of Springdale Ohio."

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE TWENTY- NINE

VII – DISCUSSION - TIRE PLUS – 11700 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Okum said that were in the motions, I think we would have some bite. Mr. Darby asked if that were in line with the existing law, and Mr. Okum indicated that he did not know. Mr. Darby commented you couldn’t through a motion supersede the law now. Mr. Huddleston said you could add to the law but not change it.

Mr. Okum said I thought this wording would give it some bite, some strength in the motions. It’s pretty hard looking back four years ago or seven years ago or 11 years ago. It was in 1988 and 1989 that we reviewed the Tri-County Mall modifications.

Mr. Huddleston said even with the color pallets, they have been bringing bricks and siding. Is Planning and Zoning expected to maintain an inventory of bricks and siding in perpetuity like the evidence room in the Police Department?

Mr. Okum said it is tough, but my issue with the tire store is that they have an approved PUD. My understanding is that the PUD had attached to it a final plan with a color pallet, and that color pallet in itself became part of that final plan. If that is true, part of that PUD being changed, by their changing the building to red, is a violation and a change to the PUD that we did not approve. PUD is real simple. We talked conditional use and regular site plan review for a non-corridor district area. The Corridor Review District states specific colors. I think if we are going to reference it and it becomes a part of the motion, it becomes a part of that final plan. Mr. Huddleston commented I like your final statement if it can pass the test of the solicitor.

Ms. McBride said I will take a look at this and see how it works with our checklist. I agree with Mr. Okum that if a color pallet was submitted it was as much a part of the approval as the square footage and the parking spaces and the landscape plan, etc.

Mr. Huddleston commented in this particular case, and I haven’t looked into it extensively, if you’ll notice they have changed the window molds and everything else in conjunction with the red mansard. It goes beyond the red roof.

Mr. McErlane said PUDs do have a little more teeth to them if the color pallet is a part of the preliminary plan, because it is approved as part of the rezoning of the property. It is a part of the public record and a part of the rezoning document. Actions by this board don’t constitute the same thing. They are not part of a legislative ordinance as a PUD is. The Corridor District is a different animal because we do specifically talk about colors there.

Mr. McErlane added I have a tendency to look at it from a legal standpoint more than from a practical standpoint, and sometimes those two things aren’t the same. If you had to defend denying or approving a particular color, there are more teeth in things like the Corridor District that specifically talks to colors. There is a little bit of teeth in a PUD because if you do adopt it as part of the preliminary plan, it is part of a legislative document.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE THIRTY

VII – DISCUSSION - TIRE PLUS – 11700 PRINCETON PIKE

In terms of Planning Commission’s administrative actions on this board, it doesn’t carry as much teeth.

When Dave and I e-mailed back and forth on this topic, I talked about can you defend saying we don’t like red, or you didn’t come to us to get approval before you painted it red in a court of law. That doesn’t preclude the fact that they might have deviated from the approved color pallet.

Going back to this specific instance, although we found the attachments to the ordinance, there is no color pallet included in it. We found some discussions in the Planning Commission minutes. I think there were eight sets of minutes on that project, and there were a couple of discussions about colors. One said beiges, one said grays and one said neutral colors. That was the extent of what we could find about colors.

Mr. Galster wondered if there was anything wrong or difficult about taking what we have in the Corridor Review District and putting that into the regular code and making it a citywide color standard statement? Is there a problem with trying to enforce that?

Ms. McBride responded I think there is because the Corridor Study is based on that document you had done which has been updated reviewed and kept current. There is a study and analysis that went into that, and the recommendations for earthtone colors and the other things have a backing to them. To arbitrarily and capriciously say the whole city will be earthtones without anything to back it up would be a real problem.

Mr. Galster said what about the fact that we are doing a comprehensive plan, and in that comprehensive plan study, we are looking at all the different corridors, and we can reference back to the Corridor Study for Route 4 and say that it has worked so well with the colors, we want to continue it throughout these other districts.

Ms. McBride answered I think as part of the focus area studies we are doing, one of them being the whole Princeton Pike-Kemper Road regional retail corridor, that is a recommendation that can be made, and then there is something to refer back to. But, again it is not going to be as solid as the corridor study is. If somebody came in and challenged it and they have corporate colors, they feel very strongly about those things. Mr. Galster answered that’s fine, but that at least gets us started when we originally have the plan in place. Consider Pictoria Tower – what if Nickelodeon becomes a tenant and they decide to paint it green? What’s to stop them next week from painting it lime green?

Ms. McBride answered there are two questions the Commission is facing. One is do you have the ability to reconsider or bring them back before you if the building goes green. In my opinion, yes you do because you approved a color pallet and building materials for that specific building.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE THIRTY-ONE

VII – DISCUSSION - TIRE PLUS – 11700 PRINCETON PIKE


Ms. McBride added do you have the ability to say no to the green is a different question, because there is nothing over there studywise or design guidelines that pertains to Pictoria Island in terms of keeping green out. I think it is a two fold question yes to the first and I don’t know to the second.

Mr. Galster commented we should put the first one in and then start working on what to do about the second so we don’t have continuing problems and try to cut off the second problem as soon as possible.

Mr. Vanover said Mr. McErlane makes a very valid point and those of you who remember back to the Shopco days, that is what drove the rezoning of that property, to put us in a defensible position. If the challenge is made, that is what it is going to come down to. I like Dave’s statement, and I hope it would fly, but to apply it citywide, I would have a problem because we may at some point in time want to put different flavors in different sections of town. You get down to the question as to whether we are being too restrictive on the property owners’ use of the property?

Mr. Galster said I have no problem with the legal statement that he is reading there as well, but it seems to me we might need to look at the Zoning Code to put in such as any change to color pallets would require a resubmittal for approval.

Mr. Okum said it is as simple as going back to the light fixtures on the Shell gas station. It was not part of the approved plan. The changes in the Best Western lighting was a change and you would have to research 21 years ago to see what was approved.

Mr. Huddleston said so if you say a color pallet must be submitted and there would be some form that would be archivable so you would have for reference.

Mr. McErlane said you would hate to make the entire code that cumbersome for people to try to live with. Obviously we do the Route 4 Corridor because we are trying to establish a particular character to that corridor. I don’t know that you can broadbrush the entire city that way. If we put some kind of tighter controls from the standpoint that they comply with the color pallet they submitted, we probably would accomplish that. We would have to fight the battles of the 8-story green high rise when it comes about.

Mr. Darby said if 20-25 years ago the project was such that it ad to come through this commission for approval of colors etc., why wouldn’t it be just sufficient if we structured it in such a way that if you are going to redo it, you come to this commission. Do you want to change it – fine, if we agree with the changes. Chances are they don’t realize what it was originally. Mr. McErlane commented there is no one over at the mall that was there at the time of approval.

Mr. Huddleston said knowing what was there for all these years might add some substance to this.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 MAY 2001

PAGE THIRTY-TWO

  1. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
    1. Coomers Craft Mall – 455 East Kemper Road – Wall Sign
    2. LaMichoacana Produce – 11501 Springfield Pike – Wall Sign
    3. Wireless Communications – 11439 Princeton – Wall Sign
    4. Catherine’s Plus Sizes – 11429 Princeton – Wall Sign
    5. You & Hair – 471 East Kemper Road – Wall Sign
  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,2001 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

_____________________, 2001 ________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary