CITY OF SPRINGDALE PLANNING COMMISSION

9 MAY 2000

7:00 P.M.

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. Chairman William G. Syfert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston,

    David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover, David

    Whitaker and Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: Donald Darby

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Richard Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 11 APRIL 2000
  6. The members had not received complete copies of the Minutes, so approval was tabled to the next meeting, June 13th.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council Ė Mr. Galster reported that there will be a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City of Springdale on May 17th.
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė April 10, 2000
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė April 25, 2000
    4. 4/14/00 Letter to Chi Chiís Architect from William McErlane
    5. 4/12/00 Letter to Kathy McNear re Proposed Comprehensive plan for City of Springdale
    6. 4/12/00 Letter to Kathy McNear re Zoning Code Amendment
    7. 5/4 Memo from Anne McBride re Training Sessions
  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Exterior Change to Chi Chiís, 380 Glensprings Drive

Mr. Jack Hancharick Regional Manager of Chi Chiís said we are in the middle of a company wide remodeling program. It consists of both interior and exterior renovation and represents a $650,000 investment at the Springdale Chi Chiís.

I have an exterior elevation (showed color elevation). Looking at the surrounding buildings, at the Howard Johnson sign and at the Perkins awning, that particular paint scheme would blend in well. It certainly would not overshadow any of Perkinsí green and yellow bright awnings and would match the signage of Howard Johnsonís. As a company we are using the same color scheme in all the restaurants. Based on the information I received, it is close to what the codes are for the district.

Ms. McBride reported that the property is located within our Subarea B of the Corridor Review District. The applicant is proposing to repair the exterior of the building; there are some cracks, paint the structure and add a gabled roof with translucent panels over a portion of the building entrance, and add wood shutters to portions of the building. The majority of the proposed renovations are largely consistent with Subarea B requirements.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE TWO

V A EXTERIOR CHANGE TO CHI CHIíS, 380 GLENSPRINGS DRIVE - continued

Ms. McBride said specifically, some of the renovations go toward bringing the property more in compliance with the Corridor Review District. They are going to be removing the neon around the building, and we have been working very diligently to get neon off the corridor. They will be screening the existing rooftop mechanical equipment and those are both positive changes to the building.

The colors are earthtones so thereís not a lot to comment on those. They are not proposing any changes to the site plan in terms of layout, lighting, landscaping, parking or signage. I think the proposed changes bring the property more in compliance with the Route 4 Corridor District requirements.

Mr. Galster wondered if the surface of the exterior walls would remain the same, just getting painted. Mr. Hancharick confirmed this, adding that the existing chimney that is slanted will become upright. and the two pillars in the entrance area will be widened and brought up to attract attention to the building. Mr. Galster wondered if the finish would match the existing, and Mr. Hancharick confirmed that it would be stucco to match the existing.

Mr. Okum said now that you have the real color pallet instead of what we received, do you have any other comments, like the red. Ms. McBride responded the colors on the material board and the paint boards are not exactly as they were represented to staff in the Xerox. I donít know that they are as earthtone as staff thought they were. Iíd like to see the elevations. (Elevations were passed to Ms. McBride).

Mr. Huddleston commented in view of the fact that the color pallet submitted tonight is considerably different than the faxed copy, I do

not know if the staff will need additional time to review this and comment or whether they are comfortable with trying to resolve this tonight. The colors are significantly brighter, and not necessarily earthtone. I donít have any problem with the renovation as proposed, but I do have a problem with the colors as submitted tonight.

Mr. Syfert asked if the color had been changed. Mr. Hancharick answered these are the original colors we proposed initially. It really looks nice in the Florence location. We used the same color scheme. It doesnít look loud; it blends in very nicely and is a very warm color scheme. I think it is a vast improvement over the current color scheme that we have, and would blend into the area very professionally.

Mr. Syfert wondered if anyone other than me has seen the Florence location. No one had.

Mr. Okum commented not having the opportunity to see the true colors, and the fact that the color board presented this evening is significantly different than what we received in the mail, I would propose we give this some time for us to at least see the facility in Florence. I would be more comfortable if I could see a building with this color scheme.

Mr. Hancharick asked Mr. Syfert how he liked the Florence location and M r. Syfert responded that he had no real problem with it. I think it has a bit of a southwestern tone, and I like southwestern tones, but I am only one member and I donít think it is fair for me to try to sway the board one way or the other. I for one would not have a problem with it.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE THREE

V A EXTERIOR CHANGE TO CHI CHIíS, 380 GLENSPRINGS DRIVE - continued

Mr. Huddleston said I think we do have some concern about those colors. On one hand I want to apologize to the applicant for the delay in this. The first month was caused by yourself. I donít think there was any intent to mislead in this submittal, but you have to recognize the submittal we have tonight is significantly different from what we had before. I think the appropriate action would be to table this to next month. That is the only thing we can do given the new submittals this evening.

Mr. Hancharick asked the board if the problem were the whole color scheme or just a particular color. Ms. McBride responded speaking from my standpoint, what you presented tonight is significantly different from what was submitted earlier, particularly on PE 6, PE 7, and PE 8. Those three in particular are significantly different, as is PE 2 and PE 1, which seem to be reversed. Looking at this, Iím not sure how accurate these copies are; am I getting the right colors. Mr. Hancharick responded to be quite honest, it is in between, not quite as bright as the elevation I brought this evening but it is a little brighter than the original color scheme you received.

Mr. Huddleston added I would suggest that those members of the board who have the chance look at the Florence facility, as I will personally. The applicant might want to bring pictures next month for those members who donít have that opportunity. I also would suggest that you work with staff. I believe if you can address t heir concerns, you probably pretty much have addressed the concerns of the board. The stipulations are relatively clear for that district.

Mr. Okum said I will be making a motion to table, but I think the applicant needs to know that if he meets all the other building code issues, the interior renovation doesnít have to stop, or it can start. We are discussing an outside façade issue, not the interior. Your remodeling internally would not impact this board at all, so you could commence those repairs once you get your permits from the city.

Mr. Hancharick responded so from what I understand the issue is the color of the building. Mr. Okum said the exterior treatment. Mr. Hancharick continued when you say treatment, is it the color or does it have to do with any of the other treatment? Ms. McBride responded what I hear the commission saying and from my standpoint as the planner for the city is that we thought they were very muted earth tones, and what we see this evening isnít quite what we got in the mail. We would like to see that in person, and since you donít have any photographs and since this is new to the commission, they would like to see those colors either in person or via photographs before the next meeting.

Mr. Syfert added as far as the façade changes go, we are in favor of all that. It boils down to the color items. Mr. Okum added I have no problem with the facade changes; it is the color issues that are attached to the façade.

Mr. Hancharick stated at this time I would request conditional approval to start the remodel on May 31st. We will not move on the color scheme until we have final approval.

Mr. .Syfert said I would not have any problem with that whatsoever. You realize our next meeting will be June 13th. Mr. Hancharick responded it would take a couple of weeks to get the outside of the building molded before we start the painting and repair. Mr. Syfert said I think that would be reasonable.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE FOUR

V A EXTERIOR CHANGE TO CHI CHIíS, 380 GLENSPRINGS DRIVE - continued

Mr. Galster added I think the structural changes they are making are fine. If the colors were more accent type colors for borders and those type things I would probably still be okay with that, but it looks like that red is pretty much used on that front wall all the way across. Itís not an accent color any more and becomes more of an issue.

Mr. Galster moved to approve pending the submittal and approval of an acceptable color scheme. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum said that is making the whole motion pending approval of the color pallet. I think we need to make the motion excluding the color pallet and move on the changes to the building. Mr. Galster so modified his motion and Mr. Huddleston seconded the modified motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if he sensed the entire direction, and Mr. Hancharick indicated he did, adding that he is pretty confident that once the commission sees the pictures or the Florence

location itself you will see that the colors are a lot warmer than the elevation shows.

On the motion to approve, excluding the color pallet voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Final Approval of Sofa Express, 11750 Commons Drive

Mr. Syfert stated for final approval of any item, it takes five affirmative votes, so with one member absent, it is not a simple majority this evening.

Ken Paul, President of Sofa Express stated with me this evening are Jerry Quinn, Director of Finance specializing in real estate, and Kevin Blakener, Architect from Cole & Russell.

Mr. Syfert said we did have new plans for this and I believe there is some confusion on some of the new items, but I would like to start with the staff reports.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the detention calculations indicated that there was sufficient volume provided in the proposed expansion of the detention basin that is currently there. There was some additional information that has to be addressed regarding modification to the outlet structure to restrict the release rate to the flow that should be released from the site. We have given some information to the applicant regarding that. There is not a very significant amount of new storm sewer, but as of yet, we have not seen the storm sewer calculations for the proposed storm sewer.

On the driveways, there were a number of issues that had not been addressed from the previous submittal, noting that curb and gutter were going to be replaced in areas where the driveway was to be relocated. That full-depressed curb and gutter would be reconstructed in areas detailed with standard concrete apron in the northernmost driveway that is to be relocated. On Sheet C2.03 there was site grading/grading details. There were two radii indicated from the proposed southern driveway, one showed the barrel of the driveway being in conflict with the first landscaped median so there is a question as to what is right. Our concern for that driveway was that it be of such a width and with such a radius dimension that the trucks would be able to turn in there sufficiently, even with a vehicle queued waiting to turn left in that vicinity. That is the main access point for customers.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE FIVE

VI A FINAL APPROVAL OF SOFA EXPRESS Ė 17570 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Shvegzda added that there is still a little confusion on the grading for the parking lot on the south. It has been somewhat clarified, but there are still some issues as to how much of that is going to be excavated and redone as opposed to just be overlaid an modified.

With creating that other leg of that intersection for the southbound traffic, we will have to restripe that to create a left turn bay in that vicinity.

Mr. Syfert said in the overlaying two different schemes on there, did one look right? Mr. Shvegzda answered as far as the parking lot issue is concerned, it looked correct. It is just a matter of maybe even cross hatching or highlighting areas that were either going to be total excavation and replacement and those that are going to be overlaid. It is just a matter of clarification.

Mr. Blakener said we have looked at that and had discussions with Mr. Shvegzda today. The current drive radius is at 35í on the inbound, and we have made adjustments to the first landscaped island to move it toward the north to commit a wider drive in and the queuing.

Ms. McBride reported that at the April meeting we reviewed a plan that had 205 parking spaces, and that was based on our direction that they needed 202 spaces. Based on the new code, they need 183 parking spaces for this use. The applicant eliminated 17 parking spaces that were adjacent to Commons Drive. There was a problem with setback on those spaces; there was a problem with the turning radius on some of those spaces so they now have a total of 188 spaces and meet the setbacks.

As a result of that, the open area on the site has been increased from 39.8% to 40.7%, exceeding our minimum requirements.

One of the things the commission had the most difficulty with was the freestanding sign proposed for 275. The height has been reduced from 36 feet to 24 feet as suggested by the Commission. Additionally a note has been added on the sign detail sheet as well as incorporated in the landscaping plan that landscaping will be around the base of the sign. Their landscape architect did talk to us about types of material and they will be repeating a lot of the mix that was on the site around the base of the sign.

We didnít receive any revised details for any of the on building signage. From the elevations it looked to b approximately the same, so we are assuming that the on building signage approved in April is what is before the Commission tonight.

They have added a note to the lighting plan that the color of the poles and fixtures will match those on the Roberds site. That was something we wanted confirmation of at the April meeting.

There was plant material, which was perched on the detention basin; that has been removed. The majority of that material has been relocated elsewhere on the site, a lot of it along Commons Drive where it will get more visibility, and I would rather see it there. It is not completely replaced but it is pretty close.

The only item that might be outstanding is that of the restrictive convenience. At the last meeting we had not received anything. In talking with other members of the staff, yesterday we received a revision to the covenants. I am not sure it adequately addresses the revision that needs to take place in terms of percentage of retail, office and warehouse for that site.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE SIX

VI A FINAL APPROVAL OF SOFA EXPRESS Ė 11750 COMMONS DRIVE

Ms. McBride added that it has been executed by Tom Bopp, but I would ask that any action that the Commission might take would be contingent upon the satisfactory review of the revised Covenants by the cityís attorney, because they have not had a chance to look at those.

Mr. Syfert commented the changes to the plan have eliminated a lot of our concerns; I think you have done a good job on it.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that on the two signs, the north and south building signs are 817 square feet; the freestanding sign is a total of 128.04 square feet for a total sign area of 945.04 square feet. The total allowable sign area is 760 square feet.

Mr. Galster wondered how wide the 36-foot high sign was, and Mr. Paul answered that it was 14 Ĺ feet; the width has gone from 14 Ĺ to 12 feet.

Mr. Okum wondered if screening of the rooftop mechanicals had been provided. It is part of our new Code to have mechanical units screened from the public right of way. Mr. Paul answered we are using the existing mechanicals for the most part. Mr. Okum added it is part of our new Code to have mechanical units screened from the public right of way and it also has been requested by this board for a number of years.

Ms. McBride added based on the exterior elevations that we have, it doesnít appear that they are screened. Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had any problem with screening them as part of the approval. Mr. Paul answered I wouldnít think so; we want the building to look good too. There are a number of ways to screen; Showcase probably had the most unique which blended with the building and gave them the air intakes needed for the units to function properly. There is a lot of rooftop view of your building going down Century, and I want to make sure we cover that.

Mr. Okum asked if the landscaped areas were irrigated, and Mr. Paul answered I doubt it. Mr. Okum said that there is a lot of landscaping material there that could use some irrigation or you will lose the plant material. Mr. Paul answered we are making a pretty good investment in the landscape materials, and we want them to grow, but it was not our intention to put in a sprinkler system. Mr. Okum responded I wasnít requesting that; I am more interested in the bedding areas. It is a condition of the covenants that your landscaping is maintained.

I donít have a problem with the sign. I think it is a fair compromise. We are talking an allowable sign area of 760 square feet. The applicantís revised submission is 945 square feet. It is a significant change from where we started, and I think it is very positive.

I wanted to ask about the glass system, which has been narrowed down to less on the west side of the building.

Mr. Paul responded the entire west wall was glass at our original submittal in December. For a variety of reasons, the most important being cost, we have elected to try to use as much of the existing structure as we could. Those are attractive poured wall foundations currently, and we will put a different EIFS type of material on it and therefore will use much less glass.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE SEVEN

VI A FINAL APPROVAL OF SOFA EXPRESS Ė 11750 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Okum commented this seems different than what we saw the last time, narrower. Mr. Paul brought out the color rendering that had been presented at that meeting. Mr. Blakener added that is an artistís rendering, and we have accommodated the glass to be in tune with the size of the precast panels that we can remove. What is represented on the black and white drawings is representative of the actual physical number of precast panels that can be removed. We tried to get very close to what was anticipated by the artistís rendering but we had to work within the constraints of the building design itself.

Mr. Okum added the building has also been shortened to get it into the drawing, which means that the center section will be wider with more of a concrete element along Commons Drive than what we are seeing in this color drawing. I think it is important that the Board realize that, because when you look at this drawing, there is considerably less glass on that wall than what you see there because it is about 25% glass there where this is 10-15%. Frankly I like that better; I think that percentage of glass should be maintained on this final submittal.

Mr. Paul added we are trying to reduce the cost of the building, and if we keep increasing the number of panels to be removed, we will be increasing the ownerís cost. The west elevation is fully landscaped; we have not changed any landscape on that elevation. Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride to comment on the percentage of glass on that elevation compared to what we had. There may be 10 to 15% difference in the amount of glass on that side of the building.

Ms. McBride responded my opinion is that overall you probably wonít notice the 10 or 15% difference, especially by the time you put the landscaping in. Mr. Okum wondered if there were a lot of vertical treatments along that wall; I think we need it. Ms. McBride answered yes, I can tell you specifically what they are. In addition to the street trees, the existing red maples, they are adding a number of serviceberries that go at 10-12 feet in height. They will be clumped in areas. There also is a dwarf burning bush, and they are adding red sunset maples along the street frontage. The majority is existing, and they are putting in a total of 20 on the whole site.

Mr. Okum said I would like to hear an estimate of how much mass there is there now. I wouldnít have a problem if we had some vertical landscape treatment against the building as we do on Dave & Busterís and Roberds with similar spacing.

Mr. Blakener reported the landscaping that we have was in compliance with the boardís last request of landscape elements around the west elevation and with the 10-12 foot elevation of the growth. The building elevation is 26 feet in height which so the materials would be half as high as the building in full growth.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE EIGHT

VI A FINAL APPROVAL OF SOFA EXPRESS Ė 11750 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Okum responded we see a transition from all glass across that opening to a breakage, a separation. I donít have a problem with less glass. We were presented with a color rendering that gave us an appearance of a very short distance of EIFS system, you donít get the same concept as you would if you were looking at it after it had been finished. I am asking if we shouldnít treat the area between these two glass spandrel systems the same as we treat the front of Dave & Busterís and Roberds, considering this is right on the street, and Dave & Busterís and Roberds is 700 feet from I-275. It seems to me that we should be fair in the development. Glass is a breakage, and if we expect some break in the wall system on Dave & Busterís and Roberds site, this development being as close to retail as you can possibly get will need some type of separation on that wall.

Mr. Blakener asked if there were a percentage that you would like. Mr. Okum responded I donít want the applicant to have to spend any more money in glass on that wall than he has to. If we can get breakage along the wall similar to what we are doing at Dave & Busterís MARS and Roberds, I donít have any problem at all with it. I honestly feel that there needs to be breakage along that wall; it is much larger than it appears. I would suggest the same distance and space as we have on the Dave & Busterís and Roberds site.

Ms. McBride suggested that rather than specifying that plant material and mixing it in with their plant material and their landscape architect and our landscape architect, if Commission would agree that we would be allowed to talk to their landscape architect, I think I understand what it is the Commission would like to see and we could make sure that is included n the approved landscape plan. Mr. Okum commented I have no problem with that.

Mr. Huddleston said Iíll grant you that the submittal was not done to mislead, but that is foreshortened significantly from what we are looking at here, so we do need to address that with some plantings, subject to the staffís approval.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert wondered the status of the covenant revision. Mr. Paul answered we think we are in good shape. I believe Ms. McBrideís comments reflect my concern in that it indicates retail use, not 100% retail use. Our attorneys feel in talking with Chicago Title and some experts in that field, that it is sufficient enough to satisfy our desire to use the space as 100% retail. We are not intending to use it as 100% retail, but that is the language that we are after. So, we believe we have what we need, pending the City of Springdale signing off on it from the current landowners.

Mr. Syfert commented any approval would be contingent upon those covenants being approved by the City.

Ms. McBride added when we forward them down to the City Attorney, I think the City will want to see specific percentages assigned to retail, warehousing and office uses to provide a guarantee.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE NINE

VI A FINAL APPROVAL OF SOFA EXPRESS Ė 11750 COMMONS DRIVE

Ms. McBride added I can understand that from the applicantís viewpoint that it is not an issue because if you have the most intensive use that is all you need, but from the Cityís standpoint, we probably will need some assurance. The Commission may want to include the satisfactory resolution of those covenants in any action.

Mr. Huddleston commented if you look at the elevations, it doesnít show line of sight but the mechanicals clearly are visible from the east and west. The applicant has done a good job of enhancing the building and at the same time creating his own signature there. I also think it is not unrealistic to ask him to add screening to those mechanicals with something like screen walls and that should be a part of the motion.

Mr. Okum moved to grant approval of the Sofa Express final site plan as submitted this evening with the following conditions:

    1. That the rooftop mechanical units shall be screened from view from the public right of way;
    2. That there shall be vertical treatments on the west side of the building in landscape fashion to the satisfaction of our city landscape planner;
    3. That the covenants be reviewed and approved by staff and legal counsel so that all issues are resolved;
    4. That the conditions set forth by our engineerís report be included into the approval.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

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

C. Concept Discussion Ė Proposed Building on Springdale Nazarene Church Property Ė 11777 Springfield Pike

Mr. Ralph McSwain, member of the church stated that the churchís attendance has been increasing by 50-75 per year over the last several years. When we built the church, the attendance was about 600, and now it is between 1100 and 1200.

We are proposing is a 28í x 60í unit. The northwest corner of the property is too congested to put the building there, so we are asking for one building at the south parking lot, south of our church on the West Side. This doesnít have anything to do with the proposed sale of the property in the back.

The VA Hospital will give us a 28í x 60í unit, or if Springdale would prefer, we would prefab one and take it back down within the 18 months we would be requesting. We hope to start the first of this coming year, and it probably would take six to nine months to build the addition.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE TEN

VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION NAZARENE CHURCHĖ1777 SPRINGFIELD PK

Mr. McSwain added the unit would be for a 1 to 1 Ĺ hour classrooms to take up the overflow we have right now, mostly teenagers. We would not increase the parking lot at all. Half of it would be on the blacktop and half would be on the west side of the lot and we would lose six parking spots.

Mr. Syfert commented so what you are looking for is temporary in nature, and you will be coming in with plans at some time to expand the church. Mr. McSwain confirmed this, adding that there is a committee working now to get the architect going, and we should have that in a matter of months. By the first quarter of next year we would break ground and hope to build it in six to eight months. We are planning on additional Sunday school rooms and possibly a gymnasium for the addition.

Mr. Lohbeck reported the one question was answered as to where they wished the trailer to be located. It does meet the rear yard setback requirement of 50 feet.

Ms. McBride said when we reviewed this, we didnít know the proposed use or length of time that we learned this evening. Regarding the different styles of modular units, there was a lot of discussion when Kroger came in concerning how it would be treated in terms of skirting and mechanical equipment. Those are all things the commission will have to look at as well. In addition, this property is in our Subarea D of the Corridor Review District, so not only this but also any addition to the church will have to come into play with those requirements.

We received this request late; it was due on Friday and we got it on Monday and it was incomplete so we couldnít offer the commission a lot of direction, other than if they could share their thoughts and preferences with the applicant so we can give him a better decision next month with more concise information.

Mr. Huddleston said based on what I believe the church represented here tonight, they are looking for 18 months and this would be removed within that time. I would strongly suggest that they come back with some elevations to attempt to satisfy staff and ultimately the board. I donít think there is a problem on an interim basis, so long as we are looking at permanent structures in the future. You have a beautiful edifice there, and hopefully you would put something in there that would be equal to that.

Mr. Okum said we had another applicant requesting a temporary office and they placed evergreens around the unit. Six to eight months is an ambitious target; we recently had another church build, and it took considerably longer than that. If we give the approval and say 18 months, we will want to try and live by that. You need to go back to the church council and verify that 18 months is the true time.

Mr. McSwain asked if the commission wanted any plantings around the trailer, and Mr. Okum answered it would need some evergreens, something to break the front of it and make it less.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE ELEVEN

VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION NAZARENE CHURCHĖ1777 SPRINGFIELD PK

Mr. Okum asked if it would have electric and plumbing, and Mr. McSwain answered that it would have electric, but no plumbing.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said you say about 1-1-Ĺ hour sessions that the building would be used. How often would that be? Mr. McSwain answered twice on Sunday morning, Wednesday evening and Sunday evening.

Mr. Shvegzda said there is no proposed pavement being added to this. What is being shown is currently existing. The shaded area to the far west (proposed sale to Springdale Nazarene), the church and the city have been in discussion for some time regarding the sale of that property, which is essentially Cameron Park. It has been reviewed concerning different effects on field usage in that area. The one thing that hasnít allowed anything to come to a conclusion is the fact that there is a large discrepancy as to what the property line really is. We are in the process of doing research and a boundary retracement to try and reestablish where the property line is.

Mr. McSwain commented there is an existing fence along the ballfield. I measured from our church to that fence and it is 92 feet which is what is shown. Mr. Shvegzda responded that is where the fence is, but we still are trying to verify where it should be.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Galster said I know this is a separate issue because it is about their future expansion, but when we look at the ballfield and this being the amount of land they will need, are we still allowing the setback to meet code? I was there the other day, and pretty much all of the trees that back up to Cameron Park are in this strip of land. It appears to be so; is that true or not? If all the trees are going to be gone and we are looking to selling them the land, my question is are we still providing enough buffer when we are trying to calculate whether or not we have enough room for the field and the expansion before we sell this land to them?

Mr. Shvegzda answered I have not been in on the negotiations, but it is my understanding that it is primarily to allow proper setback for zoning issues for the building itself. Mr. Galster said so we are looking at a setback within the zoning code based on this property acquisition and their expansion. Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, from what I know I believe that is true.

Mr. Parham reported I know Mr. Osborn and Mr. McErlane have had a number of meetings with Mr. McSwain, and in talking with Mr. Osborn on Monday, over the years there were some property swaps with the church. As Don has indicated, right now there is a question about where the property line actually is located. I canít address the question as to whether the row of trees is in that property line or whether the property line is to the east or west of that. We are going to examine if we make this swap of the land or sale of land to the church; it has to not affect the operations of the park.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE TWELVE

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. A. Buffer Lighting Zones

    Ms. McBride reported that last month at your request we provided you with a draft of what could be a possible text amendment should you choose to incorporate it within the Zoning Code that dealt with outdoor lighting. More specifically, it got into everything from what we should be requiring in terms of a lighting plan to pole heights to ranges of illumination in terms of minimum and maximum based on activity types, color and glare, and location of the fixtures. It more specifically defines how things are measured.

    At the last meeting, the Commission asked for recommended lighting levels. We searched high and low and came up with a standard. This is not the CG&E chart that I remember seeing a number of years ago. It does provide some light levels for different types of events and facilities. I would ask if the Commission has any questions or thoughts about additions or deletions or how you would like to proceed with this.

    Mr. Okum said on Item B Height halfway down it says, "Lighting height should not exceed the permitted building height." I believe our code allows for a 50-foot high building in certain areas; does that mean we would allow up to 50-foot high poles?

    Ms. McBride answered no, that what it means is if you have non-cutoff fixtures you have a maximum of 12-foot high poles; if you have cutoffs, you have 24-foot high poles. However, this commission can vary the height of those poles, but in no case shall it exceed the height of the building. So, if you had fixtures with cutoffs and you had a 50-foot high building, it would be within the prerogative of this commission to approve a variance between 24 and 50 feet, but this commission could not approve anything higher.

    Mr. Okum continued on Page 3 C. Illumination, the second line down states "outdoor lighting shall be designed and located with a maximum illumination of .5 foot candle at the property line." I thought about landscaped buffer yards and detention basins. Could we add some wording, "where said parking and pedestrian areas exist" so it only applies to a parking field area and not the entire site? We donít need to have minimum foot-candles in a detention basin.

    Ms. McBride responded that is not minimum; it is maximum, and we provide pretty detailed instructions as to where we measure it and how we measure it. It is at the height of five feet above the property line, and it shall not exceed .5 foot-candles. That also dovetails into D. Light Trespass item 2. Mr. Okum responded so this is saying that we require their site be lit to a minimum of .5 foot-candles. Now I am clarified. The second sentence, lighting for parking areas and where security lighting is needed, I guess that would apply; Iím not worried about it.

    Mr. Okum continued on 2 and 3, I think it should say "light trespass onto adjacent property", not residential zone.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 MAY 2000

    PAGE THIRTEEN

  3. DISCUSSION Ė LIGHT BUFFER ZONE

Ms. McBride responded that is the commissionís choice. I am not as concerned about light spillage on one retail lot to another retail lot as I am about light spillage on a residential zoned or residential use of property. Mr. Okum said I agree, but if you have it adjacent it is at the discretion of this board to give them the latitude to share the lighting if they wish

Mr. Okum continued under F. Color and Glare, "to impair the vision of drivers or pedestrians" I feel it should be "impair the vision of drivers, pedestrians, or adjacent properties." I donít want to be sitting in my yard looking out at somebodyís bright lights. Am I right? Ms. McBride responded we certainly could include that language. Mr. Okum commented I donít see the board saying no.

Mr. Okum said, "shields and/or filters may be required for light fixtures with high intensity and glare potential". How do we know until they are up on the building? The light diagram provided by the light manufacturer would not necessarily tell you if it would get into someoneís back yard.

Ms. McBride responded he would have to go and take it off site. Right now we donít require that, and they would have to project those out. Mr. Okum commented youíre not going to get a light reading of glare. So I donít know how we wold know until the development is built. Right now the glare from the Vineyard parking lot is impacting a residential neighborhood. Ms. McBride answered the other option is to require all cutoff fixtures and not to permit non-cutoff. Mr. Okum commented I donít have a problem with that at all. Ms. McBride added that makes it a lot simpler from staffís standpoint. Mr. Syfert asked the commission members if they had a problem with that, and no one did. Mr. Vanover even with the cutoffs, they are coming down out of the boxes and the lenses are protruding down. Mr. Okum said so they are using cutoff fixtures with extended lenses, so it should be cutoff fixtures with no extended lenses and/or their shields.

Ms. McBride said so we want to prohibit all fixtures that do not include cutoff fixtures, and we are not going to permit extended lenses unless they are providing shields. Mr. Huddleston commented Iím not sure you can say they are using cutoff fixtures with projecting lenses, but the fixtures are recessed fixtures in most cases, and they are using projecting lenses on them. I think we need to eliminate projecting lenses, period, and use the cutoff fixture and get the light you need from it. Mr. Vanover added the projecting lens is what creates the glare.

Mr. Whitaker commented if we are going to have minimums and maximums, who will enforce it and when will it be done? Ms. McBride responded it will be done at night, and we will have to acquire a light meter and someone will have to be here in the evening.

Mr. Syfert stated we will have a revision for next month.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE FOURTEEN

    1. Yard Sales & Utilization of Lots

Mr. Huddleston commented I really donít like myself when I turn into a zoning policeman, but I was at Loweís on several occasions and I think they have the opportunity to be a good corporate citizen and a nice addition to the City of Springdale. They came before this board in April requesting to do an outside sale. They were rejected pretty much out of hand based on the history of that. You go over there today and they are doing all the things that we told them they couldnít do with our rejection of their request. It is a flagrant violation, and unfair to the City, and unfair to their competition whom we donít allow to do it.

Mr. Lohbeck asked if Mr. Huddleston were speaking of the plant material or the stuff around the side on Tri-County Parkway. Mr. Huddleston answered a week ago they had a lawn tractor sale in the middle of the parking lot with islands and timbers. Today they have plant material and pallets of mulch, pallets of timbers Ė they have pallets of everything. They have carts that are not screened at all, and all of that was very clearly covered in the approval. Mr. Lohbeck reported we are working on the west side by Tri-County Parkway, by their loading area. I would have to talk with the property maintenance inspector to see what he has done and how long he has given them to get it out. I know he sent them a notice to get it taken care of. Mr. Huddleston commented it has been in place since they asked for it; we never gave them an approval, and they flagrantly flew in the face of that. I really have a problem with that. Mr. Lohbeck responded weíll take care of it.

Ms. McBride said when we looked at the outdoor storage request last month, I had gone over before I wrote my report. This commission had approved certain outdoor display areas, specifically where the canopy overhung, and the cart storage is clearly not within that covered area, nor were we ever led to believe that there was going to be outdoor cart storage or we would have thought twice about it and at the very least would have asked for screening as we have asked a number of other retailers in the community. I was there myself last Saturday night, and noticed that they had the plant material with the concrete blocks and the boards and the gas canisters not within the covered limit. They did have an awful lot of material that was not within what we had approved.

Mr. Whitaker asked about all the material outside Drug Emporium and Mr. Lohbeck answered they are allowed; it is a seasonal sale.

Mr. Galster stated Iíll revise my Council report to include the fact that Council did pass an ordinance that any appointed person serving on a compensated board on commission, who meets on a regular basis, if the person misses more than two meetings in a calendar year, the compensation is withheld. Compensation also was reviewed for all the boards; Planning was probably looked at the hardest because of the number of hours put in, but at this time there was no increase presented for any of the boards

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 MAY 2000

PAGE FIFTEEN

  1. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
    1. Springdale Ice Cream & Beverage Ė 11801 Chesterdale Ė Ground Sign

B. Jordann Lake Ė 233A Northland Blvd. Ė Wall Sign

 

  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:29 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,2000 __________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

____________________,2000 __________________________

Dave Whitaker, Secretary