PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JUNE 1999

7:00 P.M.

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert. Mr. Syfert stated that the roll call will be taken by Acting Secretary Richard Huddleston.

II. ROLL CALL

MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Councilman Tom Vanover, Dave Whitaker and William Syfert.

MEMBERS ABSENT: David Okum (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)

OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Doyle H. Webster,

Asst. City Administrator Derrick Parham

City Engineer Wayne Shuler

Asst. City Engineer Don Shvegzda

Building Official Bill McErlane

Councilwoman Peggy Manis

III. ELECTION OF SECRETARY

Mr. Syfert stated Mr. Huddleston has agreed to handle this for one month, so I would like to defer the election until next month.

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 11 MAY 1999

Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, except Messrs. Whitaker, Syfert and Darby who abstained, and the Minutes were adopted with three affirmative votes.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

    1. Report on Council - no report
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė May 10, 1999
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė May 25, 1999

VI. OLD BUSINESS

    1. Request to replace existing ground sign with pylon sign for Longhorn Steakhouse, 11153 Princeton Pike Ė Tabled 5/11/99
    2. From the audience, a representative of Longhorn requested that this be on the July agenda, so this was tabled to July 13th.

      B. Request for sign approval for Extended Stay, 11645 Chesterdale Road (former Studio Plus) Ė tabled 5/11/99

      Hank Cheves of Anchor Sign stated Extended Stay is converting the property to Extended Stay America, and what we are proposing is under the total square footage allowed. Mr. Cheves passed out information on the wall sign which faces Kemper Road. Originally we proposed a 50 s.f. elevation but it will be a little lower because in doing the first two conversions, we determined that the sign looks better up in that peak and is easier to wire, so we decreased it to 40 s.f. We have found that this is a hard property to find, so we are not trying to put gaudy signage up and pull people from everywhere we can; we are trying to guide the guests from Kemper Road back to the property.

       

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 June 1999

      Page Two

      VI B SIGN APPROVAL Ė EXTENDED STAY 11645 CHESTERDALE ROAD

      Mr. Cheves said existing now is a 12-foot tall pole sign with 50 s.f. We are proposing to replace it with a 50 s.f. sign that is 20 feet high. When the guest turns onto our street from Kemper, we want them to be able to see the sign. Currently the 12-foot sign is obscured by the trees and bushes. We propose to put it in the same location.

      The last thing we are requesting is a small sign outside the office. The property closes at 11 p.m., and it is important that the guests can see where the office is and the phone number. After hour guests can check in and use the lock box in the lobby. The whole sign is not illuminated, just the copy on the sign so it is not obtrusive.

      Mr. Cheves passed out the conceptual site plan showing placement of the signs.

      Mr. Syfert asked if the office sign was 11 square feet, and Mr. Cheves answered we would like it to be 11 square feet; you allow 6 s.f. for directional sign, but 11 is our standard sign, and we would prefer to have it if possible.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is correct that they are considerably under the allowable square footage. The only thing I am not sure of is the square footage of the wall sign at the end of the building. Mr. Cheves answered it is 40 s.f. We originally proposed 50 s.f., but we have moved it up into the gable of the roof, which looked better.

      Mr. McErlane continued there is an existing sign, which met our ground sign height at the time of 12 feet high. It has 50 square feet, and they are now proposing a 50 square foot sign 20 feet high. The ground sign needs their main building entrance exceeds our allowable 6 s.f. for directional but the property is permitted to have a ground sign and a pole sign so it is still within code even if we refer to it as a ground sign versus a directional sign.

      Ms. McBride said I have no additional comments other than we had asked for a dimension for the proposed pole sign to be set back off Chesterdale. It looks like it is adequately set back but we need verification when they make their final submission.

      Mr. Cheves said we have a scaled site plan and I can submit that to you.

      Mr. Huddleston said the office sign directing the traffic to the office could very easily be reduced to the required by cutting off the Extended Stay; I donít think they will think they are at the Holiday Inn at that point, but I donít have a severe problem with it. I would move to approve as submitted subject to their providing to the dimension of the pole sign setback.

      Mr. Galster commented my only concern is the landscaping under the pole sign. There is nothing shown and I would like them to submit something for Ms. McBrideís approval. Mr. Cheves responded they are very meticulous about the landscaping and we can provide a plan. That is no problem.

      Mr. Huddleston said I would like to amend my motion to include the landscaping under the sign, and Mr. Galster seconded the amended motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Danbury, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 June 1999

      Page Three

      VIII. NEW BUSINESS

      A. Approval of proposed screened enclosure, 603 Maple Trace Drive

      Dorothy Allen, 603 Maple Trace Drive said Lena Mares told me she would be here this evening, but I do have a letter from Maple Knoll along with the plot plans and drawing of how the screened enclosure will look on our patio.

      Mr. Syfert commented I notice that yours is not patterned quite like the other screen enclosures that were approved; is there some reason why? Mr. Allen answered it is only screened in; it is not glassed. I wanted something to shade the patio and keep the insects out. It is not to be used year round. I do have a brochure here if you would like to see it, and I have pictures of the patio if you would like to see them. She passed them around.

      My main reason for this is my husband is subject to carcinoma and needs to be out of the sun. This is on the south side of the building where there is a lot of sun.

      Mr. McErlane said the reason this is before this commission is that this is not a condominium project; this is in a Public Facilities District and it is owned by Maple Knoll. Basically any additions to those buildings need to come before this board.

      The applicant has submitted a letter of approval from Maple Knoll Village. There are copies of pictures taken of two previous additions, which went before the Board of Zoning Appeals because of setback issues. There are no setback issues here.

      Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Syfert asked if there were any reason why this couldnít have the same architectural features that the other additions have had to blend it in a little better? Mr. McErlane responded with respect to the roof structure, there is no reason why it couldnít be like the others in terms of a gable type roof instead of a shed type roof. Mr. Syfert commented I personally like the other two additions, and I do not like this one.

      Mr. Syfert asked Mrs. Allen if there had been any attempt to have this look like the others, and Mrs. Allen answered that it had not been, because she really didnít want one that looked like the others. What I am looking for is shade over my patio, but I donít want just an awning. I want something with the screens in it that will keep the insects out. It is on the south side of the building so it is sunny all day long. My husband absolutely cannot get out in the sun. Last year I put a tent over the top of it; she showed a picture. The other rooms were permanent rooms for four seasons. This is not intended to be used for four seasons; it is only for summer and fair weather. Mr. Syfert asked if the other additions were heated and Mr. McErlane answered no, adding that they might have space heaters in them but they can never meet the energy code to be heated.

      Mr. Huddleston said I have no problem based on Maple Knoll having signed off on this. I donít have the same experience dealing with the other structures, but I would be ready to make a motion to approve unless someone else has further commentary.

      Mr. Galster said I agree with the chairman. My only problem is with the roof structure. I understand that you have a need for it on a temporary basis, but it is a permanent structure, and I would like to see a continuation of the architectural features that the main building has. Would you be amicable to looking into putting a gable roof on it?

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 June 1999

      Page Four

      APPROVAL OF SCREEENED ENCLOSURE 603 MAPLE TRACE DRIVE

      Mrs. Allen responded if you put a gable roof on, you would be going up into the roof of the existing building. This doesnít require that; it only requires that the roof be attached to the existing boards, which are underneath the soffit.

      Mr. Galster responded I understand that it would need to go back into the other roof and is strictly a cosmetic issue. Mrs. Allen added the other part of it is expense. That type of roof would be far more expensive than the type of roof I am looking at now. It is on the backside of the building; it is not where the public sees it. The only thing back there are picnic grounds which are never used. Mr. Galster commented I canít tell if this is a standard roadway that everybody needs to come down or not. Mrs. Allen said it is not; it is on the back side, towards Glendale. It does not face Maple Trace Drive, which is the only street that comes in there. It is not seen by anyone.

      Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Galster asked if there were any vehicle traffic back there or a walking path? Mrs. Allen answered the only walking path is a blacktop that doesnít go past there but goes over to the main buildings.

      Mr. Whitaker stated I sat on the Board of Zoning Appeals when the other two structures came in and Mrs. Allen was correct, they were to be used as year round structures. With her using it as a seasonal structure, and the line of sight of the area where she is, I donít have a problem with the structure that she wants to put on.

      Mr. Huddleston wondered what kind of exterior maintenance provisions does Maple Knoll impose on the exterior of the structures. Mr. McErlane answered Maple Knoll takes care of the exterior. Mr. Huddleston continued so they have the right to insist that you maintain this in a clean and attractive condition. Mrs. Adams answered yes, and it will become the property of Maple Knoll if we die or leave.

      Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the screened enclosure and Mr. Darby seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Whitaker. Messrs. Galster and Syfert voted no. Mr. McErlane reported that this is not an approval, because it takes five affirmative votes for an approval.

      Mrs. Allen said what do I d o now? Mr. Syfert answered the two negative votes were because this does not blend in with the architecture of Maple Knoll. Maybe that is the place to start. Mrs. Allen responded I cannot say that I agree with you or Mr. Galster. Mr. Syfert answered you have the right to resubmit and come back in. Mr. Galster added we have one member who is not here, and even if you donít persuade the chairman or myself, it is possible to get that vote from the absent member.

      Mrs. Allen commented I donít understand why it has to be exactly like the others. Mr. Syfert responded I didnít say it had to be exactly alike; I said it should approach being like whatís down there, and similar to the two which were added which I think blend in very well. I am charged with the responsibility of doing what I think is right, and I donít want to see Maple Knoll lose any of its architectural integrity.

      Mrs. Allen commented I donít think they are. Mr. Syfert responded we canít discuss it any further tonight. You can resubmit. Mrs. Allen commented the summer will be over before I can get through you.

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 June 1999

      Page Five

      APPROVAL OF SCREENED ENCLOSURE 603 MAPLE TRACE DRIVE

      Mr. Okum arrived at 7:30 p.m.

      Mr. Galster said the missing member has just arrived. Would it be possible to review this either right now or at the end of the meeting to allow the applicant to have the benefit of Mr. Okumís presence? Addressing the applicant, he asked if she wished for the commission to look at it again.

      Mr. Huddleston added I would echo Mr. Galsterís sentiments, but I think it is a little unfair to the applicant; I donít know if we can legally hear this again tonight, but I think we should. Mr. McErlane reported that typically one of the dissenting votes moves to reconsider.

      Mr. Galster moved to reconsider the motion and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Okum abstained.

      The request for approval of the proposed screened enclosure at 603 Maple Trace Drive was reopened.

      Mrs. Allen stated the patio on our condo unit is on the south side of the building. It is completely in the sun and my husband is subject to skin cancer and needs to have some shade if he is outside. Therefore, I am proposing to put a screened enclosure on our existing patio. This is on the back side of the condo; it overlooks a park like area, which is nothing but trees and a few tables and chairs for a picnic area.

      Mr. Okum said I sincerely apologize for being late; I was in a very complicated meeting. Regarding this enclosure, is there any reason why you canít do an enclosure similar to others that have been done on the other properties?

      Mrs. Allen responded I suppose there is no reason why not, but I do not want that much of a permaennt type room there. In fact I donít even want a room there. What I am looking for is shade over my patio, and this is a screened in patio and a door out either side.

      Mr. Okum said if you were to leave, that unit would stay there, so it is a permanent addition to the building. Mrs. Allen answered what I am trying to say is that it is not a living quarters year round. It is a screened in porch basically.

      Mr. Okum asked if he had considered some type of adjustment to get the roof line to be more similar to the others? Mrs. Allen showed the pictures of the patio adding that the addition would not interfere with the roof line at all.

      Mr. Okum commented the difficulty is if it would set a precedent for other enclosures in the development. I have been very strong to advocate some conformity and some consistency in staying with the character of the development. I would encourage you to try to bring it into more into an architectural blend with the rest of the development.

      Mrs. Allen said if you are going to go to the trouble and expense of putting a roof up into the building, you might as well put glass in there. Mr. Okum responded you also could do it in stages too; you could put the porch enclosure in there. Mrs. Allen said I want the roof and the screens; I donít want the glass.

       

       

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 June 1999

      Page Six

      APPROVAL OF SCREENED ENCLOSURE 603 MAPLE TRACE DRIVE

      Mr. Huddleston said I would like to strongly state if I might my opposition to this kind of interpretation. With all due respect to everybodyís opinion on this matter, and I donít mean to be personal about this at all, I think we have a human need here which is legitimate. Maple Knoll Village has expressed their interest, and I donít question the integrity of what Maple Knoll Village has tried to do there. They have not only created but also maintained an excellent atmosphere. I think this is how Planning Commissions get bad reputations, for exercising power over something which is really like art, in the eye of the beholder.

      Mr. Galster said we have the letter from Maple Knoll Village; what did you present to them? Mrs. Allen answered exactly the same thing you have seen.

      Mr. Syfert asked if she knew why the representatives from Maple Knoll were not here tonight. Mrs. Allen answered Lena Mares told me she was coming; I assumed she would be here.

      Mr. Huddleston moved to approve and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster and Mr. Vanover. Messrs. Okum and Syfert voted no, and the screened enclosure was approved with five affirmative votes.

    3. Proposed Garage, Enterprise Rent A Car, 169 Northland Boulevard

No one representing Enterprise was present, and Mr. McErlane reported he talked with Allen Boerger the other day and he indicated that the architect would not be in town. I suggested that he talk to Enterprise about having a representative here tonight.

Mr. Galster moved to table to the July meeting, and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to July 13th.

C. Approval of Proposed Building Elevation & Monument Sign Ė Gold Star Chili Ė 11551 Springfield Pike (former Famous Recipe)

Ray Peterson said on this rendering instead of painting the roof red, we would like to put a metal roof, which also would be red, a deep red. He passed around a color sample. The awning over the front door would stay as proposed.

The curb cuts stay the same, and the landscaping needs to be cleaned up and improved on. We will keep what we can and replace whatís missing. We are using the parking lot as is, adding a new atrium entrance which extends out a little ways from the current building but well within the setback requirements.

We erred in submitting our signage; we were way beyond the signage ordinance so we would like to come back with signage provided we can get the building going.

Based on Ms. McBrideís report, we were two spaces short in the parking lot, and to take care of that, we will reduce the seating by eight.

Mr. Syfert asked about the dumpster location. Mr. Peterson answered it is currently screened on three sides; if that would not be adequate, we could add block screening. It would be painted the same color as the building.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Seven

VII C BUILDING ELEVATION - GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. McBride passed around pictures of the new Gold Star constructed in Mr. Washington on Beechmont Avenue. The bottom picture is the former store that they closed to open the new one.

The property is within GB District (General Business) which permits restaurants, but it also is located in Subarea C of our Corridor Review District, and we have stringent requirements on color pallet, landscaping, signage, etc.

The applicant originally proposed Bob Evans red and now the red metal roof with some yellow trim colors and neon accent lighting. Those types of things are very much discouraged within Subarea C. I cited some of the specific language, "prohibiting color lights to illuminate the exterior of the building, using primarily earth tones, one coordinated color scheme be used for the structures,Ö" etc. Also the mechanical equipment is required to be screened.

The applicant is proposing to replace the existing sign with a 96 square foot sign which would be located 15í-6" off the ground. Right now that sign contains 65 square feet and is located 10 feet off the ground. They want to reuse the existing base. We didnít get details on the colors of the sign, whether or not it will be illuminated or what type of materials the sign would be made out of. We would encourage the commission to look at retaining the same size of the existing sign, both in terms of height and size. We also would like to see landscaping around the sign base.

The Corridor District also has requirements with regards to lighting. It is my understanding that the applicant is not making any revisions to that, so that would not necessarily be applicable.

In terms of the vestibule, it does meet our setback requirements. It will be set back about 29 Ĺ feet, and we require a 15 foot setback. However, we did not receive any information regarding the building materials.

After some modifications are made to accommodate handicap-parking spaces, it would appear they will be short several parking spaces. If the number of seats in the facility were to be reduced, that would eliminate the concern with regards to our parking requirements.

There are stringent requirements in the Corridor District concerning landscaping. The site has landscaping now, but the condition of some of it is a little questionable. We would ask that the applicant consider landscaping some of ends of the aisles in the parking area to screen the parking area from the corridor if they are going to make modifications to that parking lot.

The dumpster area is screened with concrete block. Right now it is white and our concern is if it is going to be painted, would it be painted Bob Evans red, in terms of earthtones.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if he were familiar with the corridor requirement, and Mr. Peterson answered two days before I filed the request to be here. There was a lot of catching up to do.

Mr. Vanover said as far as their intention to reuse the sign base, do we have any indication that if the sign itself went up that the base would handle the increase. Mr. McErlane answered we would have to evaluate whether or not it could handle it, but that would be something they would have to deal with in the permitting phase.

 

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Eight

VII C BUILDING ELEVATION - GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. McErlane said Ms. McBride covered most of the comments I had on the project. The only thing I want to emphasize is the reason this is before the board, because it is in Subarea C of the Corridor Standards, which requires that any material or design or building color changes come before this board for review of those items.

Ms. McBride has already indicated the parking shortfall, and the applicant has indicated that they will reduce seating to accommodate that.

Mr. Darby asked the applicant if in reviewing the Corridor Study he became aware of the color recommendations and specifications. Mr. Peterson answered that in trying to keep with the code where the building should be one color and only use different colors as an accent, I think we did this. We propose to have the building as a sand color and the accent green. In looking at the code for the roof, it says it should be dark in color and if there is any accent, it should be small in size. The dark red is a dark red; maybe red is not an earthtone, but it is close. The yellow is used in two-inch lines, so that shouldnít be a problem. The red that we use on the new entryway is similar to the two-inch line. It says the roof should be dark in color, and I think it is dark in color. The entryway will be a stucco like material the sand color (showed material to members).

Mr. Darby said I would like the issue of roofs to be addressed, how they fit in with earthtone colors and how that has been handled in the past. Ms. McBride responded that previously, although we have gone with darker roofs, they have been darker in terms of earthtones, dark grays and browns and those types of colors. We have even held buildings on the fringe of the corridor to the use of earthtones, and even though they might have national logo type colors that were bright yellow and bright white, we had them tone them down to blend in with the Corridor Review District.

Mr. Peterson reported the colors we are using are our logo colors. We have spent quite a lot of money and time in the past two or three years upscaling our facilities throughout the city. We are looking forward to being here with an upscale facility. The current facility has been here around 30 years which is along time for any business in this community

Now he has the opportunity to move across the street and build a free standing unit. Taking the identity colors with him is money in his pocket because the community has become accustomed to seeing this building; they identify with the building itself as a Gold Star Chili.

Mr. Syfert wondered if he wouldnít agree that the sign would do the same thing. Mr. Peterson answered the sign is very small and in this area it is very hidden by a lot of trees. Anything else we can do to fortify the customers by glancing at the building and knowing it is a Gold Star, we need to do it. We find that roughly 10% of our customers are new customers every day; they are not new customers to chili, but they are new customers to this location. They are moving through the city and stopping to eat.

Mr. Galster wondered if Mr. Peterson had seen the pictures of the Gold Star in Mt. Washington that Ms. McBride provided, and Mr. Peterson responded there are awnings all the way around the building on that picture. In the Springdale location, we are proposing a very small awning for that atrium. We would like to retain the identity of the awning in that small area, but not go all the way around the building.

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Nine

VII C BUILDING ELEVATION - GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Galster commented if the color of the roof went from this deep roof to a teal green, I would have no problem with the awning itself and your regular red and yellow colors. Part of the reason that White Castle decided not to tear down their building was because we werenít going to let them build a white building, because it wasnít earthtone. They decided

to remodel from within. It is not very often that these buildings along the corridor are redone, and we need to take the opportunity that when they are done to try to meet the objectives of the Corridor Study. Once this building is redone, Gold Star will be here for many years to come.

Mr. Galster continued you get your color identification on the street from the sign. As I go up and down Route 4 with all the landscaping and street trees, I donít see the building until I am pretty much on top of it. So, I donít put the same attraction feature on this that you do. Iíd like to see that toned down. I have no problem with someone identification on the vestibule so Gold Star can have some color, but that big red is a little too much for me.

For future reference, it seems to me that the sign outside has a lot of brick added space, and I wouldnít have a problem cutting some of that back and keep the same height but get you some more square footage. If you get too high, you get up in the trees again. I do like the cream; I do like the green; the red is awfully bright for a building which will be there hopefully for a long time to come.

Mr. Peterson responded we did focus study groups with our customers and some of the questions were identity of the exterior of the property. The red roof did come into play in their answers, so we lent a lot of credence to that and stayed with the red roof. The awning was the other main item that they seemed to identify as Gold Star.

On the signage, we would also like to cut the base down. I know if we stay with the current sign, we have a height that is three foot higher than the current code allows (10í versus 7í current). My question is if we cut that base down, do we get to retain what we have today? The height is acceptable to us; it is from the people seeing it, cutting it down and losing the top part would defeat our purpose.

Mr. McErlane reported once you remove the sign, which basically you have to do, it loses it non-conforming status. If this commission felt it was adequate to use the same height and square footage that is currently there, then a favorable comment from this board to the Board of Zoning Appeals weighs a lot on their decision making process.

Mr. Peterson said this is an existing sign with our use. We felt this was too much yellow, and we propose to reduce the sign inwardly, taking it up two feet to 12 feet. The other choice would be to split the sign and have a logo on one side (6í x 6í) and the other side would be a 4í x 6í readerboard. We were caught short on time and did the best we could.

Mr. Okum asked the dimension of the vestibule and Mr. Peterson answered it is 11í-6 Ĺ" x 7í. Mr. Okum asked how far the awnings would project off the vestibule, and Mr. Peterson answered 18".

Mr. Okum said your eliminating the need to put a metal panel all the way around that façade encourages me. According to the Corridor Review District, mansard roofs are discouraged, so we are not only dealing with the issue of a red roof around the building, but the mansard roof system is discouraged. They are encouraging gable roofs. Saying that in the center of our business district would be a little bit difficult considering what we already have.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Ten

VII C BUILDING ELEVATION - GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Okum continued on the other hand, I have to agree that putting red panels all the way across the front of that building and along back should be discouraged. I do not have a problem with your sand finish. Will the awnings be internally illuminated with fluorescent lights? Mr. Peterson answered yes, uplit.

Mr. Okum said personally I donít have a problem with the red cap over your vestibule. For an identity feature, that probably ties that to the Gold Star Logo, but I donít see a need to change that mansard facing into a metal panel roof. Years ago we saw the Bob Evans go up which were all red buildings and now Bob Evans is brick and accent colors and they have been able to identify nationally with that type trademark without their whole building being painted one color.

I do have another concern on the dumpster area. I believe there is grease dumpster as well on that site and that is not contained in the dumpster area, is it? Mr. Peterson answered there are two enclosures side by side with a wall between them. Your ordinance requires that three sides be enclosed and they are. Mr. Okum added most often we encourage gates or enclosures on dumpsters. Mr. Peterson responded we would not have a problem putting a gate on either one. I would like to put a gate and frame painted sand with green trim. I would like to see something done to the roof system besides red panels. Mr. Galster had a recommendation to you; Ms. McBride has commented on it; I would like to hear from the rest of the commission regarding this.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree with most of what has been said. I would like to strongly echo that I would like to see the applicant be there; I think it would be a good operation and positive addition to what is now an abandoned facility. Having said that, I hope the applicant, as many national chains do, can adapt their standards very fittingly to the Corridor District, and come up with something much more applicable to what the city is trying to achieve. I would be very positive towards this application; I think your signage is workable but I feel very strongly that we need to bring this into some conformance with the earthtones and adapt your logos to that situation.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said you have heard the comments, and I would certailnly echo everything dealing with the Corridor requirements, which requires a little different color of roofing material. Having heard all these comments, do you want to come back again?

Mr. Peterson responded if we leave the existing roof as is with no change in color, would that be sufficient? If we donít change the color of the roof, are we subject to the corridor standards? Mr. McErlane responded this board would still have to review the addition of the vestibule in the front of it and the little roof portion on top of it. Planning Commission would probably consider the roof in their review of the architectural aspects of the building.

Mr. Darby said I would like to state that the solution to keep this existing roof on an otherwise refurbished facility really bothers me. I think the Commission has made its feelings about the color of the new roof very strong, and anything that is done to get around the sentiments of this board I donít think will work.

Mr. Peterson responded I was only asking if the board had authority in that area; that is al l I was asking. Now I know, and I accept it.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Eleven

VII C BUILDING ELEVATION - GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Syfert said I truly believe that there are a number of outstanding issues here that you might want to take back to your management and come back as Old Business next month.

Mr. Peterson said it will be quite a while before we get to the roof; we have a lot of work to do on the interior of the building. If we can get approval on everything but the roof and the sign, and we can make that sign conforming so it would not be an issue. Mr. Syfert responded I have no problem with bringing the sign in a little bit later; I would have a little trouble with the roof.

Mr. Peterson continued the only thing is if it holds our building permit up, it stops us from proceeding with work. We would like to continue to work and continue to work with the board to a solution. I donít think any color of red I might suggest would work, so we have to come up with an alternative. Weíll work on that. Is the terra cotta satisfactory; it is an earth tone with a tinge of red, but it is not red.

Mr. Huddleston said in response to the applicantís request to proceed tonight, I would be very reluctant to proceed. I would have to say that we donít have enough information to act on this tonight.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane asked if he could do the interior work without doing any of the exterior work and come back into Planning Commission next month for the exterior portions. Mr. Peterson answered Iím sure we could do most of it . Mr. McErlane added if the applicant can address the seating-parking issue which is a BZA issue, then this board doesnít really need to act on the interior work that is going on and we could issue a permit for the interior only.

Mr. Syfert commented I donít think there is anyone here who doesnít want to see that building occupied and preferably probably with Gold Star Chili.

Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the item will be considered at the July meeting.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 8:35 p.m.

D. Concept Discussion Ė Costco

Mr. Walter Kaczynski and Jeff Ishida, Architect of Costco Wholesale approached Council and passed out a preliminary package outlining some of the basics of our proposal. He added that they would make copies for the residents of the area.

Mr. Kaczynski stated that Costco is a wholesale retail company based out of Seattle since 1983. They have 280 locations in North America and the rest of the world. We started on the west coast, and then went to the eastern seaboard. We have no units in Ohio, but five in Detroit, two in Chicago and we are opening one in Tennessee. We are a wholesale membership club, a 150,000 square foot building. We are in the same category as Sams Club in that we have a lot of space, but we donít sell a lot of items. We donít have great depth in the items we do carry, but we carry a wide variety. Primarily we are geared towards small businesses, and we charge a membership. We do that because the bulk of our sales come through small businessmen and small companies. We also have individual memberships but the core of our business is the small businesses.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Twelve

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. Kaczynski added we consider ourselves the innovators of the business. Some of the things that we have introduced into this category are fresh meats, fresh produce, one-hour photo labs within the warehouse, optical labs and the most recent is a gasoline station for members only. This is something that adds value to the membership. We would like to differentiate ourselves as much as possible from Sams Club, which is two doors down, and give the consumers here an alternative to what they are used to.

Unfortunately it has taken us a long time to be able to commit to going forth, and that brings up the time crunch with the North American Propertiesí availability to have all the 19 properties plus the Target parcel under agreement. We understand that we need to make a firm commitment and close on the property by September. We want to purchase this property and build our warehouse and conduct business here. It means that we need to get through the PUD process as soon as possible. We are not asking for any special acceleration or any particular favors, but we want to make sure that we work as closely as possible with your staff and with you so we can deal with any issues that come up expeditiously.

We had a meeting two weeks ago with your staff, and they suggested that we meet with you tonight for a brief presentation and get some initial feedback. We hope to appear before you officially in July.

Mr. Ishida added there is a landscape plan, which shows the existing building, superimposed by the Costco plan. We have a cul de sac (McClellans Lane) coming into the site. We would propose to vacate McClellans Lane, clear the site and bring in a certain amount of fill and create a relatively flat site for us to build our building on. If you look at the plan, our building entrance is in the corner of the building and faces the intersection of Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road. We also are trying to maintain a parking count of approximately 5 per 1,000 which is our company standard and a size standard of 10í x 20í to accommodate the size of the vehicles that tend to shop at the Costcos. The gas station is located in the corner between Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road. The building itself is in the opposite corner.

In terms of drainage and detention, we are still in the conceptual stage, but we are trying to maintain an existing detention pond that Target built, across the street from Century Boulevard. We also will build our own detention pond behind our building, which is also in the plan.

Our loading dock is adjacent to the detention pond and the parking field is distrilbuted around the sides of the building.

Based on our discussion with your staff, we did have some issues on the appearance of the building, so we have put together some color renderings that are in the booklet.

The major material of the building will be concrete block; we prefer an integrally colored block because it looks better and is easier for maintenance purposes and it gives us the appearance that we are looking for. We also have broken down the overall appearance of the façade with various pilasters at exit doors and with a canopy on the building.

Mr. Ishida added one of the Costco trademarks is the red band, which we have shown on the building; that is pretty much a company standard. The signage is shown in black there is a color to it, which are a red Costco and a blue Wholesale below it.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Thirteen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. Ishida said in developing these plans we have had discussions with the city previously and one of the issues was the location of the tire install area. We do intend to locate the tire install so the doors do not face Kemper Road, but face toward Century Boulevard and the Target building to address issues of visibility for that.

Ms. McBride passed around photos of Costco in Atlanta. Overall I was very pleased when I saw this development. It was nicely landscaped, they had no free standing signage, the facility was clean and the building was attractive.

The proposed building is almost 155,000 square feet with a free standing gas facility as well as a tire installation facility. When they come in for their preliminary development plan approval, we will want to see the standard site plans, landscape plans with the plant schedule, lighting plans with fixture information. If they are going to do any type of free standing signage we will want to see details. We also will need sample building colors and materials.

In terms of the overall circulation patterns on the site, it flows very well in terms of truck circulation etc. The only question that we had is the second access point out onto Kemper Road. We wonder if that shouldnít be restricted but Iím sure Mr. Shvegzda will discuss that.

On the location of the tire installation facility, when we met we expressed some concern about it fronting onto Kemper and that we would like to see it relocated on another side of the building because it does involve four overhead doors. You heard the applicant indicate that they would be willing to move that.

The Commission may also want to consider putting some restrictions on the property in terms of future automobile uses, whether or not you want to limit it to dispensing of gasoline and tire installation or if you want to leave it open. If Costco went away, that might open it up to additional automobile uses, auto repair etc.

The gas dispensing facility is located in the southwest corner of the site. The columns for the canopy are going to be bricked up. The canopy is to be in earthtones. They have talked about a controller enclosure to be unmanned, monitored from inside the Costco building. We couldnít find the controller enclosure on the actual site plan and we want to see where that would be.

They are not showing any free standing signage and there was none at the facility in Atlanta. They are showing a total of 1390.4 s.f. of sign area, 1337 of that is on the building, and a little over 54 of that is on the gas canopy. The site is entitled to 802 s.f. of sign area. They are showing 384 square feet on the east building elevation. Because of the plot proximity to other buildings and the depth that that sets back, we wonder whether or not that sign would be visible. If that sign were to be eliminated, they would be down to a little over 1,000 square feet which is a lot closer to the 802 allowed.

We strongly urge the commission to prohibit any outdoor storage and display on site. I think Costco stored its carts outside as does Target and this commission approved that for Target, contingent to the construction of a solid four foot screening wall so the carts are not visible from the parking lot or Kemper, and we would ask that the Commission consider that in this case as well.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Fourteen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Ms. McBride added the property to the southeast is currently zoned residential, and although it is not used for residential purposes and it is not likely that it would ever be redeveloped for residential purposes and the next item on the agenda is a consideration of the rezoning of that property, we suggest that it would be appropriate to waive the residential setbacks from that property and treat it as if it were a non residentially zoned parcel.

If the site plan remains unchanged, they will be needing a setback variance from the east property line for the Costco building itself from 75í to 50í. Given the adjacent property uses and the depth of the building setback from Kemper, we donít have a problem with that request.

Costco is proposing a total of 804 parking spaces, and we only require 711 spaces. Some of the spaces they are showing are 18 feet in length and our code requires 19 feet. It looks like some of them can be redesigned to accommodate that 19 feet. They may lose a few spaces, but they are significantly over what we require.

Mr. Vanover said I noticed on the Atlanta site that there is a wooden swing apparatus out back with a sign on it so I would have a problem with that. Looking at the traffic flow, that loading dock looks awful tight. They might be able to come in around the building and back into it, but negotiating out looks bad. If they went west, that last row of parking is cut off, so they wold have to negotiate that northwestern corner through that traffic route, and that looks awfully tight for a semi tractor.

Ms. McBride responded yes, I would suggest that the Costco engineer would want to put a truck turning radius on it, and Mr. Shvegzda might want to do the same thing when he looks at the preliminary development plan.

Mr. Kaczynski responded we do not do freestanding pylon signs; we are unique among retailers in that we do not do much advertising at all, so we have no intentions of having a pylon sign on the property.

That raises an issue that we are sensitive to, that staff made us aware of in the early discussions, and that is the need to accommodate Tom Bopp and the SKA group with the signage issue, to find somewhere on the property to give them visibility further down Century Boulevard. I discussed this with Mr. Bopp early this morning, and indicated to him that we would be able to work with him and come to some kind of a mutually acceptable solution for his problem.

We are planning on meeting my next trip to Cincinnati and talk about the specifics of what that might be. So we donít expect there will be a pylon sign for Costco on our property, but probably we and Tom Bopp will come in together and request a pylon sign for Dave & Busterís and the rest.

Mr. Syfert responded we are cognizant that this will be needed because of the reconfiguration of the street and the way we are trying to get traffic in. Mr. Kaczynski commented the street for us is an enormous benefit that brings customers by us and down to his property, so I think there is a win-win opportunity for all of us. If we can get some of the traffic that his development generates, so much the better. There are some legal and operational issues that I will have to deal with at headquarters, but I donít see that as being a problem.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Fifteen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. Kaczynski added we will take a close look at some of the traffic issues that Anne raised. One thing about our dock operations that is a little unique, is that we have a central depot where practically all our merchandise goes through, so when we ship our trucks to our warehouses, they are almost entirely full. We donít begin warehousing our facility until about 5 a.m. or so and by the time we open at 10, the trucks are out of there. We donít let them park on site throughout the day.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they would be only Costco trucks, and Mr. Kaczynski answered primarily yes. Some of the fresh food vendors, some of the bakers or meat cutters might be local with city vans or smaller trucks but the bulk of the merchandise will be coming through a central depot facility.

Mr. Syfert said so you wouldnít have the problem with the independent trucker coming in later. Mr. Kaczynski answered most of our loading we try to get done before the store opens at 10. If it is a fresh item and we are running out of it, we might have an afternoon delivery, but in that case it wouldnít be a semi but a city van or a class a truck. Mr. Syfert continued so we wouldnít be concerned with semis all day long. Mr. Kaczynski said no.

Mr. Kaczynski reported we reviewed Anne and Billís staff reports and some of the changes have been incorporated into our thinking or we will soon. We didnít see anything in those reports that we viewed as an insurmountable issue at this time.

Mr. Shvegzda stated that a traffic study will be required on this development that will dictate what if any additional improvements will be required to Century or Kemper Road. The Target traffic impact study dealt with the main Target store and two 8,000 square foot retail buildings out front towards Kemper Road.

There was some discussion on the current detention basin in place for Target. That basin that exists alongside the new roadway is solely for Targetís improvement; it does not convey any of the water that would have been developed from their outlot. So, anything that is developed on the remaining property has to be conveyed to a self-contained detention basin.

On the vacation of McClellans Lane, all of the right of way is anticipated as being a part of this development. Legally when it is vacated it goes Ĺ to each adjoining property. That doesnít mean much until you get to that last piece towards Kemper Road that adjoins the Temple of Praise property. That would have to be considered.

We have a problem with the proposed driveway to Kemper Road being an unlimited access. With the opening of the new Century Boulevard, the Commons Drive signal will be removed and a raised concrete median will be placed to prohibit left turns. We would see something similar to that taking place in this location to prohibit left turns.

Also there should be some consideration to providing a cross easement to the potential future development that would take place on the Temple of Praise property. This may also allow the common use of a single driveway to Kemper Road.

When we looked at all the different revisions that were taking place in this area of extension of Century Boulevard, there was a modification to the Thoroughfare Plan that included an east-west road that would essentially connect Commons with Chesterdale.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Sixteen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. Shvegzda continued there was also added to the Thoroughfare Plan a north-south road that would tie into the east-west road and connect to Kemper basically along the western property line of Kemper Dodge. This was looked at as a potential intersection that would have a signalized access. With this proposed development, that public roadway would be eliminated.

Mr. Galster said based on the flow of traffic between this development and Target, are we better off lining up the different entryways off Century Boulevard, or are we better off having them staggered as shown? Mr. Shvsegzda answered the drawing doesnít depict it correctly; actually the furthest driveway out towards Kemper Road does line up with the proposed drive to Costco.

Mr. Vanover commented it is refreshing to hear a new developer coming in with the promise to work specifically on the signage. We appreciate that.

Mr. Kaczynski answered I appreciate that. Our sole goal is to go through the process, identify and meet your demands and requirements as much as we can within our corporate limits. In this case with all respect to the homeowners involved, our commitment to the City is to do whatever it takes to do this; Ohio is an important market for the companyís growth, this is our first store, and we want to make sure we do everything right.

Mr. Ishida added we would be willing to have the access point off Kemper Road to be a right in right out only, and eliminate the left turn. I think it would be to our advantage to do it that way, so we certainly donít have any objection to that.

As far as the east west cross access, we would also consider curb cuts to facilitate that. Especially if we are talking about a single driveway in, it may actually help us again, so we are very much in favor of that.

Mr. Ishida added the detention basin is conceptual, but our intent is to dump all our drainage into our detention basin and keep the Target detention basin as untouched as possible.

Mr. Okum said on the east-west crossroad on Target property and going onto Costco, I would encourage that both widths be the same so they tie together equally.

Your detention pond is located in the northeastern corner, which leaves a parcel to the left of that vacant. Does Kroger hold that? Mr. Kaczynski said yes, we looked to buy that parcel as well, but Kroger was not willing to sell.

Mr. McErlane reported the current zoning is R-1-A with the exception of the parcel that Target currently owns toward Kemper Road. We feel it is appropriate that a PUD be applied to the total property, similar to the PUD zoning on Kemper Road.

Ms. McBride already pointed out that the Temple of Praise property would still be zoned R-1-A pending any action on the next application before this board tonight. Although Ms. McBride suggested that we waive setback issues, only because of timing and not knowing the potential timing of the adjacent property, I thing it would be beneficial to discuss a contingent screening along that line just in case the development would not occur on the property adjacent to it. That can be held in abeyance until the project is complete, and if nothing is occurring on the property adjacent to it, then the screening would have to go in.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Seventeen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. McErlane added there is still a residence on the property; I donít know if it is still being used as a residence. Hopefully all the things will mesh together and there wonít be a need for that screening, but I think we need to consider it.

Ms. McBride also talked about signs. I put together a list at the end of my report for the applicant so they would have an idea of what is necessary for the PUD preliminary plan.

One of the things Planning probably should consider are any ideas with respect to restrictive covenants that might apply to this. Ms. McBride already touched on the potential for other auto repair that might occur on the property. We talked a little about outside storage and sales on the Target property and that is a restricted covenant for their project, so you may want to touch on that as well for this property.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if they had any problem with the list of things he put together regarding the PUD application, and Mr. Kaczynski answered no, not generally.

Mr. Kaczynski continued the tire center is just that; all we do is install the tires we sell in our warehouse. We donít do oil changes or automotive repairs. We used to do battery installations, but we no longer do that either, so it is strictly tire removal and installation. The gas station is just a dispensing station; there is no automotive repair or anything of that nature.

As far as restrictive covenants on the property, like any one else, we donít like to be told what to do, but if Target had to do it, I guess weíll probably have to do some as well, but we would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk to you about that and try to keep them as inoffensive from my standpoint as possible.

Mr. Kaczynski added we kind of pride ourselves that our units are kept in a clean and tidy manner. Our warehouse managers are evaluated and part of their bonus is based not only on their sales and productivity and their ability to manage people well but on the physical facility, are they keeping the landscaping up, are they keeping the parking lot clean, etc. We donít allow any outside storage at all.

Mr. Galster said on the tree replanting requirements, is there anything encumbered? Mr. McErlane responded there were some plantings that were done by Target that satisfied their requirement, and they probably will need to be relocated or replaced depending on their condition. There are a number of trees that need to be taken into consideration with the development of this site. Mr. Galster continued it isnít like he has to replace 1,000 caliper inches left over from the Target site, and Mr. McErlane confirmed that.

Mr. um wondered if they had a traffic engineer, and Mr. Ishida answered we donít have a traffic engineer, but we have a number of possible candidates. We wanted to get through this process to see where we were in terms of traffic analysis but our intention is to hire one.

Mr. Okum continued you are aware that we discourage light packs mounted to the building. Mr. Ishida answered I understand that is an issue and I spoke with Mr. McErlane about a possible light pack that doesnít shine outward; it is strictly downward, and if that is acceptable, I have something I would like to submit. It would strictly be a downward light. Mr. Okum continued mechanicals should be hidden also.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Eighteen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. Ishida responded we are aware that we would have to screen our mechanical units.

Mr. Okum wondered if they thought about landscaping across Kemper Road. You have a mass of concrete on the Kemper Road side where you have those angular parking spaces. Mr. Ishida said we do have the capacity to provide some landscaping against the building.

Mr. Okum continued you indicated the parking spaces would be 10 x 20? Mr. Ishida answered that is the prototype stall space size we want to have. We would like to have all 10 x 20 stalls, but because of the size of

this lot, we are restricted down to our next size, which is 9 x 18. We can go 9 x 19 easily. We also allow for 24í wide drive aisles, because the vehicles tend to be larger, and people are loading and unloading their cars.

Mr. Okum asked if there would be any neon lighting on the building, and Mr. Ishida answered no, our initial proposal is a painted on sign which should be lit from a light unit that would shine directly onto the building face itself. Mr. Okum wondered if they had considered individually lit letters instead of painted on. Mr. Ishida answered we would consider other signage options but the way we like to do our lighting is to shine with a fixture onto the wall face as opposed to a lit letter.

Mr. Kaczynski added part of this response has to do with the philosophy of who we are. We try to avoid the appearances of being retail, although a good portion of our business is retail oriented. What we really are going after is the small businessman who is looking for value. So we go with less signage and not more, and not the kind of individually lit letters typical of a Target or others.

Mr. Okum added we probably would want a lot more detail on your gas island canopy and how it is going to be treated. Will there be earth tones, and will it include some type of sign on that canopy; is it internally illuminated, does it have illuminated panels around the panel; those types of questions come to mind when I see gas island canopies.

Mr. Ishida answered we have a similar philosophy; we have encountered other issues where we have lighting concerns about our canopies, and we are able to address those.

Mr. Okum added I donít have any major problems until we get to the issues of traffic impact. I notice you have tried to maintain 14 or so parking spaces between your landscaping, and that is a reasonable break. It seemed to be sensitive to the parking field issue, and I would encourage that type of landscaping. Mr. Ishida added when we do install our landscaping, it is completely irrigated.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were other concerns to address to the applicant; I think we have had a very good meeting here this evening. You would think this was a public hearing because of all the applicants present; I appreciate your being here. Youíll get your chance.

Mr. Galster said since the gas station islands are not manned, do you have emergency cutoff switches there? Mr. Ishida answered we have an emergency cutoff switch at the controller enclosure. We have emergency phones which calls a cell phone that an employee is carrying in the warehouse. When we initially start these up for the first four weeks we have somebody out there to get people familiar with the system.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Nineteen

VII D CONCEPT DISCUSSION Ė COSTCO

Mr. Syfert wondered if the applicant had any questions; everyone seems to be fairly comfortable with what we have seen even though it is preliminary in nature.

Mr. Kaczynski answered we had a productive session with staff, and following that they got back to us with the preliminary list of comments so we have had the opportunity to address those. I think we are a little bit daunted by the amount of work that we need to do but we do want to do it. We fully anticipate getting our application finalized and in by the end of this month so we can be before you again in July. We need to do that if we are going to meet the time line. The worst thing that could happen to us would be to get to the end of October and have a list of unresolved issues and contractual arrangements that might be in jeopardy.

Mr. Syfert commented based on our interchange this evening, you are cognizant of our primary concerns, and they donít seem insurmountable.

Mr. Kaczynski said we do appreciate your letting us come in advance of the formal application. It has been very very helpful.

    1. Rezoning of Temple of Praise property, 1190 East Kemper Road (requested by Kemper Dodge)

Albert Brown said this is a local business that has been here since 1986. Mr. Keels now owns the dealership, so the buck stops in this room when we talk about what we would like to see happen at Kemper Dodge and the Temple of Praise property.

Because the Temple of Praise property is currently zoned R-1-A, and because it adjoins a General Business property, we are asking this commission and ultimately the Council of the City for a change in zoning as it effects the first three lots on McClellans Lane north of Kemper Road, which is the property immediately adjoining Kemper Dodge to the west.

Under your Zoning Code an applicant for such a zone change is required to show you that his proposed use of the property as General Business is feasible, that the property has enough setback, that it has enough other physical features to be properly used in the Kemper Dodge operation. At this point there is a large meeting hall church type structure on the property, and there is a small house. There is a large paved area and we donít have the absolute dimensions of it, but we will very shortly.

Mr. Keels wants to show you that the three R-1-A lots adjoining his business property are appropriate for General Business development. What the building would look like, how many trees on that property we would be able to save, where the landscaping will go are all issues that can be appropriately addressed with our application for the building permit, our application for the tree permit and all of the other requirements of zoning and building codes in Springdale and which Mr. Keels has lived with and under for the past 13 years.

Time is a consideration, because Mr. Keelsí purchase of the property is contingent upon satisfactory zoning. All of those things require the change in the zone from R-1-A to General Business. Every other issue that can be addressed in terms of what is going to be there in the future is appropriately addressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Twenty

VII E REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Brown added the immediate requirement where you have a border between a general business and residential area is 6 feet of fencing and appropriate plantings. The present plan is to have a berm with evergreens on top across the north border of the property, making the dogleg where Mr. Keelsí existing property stretches back a little bit further than the third lot of the Temple of Praise. If Costco wants to split the cost with us, fine.

From a timing standpoint, we need two meetings of Council and Councilís approval before the change can go into effect. Mr. Keels has engaged Terry Brennan, a builder who is well known to the staff and every other issue that can be addressed by your zoning code will be addressed cooperatively. We will be looking at the storm detention basin with new and different engineering. There is a substantial structure there now. What is appropriate, considering Costcoís plan at this point, is a matter of some engineering. I can see us sitting down with a lot of people and coming to agreements on a lot of different issues.

If it is the Cityís intention to take 10 feet more of Mr. Keelís existing property for widening of Kemper Road that will create an early intolerable situation on his existing property. He has been in compliance with your setback; you take his existing parking spaces that will exacerbate his need for the zoning change. He is here to answer any questions you might have,. With him is his landscape consultant, Mr. Send of LTD Landscaping.

If the day the zone change goes through it is required to put up this six foot fence between the Temple of Praise property and the two vacant houses on the east side of McClellans that are north of the property that are vacant and abandoned, weíll do it. In fact we probably want to do it to preserve a commercial use from an unsightly residential area. Mr. Keels is willing ready and able to do just what he has done in the past, to be a good corporate citizen of Springdale and build a larger and improved Kemper Dodge. The key to the entire proposition is the zoning.

Mr. Brown showed pictures of the screening at the north side of the property. Mr. Syfert commented Iím not sure we are really ready for that at this point. What is the real reason we should consider rezoning?

Mr. Brown responded the real reason is that an R-1-A zone for these three parcels is probably not economically or legitimately defensible in terms of appropriate land use planning. All of McClellans Lane is just an enclave of R-1-A surrounded by other commercial uses.

Secondly I would suggest that by rezoning these three parcels you give the opportunity to a local businessman to expand and enlarge his operation for the benefit of himself and the City. It is no secret that Mr. Keels has offered $1.6 million, which has been accepted. Additionally Mr. Keels now has 50 employees; with more space he anticipates hiring more salesmen for higher levels of the Springdale property tax and the income taxes paid by the employees. Mr. Keels needs the space; it has become available and it is a marriage of both convenience and necessity for the operation.

Mr. McErlane said to respond to one of the comments that the applicant made relative to the legitimacy of the zone change, it only makes sense if it happens concurrently with the Costco proposal, because to say that it is totally surrounded by commercial developments is incorrect as long as the McClellans Lane properties are still residential. It was developed as part of that subdivision, and still is part of that subdivision.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Twenty-One

VII E REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Brown said I think since the two properties immediately to the north are now abandoned and eyesores, we can conclude that the economic viability of the R-1-A zoning on McClellans is questionable. Certainly if there does remain an enclave of R-1-A zoning north of Mr. Keelsí property on McClellans, we can and will screen it, take care of the lighting issues that might affect the residents and address those. If it is Costco we are dealing with, we can work with them. I see there some synergies that would benefit both parties.

Ms. McBride said from reading the correspondences dated May 28th, the applicantís request is not an application to rezone the property, but is a request to the City to initiate a zone map amendment. Either the Planning Commission or the City Council does have the right to initiate such a map amendment, but typically those types of map amendments are done in response to the creation and adoption of a land use plan, or a comprehensive plan, and they are done to bring zoning into compliance with where a City wants to see land uses happen. We do not at this point of time have that type of document in place.

It is my understanding that while I have been here and prior to my involvement with the City you have chosen not to initiate a zone map amendment, and I would say it would be premature for the City to initiate a zone map amendment. The applicant has not requested a specific zoning district to be considered. If Planning Commission were considering to do that tonight, perhaps PUD and to go in concurrently with the Costco site might be appropriate, but without knowing what types of uses we are talking about for this property, what zoning district we are looking for and without having something whether it is just a study on these two parcels, IL think the City needs to have some type of documentation as to why you as a Commission or Council would take the opportunity to initiate a zone map amendment.

Mr. Okum said if I am hearing you correctly, without a comprehensive land use plan in place, your recommendation would be that the City not be initiating this, that the parties here should blend into a unified Planned Unit Development. We have people here from Costco and Mr. Keelsí development to the east and the church property could easily be said to be public facility property. I am not trying to direct you to do t hat. I am just saying that the blending of these properties into a comprehensive plan for that whole area may eliminate the issue of spot zoning as we call it in response to what is going on in the environment. Currently the residential property behind that also could become public facility. I am not adverse to Mr. Keelsí expansion, but I think there are some things that need to be answered and putting this together might resolve that.

Mr. Brown responded I understand exactly where you are coming from. We submitted a concurrent application both to Council and Planning on behalf of Kemper Dodge. Kemper Dodge is before you now with an application for a zone map. Put it down to my inexperience with the way you do business here. We do want a general business classification; that is the classification that Mr. Keels has. It is the classification that his operation is in compliance with. The imposition of a Planned Unit Development set of criteria on a 1.9-acre parcel is trying to train a fly with a sledgehammer. All of the objectives of zoning land use and aesthetic considerations that you have can be addressed through the building codes and sign ordinances that you have. To put matters in perspective, at 150,000 s.f. under roof, the Costco store is bigger than the three parcels that we are talking about together. At 2.4 acres and 1.9 acres for the Temple of Praise property, I think Costco store would probably cover 90% of all of the real estate that Mr. Keels owns. We canít present you sign concepts tonight.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Twenty-Two

VII E REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Brown continued what we are asking for is simply the ability to expand a business that has served Springdale well for 13 years and will continue to do so from a new and expanded site. We will bend over backwards to comply with every other provision of your Zoning Code, and work everything out with the engineers and the planners.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Darby said I am confused. If this were submitted as a rezoning to GB versus initiation of a zoning map amendment, would your position be different? Ms. McBride answered in terms of suitability of the site for single family residential, I agree with the applicant. It probably is not suitable single family residential zoning, but I do think it is inappropriate for the City to be in a position to initiate that zone map amendment. I think that initiation needs to come from the applicant. Whether it is in the form of a zone map amendment request to a GB or Motor Service or whatever it is, we as a staff would be in a position to review that application.

Mr. Brown commented I thought we had submitted an application for a rezoning of this particular parcel to a use that would permit the expansion of the adjacent dealership. The dealership is zoned GB. I knew precisely that the McClellans Lane property was zoned R-1-A, but frankly when I was trying to put together something in more haste than I should perhaps, I did not have at my fingertips the map that described Mr. Keelsí existing property as GB. I am learning as we go along, but basically we are GB and we want to expand that GB use to the immediately adjacent property.

Ms. McBride added the information I received in the correspondence from Kemper Dodge dated May 28th said "I am submitting to you both a request that the Planning Commission initiate and the Council favorably consider a change in the zoning of the parcelsÖ" Again, he is asking for this body to initiate the map amendment to we donít know what.

Mr. Darby wondered if she noted the statement on the first page indicating that it was for the expansion of the existing car dealership, adding this is why I am confused. It seems like we are having trouble with coming to grips with the intent of the application.

Ms. McBride answered I think the confusion is who is initiating the map amendment. Is the applicant asking us to initiate it as it says in the correspondence, or are they requesting a zone map amendment and are we reacting to it as opposed to us being the ones that are initiating the map amendment. Then the question becomes what zoning district is appropriate. We are either reacting to their request, or if the City is being asked to initiate that, I would recommend that the commission look at that to see which district is most appropriate.

Mr. Darby responded if he extends the current dealership, wouldnít that answer the question? Ms. McBride answered not necessarily, because it could go in more than one district.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Darby asked him what he wanted the commission to do. Mr. Brown answered I would ask that Planning Commission recommend to Council a zone change of these three parcels from R-1-A to General Business. Council has to have a public hearing we have to notify the adjacent owners and that all has to go forward. That would enable Mr. Keels to proceed with the closing of the loan and the sale. The Federal Reserve is leaning toward raising interest rates and when you are building and land costs into seven figures, that is a consideration.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Twenty-Three

VII E REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Huddleston said Mr. Darbyís question was right on. We just need the applicant to come in and request a rezoning. I donít think the commission should initiate a request for you, and certainly not without some sort of development plan. The access to the site is a problem, and whether we do it under a PUD, which would require you and adjacent properties to coordinate that, or whether you do that as entrepreneurs and work with your property and North American and Costco et al, it is not our decision. I believe you need to work out those issues and come back to us with your specific request.

Mr. Shvegzda reported we reviewed the files and the existing detention basin in place based on the plans submitted for the last enlargement of the lot area, is only for that facility. Any additional development would require additional detention volume.

On any access directly on to Kemper Road, as we mentioned in the Costco development review, we would be looking for restricted turn movements, prohibit left turn movements. Consequently it would be advantageous to combine access points for the Costco property and any future development on the Temple of Praise property.

On the additional right of way that might be needed for the third lane that would be added for the westbound traffic, the existing development that is there has sufficient right of way. We are referring to the Temple of Praise property.

Addressing Mr. Keels, Mr. Okum said the access into your site at times is difficult. If the site were expanded, I would be very concerned about how that would work, and that affects my decision on whatever application come in for zoning on that land.

Mr. Brown responded when we get to the building permit point and when we have to deal with the traffic issues, we could have that there. It does not necessarily affect the rezoning of the R-1-A property to General Business. There is access right now to McClellans Lane, which is a public thoroughfare. There are two curb cuts on the Temple of Praise property. If we take t hose out, that is an engineering decision that awe can work out with staff without any difficulty at all. We can handle such issues in staff. The question here is is this property best zoned R-1-A or General Business?

Mr. Huiddleston said I think the applicant has to get their act together and decide what you would like to do with the property. I would not be willing to consider rezoning the property without a plan. To do that on our own initiative makes no sense; to do it at your request without a plan makes no sense. Youo make many valid points, but you have to determine how you want to approach this. I donít believe it is our requirement to determine that for you. I would either vote to table until next month or you need to come back with a rezoning request and a plan that is appropriate for that request, and under what form you want to do that is up to you.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said based on that, is it your desire to have this tabled until next month? Mr. Brown indicated that it was. Mr. Huddleston moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was tabled to July 13th.

Mr. Darby commented my desire is that the applicant would work closely with city staff to make sure everyone is on the same page prior to the July meeting.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 1999

Page Twenty-Four

VIII DISCUSSION

Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride if the City were under contract with her firm to develop a land use plan, and Ms. McBride answered you will be receiving a proposal to do a comprehensive plan, if that is the desire of the Planing Commission. I believe you have expressed that, but due to circumstances that have occurred recently, at proposal can now be forthcoming.

Mr. Syfert said I wold like to thank the new members for their contributions tonight and Iook forward to working with you. Is there anyone that will not be here for the next meeting, July 13th? Mr. Shvegzda will not be present, but Mr. Shuler will.

CHAIRMANíS REPORT

    1. Wall Sign Ė Spring Ė 80 West Kemper Road
    2. Wall Sign Ė Colorful Tanning Ė 11512 Springfield Pike
    3. Wall Sign Ė Golf Ė 11772 Springfield Pike (Wimbledons Plaza)

ADJOUORNMENT

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

________________________,1999 _____________________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

 

________________________,1999 _____________________________

Richard Huddleston, Acting Secy.