PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Syfert at 7:02 p.m.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Tom Vanover, Richard Huddleston, David

    Okum, Steve Galster, Robert Coleman and William Syfert

    Members Absent: Robert Sherry

    Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 10 JUNE 2003
  6. Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that the Veteran’s Memorial information, which I gave to each of you, is going out to some of the corporate citizens of the city.

    3. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2003

    D. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – 20 May 2003

  8. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike – Hearing continued June 10, 2003
    2. Mr. Huddleston said since there is no one here representing them, I would suggest we move this to the end of the agenda. Mr. McErlane reported that he talked with the architect earlier today who asked what time he needed to be here and I told him he was the first item and he needed to be here at 7, so I am expecting him to be here. The item was put at the end of the agenda.

    3. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Seating Area to be Located at Graeter’s Ice Cream, 11511 Princeton Road. Hearing continued June 10, 2003

Mr. Syfert said that this approval takes five affirmative votes, and we are one member short. He opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

Bob Graeter said we met with the city staff and submitted a revised plan that we hope will meet your concerns and needs and allow us to put the seating on the dining terrace that presently exists.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWO

V B GRAETER’S OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 11511 PRINCETON

Ms. McBride reported that we met with Mr. Graeter and reviewed the options. To meet the current parking requirements (spaces 9’ x 19’ with 24-foot drive aisles), that there would be a total of 13 spaces in the front of the store (2 handicapped) and 13 spaces to the rear of the store. If the Graeters are successful in obtaining the additional property to the west, they could have 12 additional spaces to the rear of the store.

To do that, at least initially, they would need a modification from the commission to reduce the number of parking spaces required from 55 to 26 spaces. I also think you need to modify the motion so that if they obtain that west property, the number of required spaces would be increased to 38 from 26 so they can add those 12 spaces without having to come back to Planning Commission. We have worked out a layout with the Graeters and their engineer so those 12 additional spaces would meet the requirements in terms of space size and access. This clears up some of the safety concerns that we had regarding the existing parking layout as it is today.

Right now their dumpster is unscreened and to the rear of the site. The Graeters are proposing to relocate that back onto their property from the property that they thought was theirs and to screen it on three sides with a solid wood fence and put gates on the fourth side.

The third item had to do with landscaping. What we had originally suggested was a series of pots across the front and possibly on the back deck. We have had our landscape architect put together a couple of alternatives for that. In my staff report, I suggested four foot diameter pots and Mr. Graeter thought that three foot pots would work better because the width of that sidewalk at the front of five feet, and he is concerned about people being able to pass in front of that. Staff doesn’t have a real problem with that.

These are meant as samples to give the Graeters some ideas as to what could happen with those pots. We would like to see something evergreen in the middle to have something year round.

Mr. McErlane reported that we are looking at 26 parking spaces if we only count the spaces on the Graeters property. When Graeters was approved in 1979 there were 45 spaces on the site. When the city widened 747, they lost six spaces, leaving them 39. Planning Commission requested that the parallel parking spaces that were shown on the original plan along the north side of the property be removed, so eight were removed. If the plan were striped out as originally intended they would end up with 31 spaces. Tonight we are considering 26 on their property. If they are successful in picking up the additional property in the rear, they would net out about 38 spaces total.

They will be required to get a variance for parking spaces and we would suggest to the Board of Zoning Appeals that a condition be imposed on the variance that if the property is acquired to the rear that the variance revert to the 38 spaces that would be available at that time.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE THREE

V B GRAETER’S OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 11511 PRINCETON

Mr. Huddleston asked if there had ever been a problem with pedestrian traffic or safety issues with this site? I am wondering if we have had any specific complaints. Mr. McErlane answered not that I am aware of.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston asked if there were an active ongoing effort to acquire that property. Mr. Graeter answered that he had discussions with the representatives of the owner of that property. We have talked about it and have chosen to delay pursuing that until we can get this issue resolved.

Mr. Huddleston wondered what motivation there would be after this is resolved. Mr. Graeter answered that we could use more parking there; it makes sense. Mr. Huddleston asked what the actual ongoing effort was, and Mr. Graeter responded that we have had talks about it; we have had talks about relative values and there is some disagreement on that. Mr. Huddleston commented my point is that I would prefer to see The Graeter Company actively pursue that to further alleviate this parking quandary. Mr. Graeter responded there is no guarantee that we can come to an agreement on that. I have to live with the business in the space I have. I can’t run a business on the promise that maybe I can cut some deal with these people. That’s why we have to move ahead on this and get going on this. When we first approached them they didn’t want to talk about it. There is different ownership of the building and the property which is an issue.

Mr. Galster said if BZA grants a variance and it goes with the land, so do the parking spaces go with the land in terms of this particular use, or any use that would ever go in there? If that became a dine in restaurant, would those parking space variances still be valid?

Mr. McErlane responded obviously if they change the public area in there, it would change the parking requirements, so we would have to evaluate it based on how they intend to use the space. If they were to come in with the same public area, I don’t know how we could hold them to a different standard than what we are holding them to today.

Mr. Galster wondered if the commission could limit the conditional use for outdoor eating to the ice cream parlor use, rather than have a hot dog stand or hamburger joint?

Mr. McErlane responded I am deferring to my planning/legal associate. Since she worked for an attorney’s office, she is saying that because it is a conditional use permit, you actually can place those types of conditions on it.

Mr. McErlane said one of the issues that Ms. McBride is pointing out is that there is a provision in the Zoning Code that allows Planning Commission to deviate from the parking requirements based on the type of use in the building, rather than requiring a variance for it. Maybe that would be a better control than allowing a variance.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE FOUR

V B GRAETER’S OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 11511 PRINCETON

Ms. McBride added that in this particular case there is a provision in our code that you may modify under specific conditions, the number of parking spaces that are required. Given that this is a conditional use for the outdoor eating area and there may be additional conditions that Planning Commission wishes to put with that with regards (for example the confirmation that they are going to enclose the dumpster), you could roll all of that into one and that would save them having to go to the BZA as well.

Mr. Okum said so for point of information, we should package the motion to include the parking for this specific user. Mr. Galster responded I think we have to be careful with saying this particular user, so this particular use would be an ice cream parlor with outdoor eating.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there should be some kind of striping in the drive aisle north of the building. There is a 29 foot distance from the face of the curb to the face of the building and there should be something to provide some protection offset from the building to better align it with the 20 foot width that is opposite the parking field to the west.

Mr. Okum asked if it shouldn’t have a no parking designation along that north property line. Mr. Shvegzda answered that may be a way to do it. We were talking with the engineer for the applicant about having striping on both sides somehow, some way to reinforce the fact that there is no parking allowed there would be appropriate.

Mr. Okum asked how the handicap patrons get into the facility. Mr. Graeter answered that at the south end of the building there is a ramp and a doorway that leads into the building. It was designed to be a handicap access with signage.

Mr. Okum said a one-gallon pot doesn’t go very far. Mr. Graeter responded I wasn’t suggesting a one-gallon pot. These are samples. Mr. Okum asked him what he wished to put there, and Mr. Graeter answered that he would follow the staff recommendations on Option 1 with some type of evergreen in the middle.

Mr. Okum commented that a one-gallon pot tells me that it will be a fairly small element. That’s not much of a planting. I am more concerned about the vertical element than I am the horizontal. Ms. McBride responded I don’t know who Mr. Graeter will have do that, but they could look at the site and very easily sketch up something that they think would work, and Mr. Graeter could fax it to us. The intent is that we want something there year round that would give us a vertical element, and I would think between them and us we could get something that would be satisfactory.

Mr. Okum said so we are talking six pots, four in the front and two in the rear and the pots are three foot diameter. Ms. McBride answered we originally had said four and Mr. Graeter indicated that they needed to be three foot diameter.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE FIVE

V B GRAETER’S OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 11511 PRINCETON

Mr. Graeter added that in the narrowest section there is about 4 ˝ feet of clearance. For people walking by and to be able to water three foot pots would be necessary.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Graeter if he would be willing to work with staff to get some type of vertical element evergreen in nature that would have an expected height of five feet.

Mr. Graeter answered I am wailing to work with staff to come up with something that would survive those conditions and give some vertical element to it. I have met with them once, and these are their proposals. I would take your comments here and go back with them and figure out what the best thing would be.

Mr. Okum asked how high the pots would be, about three feet? Mr. Graeter answered I would think that would be fine, so it would have some stability to it. Our intention is to have it look nice. We spent a lot of money fixing that store up and I don’t want to put something shoddy out there that would detract from the store. I don’t know that much about pots; I would take the advice of the professionals to tell me what would be appropriate and survivable and I would share that information with your staff so they would concur.

Mr. Okum said if we said it should be an evergreen with the expected height of five feet, would that be appropriate? Ms. McBride answered you should leave some latitude so that we can work with them. Mr. Okum said so if we said the acceptable height of four to five feet, is that acceptable? Mr. Graeter indicated that it was. I’m not a gardener and I would defer to the professionals to find the right thing to survive and still give you what you are looking for.

On the parking spaces, Mr. Okum wondered what would happen if Mr. Graeter worked out an arrangement with Princeton Tire for property, and Ms. McBride answered that we then would work with him to see what kind of configuration will work with the parking. My point is that if Mr. Graeter were to acquire property, he would be back to the commission to ask to restripe that property or to modify that building. It seems most probable that the only property that Mr. Graeter would be acquiring at this point of time would be to the west, and we have a specific layout that we have worked out with his engineer that provides a striping plan for that property should it be acquired.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said staff recommended four foot pots and you wished to have three foot pots. Do you mind keeping the four foot back in the patio, because I think that is where it will actually look nicer. Mr. Graeter responded I don’t know; I suppose it would be all right to do one back there that size. Mr. Galster continued is it four pots in the front and two in the back? Mr. Graeter responded that initially we had proposed four in the front and one in the back and the other one is marked as an alternate location on the plan. Mr. Galster said can we keep them at four and two? Mr. Graeter responded it sounds good to me.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE SIX

V B GRAETER’S OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 11511 PRINCETON

Mr. Okum moved to approve the conditional use permit for Graeters to include the recommendations of staff and with the following conditions:

    1. That the landscaping shall include six pots to be four in the front, two in the rear and three feet in diameter approximately 3 feet high with an evergreen that would have an expected mature height of four to five feet;
    2. That the parking and the site plan conditions shall include those presented by the applicant, with the reduction in parking from 55 to 26. If additional property is acquired by the applicant, an adjustment to the parking requirement will go from 55 to a requirement of 38 parking spaces.
    3. The use is conditional upon this specific use as an ice cream parlor;
    4. The recommendations of the engineer to include drive aisle markings, striping out and a no parking designation on the north portion.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Ms. McBride said what about the dumpster enclosure, and Mr. Okum answered that it was included in the staff reports, but the dumpster surround with gates shall be provided and installed by the applicant. .

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

    1. Concept Review – Condominium Project – 309 West Kemper Road – tabled June 10, 2003

Mr. McErlane reported we received a faxed letter from the applicant indicating that they would like to table their request for another month to the August meeting. Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was tabled to August 12, 2003.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Service Bay Addition to existing Building, Jake Sweeney, 85 West Kemper Road

Charlie Kemp of KZF Design Inc. and Tom Gleason of Jake Sweeney Chrysler were present. Mr. Kemp reported that the service bay addition would be 9,200 s.f. and attached to the rear of the existing facility at 85 West Kemper. There has been some concern about dumpster location and screening as well as the material for the south wall.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business and used as new and used car sales and associated service. It is approximately 3 acres with an existing sales and service building at 22,456 s.f. The applicant is proposing a 9,203 s.f. building addition for a total of 31,659 s.f.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE SEVEN

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. McErlane stated that the current and proposed setbacks will meet the Zoning Code requirements. The allowable impervious surface ratio is .75. The existing far exceeds that; however no additional impervious surface is being proposed. Actually there are a couple of landscaping beds which might improve it a little bit.

The parking required is 1 per 400 s.f. + employees which totals 119 spaces. There are 195 spaces proposed. The addition results in a net loss of 53 spaces.

There are a couple of proposed landscaping beds, and there are two four inch honey locust trees proposed and two 16 x 20 landscaping beds on the west side of the addition.

There is an existing dumpster pad that has a partial enclosure today. The current Zoning Code requires those to be enclosed and constructed of either wood or masonry compatible with the building.

The proposed building addition has painted masonry and EIFS on the west side and metal building siding on the south and east sides. All surfaces are indicated to be white. There are no proposed signs indicated and there is an existing retaining wall on the east side of the site that will be extended to the south to accommodate the addition and it will be cast in place concrete.

Ms. McBride reported that there are two dumpsters on the site, and the enclosure to that right now is the retaining wall to the east, a chain link fence with slats in it to the south, and half of a gate of chain link with slats in it to the west. You can see where the other fence poles were, but the fence that was on the north side and half of the gate on the west side has been removed. The applicant states that they will be removing all of it. The Springdale Zoning Code requires that those be screened and we would like to see gates on that.

They also may want to look at the orientation of those dumpsters post expansion, how they will be able to get those trucks in there to service those dumpsters.

Also staff has specified that there be no outdoor storage of car parts outside of that dumpster enclosure; everything has to be within that enclosed area.

There is a retaining wall on the east property line. A pedestrian railing may be warranted along there.

They are proposing to add two landscape areas on the customer entrance side on the west side of the addition, and they would each contain a four inch honey locust tree and blue rug junipers three feet on center. They will mulch the balance of those islands. They suggested two inches of mulch and we are saying three inches. Staff suggested that there may be other areas for landscaping but the applicant indicated that it would be detrimental to their business.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE EIGHT

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Ms. McBride reported that there are two existing wall packs on the south side of that building. They will be removing those with the addition and are proposing three new wall packs, two on the back side of the addition and one on the east side of the addition. We would want to see detailed information on those to make sure they have cut off shields, etc.

We didn’t get actual color samples for the building. Right now the south elevation of that building is a masonry construction and we would prefer to see that masonry construction repeated on the new south elevation of the addition. The east elevation right now is a corrugated metal with the garage doors, so to continue that on the east elevation makes sense. But, to repeat the existing material type on the south elevation onto the new south elevation would require some type of masonry construction, and they are proposing a metal construction.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said your recommendation regarding the south elevation is because this addition will extend past the Saturn dealership? Ms. McBride answered that it should be masonry rather than metal because of the visibility from other properties. Mr. Okum asked if there were doors in that elevation.

Mr. Kemp answered that there are not service doors, but there are two man doors. Down the road there is a proposed future addition, which is not part of this submittal. We are looking at expandability and given that the building is a metal building, we are continuing that metal siding down on that south elevation to help with the expandability in the future.

Mr. Okum said I can understand that, but there also is a visual effect on the building. I visit that facility and when I come out that rear door of your service bay, it is a navigational issue for me to get out of that facility. It is very narrow on the west side, and when you come out the back side, you are in a puddle of cars. When you put this addition on the back, I am somewhat concerned about your flow. If potentially there is another addition that may be utilized onto the site, I would be more concerned. The internal circulation to the rear is terrible. Did you address that in your drawings?

Mr. Kemp answered no we have not. It was not my intent to muddy the waters with the future addition. I was just trying to use that to explain our submittal. One of the man doors was to connect the two facilities and the other was for egress in the future.

Mr. Shvegzda said we talked about the retaining wall and the fact that because of its height and location it needs protection for the vehicles and pedestrians. Additional spot elevations should be included to insure that nothing is ponding there, and also at the corner created with the old building and the proposed expansion.

There is a concern about the dumpster location. Right now it is oriented to be approached from the west and we have the building going there. Most probably the parking will be vehicles for sale there so it’s not like they will be going any particular time of the day so there is a concern with that.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE NINE

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that detention will be provided for the building via an underground concrete tank. Prior to construction, we will need shop drawings to verify its construction. There is a certain amount of site area exterior from the building that is draining into the detention basin and we need a clarification that it is to be passed through. It is a small amount, but we want to make sure that it takes place there.

The site plans note that the downspout and connection from the exterior trench drain will be routed exterior to the building into the concrete detention tank. However the architectural drawings show that to be routed interior to the proposed building so we need clarification on that. Some type of sediment and erosion control plan is needed; inclusion of silt fences is the best that can be done in this kind of construction area in order to eliminate the sediment runoff from the site.

Mr. Kemp said on the dumpster screening, I heard you say wood or masonry enclosures. Can the gates be chain link with an opaque slat? Ms. McBride responded that they could be, but we would prefer to see wood gates. Mr. Kemp responded I would propose that the masonry enclosure would be painted to match the building.

I have with me cut sheets of the wall packs if you would like to see them; we are proposing shields.

We are trying to closely match the existing facility at 85 West Kemper and fronts Kemper Road. I don’t have any color samples with me this evening, although I do have color photographs.

Mr. Okum wondered about the purpose of the storefront glass and garage door on the west side; is it because it is visible from McGillard and to give light into the space? Mr. Kemp confirmed this, adding that it also would be for the future addition to tie this whole elevation together. Since it does present a large frontage to McGillard, we are trying to spruce it up. Mr. Okum said so the vehicles would come out the east side door. Mr. Kemp answered they could go out the east or west side door; it is a pass through. Also there is a larger door proposed on the north elevation that would be for larger pickup trucks that are difficult to make the turn inside the building. So there would be a special lift on the northeast corner and it would be an overhead sectional door. Mr. Okum asked if the door would be painted out the same as the EIFS and Mr. Kemp confirmed this.

Mr. Kemp wondered if the Planning Commission wanted the south elevation to be masonry. Mr. Syfert responded some of us; I don’t know if everyone has expressed that, but from a visibility standpoint to adjacent areas, it would be preferred. Is that a major problem? Mr. Kemp responded for future expansion, metal building siding is a lot easier to remove and less costly to put in initially than concrete masonry. Looking down the road to the future addition, would you consider an eight foot high wall instead of a full height wall? Mr. Okum commented that the cars will block four feet of it. It is the upper area that is seen by adjacent properties

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TEN

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Kemp added that this is about 200 feet away from McGillard, and from that distance the difference between masonry and metal siding would not be very discernable. It is pretty far away from the street frontage, and also from the adjacent property to the south. Mr. Okum said you are gong to have a concrete knee wall there anyway, so if you have that, you have demolition to do to expand. Mr. Kemp answered there will not be a pass through between this and the future building. Mr. Okum commented I am having a hard time understanding that. If it is another building that is attached, you would have a separation between the two spaces, whether it is metal or whatever. If it is not a pass through and you took the siding down you still would have your beams along that side. If you have a concrete knee wall and you were to connect them, you would have demolition involved whether it was a block wall above it or metal siding. I don’t think the issue of metal siding would make a difference. Mr. Kemp answered I understand your reasoning.

Mr. Okum added I tend to agree with what Ms. McBride is recommending. On the other hand, I don’t find just straight up 16 inch block an elevation issue.

What is the density on the site? Ms. McBride said the impervious surface area ratio is close to 100%, but we have the two new islands to help. Mr. Okum complimented the applicant on the big locust trees, adding that the density is fairly dense, and if you were to expand, it would be a concern visually. What businesses have a view of that? It’s going to have a short knee wall of concrete anyway, so whether it is masonry or EIFS or metal siding, I don’t think there is a whole lot of difference. There are a lot nicer choices that could be used on that elevation, but if it is just a 16" smooth block wall, I don’t find that to be a real selling point either.

Does the applicant have some alternatives for that elevation?

Mr. Kemp answered no, not really. Painted masonry was our second choice.

Mr. Huddleston said I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. I think the line of sight on that is pretty insignificant. I would think that the metal panel may weather and not hold up as well as painted block in that area but as long as they have low wall protection from nick and dent damage of careless drivers, I would like to see what they have there with no problem.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else on the commission had strong feelings on this one way or the other. Dave’s waffling and I could waffle.

Mr. Okum answered that considering the site distance, I’m not as overly critical at this point as long as it is tied in with the color scheme of the rest of the building. I would be more concerned for future issues, if they were to expand closer to the hotel and office development site, I would be more conservative about how that side of the building is approached. Metal siding versus block doesn’t make a lot of difference when you have a knee wall there.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE ELEVEN

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Kemp added that concerning Mr. Shvegzda’s concern on how we would route parking lot water to keep it from traveling into the new building, we can add spots to the site plan upon submission. Part of the goal with the trench drain in the back was to catch the water coming from the retaining wall before it approached the back overhead door.

The trench drain is routed into the storm water detention basin, a tank underground along with the downspouts. He is correct in that the exterior drains from the downspouts and the trench drain were shown incorrectly on the architectural drawings; they were shown correctly on the site plan as being run exterior to the building. We will eventually show proposals for silt fences or barriers to control runoff.

Mr. Okum asked if they currently have any detention on the site. Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is detention for the Saturn dealership. Mr. Okum said so this building has no detention, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed that, but they propose to have detention for the building expansion itself.

Mr. Kemp added that it is being sized for the future addition although the orifice opening would have to be enlarged from three to 3 ˝ inches for the future addition.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda his calculations for the space, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that they were in the ballpark for what would be required. The problem that we have with this site, as we have with so many of these previously developed sites, is that it is basically building or parking lot with no particular easy location to recoup the entire amount of detention bond that would be necessary for even a significant amount of the existing development. Mr. Okum asked where the detention would be put in, and Mr. Shvegzda answered it would be just to the west of the building.

Mr. Okum commented that the code is clear that the applicant is only required to supply detention/retention for the addition, is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda answered no, that is not specifically noted in the code. That is left up to Planning Commission weighing what the economic concerns would be for additional amounts. Mr. Okum commented I think we are giving the applicant a lot of latitude to add 9,200 s.f., approximately 30% of the existing building and we are only requiring retention for the space that he is adding to the building. If you look at 03, that is pretty minute in size compared to the amount of density on the site and the amount of impervious surface.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the tank volume is 2400 cubic feet for detention. Mr. Okum added that the Saturn dealership, which was a reconfigured dealership, has detention for the entire site. Just by the dotted and dashed lines on the site plan, the Saturn dealership does a much better job of accommodating the water than this site does.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWELVE

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Okum added I think that is a very liberal approach to the requirements. I believe if we were to interpret the Code clearly, the requirement for retention could be imposed on the entire site.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that is up to the Planning Commission, taking into account the particular economic impact that would have. Mr. Okum answered I understand, but we are talking an increase of 9,200 s.f. on a 22,456 s.f. facility.

If the applicant is not going to increase the retention/detention any more than what he is proposing, I am not feeling very comfortable about giving the latitude on the project. I can’t support that. That is bare bones in terms of any holding of water. Certainly the applicant could do a better job.

Mr. Huddleston added I believe Mr. Shvegzda stated either verbally or in his report that the 2,400 cubic feet is approximately twice what we would require for this structure. Mr. Shvegzda answered that the 2,400 cubic feet is what is sized for this proposed expansion with the future addition. Mr. Huddleston asked the size of the future addition and Mr. Kemp answered that it would be half the size, about 3,200 s.f.

Mr. Huddleston commented so we have covered roughly 12,000 s.f. of impervious area. Perhaps we should say that this covers the existing addition and if they come back for an addition, they would have to go back for something based on that addition. I don’t totally disagree with your approach, but on the other hand, I think that is something that is pre existing, and if we could just limit the retention for this expansion to cover the expansion and some retroactive effort, we would have to deal with it if they came back for an addition in the future. I can support the issue as it stands.

Mr. Galster said it is impervious surface anyway. Right now it is going somewhere, so we are not only covering the additional space and detaining that, plus the future. That is quite a bit better than what exists on the site today because we haven’t changed the level of surface. Do you have flooding and problems in there now? Mr. Gleason of Sweeney said no. Mr. Vanover said it is downstream. Mr. Galster said I understand, but when we say we are adding almost twice what it needs, we are really adding more than that when you consider the fact that we haven’t changed the hard surface.

Mr. Okum said as Mr. Huddleston has recommended, if we would limit the amount of retention to this addition only, and any future expansion would require additional retention, I would not have a problem.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant what he thought about that approach. Mr. Kemp responded my thoughts are that we would like to size this current tank to handle any future expansion. We would propose to enlarge the tank as it currently exists from 2400 cubic feet to whatever would be required. Mr. Okum said I don’t have a problem with that at all.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE THIRTEEN

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Kemp said right now it is sized for .23 acres, which is the 9,200 s.f. proposed service bay addition. I think .11 acres is for the future addition, so it is engineered for those two footprints. So my question would be what the engineering guidelines would be to size the future tank to handle the future addition as well.

Mr. Shvegzda responded what we are getting into is how much we would want to capture. Engineering wise, what they are proposing now is rational. The question is do we double the area that we are taking into the basin by 1 ˝? Mr. Okum answered that the future expansion is 1/3rd more than what they currently are building. So it would be 1/3rd more retention tank capacity. Mr. Syfert added that there would be 12,000 s.f. to deal with as a basis, plus. Mr. Okum said if you are now retaining 2400, it would a third more.

Mr. Huddleston said I’d like to suggest something. We are trying to approve what he has submitted here as adequate for the time being. He said he wants to cover the expansion to avoid future underground expense and disruption of your operation. Why don’t you just double the size of the retention you are proposing to do? That will help us in terms of our downstream flow, which is always our concern. It would be my recommendation to double the retention to 4800 cubic feet and go with that. That will satisfy your future expansion and us.

Mr. Kemp responded as long as the commission notes and guarantees that when we come back for the future expansion, there is not going to be any more discussion regarding tank size.

Mr. Huddleston added that way you would improve the condition we are concerned with which is the downstream condition. If that is okay with you, I could live with that and I think we could make a motion. Mr. Kemp said I can live with that. Mr. Syfert added that is a good suggestion.

Mr. Galster said let’s say that if they put the 4800 cubic feet in, that would cover this addition plus an additional 4,000 s.f. because we don’t know exactly what you will bring forth. I don’t see the 3,300 s.f. on here and I am trying to come up with a number.

Mr. Kemp reported that it is not indicated in the calculations. The current proposed building is .23 and the additional future expansion adds .11 of building so the total future is .34 acres.

Mr. Galster asked how many square feet the future expansion would be and Mr. Kemp answered it is 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. Mr. Galster commented so the additional 4,000 square feet would cover it.

Mr. Huddleston added that the 4,000 square foot limitation in my mind only applied to what you are providing for storm water detention. You might come back and want 20,000 square feet, and we would have to deal with that at that time.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE FOURTEEN

VI JAKE SWEENEY SERVICE BAY ADDITION – 85 WEST KEMPER RD.

Mr. Kemp responded that my goal is whatever we size the tank for currently will handle it, and the record says 4,000 square feet. Mr. Huddleston commented I understand; we are just trying to accommodate your request and improve the situation at the same time.

Mr. Galster wondered if they were going to turn the dumpsters and Mr. Kemp answered that it will have to be rotated on the current pad.

Mr. Okum said I didn’t get a clear direction from the commission on staff’s recommendation for a masonry element on the south elevation. Is the Commission comfortable with metal panels as long as they match the color of the rest of the building? Mr. Syfert responded that he felt they were.

Mr. Okum asked about screening of the mechanical units. Mr. Kemp responded that there would be a carbon monoxide exhaust system with the cars running inside and hooked up to hoses. What I can see in the future are rooftop ventilation units for exhausting and venting. There will not be air conditioning in this facility and they will be using infrared heaters for heating and those will have flues coming up through the roof at various points. It would be a vent on the roof and power inside. Mr. Okum said you don’t have any big air handlers or scrubbers. Mr. Kemp responded I don’t believe any are proposed and don’t anticipate any large units on the roof

Mr. Okum said and you already have agreed to the shields on the light packs and Mr. Kemp indicated that he had.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the construction of the service bay addition with the following conditions:

    1. To include the staff recommendations with the exception of the recommendation for masonry on the south side, which shall be as submitted, metal painted the same as the building;
    2. The mechanical units if placed on the building shall be screened and/or painted out;
    3. The wall mounted light packs shall be shielded with down lit shielding;
    4. The dumpster and refuse container shall include staff recommended screening and steel framed wood gates;
    5. The applicant has agreed to retention for this site and future expansion of up to 4,000 s.f. of a future building and shall have a retention contained unit of 4800 cubic feet that will be built at this time.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

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

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE FIFTEEN

A. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike – Hearing continued June 10, 2003

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Wayne Fan, Architect apologized for being late due to car problems, and reintroduced Mike Patel, owner of the Dunkin Donuts. Last time we discussed the building façade and materials (showed the board). I tried to demonstrate the overall look and hopefully this time we can resolve all the issues. I will work with staff on any remaining issues if necessary. We will be cooperative to resolve any landscape or other issues.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there has been a lot more detail added to the drive through lane, but one of the dimensions is still missing, the radius adjacent to the drive through window.

The proposed access point from Northland Boulevard needs to represent the standard construction drawing. Part of the drawing is noted on the plans, but it is a little fuzzy to read.

We were concerned about the catch basin on Northland Boulevard because of its close proximity to the proposed drive. The applicant has moved the location of the existing catch basin. However, we are very confident that it does not reflect the actual location of the existing catch basin. The construction plans from the improvements that took place are attached to our comments, and in the lower right hand corner circled is the location of the catch basin. It is at the radius return of the intersection, so it still is an issue.

We need to have an additional Do Not Enter sign by the in only off Northland Boulevard. There was a discussion on the sight distance opposite the drive through window where the vehicles exiting from the drive through window go back out into the parking lot area. A sign indicating caution has been added.

There is some delineation as to that being a raised curb area through there, but there is not enough differentiation on the plans between some of what is proposed to be new curb, what is not curb, what is existing curb so it is very difficult to distinguish between what is curb and what is not.

The landscape easement has been generally shown at the corner of Northland and State Route 4. We will put together a description and exhibit for the applicant for their signature and the conveyance of that easement.

There is an area by the existing retaining wall that needed some protection in terms of the vehicles in the area. It was noted that a bollard would be constructed, a typical pipe filled with concrete and painted yellow. In this location, something a little more aesthetic would need to be provided. That might mean a different color on the exterior of that pipe; it certainly would be more attractive than the yellow.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE SIXTEEN

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Mr. Shvegzda stated that there is no consistency in identifying what is to remain, what is to be removed and what is proposed, so it is very difficult to tell what is going on in this location.

We discussed moving the curb in at that green space between the parking lot and State Route 4 to better channel the traffic in. Graphically this is shown, but there is no dimension to indicate how much additional green space has been added and where the proposed curb will be moved to, so we need details so the plans can be approved.

There is a note in the upper area that would be the creek that says "Clean up the creek area and plant Kentucky 31." I know there was a discussion on what needed to be done in general. The question is, what is clean up the creek.

Mr. Fan reported that Mr. Patel and I measured the distance and located the catch basin on the drawing based on our field measurement.

Most of the curbs are new curbs. With the building expansion we have to get rid of existing sidewalks and build new ones On the cleanup, we are not doing anything special, just cleaning up the trash and bushes

Mr. Huddleston asked what if anything needed to be done to the creek. Mr. Shvegzda answered nothing in terms of capacity issues. Mr. McErlane added that it is fairly overgrown with honeysuckle and trees but I don’t know that it necessarily merits cleaning it up to any degree. Particularly after some of the rains, there may be some debris in the creek that could be cleaned up.

Mr. McErlane reported to highlight some of the changes from the previous plans; the setbacks have been revised to show accurate setbacks to the building. It is shown at 61’ from Route 4 and 60’ from Northland Boulevard. Both of those setbacks will require variances from the current Zoning Code requirements in the Corridor District which requires 100 foot setbacks. In reality, they have reduced the setback two feet from the way it is currently situated on the lot.

There is a grease dumpster currently stored outside the dumpster enclosure that needs to either be incorporated inside the enclosure or removed. Mr. Fan said we have moved that and Mr. McErlane responded that it still was there last week.

We have a better handle on the finishes of the building. Currently they are proposing to remove the imitation purple shake mansard on the building today and construct an EIFS fascia and retain the brick below the EIFS fascia and build an enclosure around the walk in coolers with a matching brick.

The EIFS colors are to be plum and tan with gray accents, and there are awnings shown over the entrance and over the drive through window. The colors indicated are plum with a pumpkin orange stripe at the bottom of it.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE SEVENTEEN

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Mr. McErlane reported that the proposed drive through lane is shown approximately 6 feet from the right of way line on Northland Boulevard and a variance will be required from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the 50 foot requirement in Subarea D of the Corridor District. The applicant is proposing in this submittal a 4’ 3 ˝" x 9’ 3 ľ" wall sign on the front of the building at 39.9 s.f. and a 7’ high brick monument sign at the corner of Northland and Route 4. The monument face overall is 4 ˝ x 7 feet or 31 ˝ square feet. Total signage shown on the site, exclusive of directional signs, is 71.4 square feet, and the total permitted sign area is 173.5 s.f. There are four directional signs shown, and they all comply with the Zoning Code requirements.

Any approval by Planning tonight should be conditioned on variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for setbacks.

Mr. Okum asked what the front yard setback would be. Mr. McErlane reported that the required front yard setback from both Northland and Route 4 is 100 feet. The drawings indicate 61 feet from Route 4 and 60 from Northland Boulevard.

Ms. McBride reported that they had asked the applicant at the last submission for their impervious surface area. The Corridor Review District has a maximum ratio of 70% and the applicant has indicated that the plan before you this evening has 53% impervious surface ratio..

Based on the building square footages that the applicant has supplied staff, they need 17 parking spaces and they are now showing 17 parking spaces. However they did not designate any of them for handicapped parking. They are showing 5 stacking spaces for the drive through window beginning at the ordering point per our Zoning Code.

As Mr. McErlane indicated, they still have a trash dumpster outside the waste receptacle (as of last Wednesday), At prior commission meetings, they have indicated that they are going to put it into the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Patel said that the company took the They need to add solid wood gates to the front of the dumpster so the dumpster itself is not visible.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the applicant continued to have outdoor storage on the site, plastic milk crates and that kind of thing stacked up on the corridor side of the site, and staff will not tolerate that.

You will need to make a modification to allow the proposed curb cut on Northland to be within 200 feet of that main intersection. It exists like that today, and given the limitations of the site, that is a condition that will have to happen but you will need to modify that from our Corridor Review District requirements.

They submitted a landscape plan but it doesn’t identify the number and size of all the plant material. Also, staff wants to see additional landscaping added to the island in the middle of the drive through window area and to the north end of the seven parking spaces..

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE EIGHTEEN

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Ms. McBride added that we also would like to see evergreens added to the northwest, the front portion of the seven parking spaces that go out to the corner to screen that parking. We also have made some suggestions with regards to reworking some of the plant species that they have labeled on their plan with some plant material that staff feels would be more appropriate given the location at this intersection.

They submitted a photometric lighting plan and a cut sheet for the fixture. The new photometric plan indicates that there will be .5 foot candles of lighting on the entire site. They will use a 250 watt metal halide fixture mounted at 20 feet in height. The one thing I would caution the commission is that they are proposing adjustable head fixture. One of our staff conditions is that that fixture would have to be fixed at 90 degrees with the pole and parallel to the ground, so they may want to go with a fixed fixture rather than the flexible.

The only thing we didn’t get was the color of the pole and light fixture, which must be earth tone and typically bronze in color and we need clarification on that.

You will have to grant modifications or make a decision on that rear elevation of the building with the blank façade. Staff does not feel strongly at all about that; you are not going to be able to see it from any point of view but that is something that you will need to modify.

You also will have to make a determination about the requirement that 50% of the structure must have a pitched roof, and also a determination with regards to the building colors. They have greatly reduced the array of colors that were before the commission originally.

The HVAC equipment on the roof will be screened by new facade boards. AN item that the commission discussed at the May meeting was the illumination of the awnings on both the north and east sides of the building. You will recall that they were proposed to be internally and externally illuminated and now they are not going to be illuminated at all according to the plans.

They have indicated that the screen wall for the walk in cooler will be a brick screen wall, but unlike other places on the elevations, they did not note that the brick is to match the existing brick of the building. I think that is their intent, but we would want to add that note to the drawing to make sure.

They also have indicated that there will be roof access from the west side of the building. That is the side that faces the corridor and we would rather see that shifted to the east side so there isn’t the break and the visibility of the mechanical equipment from the corridor.

Mr. McErlane indicated that there is one sign on the north side of the building which will contain 37.9 square feet and internally illuminated. There will be no neon lighting on the building or on the signage.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE NINETEEN

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Ms. McBride stated that Mr. Shvegzda indicated that we need one more directional sign on the Northland Boulevard access point to indicate enter only no exit and all their other signage meets the requirements of our code.

The ground mounted sign is a huge improvement over the pylon sign there today. It will be 7 feet in height. They have redesigned that to include that in an attractive brick cabinet for a total of 31.5 square feet. That includes both the Dunkin Donuts and the changeable copy area.

Our code requires that landscaping be around the base of the ground mounted sign equal to the sign area, so the area will have to be landscaped and we will need to see that. That sign is to be internally illuminated also.

Mr. Coleman said I am still trying to make sure that I understand – is the grease dumpster gone today? Ms. McBride answered that on Wednesday afternoon we visited the site, before we made our final staff report to you, that grease dumpster was outside between the existing enclosure and Springfield Pike. So not only was it outside of the enclosure, it was on the side towards Springfield Pike. Staff also noted that there were stacked up milk carton coolers, etc. stored outside the enclosure area.

Mr. Fan said the store owner is here and would like to address that. Mr. Patel said I called the grease company to take back the grease dumpster two weeks ago. He took it back yesterday; it is gone.

Mr. Huddleston asked what assurance we have that you will maintain that as gone and also eliminate the trash problem there. Are you on site every day? Mr. Patel answered I am there every day in the morning. Mr. Huddleston commented you have to understand that this has been an ongoing problem that hasn’t been addressed very well. Mr. Patel added we have a grease dumpster in the ground, in a big tank, and the company comes every month and takes away all the grease.

Mr. Galster commented now that I can see the color renderings, the plum seems like a lot to me. I know the applicant has said that the colors are dictated by Dunkin Donuts. I happened to talk to an awning guy today and that is true – it is a 3M special color from North Dakota. They are not dictating the amount of color on the sides of these building are they?

Mr. Fan responded we have greatly reduced the amount of royal plum after our last meeting. Mr. Galster responded I have no problem with the plum color on the awning but on all that EIFS board, it is an awfully big wall of plum. .

Mr. Fan commented when I spoke to the design department and the construction manager, I told them that we are at the commission’s mercy and we want to reduce that dramatically. They agreed that we would reduce all the panels underneath the glass.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Mr. Fan stated that previously we had the glass wall in the front, and underneath we had all the metal panels to be painted royal plum. Now we only have one piece of royal plum on the fascia board. We also have a 10 inch band.

Mr. Galster responded that the ten inch band and the awnings I consider as accent colors and used appropriately. However, the big wall of plum is not used as an accent and is not an earth tone. Maybe I thought it was a deeper color, but even the sample here comes across as extremely purple. I have a concern with the quantity of it. I have no problem with it on the awning or as an accent feature. To me the east elevation and the north elevation are big surfaces of plum. On the color sample, he has the tan, which is somewhat yellow on this board, and the grey is a little bit darker than what is shown on this board.

Mr. Fan responded that the purple color will be covered by the signage box. Mr. Galster said I understand, but it wouldn’t cover it up enough for me.

Mr. Okum wondered if we had the PMS numbers for the colors, and Ms. McBride answered that we do not. Mr. Fan added that royal plum is number 222-C. Mr. Okum said why didn’t we get that? I seem to recall a specific request and requirement for PMS numbers for the colors on the building. Ms. McBride reported that we have them for the signs. Mr. Okum continued we need to look those numbers up. Mr. Fan said I can get it for you.

Mr. Okum said accent colors are permitted in the Corridor Review District. I have to agree with Mr. Galster that these fields of color are truly building elevations where you are using color. In addition to that, I don’t think that placing that plum awning against the plum drivitt will ever match. I have seen a number of situations where you take dark colors like that and put them into the drivitt mix and sit looks great initially, but the UV’s tend to attack those colors when placed in drivitt systems and suck that color out and it looks like it needs painting right of way, washed out. The awnings tend to hold their color for a longer period of time. I do have a problem with that.

Mr. Fan asked his recommendation. Mr. Okum answered less plum or no plum. I have no problem with plum as an accent color, but when you are doing fields, I do. I don’t have a problem with plum on it or pumpkin on it. I guess we could say that those are an odd accent of earth tone colors.

You do understand that the mechanical unit on top of the walk in box will need to be screened as well. Mr. Fan said he understood that, and Mr. Okum continued that all mechanical units must be screened from all elevations. You are not putting any mansard up at the back, so your mechanical unit may be observed from the rear. There is a heavily forested area there, except in the winter. Mr. Fan commented I assume that nobody will stand in the back yard to watch it. Mr. Okum answered your neighbors do; there is a residence to the south of that site that looks directly into that

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Mr. Okum said the comments from Planning Commission regarding cleaning up the back of the building weren’t referring to material that washes down the creek. It is the back wall elevation of the building, the physical elevation. What are you doing with that elevation? Mr. Fan answered we are thinking of painting it tan.

Mr. Okum said based on what I see here, the applicant’s request for lighting is mill finish which is an aluminum color, and that definitely does not fit into our Route 4 Corridor District standards. Do you have any problem with the lights being changed? Mr. Fan said that would be no problem.

Mr. Okum said when I looked at your lighting detail, on the sidewalk by the south entrance to the site, at the center of the sidewalk you are at 6.5 lums; that is awfully bright considering that it is not the parking field. Mr. Fan said you are right; I did not really study that. In the grass area, you still are at 2.7 which ties in with the landscaped area that you are going to dedicate to the City. I thought 6.5 seemed too high; am I wrong? It may be the existing poles and the way it falls, or it may be because you were using these angular fixtures. Mr. Fan responded they are assumed to be flat. When I asked the engineer to do the photometrics, I told him to make them flat.

Mr. Okum stated that the applicant has met all the other standards regarding flat lens. Mr. Okum asked about light packs on the building, adding that for safety there has to be a light by that rear pass door. Ms. McBride reported that they had shown some wall sconces, but no light packs. Mr. Okum asked if we have detail on the wall sconces, and Ms. McBride reported that we do not. Mr. Okum added that we will need that detail. Mr. Fan said I have a sample here, and I have the specifications for that. We will put a safety light by the back door as permitted by code, that is all.

Mr. Okum asked how they would light the area underneath the awning at the drive through. Mr. Fan answered that it will be internally illuminated. Mr. Okum responded that it can’t be because it is not in your plan. Mr. McErlane said it is not indicated. Mr. Okum continued so if it is not indicated, I am assuming that the awnings are non-illuminated. Mr. Fan said the awning is a pre made standard unit from Dunkin Donuts with fluorescent lights inside. They have a national standard with the same profile and same material.

Mr. Okum wondered if they were translucent or opaque canopies and Mr. Fan stated that they are translucent and internally illuminated. Ms. McBride stated they have not submitted anything to us that would indicate they are illuminated either externally or internally. Mr. Fan said I can call Dunkin Donuts and get their shop drawings for that pre made canopy which will show the details.

Mr. McErlane said for clarification, is the applicant asking for internally illuminated? Mr. Fan answered yes. Mr. McErlane said so Planning Commission needs to consider that.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Mr. Okum said if you were to take that roof hatch and move it to the east side of the building as Ms. McBride recommended…Mr. Fan said that is okay. Mr. Okum continued I was going to ask you to put it internal. Mr. Fan responded that might be hard, because…Mr. Okum said a lot of other restaurants do it…Mr. Fan said okay, we will find a way to do it.

Mr. Okum said I was on that roof many years ago, and I don’t know how those panels could possibly handle the weight of a new system. Are you getting new panels delivered to replace those shakes? Mr. Fan said yes, we are going to have new panels.

Mr. Okum said I do want staff to comment about this lighting issue and how to deal with the parking lot. I think they are using existing stanchions. Ms. McBride reported that they have new poles. Mr. Okum responded then they can deal with the fall off the property.

Mr. McErlane said for clarification, your concern is outside of their property. Mr. Okum responded you are at a 6.5, on the north side of the south entrance, right in the middle of the sidewalk. Mr. McErlane responded that a shield could be put on that.

Mr. Okum asked what the applicant would do about the plum. Mr. Fan answered change to a different color, use the tan color throughout.

Mr. Galster asked if he had any objection to making it a tan EIFS so that all the EIFS board would be the same with the exception of the gray accent. Mr. Fan responded you are saying that the entire façade is to be a tan color and the major board in the front is to be a gray color. Mr. Galster answered no, I am suggesting that you take the plum and change it to tan. Mr. .Fan said so all of it would be tan. Mr. Galster confirmed this, adding that you have some gray stripes up and down. Mr. Vanover asked if he meant the accent stripes, and Mr. Galster said no, the accent striping is fine. I could even go into that existing field that is shown as plum and will go to tan and allow 10 inches at the bottom.

Mr. Okum commented I’m not sure which one is tan. Mr. Fan showed the tan color, and Mr. Okum said it looks like cream-yellow to me. Ms. McBride reported that we do have the PMS numbers; they are on the building elevations. What we don’t have is the chip that matches the PMS elevation.

Mr. Fan said overall there is no problem; we will cooperate with any directives from the commission.

Mr. Galster said whatever color it ends up being, you can submit your color chip to staff, but it all needs to match.

Mr. Okum said I think we need to see that final tan color. I want to see the PMS color or the EIFS board with the color on it.

Mr. Fan responded this is the real color that I put on the board, the color I have bought. Mr. Galster commented it has a creamy buttery look.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Mr. McErlane said there is the possibility of introducing another plum band at the top of those two features, the areas that project out a little bit, as well, with the rest of it being that beige.

Mr. Fan commented I believe that after several rainstorms, this color will be tan. When I talked to Dunkin Donuts, they said that royal plum is their favorite color; it is their style. Mr. Syfert commented tell them they are not in the Corridor District.

Mr. Huddleston said perhaps we should attempt to approve this to allow construction to go ahead with all the conditions that have been discussed, and have the applicant come back next month with the correct color scheme and color samples and awning colors and degree of illumination of the awnings, etc. I have a difficult time designing on the fly here, and seeing this happen. On the other hand, I couldn’t agree more with the commission members that those are not accent panels, they are wall panels that we see in plum, and I have a difficult time approving that carte blanche. I would prefer to approve this without the color scheme.

Mr. Galster said so to clarify for the applicant, we are going to say what we want and anticipate it to be, but you still will bring back a chip to show us what you actually are going to do along with the colored elevations. Mr. Fan answered definitely. Mr. Okum asked if his CAD program had the ability to put colors in and Mr. Fan answered yes. I carefully blended two or three different colors to achieve the color I desired.

Mr. Huddleston commented that one of our staff recommended that we color the bollards a different color. Does anybody have a preference? Mr. Okum said I think gray and Mr. Galster suggested bronze to match the light poles. Mr. Syfert added all we are saying is that we don’t want yellow. Mr. Huddleston responded I would say bright yellow.

Mr. Fan said the paint is called safety yellow, the international standard. Mr. Okum asked if it were required. Mr. Shvegzda reported that typically you see those out more in the roadway situation or nearer the traffic. Mr. Okum suggested that the bollards be dark gray and put the silver reflective 3-M stripe on it. Mr. Huddleston commented that we can resolve that next month when they bring in the color scheme.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Huddleston said I have found staff very competent in enforcing everything, but with all the questions you have on curbing, radiuses, catch basins, etc. can we resolve this as the applicant moves forward with the permitting process? Mr. Shvegzda answered these are items that will need to be taken care of as far as detailing of the plans. Graphically, what we have asked for is there. It just needs to be clarified in terms of defining the specific dimensions etc.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

V A PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH – DUNKIN DONUTS – continued

Ms McBride added the only thing I was going to suggest is that if the commission is going to ask the applicant to come back next month and discuss colors more in depth, you might also want to able action on the landscape plan. That won’t be the first thing they will be doing anyway. It’s going to change pretty dramatically, and staff is okay with it, but the commission might want to see that.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the conditional use permit for the drive through at Dunkin Donuts with the following conditions:

    1. To include staff recommendations;
    2. That the mechanical units shall be screened from view from adjoining properties and/or the public right of way;
    3. That the light fixtures and poles shall be earth tone in color or bronze;
    4. That the canopies presented by the applicant shall be internally illuminated by fluorescent light;
    5. That the landscaping shall not be approved at this time, but it is necessary for final approval;
    6. That the dumpster and refuse container shall be enclosed with steel framed wood gates that shall remain closed at all times;
    7. All four building elevation colors shall not be approved until such time that the applicant has submitted final PMS colors and it shall be approved by this board;
    8. This shall be conditioned upon the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of the variances;
    9. The window wall frames and panels shall remain earth tone;
    10. Staircase to the roof shall be internal;
    11. Final color scheme shall be submitted at the next meeting;
    12. The bollards shall be gray with reflective stripe.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said you understand that next month you will be back with your color scheme and your landscaping. Mr. Fan indicated that he did. Mr. Okum added that the plum needs to have the PMS color or the drivitt sample of that color. Mr. Fan, indicating the color board, said this is the drivitt sample. Mr. Galster said we want to see the drivitt sample with the color, and what we want to see for the tan you show there is more like your floor tile. You might have to get some brown tint in there to get it more towards that tan. I see what you have there as butter and yellow.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Galster asked if the UPS Store had their sign up yet. Mr. Syfert responded that the permit has been issued. Mr. Huddleston added that this was a national effort.

     

     

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    8 JULY 2003

    PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

  3. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
    1. The UPS Store, 11711 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign
    2. Venus Nails, 11497 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign
  4. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone besides himself that won’t be here on August 12th? Mr. Huddleston stated that there is a distinct possibility that I won’t be, but I will try.

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________2003 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

______________________,2003 _______________________

David Okum, Acting Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

.