PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

7:00 P.M.

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

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: David Okum, Robert Sherry, Robert Coleman,

    Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 8 APRIL 2003
  6. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF 15 APRIL 2003

    Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voices vote, all voted aye and both sets of minutes were adopted unanimously.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that Council had considered and passed the Zoning Code changes.

    3. Zoning Bulletin – April 10, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin – April 25, 2003
    5. Planning Commissioners Journal – Spring 2003

     

  8. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike – Hearing continued April 8, 2003

    Wayne Fan stated with the help of Bill we had a meeting with the staff and discussed all the materials and specific comments.

    Ms. McBride stated that we did have the opportunity to meet with the applicant and go through all of our comments. There still are items that we need clarification on. The impervious surface area for the project which is allowed 70% was previously indicated at 50%. Things have changed and there is an increase in the open space, but we do not have any number now, and we need it.

    The applicant has reconfigured some of the parking spaces to meet the drive aisle standards. Previously he determined there were 17 parking spaces and now there are 16 spaces which meet the design requirements. Planning has the ability to modify the number of parking spaces.

    We asked them to add bumper blocks to all the spaces heading into the south property line, and they need to be added.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE TWO

    V A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THRU AT DUNKIN DONUTS

    Ms. McBride added that there are five stacking spaces for the drive through beginning at the order location.

    The applicant is proposing to leave the trash dumpster facing Springfield Pike, and one of the receptacles is outside of the enclosure. We have asked them to remove that or put it in the enclosure but it is still there. Mr. Fan said we will get rid of it.

    Ms. McBride added that you can see through the gates on the en closure and these need to be replaced with solid wood gates.

    We have talked about different variances to allow the proposed additions on both sides of the building. The 100’ building setback for the proposed cooler addition on Springfield Pike (proposed setback is 59’ and the drive through on Northland Boulevard (proposed setback is 60’). A variance also will have to be obtained for the location of the parking area with the required 50’ setback from Northland Boulevard.

    They continue to have outdoor storage on the Springfield Pike side of the site which is not permitted in the Corridor Review District. Previously the applicant indicated that they were going to remove the items stored outdoors but they remain.

    We have talked about curb cuts which should be 200’ minimum from a main intersection, but this site does not have 200 feet of frontage, so this needs to be waived.

    We continue to have problems with their landscaping. They have added plant material but we do not know the material and size. Almost all of the plant material proposed for the north portion of the site is proposed to be located within the right of way, and that needs to be moved. They had added a center island in the center of the drive through, and we thought it was to be landscaped but it has no plant material. That needs to be included in a revised landscape plan.

    A photometric lighting plan indicated .5 foot-candles for the parking lot illumination, but we do not know fixture details. There was a question about double headed or single headed, and we need clarification on this.

    On the building elevations, the CRD has specific requirements, and blank facades on the rear of the building are to be avoided. At least 50% of the building needs to have a pitched roof. Earth tones are required with one or two accent colors. In addition to the gray and tan proposed, the applicant proposed accent colors of pumpkin orange, royal plum and jogging path. They have reduced the accent colors to two.

    They have indicated that the "new façade boards" will screen the HVAC equipment but they will not be provided on the entire rear elevation.

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE THREE

    V A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THRU AT DUNKIN DONUTS

    Ms. McBride said that the building elevations indicate fabric awnings on the north and east elevations which will be illuminated internally and externally from wall-mounted fixtures.

    The Building Department received the building materials on the color sample board this afternoon, so we could not comment on that.

    They are proposing signage on the north side of the building. Specific information was not provided but it would appear that 50.8 square feet are proposed and the sign would be internally illuminated.

    They have indicated that they will be removing the pylon sign and will use a ground mounted sign five feet in height. They might want to relocate the sign to a more visible location, and we will need to know the size and how it is to be illuminated and landscaping needs to be provided around the base. There are a number of clean up items that need to be presented.

    Mr. Okum commented that the CRD calls for residential style roofing, and based on the plan that we have no residential style roofing is there at all. . Was the applicant aware of the CRD standards? Ms. McBride indicated that he was. Mr. Fan said we have a prototype for all Dunkin Donuts designs, but there are some minor changes for each store in some areas.

    Mr. Okum wondered if this store was a prototype and Mr. Fan indicated that it was about 70%.

    Mr. Okum asked the color on the awnings and asked if they were translucent and Mr. Fan said that that royal plum was the color and he thought that they were translucent. Mr. Okum asked the type of light fixture and Mr. Fan stated that they were fluorescent lighting internally lit. Mr. Okum asked about the lighting above the awnings and Mr. Fan indicated that they would be down lit.

    Mr. Okum asked if the staff would be able to deal with the lighting issues if the motion was for non-glare flat lens lighting. Ms. McBride indicated that they would. On Sheet A-8 there is a little detail of the lighting they are proposing for the awnings and it is kind of a gooseneck. Mr. Okum asked the type of bulb and Mr. Fan answered fluorescent.

    Mr. Vanover said you said that the awnings are being backlit with fluorescent; what type of fluorescent? Mr. Fan said 80 watts.

    Mr. Galster said I do not understand the need for lighting inside and again from the top. The awning will be plum and I do not know what it would look like lit. I definitely would not want to see it lit internally and externally.

    Mr. Vanover said that those units are probably HID heads and we would fare better with the back lit. With back lighting it would give illumination and provide ingress and egress lighting.

    .

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE FOUR

    V A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THRU AT DUNKIN DONUTS

    Mr. Okum said I agree that the awnings internally illuminated would look strange, but on the other hand if you have lights above them it would be a wash anyway. Down lighting on the sidewalk is important.

    Ms. McBride said I need clarification on the size of the ground sign and we could be flexible with the location of the sign.

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that they will need a do not enter sign at the proposed access point from Northland Boulevard. A landscape easement to the city at the northwest corner of the property is indicated so that the streetscape features may be added.

    There was a concern about the height of the existing retaining wall at the eastern end of the drive through lanes. The applicant indicated that they would add bollards in that location, but there is nothing on the site plan that indicates details or location.

    Mr. Okum said I have a lot of trouble with the reverse radius turning movements. Are you comfortable with this?

    Mr. Shvegzda said the geometrics are there, and a lot of this will be helped with the signage. It is a matter of education.

    Mr. Coleman asked about the drive through lane and the parking area. Mr. Shvegzda responded that we would recommend that there be a raised island separating the drive through from the parking area.

    Mr. McErlane reported that the project is zoned GB (General Business) and is in Subarea D of the Corridor Review District for setback requirements. They are proposing a setback of 59 feet from Route 4 to the addition of the walk in coolers. The setback from Northland Boulevard is shown as 54 feet, but the dimension line does not appear to be from the right of way line. The setback appears to be approximately 61’.

    Variances would be required for front yard building setbacks from both streets and pavement setback from Northland Boulevard.

    By the resubmittal deadline, we had not received the lighting plan (we received it May 6th) and we received the color pallet today.

    We thought the plum color was an accent stripe and it is also used in the area over the entrance and the drive through as well as the panels along the windows.

    By moving the curb line on the drive through lane it is a 6’ setback from Northland instead of the 0’ shown last month, so he has improved the setback, but a variance still will be needed for that setback.

    I also would recommend that any motion for approval should be contingent upon the applicant receiving the variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE FIVE

    V A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THRU AT DUNKIN DONUTS

    Mr. McErlane stated that there is an area next to the walk in cooler and it appears that a parking space could be added there. Mr. Fan responded that it would be a little bit tight, but we could add one.

    Mr. Okum asked if the dumpster enclosure were being modified, and Mr. McErlane indicated that it didn’t appear to be. It sounds like the grease dumpster is going away. Mr. Fan said that they would remove it.

    Mr. Okum wondered what percentage of the building is the color plum and Mr. Fan estimated that it was 5%, adding that they could change the plum below the windows to gray.

    Ms. McBride commented that she would be happy to get rid of the plum; an earth tone would be more appropriate there.

    Mr. Huddleston commented that only the front elevation is shown; what happens on the side and the rear? I think we need to know this. Mr. Fan said he could make a drawing showing that. Mr. Syfert asked again the colors and Mr. Fan answered that they are similar to the front elevation. Mr. Huddleston commented that similar is a very broad brush. Mr. Fan repeated that he could paint another picture.

    Mr. Huddleston asked the applicant if he intended to repaint the rear, and Mr. Fan answered that he would try not to; it would be expensive. Mr. Huddleston wondered if he intended to leave it as it is, and Mr. Fan answered that he didn’t know since he didn’t know the cost.

    Mr. Galster commented that the monument sign on G-1 looks like a straight flat brick wall with a face. I would like to see something to create some dimension and take away the squareness.

    Ms. McBride stated that the Zoning Code requires landscaping, so we can work with him and change some of the structural appearance.

    Mr. Okum said I think approval of the change of the plum color to an earth tone should be approved at another meeting, so the applicant can move forward and finalize the colors at a later date. He asked the staff’s opinion.

    Ms. McBride answered that is fine if you want to postpone this to a later meeting and you might postpone the landscaping approval as well.

    Mr. Sherry said I have been thinking about the plum color changing to an earth tone underneath the window, and I would like to see that changed to brick to match the existing brick. Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if that would be a problem, and Mr. Fan indicated that it would not be.

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE SIX

    V A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THRU AT DUNKIN DONUTS

    Mr. Okum said with the shortage of brick in the industry, the chances of matching the brick would be very unlikely. Mr. Sherry commented that he should bring it back to us. It has been represented to us that he will match the existing brick on the project. Mr. Fan said this is a prototype Dunkin Donuts store, and I don’t know what would happen if we change the brick.

    Mr. Huddleston said from my perspective, this is very difficult. What we have to review is small scale and poorly designed. Next month I want to see it fully designed on all four sides.

    Mr. Fan said the back elevation is not major; it is hard to color that.

    Mr. Huddleston responded that in a previous meeting you indicated that you would paint that, and we need to know what color

    Mr. Galster said we are going to vote on a conditional use permit to allow a drive through without achieving any of the other benefits of the rework of the building. The conditional use will be there regardless of what happens at the next meeting. I am a little concerned about granting a conditional use permit with all those other items which are important. Part of the reason to allow the conditional use for the drive through is the redevelopment of that site.

    Mr. Syfert asked what he was suggesting and Mr. Galster answered that I, personally, will not vote for a conditional use permit without having the other items tied down.

    Mr. Fan commented that the conditional use permit is vitally important, a major item. Other things like color and lighting are minor. I know it is very important for the city, but it is very easy for us to revise them.

    Mr. Galster added I do not think the board is discouraging you on the drive through itself. The clean up of the building is to meet the standards of the Route 4 Corridor. Mr. Fan commented that if the drive through is not approved, we cannot do anything.

    Mr. Galster said I do not think anybody opposes the drive through. There are a lot of other issues that need to be addressed before the conditional use permit is granted.

    Mr. Huddleston said you have a very difficult site, a non-conforming site, and we are trying to work with you, but if we are going to grant the conditional use permit, you will have to work with us.

    Mr. Okum said I have to agree with the board on this. I do have a draft of a motion, but I would rather not make it. If the applicant can move forward based on our comments this evening and the conditions are met, I don’t see any reason why I would vote against a conditional use permit for this site. On the other hand, there are conditions that you will have to meet to get that to work on the site. I have not heard any negative comments on the conditional use permit, but at this point I am not in a position to make a motion.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE SEVEN

    V A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THRU AT DUNKIN DONUTS

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he would object to the item being continued until next month. Mr. Fan responded that he could work on it with no problem, but what about the owner?

    Mr. Galster said if you are looking for a favorable vote on the drive through, there are too many items outstanding right now.

    Mr. Galster moved to continue the public hearing and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the matter was continued to the June 10th meeting.

    B. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Seating Area to be located at Graeter’s Ice Cream, 11511 Princeton Road – Hearing continued April 8, 2003

    Chip Graeter of Graeter’s and Aaron Zwelling of the Graeter’s management team approached the commission. Mr. Graeter said we remodeled the store and had this back area, where we want to put out very nice benches chairs and tables. I know the Commission would like to have landscaping, and for the most part we are nicely against that. We would like to know how we can not do that and please you.

    Mr. McErlane reported that Planning Commission asked the applicant to look at the number of parking spaces they can put on the property they own, and they came back with 28 parking spaces. If the north access drive were to be reduced to 20 feet wide, they cold add two additional spaces. There are two handicapped spaces required and this plan can provide it. The required number of parking spaces is 55, and we are looking at 28-30 spaces.

    Ms. McBride reported that the applicant did not submit a landscape plan. If the 29-foot wide drive aisle on the north side of the building were reduced to 20 feet, a 9-foot wide area would be available for landscaping and they could pick up two spaces on the front of the building to maintain 28 spaces.

    The applicant has indicated that the existing dumpster would be screened, and they are not proposing any changes to the signage or lighting on the site.

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that the aisle width in the westernmost north-south drive aisle opposite the north 2 parking spaces ranges from 23’ to 20.5’, and 24’ is the required width when parked traffic is backing out into the aisle. This combined with the problems with vehicles turning at this location make it necessary to eliminate the north 2 parking spaces.

    The driveway along the north side of the building should be utilized to delineate a 20’ driveway to align with the 20’ drive aisle adjacent to the western parking aisle.

    Mr. Zwelling said knowing how the parking lot flows, one of the concerns is a safety issue if we would put landscaping on the side. The other issue would be our delivery trucks and the Rumpke trucks coming in there. Mr. Syfert commented that it is straight in.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE EIGHT

    V B CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUTDOOR SEATING AREA–GRAETER’S

    Mr. Graeter said if you park your car on the front of the building in front of the landscaping and open that door, you would have cars coming out, and that is a safety issue.

    Mr. Okum said I think that parking space should be eliminated and then you would have a radius on that corner to carry the landscaping more forward.

    Mr. Graeter said I do not see any benefit to having a wider aisle to drive cars. Mr. Okum responded that he agreed adding that he did not see a need for 9’ landscaping. I can see 6 ˝ or 7 foot landscaping with a wider drive aisle.

    Mr. Zwelling commented we just finished redoing 12 of our stores. This store was the last, mostly because of the financial burden of redoing all of them. We have already extended our budget on this building in improving it, and now you are asking us to have a larger financial burden.

    Mr. Okum responded I totally understand, and I am pleased to see you have made this commitment, but you are far below the required parking.

    You want to have the seating and we want to have the landscaping at this point I am not going to approve this layout.

    Mr. Sherry commented I would like to see landscaping in the front of the building. I am concerned about this parking layout. I did think that we could take the 24’ and make it 30-36’ and eliminate that 27’ wide area in front and landscape that.

    Mr. Galster wondered how many seats would be there and Mr. Graeter answered that there would be about a dozen with two round tables. I am at the point that I probably would rather do the front landscaping than the north. I worry about the drive area as well as it being on the north side of the building.

    Mr. Zwelling added that this outdoor seating is not providing any additional space that we need. Our building is much larger than what we need. Our original intent was to give people who like to go outside somewhere to go. Will it create business for us? I don’t think so in terms of volume. It is there already, and we wanted to give something new for that store. We are talking only a dozen seats.

    Mr. Graeter added that earlier you mentioned pots on the back or in the front, and I could concur with that. Something like that would look really nice. Outdoor seating is not pivotal; it is an added benefit for our customers. I would like to see landscape plans from a professional, and the size and length of what you have in mind.

    Mr. Galster said if we allowed 12 seats back there, would you consider 7-9 foot landscaping in the front of your building? Mr. Graeter responded I would consider it, definitely. Mr. Zwelling added we would be more receptive to something of that nature.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE NINE

    V B CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUTDOOR SEATING AREA–GRAETER’S

    Mr. Graeter said I personally would consider that appealing, but I would like to take it back to the rest of the family to see how they feel about it.

    Mr. Coleman said having heard all the comments about the overall capacity, it would seem to me that you have more space than you need and could remove some of the spaces in the front to add the landscaping and get those spaces in the back so you would have a wash in terms of capacity and we would end up with landscaping. I would support this.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said so you want to take this back to the family? Mr. Graeter answered yes, I would think it would be very acceptable.

    Mr. Galster said I think it would be wiser to make a motion to allow the conditional use permit for outdoor seating, providing that the landscaping is added to the front. Mr. Graeter said I do not think it will be a problem but there are five others to look at it.

    Mr. Okum said Mr. Shvegzda’s comment to move the center aisle of parking close to the store would allow the 9’ of landscaping in the front. The difficulty is that there would be fewer parking spaces because of the radius turn in, and for us to make a motion for a lower number of parking spaces (25-26). I totally agree that the front is better than the side, but unless they put it to paper, they will not know the cost and we will not know what we are getting and if it will work. I total 11 spaces in the front and now we have 15.

    Mr. Syfert asked how many spaces they needed, and Mr. Graeter answered the more the better. We are optioning and hope to acquire some of the back property in the near future, but we cannot guarantee that.

    Mr. Okum commented that he would like them to go back to the family, put it to paper and bring back the landscaping plan.

    Mr. Graeter responded you are asking us to submit a landscaping plan for the front area. If we decide not to have outside seating, where does that leave us?

    Mr. McErlane responded if the outdoor seating was not built, we would not be considering this at all.

    Mr. Graeter stated I will give them these choices, new landscaping with new parking spaces or continue as we are today.

    Mr. Huddleston said on the safety issue, I believe if that is not striped off, people will be parking there. If you come back with a parking layout, I want that striped out to show what is truly there.

    Mr. Okum moved to continue the public hearing and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was continued to June 10th.

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 MAY 2003

    PAGE TEN

  9. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Extension of Temporary Banner, The UPS Store (Former Mailbox, Etc.) 11711 Princeton Pike (Princeton Plaza)
    2. Dylan Fager, owner of the UPS Store said on April 7, UPS purchased Mailboxes and put together a rebranding package. Over 3,000 stores agreed to do so, and they have put together an aggressive program which has started in the Cincinnati area.

      They have contracted with a national sign company to do all of the exterior signs, but in the interim they installed banners over the existing signs. Because of the scale of the project, it needs to be there longer than the 14 days permitted.

      With the scope of the whole program, having that banner is vital. It allows us to be associated with the whole marketing campaign. When they put the program together last year, they tested it in three sites throughout the country, and the stores with the UPS signs did significantly better.

      I am asking to continue to leave the banners over the sign until the sign is removed permanently.

      Mr. Syfert asked for how long a period. Mr. Fager answered that he talked to the area franchiser and he has no definite answer, but his assumption is that it will be no later than June 30, but I can’t guarantee that. This week I received a preliminary drawing from the sign company, so I am encouraged by that.

      Mr. Galster asked what the new sign would be like and Mr. Fager said it is smaller than the existing sign and it will be on a runway. It is a completely new sign.

      Mr. McErlane reported that this property is a part of Princeton Plaza which is zoned PUD. The applicant has requested a temporary banner which began April 7. We allowed it to stay up pending this review. It is 3’ high and 27’ long and he is requesting that it remain up until June 30th.

      Mr. Fager said if by chance the sign is not ready by June 30th, what do we do? Mr. Syfert answered you would have to come before us again.

      Mr. Galster moved to approve the banner until June 30th and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the extension was granted.

    3. Building Addition for Tri-State Sleep Disorder Center, 1275 East Kemper Road

Stan Ladrick and Tim Wahl came forward. Mr. Ladrick said we are proposing a 2,000+ square foot addition to the north side of the existing building which is a one story split face concrete block.

The proposed addition displaces some parking and requires additional parking, so we would expand the parking lot to the north.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE ELEVEN

VI B TRI-STATE SLEEP DISORDER CENTER BUILDING ADDITION

Mr. Ladrick added that the current lot does not meet any of the site lighting requirements, and we will provide that. The current lot also is not landscaped and we will provide landscaping around the parking area.

The exterior of the building will be consistent with the existing. It will match the existing appearance of the addition put on in 1989, with the same split face concrete block and window pattern and we will maintain the existing entrance.

There were previous variances which were granted to reduce the number of parking spaces required. This is a physician’s office as well as a testing and research center. They have people sleeping there and they observe and document their problems.

The addition will be office space that is required for the center for research and documentation, and the additional parking will meet the requirements of the OB District. We are not proposing any additional space that would directly support the examination or overnight stay of people.

We have provided the necessary lighting plan with the foot candles, cut sheets on the fixtures, a landscaping plan with plant list and drainage calculations. The staff had comments that if you would like to discuss we would happy to address.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is 1.3704 acres and is zoned Office Building and is used as a medical offices building or clinic. They propose to build a 2,034 s.f. addition to the existing 9,455 s.f. building for a total of 11,489 s.f. An additional 11 parking spaces are proposed for a total of 38 spaces.

The project meets the Zoning Code setback requirements except for the side yard on the east which is 10 feet and 12 feet are required today, which makes it legal non-conforming. The side yard setback to parking is 8 feet instead of the 10’ currently required.

The maximum permitted impervious surface requirement is 70%, and the proposed surface ratio is 45.13%. There are 38 parking spaces and the code requires 59 spaces. There is existing lighting indicated for the rear of the building, but no photometrics are indicated.

Trees proposed to be removed total 10" of hardwoods, 16" of evergreens, and 6" of ornamentals. Because this is a redevelopment, the replacement is one for every one, and the minimum sizes are 10 feet in height for evergreens and hardwoods land 6’ in height for ornamentals.

Two existing sheds are shown at the rear of the building. Our question is would they be removed as part of the construction of the new addition. If they are to remain, a variance would be necessary for rear yard setback. A variance also would be needed for total parking spaces to continue the previous variance.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE TWELVE

VI B TRI-STATE SLEEP DISORDER CENTER BUILDING ADDITION

Mr. Ladrick added that on the storage buildings, I do not know about them, but if you are making it a requirement to remove them, we will. Mr. Syfert responded that if they are necessary you would have to apply for a variance because of the rear yard setback. Mr. Ladrick said that they would prefer not to remove the sheds.

Ms. McBride stated that we would want to see gates on the dumpster enclosure. She also asked if the landscaped area would be irrigated and Mr. Ladrick answered that there are no plans to do that now.

Mr. Okum asked about the lighting, and Mr. Ladrick stated that it is flat lens, bronze in color and 18 feet in height. Mr. Okum added that we want to make sure that the lens is flat and shielded on all sides. Mr. Ladrick stated that the foot candle is appropriate and does not spill onto the other property. Mr.Okum responded that we ask that light packs on buildings be down lit. Do you have a problem with that? Mr. Ladrick responded that he did not, adding that there is one on the rear and one on the west side.

Mr. Okum commented that the storage sheds would need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance if they were to remain. Since there is so much construction going on, maybe a small attachment to the building could be constructed to accommodate what they need. Mr. Ladrick stated that he would clarify with them if they want the sheds to stay or go.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that they are showing a drive aisle connector between the existing and proposed parking fields, and vehicles exiting from the parking spaces at the far southeast corner of the existing parking field may back out into traffic exiting the new parking field.

Consideration should be given to eliminating the currently shown drive aisle connector and the construction of a connection to the far west end of the parking lot. This would eliminate 4 spaces at the west end and 4 spaces could be added back to the east end.

The detention volume is 65,885 which is acceptable. A tributary are map for the 0.22 acre area should be supplied.

There is still concern about the existing detention basin and the water overflow point of 665.7 along with the various elevations in and around the detention facility, and all the information needs to be clarified.

To the west there is an offsite tributary area, and there is a considerable differential (0.95 acres) to the new detention basin tributary area (0.22 acres). We would recommend creating an new swale, and we would need additional details on the inlet calculations.

There is some work taking place to the detention basin which is shown off the property line, so we need something indicating an easement for that usage.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE THIRTEEN

VI B TRI-STATE SLEEP DISORDER CENTER BUILDING ADDITION

Mr. Okum said I would like to hear about irrigation maintenance issue. Would staff want that to be added? Ms. McBride responded that it is not a part of our code to require irrigation. Most of the material is hardy and is spread out, and I do not know that irrigating this site would be a benefit. It was more of a question of the applicant.

Mr. Ladrick said we will stipulate that we need to replace the same number of inch trees that will tie taken out and we will plant the larger sizes.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the building addition with the following conditions:

    1. All staff, engineer, city planner and building official comments be included;
    2. All mechanical units be screened from view;
    3. Mechanical units be in enclosures
    4. Lighting shall be non-glare so as not to affected adjoining properties;
    5. Wall mounted light packs shall be shielded and down lit;
    6. Landscaping shall be maintained at all times;
    7. Color and materials of new portion of the building shall be of the same material as existing;
    8. Conditioned upon Board of Zoning Appeals review and determination on the storage sheds.

. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

C. Zoning Change & Preliminary Plan – "Crossings at the Park" (GEEAA Park) from GB, OB & RMH-L to PUD

Glenn Shepherd, President of Shepherd Industries reported that there are 140+ acres involved and we will try to maintain the integrity of the park. We will create a combination of uses for seniors. Twenty-three acres will be senior housing, 10.5 acres are retail and the remaining 102.2 acres will remain a private recreation area until a future development plan is proposed.

The primary points of contention were the proximity of the units to the railroad and the potential of some of the units in a flood plain.

We have made sure that everything is pulled back away from the railroad. Traffic was an issue and probably still is but we would like to try to resolve some of these issues together.

We would like to see a traffic light here. Our concern is safety for the seniors as well as viability for the retail project, and we would recommend that we revisit this before any definite decision is made. Unless we have immediate access to the retail, it will not be a viable retail project.

We have tried to realign some of the streets at Crescentville Road, but that would cause the elimination of two holes.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE FOURTEEN

V ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"

Ms. McBride reported that the applicant is requesting that the entire property be rezoned to PUD. The Comprehensive Plan we recently adopted recognizes that the GEEAA Park property is a Focus Planning Area and recommends that the property remain as park land and recreational use. It also recognizes the redevelopment potential of the land and makes specific recommendations for the site redevelopment:

    1. A mixture of "destination" commercial uses, residential densities and integrated recreational areas;
    2. Design Controls be implemented to control access, site planning, etc.
    3. Careful consideration of the development’s impact on SR 747 and Crescentville Road traffic;
    4. Protect residential areas to the east;
    5. Create a "Gateway of Springdale" entrance at the northwest corner;
    6. Require unified development of the site through PUD;
    7. Create internal roadway network to services entire development;
    8. No new access points on SR 747;
    9. As much existing vegetation on site as possible be preserved;
    10. Provide internal circulation between business uses for customers and deliveries;
    11. Align new access points on Crescentville Rd. with existing access points to the north;
    12. Create a streetscape on SR 747 similar to that existing on the north side of Crescentville Rd.;
    13. Restrict signage to ground mounted free standing signs and limited wall signs;
    14. Provide screening/buffering between various land uses.

Mr. Okum commented that he is encouraged by the walkway system that is recommended and feels it should be lighted like the rest of the development.

Mr. Galster asked when the road system construction begins and Mr. Shepherd answered that it would be done in phases. In Phase 1, the primary entrance would be done, and we will work with the park to develop an overall plan.

Mr. Vanover said my understanding is that under the PUD umbrella, it all gets done as it is shown on the plan.

Mr. McErlane reported that if you show an overall PUD, it can be phased. There is a time schedule for the development. If it does not occur, you need to show how you will impact the parking field.

Mr. Shepherd said we will try to show how it could be done over the entire project.

Mr. Wahl added that we started looking at this a couple of years ago and we want to offer the same type activities that have been offered for the last 50 years.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE FIFTEEN

V ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"

Mr. Wahl said things have downsized and our membership has dropped and we cannot continue to maintain the park with the same standards as previously. There are tennis courts that are not usable, so we need to make significant changes. We believe this represents something great for the community, our association and GE.

Mr. Okum said the time line needs to be set. I am very optimistic about what you are presenting.

Mr. Galster wanted to know if GEEAA is comfortable with this plan for the foreseeable future. Mr. Wahl said yes, and we also recognize that GE will further downsize in this area at some level. When that goes into effect, with these changes and the amount of revenue we can obtain from this project, we will be solvent for many years..

Mr. Shepherd added that one of the main features is that a lot of the residents will be members of the park, and they will look out for the park. Mr. Wahl added that gives us more usage of the golf course in off hours.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that a signal will be warranted for the Crescentville Road access across from Transportation Way, if the SR 747 access is limited to right in/right out.

Mr. Okum said I am concerned about lining up with the road, which is a dead end and goes to Recker & Boerger. I am trying to figure out how much retail will use that driveway. I do not think you would have 10 cars per hour there.

Mr. Shepherd said this is shown as moved north 120 feet. Our concern is that if we are limited to right in and right out in two places, westbound traffic on Crescentville Road could not get to the retail. In addition to that, cars going south on SR 747 could not get into the project. We would like to sit down with the traffic engineers and see if there is another solution here.

Mr. Okum said the traffic engineers are recommending that 747 be right in and right out. Mr. Shepherd answered that we would like to table this right in and right out now, and when all the improvements are made, make another traffic study and see what can be done.

Mr. Shepherd said maybe there is a compromise to eliminate one of these by pulling this more down to the center and having one entrance here and one here (indicated on site plan) with both signalized and not create a problem. But, the traffic engineers would have to look at it to make sure that it is feasible.

Mr. Vanover asked about the status of the East Crescentville Road project. Mr. Shvegzda answered that it will be two years before we can reapply, which we will. So if we assume it would be in 2004, it would be another 3 years before it would go to construction.

Mr. Vanover said if we are gong to pick a driveway to line up with, it should be the one going into the retail store (Sam’s).

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE SIXTEEN

VI ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"

Mr. Vanover said I am very concerned about the water detention, because that creek is my back yard, and I have seen two 100 year storms in the 23 years I have lived there, plus a couple of 50 year storms.

Mr. McErlane said we received preliminary elevations and they were not marked which units were which. Mr. Shepherd said that the photographs are of The Garden Homes.

Mr. McErlane reported that the commission should tie down the improvements like decks and how far they can encroach. The Garden Homes would have one car garage plus one parked on the driveway, and the Village Homes could have one car garage and one parking space. The covenants say one car garage and one parking space, and this plan is showing additional parking spaces. Mr. Shepherd stated that our standard is one plus one parking space per unit. Mr. McErlane responded then the covenants should be revised to reflect that.

For the retail project, although they indicate that the parking provided is 473 spaces, 50 are shown off site on the senior care facility. We would recommend that the retail be supported on its own site with parking spaces. If this is not possible and the retail needs to be smaller to meet their needs, so be it.

To complete evaluation of parking required for the park improvements could not be made. However, as it stands right now, it looks like the number of parking spaces would exceed the required.

Mr. McErlane stated that Planning needs to discuss the less desirable retail uses that should be excluded from this project. The reference to any uses permitted under the previous zoning with regard to future uses on the park property, should be spelled out in the covenants or there should be an overall plan that specifies this.

Paragraph 2 of the Covenants states that the structure should be 50% brick, stone and/or stucco. We believe that stucco should be eliminated from the list.

Paragraph 3 the Master Plan for Signs elaborates on some of the sizes. The size of the sign proposed for the senior area of the site exceeds what is permitted for multi-family and public facilities.

If major trees or groups of trees can be preserved, there should be a commitment to that, and to meet the Tree Preservation Ordinance on re planting.

Mr. Sherry asked the location of the applicant’s other project, and Mr. Shepherd answered that it is at I-74 and Northern Boulevard on West Fork Road. We are just now finishing up the first 80 units. We have received a landscaping award from Green Township for the Garden Homes. He questioned the units with a single car garage and Mr. Shepherd answered we have found that the demand is for one-car garages, but there are end units where there can be two-car garages

.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VI ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"

Mr. Okum asked about ground mounted signs, and Mr. Shepherd reported that he took the sign suggestions from the staff and incorporated them in the covenants.

Mr. Shepherd said on the concern about our garden units being too close to the railroad tracks our present project backs up to I-74 and we do not have problems with the noise because of what we do to minimize it. We use acoustical mats and other things. Mr. Wahl added that here (showed on site plan) is a heavy line of sycamore trees. Mr. Shepherd added that this tract is at a higher elevation which helps. I am an advocate of landscaping, and we will do everything we can to make this project look beautiful.

Mr. Okum asked if they had to, would they add two-car garages. Mr. Shepherd answered that this is a senior project, and two-car garages are not needed. Plus, the concern would be the cost aspect in terms of the density of the project.

Mr. Okum wondered why they didn’t use masonry or stone on all four sides. Mr. Shepherd answered that he has in mind a European look. Mr. Okum commented that he would want to see all four elevations.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if the stucco was EIFS or cementations. Mr. Shepherd answered that they would not use EIFS as it is currently being used because it is the cause of major mold problems. We use a drainage mat and put Styrofoam over that and then EIFS over that and we have had no problems. We are thinking about changing to a new product which is a cement board, but we would submit all of this to your Building Department.

Mr. Okum asked about maintenance and upkeep and Mr. Shepherd answered that the Condominium Association would be responsible for that, but we would like to work with the park in putting this all together, since they are maintaining an 18 hole golf course.

Mr. Okum said we talked about phasing the project and showing that on the drawing and tying it to the park improvements. Mr. Shepherd answered that we would love to do the retail today, but it is very unlikely that we will be able to do that until after the other is done.

Mr. Okum said what about lighted walkways throughout the site? Mr. .Shepherd answered that would be no problem, but we would be careful in certain situations where they are close to residential units.

Mr. Okum wondered if there were a requirement in the code about curbs and gutters for the internal area and Mr. McErlane reported that the requirement is that the perimeter be edged with some kind of curbing.

Mr. Sherry wondered about comments from the Police and Fire Departments. Mr. McErlane responded that copies were forwarded to the Fire Department and they did not send back any comments

Typically the Police Department does not get a copy.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 MAY 2003

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"

Mr. Sherry added I was wondering about all the one way streets, dead ends and turn arounds for the fire equipment particularly.

Mr. Okum said we have had a lot of good discussion, and there is a lot of merit to the project, but I think it has a ways to go before we can give it a concept approval.

I do not have a problem with the use on any of this; it is a good blend and does a lot for the development, but there are issues to be resolved. A time line should be presented and the retail and the park development have to tie together so they drive each other.

Mr. Shepherd stated that they would submit a phasing Mr. Okum responded this is a PUD for the entire development, and we need that phasing to tie it all together. You get the traffic issues resolved with the staff so you as the developer are comfortable with it.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said we are looking at tabling this tonight and seeing you next month. I don’t believe we are in the position to go any further tonight.

Mr. Shepherd said we want to do everything you request. Is there some way we can speed up the process to generate revenues for the park? I realize that we have to keep it in the proper order.

Mr. Syfert said I believe we had a good sound discussion here tonight. I do not believe anyone is objecting to the PUD, and I would think that next month we will be in a position to moves this along. I would also encourage the members to look at their project on the west side of town.

Mr. Shepherd added contact Green Township and find out about our relationship with them.

Mr. Vanover moved to table this and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion,. All voted aye and it was tabled to the June 10th meeting.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moving for adjournment and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

______________________,2003 _________________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

_________________________,2003 _________________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary

;