PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

7:00 P.M.

 

 

I.                     CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

The meeting was called to order at 6:59 p.m by Chairman William G. Syfert.

 

II.                   ROLL CALL

 

Members Present:††††††††††††† Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Steve

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Galster, Lawrence Hawkins, Dave Okum,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert

 

Others Present:†††††††††††††††††† Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Bill McErlane, Building Official

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Ken Schneider, Law Director

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Anne McBride, City Planner

 

III.                  MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 12 APRIL 2005

 

Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.All voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

 

IV.               CORRESPONDENCE

 

A.            Report on Council Ė Steve Galster

 

Mr. Galster reported that at their next meeting, Council will have the public hearing on the dentist office and the changes to the Zoning Code in reference to the parking of oversized vehicles.

 

B.            4/13/05 Letter to President of Council re Dental Office

C.            4/13/05 Letter to President of Council re Zoning Code Change

D.            Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Spring 2005

E.            Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė March 15, 2005

F.             Facsimile from Keith Riehl, Attorney re Planning Commission Decision on Tree Replacement Variance, 330 Glensprings Drive (Super 8 Motel)

G.            Certified Planning Commissionersí Program Session III Ė Meeting Management, Board Development and Volunteer ManagementMay 25, 2005

 

V.                 OLD BUSINESS

 

A.            Approval of Driveway with four driveway connections to the street Ė 11475 Walnut Street Ė tabled April 12, 2005

 

Mr. McErlane reported that the way Planning Commission left it was that the City should look into whether or not we wanted to consider accepting that private alley as City right of way.Mr. Shvegzda has looked into that and had some comments on it.

 

Mr. Shvegzda stated Dave Butsch and I looked at the site.Some of the problems that exist there are that currently the auto repair shop immediately to the south of the area have access from the private drive.It really is their sole access to that rear parking area, which constitutes about an 80-foot frontage along that property.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE TWO

 

V A DRIVEWAY WITH FOUR CONNECTIONS Ė 11475 WALNUT STREET

 

Mr. Shvegzda added there are certain utilities there.It just wouldnít be of much overall use in terms of a city public roadway through that area.

 

The other thing to consider is that the private drive that constitutes Carol Lane through there extends out to State Route 4, and if we put a public road in that southern area, it might tend to promote traffic through that area and there is no way that any of that further drive from Elm Alley to State Route 4 could ever constitute a public road because we have parking that is 90 degrees out into that area and other utility and setback issues.It is not a good situation, so basically we donít see that as a viable alternative to create a public roadway in that vicinity.

 

Mr. Syfert said so the City is not really interested in developing that as a public right of way.

 

Reverend Harley Harvey, owner of the property said the City uses it anyway.When they get ready to clean the snow, all of the tractors and everything come back there anyway.††† Even the police use it.

 

Mr. Shvegzda responded one alternative would be to insure that doesnít take place is to physically eliminate pavement and block it off on either the east or west end.

 

Reverend Harvey commented then you will hinder me from getting to my own garage.

 

Mr. Shvegzda added if you are concerned that other people besides yourself are utilizing that, it is only because it extends through.The city officials know that now, and Dave Butsch is going to instruct his personnel not to utilize that, but there is nothing there indicating that is private drive.

 

Mr. Syfert said we are in a situation where we have four driveway connections as defined by the Code, and I donít know whether you have any desire to close it off or not.Reverend Harvey responded I guess I donít understand how you count four driveways.†† Mr. Syfert answered you have one off the alley, one off the street plus the two in your circular drive.That totals four curb cuts.Mr. Galster showed him the curb cuts on the plan.

 

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said you indicated that it appears that the auto repair facility utilizes this as access.Do they have an easement or access rights?Reverend Harvey answered I never bothered about it.Everybody uses it; even you guys use it.

 

Mr. Galster asked if we are considering a conditional use for the four driveways.Ms. McBride answered it would be a variance to your subdivision regulations because that is where the specific provision is regarding the number of driveways.

 

Mr. Galster said the bottom line question is if this variance to the Subdivision Regulations the same as one the BZA would grant from the Zoning Code.Mr. Schneider responded it applies to the land and not to who owns it.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE THREE

 

V A DRIVEWAY WITH FOUR CONNECTIONS Ė 11475 WALNUT STREET

 

Mr. Galster moved to allow the driveway as currently constructed at 11475 Walnut Street and basically issue a variance to the Subdivision Regulations in reference to this situation.Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

 

B.            Request for Clarification of Previous Decision of Planning Commission Dated March 8, 2005 (Super 8 Motel)

 

Keith Riehl, attorney on behalf of Brian Patel.This was a matter before Planning Commission on March 8th and an order was issued with eight stipulations to it.

 

I have had fairly detailed contact with Jeff Forbes of Wood Lamping.In my opinion there were some legal issues as to the potential application of that ordinance to my client, as well as some constitutionality issues.However, my client wants to make the Super 8 a very attractive asset to the community.As a matter of fact as I was driving in today and swung by the motel, he had people working out there painting it.In the last couple of months I have seen a dramatic cosmetic improvement.

 

The reason we are here tonight is not for me to serve as an adversary.That doesnít do any good and is something for the legal people to work with.I am here to talk about what is reasonable under the circumstances for Mr. Patel in this facility.

 

I believe I have the landscape plan which may have come through Ms. McBrideís architect.I had my client look at it and I talked to Mr. Forbes who told me to take something back to the Planning Commission that they can look at and talk over.

 

I faxed Mr. McErlane, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Schneider a copy of the plan.Essentially there are three differences over what had been proposed by the landscape architect.

 

The first change was in the access drive which called for 14 trees.My client is suggesting 10 trees.He feels that there already are some trees there and 10 trees would serve the aesthetics of what is trying to be accomplished there.

 

The second deviation we are seeking clarification on is the land between the Super 8 Motel and the Extended Stay Motel.In the landscape architect plan there were 17 trees provided in that area.I am not sure if Extended Stay put up those trees before the last meeting, but they have planted a number of trees.Working in combination with it, my client feels that 10 trees would be more reasonable than the 17 trees, under the circumstances.

 

Finally, the landscape architect plan provided for a number of trees in areas right up against the building.I didnít see the property beforehand, so I am not surethere were trees there before.(A member indicated that there were trees there before).

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGEFOUR

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Riehl added my client has heard from the Super 8 people and other people in the motel business that he is connection withthat essentially trees that go up against the building are a concern both for security and cleanliness issues.There were trees proposed to be put around the swimming pool, and obviously he wants to avoid the cleanliness issues around a swimming pool.I believe there are provisions there for trees around a satellite dish and obviously he is concerned with trees blocking the satellite.

 

Finally, he wanted me to express to the Planning Commission tonight his intent, rather than to plant treesin those areas, to put nice flower beds in there.When I drove by this evening, I saw things mulched up.Those are Mr. Patelís objectives with respect to the aesthetics and the appearance of the areas right up against the motel.

 

Those were the non-adversarial issues that Mr. Patel wanted me to present before the Planning Commission tonight.

 

Mr. Galster asked if the clarification that is being requested only in reference to the number of trees that are to be planted in those three areas.

 

Mr. Riehl answered it is the number of trees as well as the fines and penalties which were to be assessed against Mr. Patel.

 

Mr. Galster continued the previous agreement was to make a financial contribution to the Tree Fund so that the trees could be replanted in different locations throughout the city.To clarify, if in fact these three deviations from the landscape plan cut out another 100 caliper inches of trees required, are you opposed or are you still in agreement to make the necessary contribution to the Tree Fund to allow those trees to be planted elsewhere in the City?Thatís not really part of the penalty that you are saying you have an objection to or want clarification of.I want to make sure that we can either clear that part of it up or not.

 

Mr. Riehl responded we are opposed to both the contribution and any fines and penalties.This is the simple answer to it.I spent an hour with Mr. Forbes and went over the legalities of it.I donít know who he hastalked about with respect to that, and I really didnít want to get into this and start arguing cases and things like that.Our position is that neither the contribution to a Tree Fund nor fines and penalties should be assessed in this case.

 

Mr. McErlane reported the only comments I have are relative to the revised plan set forward by the applicant.The plan attached to the letter from Mr. Riehl was by Anne McBrideís landscape architect Tammy Schlagbaum.She was contacted by Mr. Patel to draw up a plan.The plan she had drawn up totaled 318 caliper inches of trees which would have resulted in a short fall of 133 caliper inches from the 451 required to be replaced.Based on the decision of Planning Commission at the March 8th meeting, that would mean an amount of $13,300 would be contributed to the Cityís Urban Forestry Fund.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGEFIVE

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. McErlane reported that based on the changes that are being requested by the applicant, the reduction in the number of pears in the access drive byfour, and the number of pears on the east property line by seven and deleting all the trees around the building, it results in a total number of plantings of 218 caliper inches which means a 233caliper inch short fall.Based on that same decision by Planning Commission at the March 8thmeeting, that would mean the owner would need to contribute $23,300 to the Cityís Urban Forestry Fund.

 

To give you a handle on where the revisions to this plan fit relative to the original plan submitted by the applicant that Planning Commission looked at on the 8th of March, that plan showed 57 trees for a total of 171 caliper inches.What is being proposed this evening is 65 trees is 65 trees for a total of 218 caliper inches.What is being proposed tonight is about eight more trees and a total of 47 more caliper inches than what was shown on the original plan.

 

Mr. Syfert asked Ms. McBride if she worked with the applicant on this plan.Ms. McBride reported that Mr. Patel initially contacted me

and Planning Commission charged him and he agreed to have a landscape plan prepared for the site that would put as many caliper inches on the property as possible that would allow the trees to thrive in a healthy manner.That is what Ms. Schlagbaum did with this 318 caliper inch plan before the commission this evening.

 

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride is the representation on the Drawing 1 of 1 that we have was done by her firm.Ms. McBride reported that it wasnít done directly by her firm; it was subcontracted by her firm.Mr. Okum continued†† but the representation of the trees and developed growth shows what those treeswould be at mature growth, or at plantinggrowth.Ms. McBride reported it would be at about three years out.Also, for the commissionís information Ms. Schlagbaum is a registered landscape architect.Mr. Okum responded I assumed that, but I was looking at where they were placed and if they appeared to be too abundant in space.So the circles that are indicated on this drawing are not at planting stage butat approximately a three-year growth.Ms. McBride responded three to five years.

 

Mr. Hawkins said for clarityís sake, on this diagram would be the maximum number of trees we could put on there.Ms. McBride responded in the landscape architectís opinion that is the maximum number of caliper inches that we could put on this site that we could expect to grow and be maintained in a healthy manner.If you tried to put more caliper inches on, you would risk loosing some because they were overcrowded.Mr. Hawkins said so even with this plan, we still would be about 133 caliper inches short.

 

Mr. Riehl asked Ms. McBride if when this document was prepared, Extended Stay had put in their trees.Ms. McBride reported that they had, and the landscape architect met your client at the site and walked the site with the client to make sure he was comfortable with these trees.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGESIX

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Syfert commented I have to ask why it has changed since he felt comfortable with the plan before.Mr. Riehl answered I was not privy to discussions that my client had with Ms. McBride.I wasnít aware that he had consented to this plan.I know that he had met with Ms. McBride or people from her office.Obviously, Planning Commission wasnít happy with Mr. Patelís first landscaping report, so he did use the services of Ms. McBrideís firm.

 

I was not aware that he had agreed that all of these trees should be planted in here.†† I can tell you that in my conversations with Mr. Patel he had requested these modifications I have laid out here this evening.

 

Ms. McBride added I donít want to misrepresent that Mr. Patel signed off on this plan in front of us.At the March meeting before this commission Mr. Patel said he was willing to put as many caliper inches on his property as we could reasonably get and expect to survive in a healthy manner.Ms. Schlagbaum met with him on the property and reviewed with him that ďI think we can get x-number of trees.Obviously she did not have the plan drawn up when she met with him on site.The purpose of the site visit was to determine what should go on the plan.

 

Mr. Galster said since I made the original motion, I will offer some opinions and possible clarifications that the applicant is requesting.I think the site needs to be planted with as many of the trees as the site can hold in order to make it whole again.†† If in fact 318 caliper inches is what makes that whole, then that is where I would like to see it go.

 

To eliminate 100 caliper inches out of 318 is a major cutback, but I havenít seen any justification to it, other than possibly around the pool or a satellite dish.However, a lot of people around the pool like to have a little shade area too, so Iím not sure that I am convinced that the pool area should be excluded from tree planting. The satellite dish might be a different story.

 

To me the bottom line is if in fact it is determined that the site is planted in a proper manner, and those trees that canít be put back on the site can be replanted in the City, I donít have any major objections to that.

 

The penalty phase was going to be discussed at a future date once all this has been completed.†† My original intention was to make sure that we had the action moving forward, commitments made and trees being planted.If you are asking what my feeling was as to what would have happened down the road if in fact all those conditions had been met, I can tell you I believe I would have made a reduction in that penalty phase because the tree situation had been made whole again.However, even though quite reduced, I think there still would have been some kind of penalty, because I think there is a big difference between a 20-inch tree and ten two-inch trees.So I think there would have been a substantial reduction but it still would have been something.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGESEVEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Galster added that is my position, and I believe that still is my position.I havenít heard anything that changes that, other than the satellite dish.I think the site should be planted with as many trees as the site can hold, and any shortfall should be made up into the tree fund so they can be planted throughout the city.

 

This area of I-275 is one of the highest diesel pollution areas in the Tri-State area.It was recently reported in the Enquirer that we were number four or five on the list.I think these mature trees did and do a lot to help improve the quality of life, not only for the tenants at Super 8 but also for the community as a whole.I think we need to continue to try to make an effort to replant those natural resources.

 

The bottom line is that Iíd like to see the site planted.If they canít fit on there, I would like to see them planted throughout the City. If that was completed, it was my intention to look at the penalty.I donít want to even use a number, because Iím not clears that what we had asked other than that is being addressed satisfactorily.That was my intent, and that is still my view today.

 

Mr. Vanover said I concur with Mr. Galster on the comment about the trees and the pool.If you look at the Drawing 1 of 1, and you look at the space from the pool to the tree (to the right of it) which they object to, if that is the case, excluding the tree just to the rear and right of that, those next probably five trees would be eliminated, because they would be either closer to or equal to the same distance from the edge of the pool to that tree.If he objects to one, why there isnít a concern about the others, because in reality three of those are closer than that tree is itself.

 

I have a big problem with the reduction.†† I concur with Mr. Galsterís statements; I would like to see as many trees put back on here and this property made whole.

 

Mr. Hawkins said for clarityís sake, is it your position that your client can cut down as many trees as he wants on that site and not plant or plant trees to his liking, and not have to pay any kind of fine or not contribute to any kind of tree fund?

 

Mr. Riehl responded to answer your question, from a legal standpoint, I think there are two issues which Planning Commissionis aware of.The first issue, as represented by my client, is that he originally came into the Springdale Building Department to obtain some kind of permit to remodel his hotel to put in a breakfast area.When he spoke with Ms. Thetford, he asked her if he needed a permit to cut down trees.He was told that as long as it was on his own property, he did not need a permit.Is that right, wrong?I donít know.Did my client understand it correctly?I donít know.I wasnít at that meeting; none of us were here at that meeting.If that is a realistic assessment that he took from that meeting, legally Iím not sure if the City of Springdale can go in and act differently from what one of their agents has represented

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE EIGHT

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Riehl added if for any legal proceeding it is determined that either the ordinance doesnít apply or there is some kind of legal estoppel, I think my client (a) doesnít need to replace anything on that property, but that is not what he wants to do.He wants to make that property nice.He came in with a plan.Obviously it wasnít a plan that the Planning Commission was happy with.Then he took the guidance of the Planning Commission and worked with Ms. McBrideís firm and they came up with something fairly substantial in addition to what he had originally planned and had some modifications to it.

 

Could he live with putting 14 trees up rather than 10 trees in the access area, I think so.Could he live with putting all 17 trees along the property line if the expert thinks that is doable; Iím sure my client will not have a problem with it.He does have some issues about the trees.

 

I may point out that he is not suggesting that any of the trees that are between his property and 275 be eliminated.I believe Mr. Vanover and Mr. Galsterís point is very good.The City wants to try to use whatever they can to keep the pollutants from the highway out, and my client is not in disagreement with that.

 

I guess Mr. Hawkins, in fairness and I might take an adversarial role if I can, if it is determined that the ordinance does not apply because of an exemption that is pretty solid, at least in my mind, my client could just walk away and say I donít have to do anything that you guys are proposing and go to court and fight it..But that is not what he wants to do; it is not what he is hiring me to do; it is not what he is trying to work with the City to do.

 

Mr. Hawkins responded I understand that and I appreciate that he has some willingness to try to do something.So the main argument in terms of adversarial proceedings should that go there is that (1) he had consent via an agent of the City and (2) that there is an exemption in the Tree Preservation Ordinance.What does that state that would exempt him?

 

Mr. Riehl reported the specific ordinance is Chapter 156.04, Exemptions, it says ďthe requirements of this chapter shall be followed exceptĒ and number 4 specifically says ďan area upon which a permanent structure is located, or will be located within a building lot area for all zoning districts.ĒI think that is a very broad statement.Could it apply to my clientís position in court?I would feel pretty comfortable in arguing that statement.

 

Mr. Hawkins responded so you would be arguing that it would apply since he would be adding this new addition to the building?Mr. Riehl answered no.What I am saying is I think if you have a lot which has a permanent structure on it, the way I read this, that lot is exempt.

 

Mr. Hawkins commented so any lot with a building on it, a permanent structure, you would interpret as being exempt from having to follow any of the guidelines set by the City.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE NINE

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Riehl responded I am reading the ordinance, and that is the way I read it.

 

Mr. Hawkins continued you said that your client wants to be cooperative to the best of his ability.You obviously indicated that you would like to make some changes to this proposal, but is your client cooperative enough to even go with the proposal that Ms. McBrideís architect developed?

Mr. Riehl answered I believe I could convince my client to go with the 14 and 17 trees. He might have a little more problem with some of the ones around the building or the pool than the other two modifications we are suggesting.Again, he is willing to continue to work with the City to do this.

 

The big thing that hit him was the contributions we are talking about and the potential penalties.He felt blindsided when he came to see me.He realistically thought when he cut down a tree, he didnít have a problem.I donít want to turn this into a courtroom.Mr. Syfert commented we arenít going to.Mr. Riehl continued not only that, but there is a drainage channel out there and he will incur great expense in cleaning that out heíll be writing a check for thousands and thousands of dollars. Not that is necessarily germane to this but it is my clientís assessment of the situation.

 

Mr. Syfert called on Law Director Ken Schneider. Mr. Schneider said I want to respond to the attorney.To clarify, the section referred to by Mr. Riehl is correct, but it must be read in conjunction with 156.08 which clarifies it by pointing out ďTree removal is permitted within the area used or to be used by a permanent structure within the lot building area without replacement planting.ĒSo it is where the building is and where the building is about to be built and put in where they donít have to replace trees.That is our interpretation and Mr. Riehl also has his and will be put that forth with vigor if he has to move forward.

 

I cannot comment on the statement other than the facts are what they are and that is what will come out to the court if we have to go††† to court on that issue.

 

Mr. Syfert commented we deal with this every day when we are looking at plans.If it is in the footprint of the proposed building, it doesnít count in the total caliper inches required.

 

Mr. Riehl responded I would agree with you when we are talking about the footprint.Mr. Syfert said letís not debate it any more.

 

Ms. McBride reported I want to make the commission aware that at the March meeting, Mr. Pastel had submitted a landscape plan that he had had prepared which we received on the 19th of January.That particular plan showed a tree immediately adjacent to the satellite dish location and trees surround the pool.That was his proposal to us.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE TEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Galster asked if we had a breakdown of the applicantís request, a b and c of the caliper inches for each modificationCan you tell me how many caliper inches are reflected adjacent to the building?.

 

Mr. McErlane responded that is about two-thirds of the trees that he wants to remove from the planting plan, about 67 caliper inches.

 

Mr. Galster said I think the 14 along the access drive and the 17 along the property line need to stay there.I am not opposed to working out a possible reduction in some key areas around the building, but not total elimination of every tree around the building.I understand his point and concern, and I think we can possibly move them around a little bit to alleviate some of those concerns.I am a little bit flexible in that area.However, whatever he is short I still think needs to go to the tree fund because I think the City needs to be made whole in reference to all the caliper inches

 

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Schneider if there was a problem with talking about theoretical numbers at this point in terms of penalties.Mr. Schneider responded no, I think that is the purpose of bringing it forth this evening, for clarification to see if there is anything Planning Commission would like to consider in that regard.

 

Mr. Galster commented my personal opinion is that once the site and City is made full in caliper inches, whether it be in the Urban Forestry Fund or on this site (preferably on this site), the penalty is secondary.I have no problem with saying that I am comfortable with somewhere in the $5,000 area as opposed to $90,000 because I think there is a big difference between a 20 inch tree and two 10 inch trees.I can offer that clarification and that position, but I still think the site needs to be planted.

 

Mr. Okum said I am pretty much in agreement with Mr. Galster, although if we are dropping 60-some caliper inches of trees by making some other adjustments, I have a hard time saying that is all right.I thought we had a conceptual agreement with the owner of the property.It appeared that he understood the situation.It appears that the landscape person he was utilizing for his plan really didnít have any experience in landscaping.He as giving him seedlings for a nursery as his budget figure, and it appeared that he was very confused.††

 

On the other hand, as far as the penalty is concerned, I really didnít want to get into it, and I would be more than willing to be flexible on that penalty, based upon his effort and his due diligence at arriving at a resolve to this.If this continues to go on and on, I would have to take a different attitude because every day this occurs, my family and the residents of this community are not benefiting from the trees that have been removed from that site.I have a problem with that.So, the longer this goes, frankly, I would feel very uneasy with dropping or cutting the penalty phase, or even setting a number to it.From what I am hearing from the representative of the applicant, he feels the $13,000 is inappropriate and the $23,000 is inappropriate and you are asking for a waiver of that.Am I clear?

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE ELEVEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Riehl answered that is correct.Mr. Okum responded well I would not be supporting that, Iím sorry.

 

Ms. McBride commented I donít like to disagree with Mr. Galster.However from a design and impact standpoint, I have to say if the commission is considering reducing the number of trees on the site from the 318 caliper inches that are on Sheet 1 of 1, I would suggest you do it on the eastern property line and/or around that access drive as opposed to around the building.There is only a handful of trees surrounding the building and I think that would have much more impact on the interior of that site.There are trees on the adjacent property to the east and Iím not necessarily supporting it, but if the commission is looking to reduce the number of caliper inches, I would ask you consider not removing the trees around the building because there simply are not that many and I think you would be disappointed with the outcome if you see that site replanted without any trees around the building.

 

Mr. Galster said so the seven across the east property line is how many caliper inches.Ms. McBride reported 21 caliper inches.Mr. Galster said for clarification, I was talking about relocation and possible elimination of some of the trees, not all of them around the building, if there is a particular one or two around the satellite dish that he has a problem with, which is what I am talking about.There would still be a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund to make up that shortfall so we can plant them somewhere else.If the hardship is such that it would interfere with the reception of the satellite dish, fine, but letís plant them somewhere else.The trees still need to go in the ground.

 

Mr. Coleman commented I am trying to get in mind whether or not the intent is to have outstanding landscape, something that the City is proud of, or simply to replace trees at the same rate that they were removed.Having heard different discussions here, I think I am getting some clarity to that, which is somewhere in between.

 

I can certainly recognize that there would be some hardship with the trees around the pool from the standpoint of the debris in the water and the shading of areas you wouldnít ordinarily want shaded around the pool.So I definitely think that the planting in the pool area could be lessened.†† Likewise because of reception issues, the satellite dish area could be another area to be lessened.

 

I think it is even more important that any penalty rendered should reflect the effort of the owner to make a conscientious effort to replace the trees and make the site beautiful.To that extent I am not opposed to some flexibility with the penalty as long as that effort has been made.I donít know what the time frame would be to identify a conscientious effort.††Certainly it doesnít mean do it tomorrow but it doesnít mean do it in six months either.

 

Mr. Galster said for clarification, what we had proposed to the applicant was a certain amount of time to get the drawing together, a certain amount of time to start planting the trees, and once that happens, a certain amount of time to pay any shortfall to the Urban Forestry Fund to not have the hardship of a lump sum payment.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE TWELVE

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Galster said with a total elapsed time of approximately six months to complete all those things, the owner would then be back before Planning with the intent to mitigate or discuss the penalty phase.

 

Mr. Coleman commented I think I am pretty much on that same page because those things show a conscientious effort on the part of the owner.I think that the rendering of the penalty should be reflective of those conscientious efforts

 

Mr. Hawkins said I understand that you feel that your client should not have to pay anything into the Cityís Urban Forestry Fund, and that he should not have to pay any penalty.What flexibility if any is there with regard your client paying anything into the Cityís Urban Forestry Fund or any penalty.Some of this might be moot if there are individuals on this board that feel if you are not going to make up caliper inches you would have to pay something into the Urban Forestry Fund.We might be sitting here talking for nothing if there is no flexibility in your clientís position on that.

 

Mr. Riehl responded all I can tell you is that I have no authority to speak on behalf of my client as to any compromises he is willing to make.Whatever is resolved here or not resolved here tonight will be taken and discussed with my client with all the other options that he may have available.Then maybe we can come to an assessment there.Is he willing to pay $90,000 Ė I can tell you no.Is he willing to make some contribution into the fund and work diligently Ė he is a business person in this area, and if his position was to snub his nose at this, he would have said okay Mr. Riehl, file the suit and file the injunction against the Planning Commission and incur legal fees and weíll see where thing lie.He has impressed me as not that kind of person.††† I canít give you a dollar number to say he would be willing to do it.I can tell you that when I have talked to him he seemed to have been reasonable in my discussions with him.

 

Mr. Hawkins said I understand you donít have the authority, but is it fair to say in the statement just made in terms of a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund that your client could be willing to make some type of contribution††† The issue would be how much that contribution would be.

 

Mr. Riehl said possibly.I would not rule out that possibility.

 

Mr. Butrum said I cannot imagine††† I would be in favor of losing all the trees around the building.I donít see the pool as being a big hardship in terms of safety or aesthetics or cleanliness or anything like that.If I recall regarding the satellite dish, is this drawn correctly in terms of where it is planted?Ms. McBride responded yes, and that is also the area represented in terms of orientation on the applicantís drawing.The one difference is that on the applicantís drawing the tree was much closer to the dish than on our drawing.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE THIRTEEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Butrum said in looking at it here, I even wonder if there is a line of sight issue but that is something we can look at.That is one of the more minor points, but in general I think it will be awfully barren around the building itself if there arenít trees around there.I understand the reasons that your client has put forth, but Iím not convinced that is that big of an issue given what we really would be giving up by having this barrenness around the building itself.That would be something I would have a hard time accepting, that we have the trees around the perimeter and access drive and have lost all the trees around the building.

 

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Riehl said when this plan was prepared, were the trees that were put around the building put in place of trees that had been cut down?Ms. McBride reported I know when Ms. Schlagbaum and Mr. Patel went to the site there were stumps still in place.I donít know that each one of these trees on this plan represents a location where there was a tree.When I talked to Ms. Schlagbaum she mentioned that the stumps would have to be fully ground out and that the locations of some of these trees would have to be shifted over to where existing trees were to allow for the new trees to survive.So I think some of them were; I donít know that these represent a location where there was a tree in every instance.

 

Mr. Butrum commented to the general point, there were trees around the building.Whether these trees are on top of where they used to be, I couldnít say but itís not like there werenít trees around the building before and now we are asking for them.

 

Mr. Syfert said has this been clarified enough?Mr. Riehl said you mean the March 8th decision?Mr. Syfert commented I donít know that there has been a change in the decision.†† I thought you were asking for clarification.

 

Mr. Riehl responded we are asking for clarification.At the March 8th hearing, this plan was not in existence, so since my client has done what the Planning Commission asked and worked with Ms. McBrideís office, I would like clarification if this in fact is a doable plan.That is what we are asking.We didnít have this plan in effect at the time.

 

Mr. Syfert commented so we are looking for a motion regarding the plan.

 

Mr. Galster moved to accept the landscape plan as submitted in Sheet 1 of 1, dated March 21, 2005 as an acceptable plan as required by the original March 8, 2005 Planning Commission motion from this applicant.Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

 

All voted aye, and the landscape plan was approved unanimously.

 

Mr. Riehl said the other issue would be the contribution and penalty.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE FOURTEEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Galster said at this point I am not ready to make a motion on what should happen to that penalty. I donítthink we are far enough along in the process to know the true intent and direction.I would refer to what I said earlier.My intention is to get these 451 caliper inches of trees back in the ground.Once that happens, my ability to be flexible on the penalty is there.I donít know that every other member believes the same thing , but I believe that in general the idea is to make the site whole.If in fact the 451 caliper inches are either planted on site and/or a contribution is made to the Urban Forestry Fund, I would stress to this board that would be a major goal met and would advocate a substantial reduction to the penalty.As far as the ultimate decision, I donít know if we want to sit here and poll this board; I donít think we will get the answers that we want, only because we havenít seen a demonstration of the process and the direction.You canít speak for your client, so we donít know where that will lead.But I do believe that this board is a fair board.I believe that we are always trying to work with the applicants.I believe that the Tree Replacement Ordinance is a strong ordinance in the City.I believe it has multiple purposes and the intent isnít to get the money; the intent is to get the trees.If in fact you bring that back and it starts happening, we are 99% there.

 

Mr. Coleman said 451 caliper inches has been removed from the City, and we certainly would like to see 451 caliper inches replaced.It doesnít sound like you can get 451 caliper inches on that particular site, but the goal is for the City not to lose those caliper inches.As Mr. Galster said, I would be more than receptive to looking at any penalty phase following those things being met.

 

Mr. Butrum said I feel the same way. I would like to see as many as possible, and if 318 is the right number, then it is 318.Step one would be to see as many caliper inches replaced on the property itself.Step two would be to get the 451 caliper inches from there.Step three, and it is a distant one in terms off priorities, is any sort of penalty.I would be very amenable to looking atthat and a substantial discount to that if those first two conditions are met.

 

Mr. Okum said I will be flexible in the penalty phase but we have to see action first. before we make adjustments to that.The idea is to get trees that were removed back into the City of Springdale.My primary objective is to get the number (451) back where it was.. There is a big difference between the inches you plant and a mature tree which doesa lot more for the environment.

 

Mr. Hawkins said for the record, I am more interested as well in the trees rather than your clientís money.

 

Mr. Vanover said I would agree but I will temper my decision on the relief based on action and results.This has been a long arduous process already.To be honest I am suspect, but I will forgive and forget if we see action and results.

 

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Schneider if in his opinion there was any other clarification needed or that would be helpful.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE FIFTEEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Schneider responded I canít think of any particular action the board should take.I think you havetried to point out to the applicantís attorney how you feel you would adjust things when the issue is determined.

 

I think it is important that Mr. Riehl convey to his client, and Iím sure he will, the Cityís willingness to cooperate to try and accomplish the goal, but it is an unmovable requirement that the caliper inches be replaced or paid for.In terms of the penalty aspect which was pretty substantial, $90,250, it is quite flexible and down to $5,000 I heard at one point.I think that is a lot of clarification on the part of Planning Commission.I donít know if Mr. Riehl has any other questions that might need further clarification but I would be glad to defer to him.

 

Mr. Riehl responded the only other issue of clarification is the contribution to the tree fund.Iím not sure that specifically was addressed.Mr. Syfert stated I think everyone is of the opinion that you either replace the inches or you pay into the fund.Mr. Schneider said and the requirement in our legislation is $100 per caliper inchMr. Syfert added I donít think there was any give in that.

 

Mr. Galster said I can tell you that when the City plants trees, it costs us more than that to buy and plant the tree.Any offer of flexibility would be if he is planting 318 caliper inches on site and finds he can get them for $95 a caliper inch planted, I would have no problem with adjusting our number to match the same number that it would have cost him to plant on site.

 

Mr. Riehl said I do have a clarification on that.Letís assume that he were to put the additional 133 inches on his lot somewhere.Is there any problem?

 

Mr. Galster responded absolutely not providing that a landscape architect would tell us those would be fine.If 451 caliper inches cannot be healthfully planted on the site, we still would have a problem.If we canít plant 451 caliper inches on the site, whatever shortfall is a loss to the City and needs to be made up somewhere.

 

Mr. Riehl said if the landscape architect says he can only put in 318 caliper inches and there were 451 caliper inches, maybe there were too many trees.Mr. Galster responded no, they were just bigger and better trees.There is a big difference between a 20-inch tree and seven three-inch trees.There is a tremendous difference.I think we have lost that already.We are losing the mature trees.We lost a lot of good sized trees on that site, and you are starting to plant smaller sticks, it just makes it tough to plant them all on the site.

 

Mr. Schneider said I just talked with Ms. McBride, and if in fact there are other sites in the City where the City may need trees planted, and if he has a good deal and if there is a proper planting,

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE SIXTEEN

 

V B. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS DECISION Ė SUPER 8 MOTEL

 

Mr. Schneider added Ms. McBride said there would be no reason why he couldnít plant 133 caliper inches of trees with his crew elsewhere on City grounds as long as there is City supervision and information as to what needs to be planted and where.That would have to be coordinated with the city administration.She did say that might be an acceptable alternative to plant all 451 caliper inches.

 

Mr. Galster asked about the follow up time frame.Mr. Riehl said you mean in terms of beginning the planting.My discussions with my client was that if everything was resolved here tonight, he could probably get everything started within the next five to six weeks, with the expectation that it would be accomplished well in advance of the six months that Planning Commission gave him.I had the idea that it could start as early as the middle of June.

 

VI.               NEW BUSINESS

 

A.            Approval of Addition and Renovation to Ramada Plaza, 11911 Sheraton Lane (former Best Western)

 

Bob Kunvarji, owner of the property saidwe are leaving the four columns on the canopies.The size of the canopy will briefly change and the shape will change.There will be a low pitched roof and drivitt.The base of the columns will be artificial stone.Underneath the canopy the blacktop will be removed and there will be stamped concrete.

 

The entrance to the hotel will remain the same except there will be some drivitt and some redecoration.The doors will be removed and replaced with sliding doors, and we are planning to paint the building manor white (showed color sample).

 

We have three mature small trees underneath the canopy as it is now.They will remain there, and we will add shrubs and flowers.

 

Mr. Galster wondered if all sides of the building would be replaced and painted out so the place where the Best Western sign was isnít visible.††† Mr. Kunvarji said we contacted Mr. McErlane and the sign will be replaced where you see the angle lines.There will be a new sign in six to eight weeks, similar to the Best Western sign, a single face box on the wall with channel letters on the top.

 

Mr. Galster asked if he were going to paint the buildings before they put the signs up.Mr. Kunvarji answered Iím not sure.Mr. Galster continued because we donít have a sign package to approve, I want to make sure that the whole building is painted so we canít see where the old Best Western sign was.Mr. Kunvarji responded we will make sure that wonít happen.

 

Mr. Okum added with the history of that building and the EIFS leaking on the outside several years ago, I would certainly recommend that behind those sign locations that is addressed.When they redid the building, I am not sure that they did that.Mr. Kunvarji responded we will keep that in mind.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE SEVENTEEN

 

VI ADDITION & RENOVATION TO RAMADA PLAZA 11911 SHERATON LANE

 

Ms. McBride reported that the Ramada Plaza is within a PUD District, so the two members of Planning who sit on City Council will have to make the determination that this is a minor change to the PUD.Staff believes it is, but technically you will still have to make that determination.

 

The proposed canopy is about 34í-6Ē x 43í-10Ē and would be supported by four stone veneer and EIFS columns.The canopy band has an EIFS band around it with a red standing seam pitched metal roof on it.

 

There would be stone planters with plant material in it, not the existing trees to remain so that is why we have continued to ask what plant materials would be included in those planters.

 

They do show a sign on the canopy that says Ramada Plaza.We have not received any detailed information, size, lighting etc. so we recommend that the commission not act on that this evening.

 

The canopy is to be illuminated by 12 recessed 100-watt light fixtures, but we did not get any information on those fixtures in terms of whether or not they were flat lenses or what type of fixtures they were.We did not receive any building materials or color samples prior to this evening.

 

There is a storage trailer on that site that was approved by Planning, and Mr. McErlane will comment on that more, but the approval is set to expire toward the end of this month.So the commission may want to get some information from the applicant or give the applicant some indication as to whether or not that approval will be renewed.

 

Mr. McErlane said I think Ms. McBride covered all the items I had, although I do want to point out that because there will be stone veneer added to the building it is getting closer to the corridor requirements.

 

On the storage container behind the building, our records show that it is to expire at the end of this month.If the applicant would like to ask Planning Commission for an extension of that or give Planning Commission clarification on the status of that and Planning Commission sees fit to do so, they might consider as a separate request an extension of that for some period of time.

 

Mr. Kunvarji reported we had that trailer for a reason and wanted to remove it at the end of this month as Planning indicated and I agreed.Last month we got two more trailers temporarily in the parking lot which is full of the material that we will be using.It has some marble, paint and we are using it for temporary storage.We already started using the third one which is supposed to be removed and I would like to ask to have that trailer for another 60 or 90 days.Mr. Syfert asked if 90 days would be adequate and Mr. Kunvarji answered that it would.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE EIGHTEEN

 

VI ADDITION & RENOVATION TO RAMADA PLAZA 11911 SHERATON LANE

 

Mr. Galster asked if photo metrics were needed on the 12 100-watt bulbs.Ms. McBride answered I donít think we need photo metrics, but I would have liked to have known if they were flat lens fixtures or what type of fixtures they were.Mr. Kunvarji answered they will be recessed in the ceiling, two rows, six in a row at equal distance. Mr. Galster said so they wonít come down below the roof structure.Do you know the type of fixture you will use?Mr. Kunvarji answered I donít have the detail but it will be a 100-watt white light.

 

Mr. Okum asked if he had sample of the stone, and Mr. Kunvarji answered no, but it is called reddish brown stone; it is more of an off brown color.†††††

 

Mr. Okum said so the only red on this will be the red roof.Mr. Kunvarji answered that is the Ramada color, but if I canít do that red I can get permission from Ramada and change it.It doesnít make any difference to me because it wonít be visible from the road.

 

Mr. Okum said as long as it stays just to the roof, I donít have a problem.Mr. Kunvarji said that is about it, but if I have to change it I can because the material has not been ordered.†† Mr. Okum responded for this little bit, I personally donít se a problem.I was more concerned about red pipe striping inside the inset of the EIFS.Mr. Okum asked the color of the EIFS and Mr. Kunvarji said itís called marin white.Mr. Okum said because this is a PUD and you are doing a building color elevation painting, we should include in the motion that all four building elevations are going to be repainted.We want to make sure that the color you presented is the color that goes on the entire building.

 

Mr. Vanover asked if the stone veneer was a cultured stone or flat stone veneer.Mr. Kunvarji answered I believe it is cultured stone, but it is about Ĺ inch thick veneer.

 

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Ramada Plaza entry canopy and main building to include staff, city engineer and city plannerís recommendations, that the lighting fixtures depicted in the drawing shall be flat lensed, that the plantings in the landscape area be approved by staff, that the trees on the site shall remain as indicated by the applicant, and that all elevations of the canopy and the main building shall be a marin white EIFS with a stone accent on the canopy.This representation has been presented by the applicant in a color rendering.†† The storage trailer previously approved shall be extended for a 90-day period (from May 30, 2005).

 

Mr. Galster seconded the motion, adding that this is not a major change and does not need to be reviewed by City Council.Mr. Vanover concurred.

 

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

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 MAY 2005

PAGE NINETEEN

 

VII.              DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone other than himself who would not be present on June 14th and Mr. Butrum answered it depends on when my wife has her baby.

 

Mr. Okum said I want to remind everyone that Mr. Knox has informed that our pay periods have changed, and we must attend all of our meetings in order to get paid.I know that we have stellar attendance at both Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Mr. Okum asked about the Mattress Masters banner.Mr. McErlane reported that a permit has been issued for a permanent sign, and it is supposed to be up the 1st of June.

 

VIII.            CHAIRMANíS REPORT

 

A.            First Watch Ė 80 West Kemper Road Ė Pole & Wall Sign Changes

 

Mr. Galster asked if the signs are going on a different pole or is it just a face change.Mr. McErlane responded it is a face change.If you notice the sign on the building is not strongly visible, so they are going with more block type letters.

 

IX.               ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

††††††††††† All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:32 p.m.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

††††††††††† __________________________,2005††† __________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

 

††††††††††† ___________________________,2005 __________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary††††

 

.