PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

7:00 P.M.

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by William Syfert.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Councilman Steve Galster,

    David Okum, Richard Huddleston, Councilman

    Tom Vanover Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 11 JUNE 2002
  6. Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. Coleman who abstained, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster stated that at their last meeting, Council approved the Zoning Code issues, which were mostly housekeeping items. There also was the public hearing on the proposed amendment to the ordinance concerning animals, and that was modified to bring the limit back down to two (Planning had recommended three). That was approved 6-1. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted unanimously.

    3. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2002
    4. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2002
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – May 21, 2002
    6. Hamilton Co. Community COMPASS Newsletter

Mr. Huddleston said there are a number of issues, and one is the recent announcement of the Storm Water Management Education Program, which is free training to both planning commissioners and/or staff, if anybody is interested. I’ll pass this along to Bill and it will be on file in his office if you want to see it.

  1. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
  2. Mr. Vanover nominated Robert Sherry and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Mr. Sherry was elected secretary.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    9 JULY 2002

    PAGE TWO

  3. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Preliminary Plan and PUD Map Amendment for proposed CVS Pharmacy, 11601 Springfield Pike (tabled 6/11/02)
    2. Mr. Syfert said you have a letter to Mr. McErlane requesting that this be tabled. Mr. Galster moved tot able and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and this was tabled to August 13, 2002.

      Mr. Okum suggested that they receive a copy of the June minutes.

    3. Approval of proposed parking lot expansion, Tuffy Muffler, 370 Northland Boulevard (tabled 6/11/02)

Delbert Ogle, P.E. representing Kurt Klosterman and the Tuffy project said at the last meeting there were several things on the drawings that needed clarification. We revised the drawings to add specific straw bales and silt fences and that sort of thing during the construction. Notations were made on the drawings about what was existing and what was proposed. The length of the storm sewer was added, and a clarification on the striped area next to the handicap parking spot. That was just painted on the pavement so that nobody would stop and park there, do it would be an area that would restrict anyone from stopping right next to the handicap spot. The types of trees and shrubs were specified as you requested. There was some confusion about the height of the retaining wall at the end of the parking lot where those backing out of the last two parking spaces would have to back into this tee. The maximum height of the retaining wall in the very most remote corner is 3 ½ feet above the paved surface, and that slopes down to nothing at both ends of the retaining wall, for an average height of about two feet.

Ms. McBride reported that they provided additional information on type of landscape material, size of planting and planting location. We had asked the applicant put some landscaping on top of the retaining wall to hang down and they proposed blue rug juniper. We feel another species might be more appropriate to provide the effect we were looking for. I’m sure we can work with them on that.

Our only other concern on the retaining wall is the fact that they are proposing to plant this material by notching out the retaining wall so there would be a two-inch face, a notch and then the plant material that goes behind the two-inch face. All of staff had some concerns about the durability of the two-inch face of the wall after this notch was taken out. We want to make sure that provides a stable surface.

They did submit photometric lighting information that we asked for and information with regards to the light fixture. The site plan indicated that the light poles would be at 20 feet and the lighting information said 25 feet and we would ask that they be mounted at 20 feet in height maximum.

.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE THREE

VI B TUFFY MUFFLER 370 NORTHLAND – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Sherry said looking at the photometrics, I think it is a 250 watt not a 400 watt that they are proposing. Ms. McBride said I stand corrected; it states up to 400 watts.

Mr. Sherry commented I am surprised that a 250-watt fixture puts out the kind of foot-candles that we see here. It is a little on the bright side. Do we have a requirement for foot-candle levels at the property line? Ms. McBride answered that the City does, more so as it pertains to residential properties and adjacent commercial properties. Mr. Sherry commented it seems that the adjacent commercial property to the west will have spillage. Ms. McBride responded the property to the west is an automotive related use so we weren’t as concerned about the light spillage onto that site as we would have been in other properties where it was adjacent to residential or some type of transitional use. Mr. Sherry asked about spillage onto Northland, and Ms. McBride answered that we weren’t concerned about that given the foot candles shown here.

The existing parking lot doesn’t have any fixtures. Are you going to do anything with it?

Mr. Okum said there are three very mature pear trees that run along that property line. They actually are on the slope on the adjacent property. With the cut, I’m not sure how that wall would impact those trees. I’m not quite sure how they are placed.

Mr. Ogle reported that there is one tree that will probably be lost and we were working with the next door neighbor to replace that tree, so that tree will be replaced.

Mr. Okum said I would certainly think since we are invasive on an existing property and we have a mature tree, there should be some requirement upon this development to replace that tree. Mr. McErlane reported that the Tree Preservation Ordinance would require that to be replaced at 100% of the caliper inches removed.

Mr. Shvegzda said in terms of storm water management, no detention is required for this site. We need to know the length and material of the proposed storm sewers and either a detail or reference to an ODOT standard type catch basin for the proposed catch basin.

On the site layout, the only concern is the retaining wall and the depth of the turn around tee. At a minimum, the turn around depth is four feet and we have a two-foot high wall. I am concerned that there may be some people who would be prone to find out how deep the tee is by backing into the wall there.

On the connection of the proposed storm sewer into the catch basin along Northland Boulevard, a street opening permit will have to be applied for from the Public Works Department.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE FOUR

VI B TUFFY MUFFLER 370 NORTHLAND – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride mentioned the notch in the wall and Mr. Shvegzda mentioned backing into the notch. Will they have to put some type of reinforcement in there? I’m not adverse to what you are trying to do.

Mr. Ogle responded we don’t have a problem with setting wooden planters on top of the wall. Mr. Okum said that is not the point; two-foot is right at your bumper height so when you are pulling into that space, the bumper would have the tendency to hit that edge.

Mr. Shvegzda asked how deep the two-inch section of the wall is and Mr. Ogle answered eight inches. Mr. Shvegzda commented I don’t know if that would be at the point where a car might hit it that would impact. That two-inch section only goes down eight inches below the top of the wall. Mr. Ogle said that the bumpers would actually be somewhat below that unless you had a four-wheel pickup truck. Mr. Okum responded I am concerned about it getting broken off and torn up. Mr. Ogle said so you would say to plant it and let it drape over the wall; leave it full thickness. Mr. Okum said I would rather see that than have it broken up along the edge from my truck and somebody else’s truck.

Mr. McErlane reported that there was a question about cross access easements, parking easements with the adjacent property to the east. The applicant has furnished us a copy of those easements that show there is access and a parking area in the back that is a cross parking easement. Also, the rear of the lot drains around the back of the building and there is a drainage easement there.

Last month we stated that there would need to be an agreement between the applicant and the adjacent property owner to construct the wall. Even though there is not a physical structure that will be placed on their property, it would require access to their property to construct it.

If Planning Commission votes favorably for this application, there needs to be a referral to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the side yard setback to the parking area, which is required to be 10’ and is eight inches.

Mr. Huddleston asked the applicant if it made sense to do the retaining wall in a full depth thickness. Mr. Ogle indicated that it did. Mr. Huddleston asked if the lighting poles are to be mounted on concrete bases because if they are not, they won’t last because they are immediately adjacent to the parking surface. Mr. Ogle reported that there would be a concrete pier there that would come above bumper height and the pole would be mounted on that concrete pier.

Mr. Sherry asked if there would be any lighting on the existing lot. Mr. Klostermann said that there are wall packs on the building, and showed the drawing indicating that. Mr. Ogle added that it lights the driveway area in front of the overhead doors as well as the parking spaces on the other side of the driveway.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE FIVE

VI B TUFFY MUFFLER 370 NORTHLAND – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Galster moved to approve, with the following clarifications and conditions:

    1. That the lighting poles be at a height of 20’ maximum;
    2. That the retaining wall be landscaped with hanging plant material that meets staff’s approval;
    3. That any damage to the trees on the adjacent property shall be replaced at 100% caliper inch;
    4. That there is an agreement in place with the adjacent property owner to allow construction of the retaining wall;
    5. That they gain approval from the BZA for the variance on the side yard setback.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

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

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Revision to Approved Development plan – Vineyard Chapel Addition – 11340 Century Circle East
    2. Mark Davis the architect for the project stated that they had made revisions to the plan that Planning Commission approved, and it is before you for approval.

      At the earlier meeting, you put a 90-day stipulation ceasing having the auto repair in the building, which was never an approved use for the Resource Center. If you look at Plan 201, we have taken out that notch that we had before, that that is the prime contributor to the new square footage on the building. It represents 500 to 600 s.f. of additional space. We have added a little bit of storage area, and the changing room for brides and grooms.

      The auditorium gained a little square footage, although it didn’t gain any more seats due to the architecture of the columns. The church was responding to a number of people in the church community who wanted a more traditional feel. The last proposal you saw had a flat roof and flat ceiling inside the chapel area, so we made it a sloped roof as the people wanted and added a fair amount of expense to the project.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is requesting a change to the development plan for the chapel addition that was approved by Planning April 9, 2002. The minor revisions occurred on the site plan, primarily in layout form. The new plan indicates two additional parking spaces, but I think that is an error. We didn’t find any additional parking spaces over the previous plan.

      The footprint changed slightly because of taking the notch out as the applicant indicated and it increases the floor area by 629 square feet. The major change to the plan is the roof structure of the chapel, which was a flat roof and now is a pitched roof with a standing seam green metal roof. The proposed building height has increased to 42 feet which is within Zoning Code requirements.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE SIX

      VII VINEYARD CHAPEL ADDITION REVISION 11340 CENTURY CIRCLE E.

      Ms. McBride stated that she had nothing to add to Mr. McErlane’s comments. Mr. Shvegzda also had no comments.

      Mr. Syfert asked if there were any concerns by the commission members? There were none.

      Mr. Galster asked if the metal roof was the same color as what was previously submitted. Mr. Davis answered that it is the same as what was submitted; it is the same as the existing main building and the same as the illustration that you have. It matches the existing perfectly.

      Mr. Galster said when I got this plan, I was looking at the roof, and basically what we are about to do is approve a new plan. Have we looked through every other aspect of the plan to make sure that everything else is the same as originally submitted, or should we make a part of the motion that we are only looking at the roof in terms of a change to the plan?

      What about parking spaces and landscape islands; has any of that changed? Have we checked that or how do we compensate for that?

      Mr. McErlane reported that there was some additional landscaping that was shown on the north side of the building addition that has been shifted to the east side somewhat. I think a couple of trees that were going to be located there are now on the north side of the property. There has been some shifting in the landscaping to a degree. Obviously with the footprint change slightly the drives are a little bit different, but the parking is actually the same as what it was previously. There are minor changes to the site plan, but nothing that impacts anything to any degree. The parking requirements are based on the most intense use, which is the chapel, which hasn’t changed in seating.

      Mr. Galster said so you are comfortable with using this complete plan in all aspects? Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

      .Mr. Okum said I am sure this is a typo. If you look at the proposed shrub legend in the top right corner, it says 15 new and if you go to the revised, it says 5. I am positive that you counted them and it wasn’t a matter of the number. Mr. Davis confirmed that 15 is the correct number.

      Mr. Sherry said there is a difference on the landscaping. On the north and northeast elevations of the chapel, the original plan had those woody yews there as a screen for the retaining wall part of the chapel, but the new plan doesn’t have that.

      Mr. Galster said for clarification, if you look at Drawing 1.02, there are plants that are different that are not shown in front of the chapel wall, which would actually be the back side. But there are still plants missing.

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE SEVEN

      VII VINEYARD CHAPEL ADDITION REVISION 11340 CENTURY CIRCLE E.

      Mr. Davis responded one of the ways that the building grew when we aligned everything to fill in that notch, we eliminated that little strip back there, where it is unlikely anything would grow anyway. That is the dockside of the building; there is a drive in door and a dock door and a dumpster, everything you would find in a normal office/warehouse type building.

      What we were trying to do is react to the existing landscaping that was there and provide new landscaping as well. Even with the stone walkway, we were trying to react to some of Ms. McBride’s suggestions to get landscaping closer to the building in a little more dense arrangement. There was no intention to dramatically change what you saw when you approved it. By the time the trees are relocated, there is a fairly good amount of landscaping.

      Mr. Galster commented that shows me that maybe we need to make a comment or the applicant make a statement of some type that this is the only thing that has changed. Otherwise, I would like to go back through it in a little more detail.

      Mr. Davis said we would be more than happy to work with staff to accommodate the landscaping concerns. Landscaping is an important part of this.

      Mr. Okum said I agree that there needs to e something on that backside that has been inadvertently eliminated by aligning. Would there be a reason for people to walk around there?

      Mr. Davis answered no, since we closed up the entrance to the auto service that is purely a utilitarian entry. It would be no different than any other office or office/warehouse use. We have added some of the flowering crabapples along that back property line. If the concern is anything you would see from the office parking lot next door, we are trying to take a step in that direction because there is a fairly significant amount of material there already.

      What we are confronted with here is trying to find places to take these existing trees. There is a fair amount of young species on the right side of the Resource Center and they need a place to go. It made more sense to put them along the back on the other side of the dock. Nobody really sees that side of the building who would care whether or not there was a two or three foot grass strip and yews. I think we probably can accommodate that; I just don’t see the point. I am talking about the north elevation, straight up on the plan.

      Mr. Okum said so that would be that rear wall where the EIFS is on the angle and you have a foundation exposure there of about four feet. Mr. Davis confirmed that adding that the foundation would have a color like the EIFS so it wouldn’t look like an exposed foundation.

       

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE EIGHT

      VII VINEYARD CHAPEL ADDITION REVISION 11340 CENTURY CIRCLE E.

      Mr. Okum asked if the office building workers would see that view, and Mr. Davis responded I think that is unlikely given the level of plant material on the berm. If someone walked out the back side of the office and walked all the way across the parking lot and looking, then they could see it. But they are so shielded from the back side of this building with all these pine trees, they would never see that. Mr. Okum commented and it is quite a distance from the existing multi-family. Mr. Davis added it is a completely shielded.

      Mr. Okum said if they get the numbers right and work with staff on how the landscaping gets placed, I think the concept is there and that is what we are looking for.

      Mr. Sherry said you indicate you are going to install a guardrail? Mr. Davis responded actually what we are doing is putting a couple of pipe bollards any place where there might be potential contact. There are two existing bollards at the dock locations. Mr. Sherry said so you won’t be putting in a guardrail? Mr. Davis answered I don’t believe it is necessary; with the concrete foundation there, there’s really no need for it. We had put that on the drawing at the point where there might have been EIFS taken down, but not with a poured concrete foundation. Mr. Sherry responded I agree; that is why I brought it up. I think it would detract from the building.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the revisions conditioned on the landscaping is approved by staff and that the typo correction of 15 yews (instead of 5) is included in the installation of the landscaping. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

      All voted aye, and approval was granted unanimously.

    3. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Drive Through and Outdoor Eating, United Dairy Farmer, 11620 Springfield Pike
    4. Cecil Osborn, City Administrator of the City of Springdale stated that this is a unique opportunity for me. I have been before you many times to speak against a project, where the administration didn’t feel that it was in the best interests of the city, or speak in favor of a project, that the city has worked hard to bring to the City of Springdale.

      In this case I am in the unique situation of representing the owner of 50% of the property on which this site will be developed.

      I would like to speak to the next two issues at the same time. Regarding the conditional use permit, the city is very excited that UDF is bringing a bank back to this site. Also we are very encouraged by the outdoor seating area they are proposing for both Buskens and UDF to use on the Kemper Road side of the building.

      We have been working with UDF more than four years, and have been through a lot of issues and negotiations. The plan is about 80% completed. We were not in a position to bring a full plan before you this evening.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE NINE

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Osborn stated I proposed that they bring a concept before you this evening. After the necessary variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals, we would come back to you in August for a final site plan approval, if that meets with your approval.

      The city undertook an Urban Renewal Study in 1997 for the properties bounded by Kemper Road on the south, Springfield Pike on the west, Orange Street on the north and Walnut Street on the east. As a result of that study, it was determined that the area qualified as a blighted area, and Council later that year declared it a blighted area and adopted an urban renewal plan.

      UDF was leaving some vacancies in place, and they were doing that because they planned to remodel. The city planner and I approached about a half dozen businesses, and the only one that showed any strong interest was UDF. Even in 1997 we started having discussions regarding the future of this site

      After lengthy negotiations with the property owner of the area bounded by Kemper on the South, Elm Alley on the west, Pear Street on the north and Walnut on the east, we were unable to reach a negotiated settlement, and in the year 2,000 the city ultimately acquired the property through condemnation.

      Our negotiations with UDF continued during this period. Another item that was critical was the environmental condition of the property. There was a dry cleaner on the site and we did a preliminary analysis and determined that there was perchlorethylene in the soil.

      We brought in another consultant who did a Phase 1 and Phase 2 on the site, and there was clearly perchlorethylene and its derivatives in the soil above the allowable level. We knew we would have to undertake some sort of environmental restoration on the site.

      To cure that deficiency we elected to go with a voluntary action plan with Ohio EPA. The soil’s conditions were such that we could cap the site and provide ventilation under the slab and meet the requirements of EPA. In April of this year we submitted our VAP to Ohio EPA. By later this month we hope to have comments back from EPA which we will respond to. This is an ongoing process in order to cure the environmental situation on the property.

      One of the critical things that the city wanted was architectural control over the site. We wanted to be able to choose the architectural style of the building, and that was written into our plan. UDF suggested that we look at the various styles they used throughout their facilities. We looked at six or seven sites, and we ultimately decided on the UDF on Old State Route 74 in Union Township as being a very attractive building. We then negotiated some additional improvements to the building on that site as well. At the same time, UDF brought in some original ideas.

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Osborn said I want to highlight some of the things we achieved through these negotiations. The project has a pitched roof with residential style shingles. It has four high-end treatment sides to the building, because they have four front yards and we wanted them to look good from every side of the building. That is a tough thing to do but they have achieved that.

      We were very attracted to the multiple reflected gable ends that were on that Old State Route 74 building. They have included those in this site. The dental molding and other trim details were also incorporated into this project and they have found a way to conceal the major HVAC units on the roof, even though it is a pitched roof.

      We should take into consideration the fact that this site has only six pump islands. You would be hard pressed to find a UDF of this size that has as few as six; it would be more like eight or 12. They have been very cooperative in trying to develop a site plan that would be in good taste, and this is in part the way they demonstrated that intent.

      Another factor is that they have agreed to use four smaller ground signs instead of two larger ground signs. Some of the ground signs we see are so tall and big and out in the public right of way so that they are overwhelming. They are out of proportion to a pedestrian.

      Another unique situation is the fact that UDF is bringing in a sign package that is under their allowable square footage. I think you would be hard pressed to find any corner development on a major intersection that would come in under our sign requirements, but they have managed to do that.

      They also have provided the city with excessive landscaping on their property and a landscape easement at the corner of Springfield Pike and Kemper. They also have shown real foresight in restricting access to the property. From Springfield Pike, they have one in only. At the very beginning, we talked about what we wanted from this site and what was important to the city and they brought a lot of great ideas to the table.

      They also have agreed in writing to limit deliveries to the east side of the building and to non-school hours.

      Overall we could not have asked for a more cooperative partner in trying to develop this property. We have had some negotiations where neither side could quite win out, but we have reached some reasonable compromises that both sides could live with.

      There will be a number of variances needed on this site. Part of that is because of the fact that this is in Section B of the Route 4 Corridor. If this were in Section C right across the street, we probably wouldn’t need half of those variances. The side yard and rear yard setbacks in the Section B portion of the Corridor is more institutional in nature.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE ELEVEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Osborn added that although you will see a substantial number of variances, a great majority of those are the result of the Route 4 Corridor standards.

      I wanted to let you know how hard we have worked on this project, and the great cooperation we have received from UDF. IL would be willing to answer any questions you would have regarding the city’s participation.

      Mr. Galster said from the city’s perspective, when I was able to see the site plan for the first time, I was quite impressed with the amount of work that has gone into this. It is exciting to see a major improvement to one of the major corners in the city. I share your enthusiasm and I hope that this will be a smooth process.

      Mr. Okum said I appreciate these efforts and am very pleased with this concept. I did have a question on bringing a bank back into that center and the parking issues. Does that mean we lose a bank?

      Mr. Osborn responded that this would be a bank new to Springdale, but not to Greater Cincinnati. I don’t think the applicant is prepared to announce the bank yet because it is not finalized, but like Provident Bank, they will have their employees park in a nearby lot.

      Mr. Syfert asked the procedure, and Mr. McErlane reported that Planning needed consider the Conditional Use Permit before we approve the concept plan. However, if the applicant would like to present his project for both applications at the same time. Mr. Syfert commented it seems to me that before we have any action on the Conditional Use Permit, we should see what they are talking about.

      Clare Evers, Director of Real Estate for UDF introduced John Johnston the architect. I would like to thank Mr. Osborn for his introduction. This is probably a first in our history. We have a lot of communities that do well from us, but the amount of cooperation that we have had with your staff and Mr. Osborn and his associates has been overwhelming. I think we have been able to come to something that works well for United Dairy Farmers and the city, and hopefully you will agree.

      WE have given up a lot and I do want you to know that. For example, we are doing car washes with our new developments, and we have given up a number of pumps at this location in order to accommodate the bank.

      We were involved with the Provident Bank when it was here and we thought a bank would be nice. You are looking toward this community walk situation, and they are the type of bank that is more conducive to that type of atmosphere.

       

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TWELVE

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

       

      Ms. Evers added that Buskens has been a tenant of ours and wanted to stay. We looked at the possibilities of an outside seating area to connect to your concept of a walking arena. We have an inside ice cream area but there are months when it would be nice to be outside.

      We have not finalized the leases with the bank or Buskens because we need to know if this is going to fly, but we have definite agreements that they both would like to be here.

      AT the corner, we added the feature that you are working on at the other corners and that takes up a chunk of our property. Streets surround US on all sides, so we have some problems with the setbacks.

      The bank today couldn’t even consider the location without some drive up facility. In the beginning it looked like we would only be able to accommodate two lanes which we thought with an ATM outside might not work so effectively. John was able to massage the drawing and we now have three drive up windows and IL think that will serve the community much more effectively as well as the inside of the bank for people who have loan situations and need more counseling.

      That is the conditional use on the drive up window, and I can tell you that we would not be able to get a bank without the drive up window.

      Early on we had thought about a fast food situation, and Mr. Osborn didn’t think that was a great idea so we dropped that concept. We have gone through extensive planning stages and we all thought we should come and talk with you tonight conceptually before we nail all of this down. We are looking at approximately 13 variances, but we have more than met other requirements, like setbacks of the major buildings are way beyond the required 50 feet. We have four roads, and 50 feet is required off each road, and that probably is a hardship for most developers.

      Our sign package is below what we are entitled to. We are asking for four signs because I thought our bank and Buskens would be advertised on one on Kemper and one on Route 4. They are each around the corner from the other, and United Dairy would have a sign on each of the roads to identify that we are there. We have an example of what that sign would look like.

      One of our thoughts was that if the bank and Buskens agrees to sharing, they would have a sign like this that would be cut in half and tastefully done with Buskens on the top on Kemper and on Route 4 the bank would be on the top, so that people passing by on each of those roads would know that they were there even though they were around the corner.

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE THIRTEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Ms. Evers stated that this elevation is to give you an idea of what the building would be like. In your packet you have the elevations on the ice cream parlor and Buskens which will face Kemper and an elevation on the bank which will face Pear Street to the north and we have upgraded the landscaping behind the back of the building because of the sensitivity to the school. We will have to have services back there such as our dumpster. We have made a provision that we will only have one dumpster that will serve all three tenants, and it will be gated so it won’t be obvious from the back. We will provide the dumpster pickups on a more regular basis if we have to to facilitate the three tenants. We have guaranteed that our deliveries will be before or after school hours when school is in session.

      The two conditional uses are the drive up window for the bank and the outside eating area that we thought would have some ambiance in the community. That is something we thought about which would connect with your street system and your improved sidewalk area.

      This is a fairly significant investment for United Dairy Farmers. We have been setting with vacant retail spaces ford quite a few years, and have been approached by about every realtor in the city. We have not relet them in anticipation of a redevelopment.

      We will be demolishing our facility and rebuilding. We are purchasing a substantial piece of property and will have almost an acre and one-half. We are not develop9ng it as much as we could in some communities, because we are sensitive to the fact that it is a prominent corner in your community and sets next to your major investment here. We are acquiescing to some of your requirements, but we also have a feel for what we are going to need in order to carry and generate what we need to stand alone on the investment.

      Mr. Galster said on the two conditional uses, will the covered outdoor eating have access from the parking lot or will it only be restricted to access in and out of the two buildings?

      Ms. Evers responded you could walk along the sidewalk and get to it. We are going to have

      sidewalks around our building. Also they will have the ability to come out the door from Buskens or the UDF that would get you to the patio area. In the UDF we have an inside ice cream parlor and you could get an item and walk through the parlor and to this outside seating area.

      Mr. Galster asked if you could go from the parking lot into the outside eating area and then into UDF. Ms. Evers responded our door would be locked from the outside to go inside and because of control issues. Mr. Galster commented that is the only thing I am concerned with there.

      Otherwise, I personally think it is a good idea. Hopefully with the redevelopment of the other corners there, it will be a nice place to sit down and have a milkshake. I was just curious about the flow.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE FOURTEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Galster said in terms of the drive through area, I agree that the bank needs to have the drive through. My only concern is I drive a big van and a lot of people drive SUVs and these lanes are shown at eight feet. I would like to see them a little bigger; I think we make our parking spaces nine feet wide. If you look at the Provident Bank drive through there are streaks of black rubber that have been laid on the backs of the ATM machines by the mirrors of these big vehicles. While I agree that there is a need, I want to make sure that we don’t make it so tight that these bigger vehicles have a hard time manipulating through the drive through lanes.

      Ms. Evers responded I appreciate that. We have to have a by pass lane and if everybody is comfortable with it, we could reduce a little bit of the grass area along Pear Street and push those lanes a little bit. You are talking three or four feet. We have a variance that will have to be granted off Pear Street for that drive up window area and we could expand that variance to allow for wider lanes.

      Mr. Galster responded if we are going to do that, even if we lose a little bit of land in greenspace, not having the marks down the sides of the columns will be well worth it.

      Ms. Evers answered as you can see we have quite a bit of landscaping anyway on Pear Street, which isn’t Route 4. Mr. Galster commented for this corner to get this much greenspace is quite an accomplishment and I like the way it is going.

      Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Galster if he would be comfortable with 9 ½ feet? Mr. Galster answered I would like to see it be at least nine feet. Ms. Evers said we would be happy to take that under consideration.

      Mr. Vanover said nine-foot would be appreciated, and also with the banks, it seems like they have lowered the ceiling, and there are ATMs that I have to park and walk up to. They would need at least eight feet for the ceiling. Ms. Evers asked if 10 feet would work, and Mr. Vanover indicated that 10 feet would be fine.

      Mr. Okum said on giving up the three feet, I would rather see the three feet of lawn shifting the landscaping into that space, instead of losing the landscaping. I think the landscaping is an important feature. Ms. Evers answered that is what we were considering.

      Mr. Okum said so the setbacks would be 20 feet instead of 23 feet. Mr. Johnson said this plan concept is not carried through along here, so you have a wider greenspace and could afford to lose that. Ms. Evers added and when we say greenspace we do mean lawn as opposed to plantings and trees.

      Mr. Okum commented I agree that it would be a nice place to drink a milkshake. How many tables and chairs would you have? Mr. Johnston answered it is a good sized area, and it would be covered facing the morning sun so I can see people going in the morning for their coffee and mid-afternoon and evenings as well.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE FIFTEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. McErlane reported that two different property owners own the property. There are eight parcels and Elm Alley involved in the total development. The City of Springdale owns four eastern parcels and Elm Alley and the four western parcels are owned by UDF. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building on the western most parcels and construct a new 7,050 s.f. retail bank building and 12 fueling stations with six pumps under a canopy of 3780 s.f.

      We have received the owner’s affidavit from the City of Springdale with respect to the application. We would expect a consolidation would need to occur on the properties to form one total lot during the process of the development.

      The property is located on the Route 4 Corridor Review District Subarea B and the western four parcels, where UDF currently is, is on property that is zoned GB-T, which is a transition overlay. The eastern four parcels are zoned GB, General Business. So, we looked at zoning code sections for both the GB and the CRD Districts.

      Conditional Use Permits are required because of a drive through facility at the bank and an outdoor seating area that will serve both UDF and the bakery.

      Some of the things that will be necessary for the final plan will be additional information about property within 200 feet of the site, engineering plans for grading utilities and storm sewers, location and size and species of existing trees to determine compliance with the tree preservation ordinance, and additional pump island elevations. We only received the west elevation.

      In terms of setback variances, because of it being in the Route 4 Corridor District, Subarea B, the required front yard setback for the building is 50 feet and the required setback for parking areas is 30 feet. Because this property has four front yards, those setbacks apply to all four streets.

      As it stands there will be variances necessary for the north building setback, which is approximately 23 feet. We need to pin that down either to an absolute minimum or get more precise. Mr. Johnston said 23 feet is very close; we can tie it down specifically once we make the adjustments we are talking about.

      Mr. McErlane added for the variance request, we need to get at least to what you think will be a minimum, if you can’t get it tied down that tightly. The variance meeting is next Tuesday night.

      Another variance is required for the front yard setback to the east, which is shown at 13 feet, and 50 feet is required. A variance is also required for the pavement on all four sides, which will require 30 feet. On the west side it is 16 feet, on the north it is 10 feet or less if you increase the size of the drive through lanes, the pavement to the east is three feet and to the south it is nine feet.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE SIXTEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. McErlane added that there also are variances required for setback the ground signs. The Zoning Code requires 10 feet and the two ground signs shown on the western portion of the property are shown at five feet. The UDF sign on the south side is shown at six feet and the bakery sign on the south sign is at three feet.

      The plan indicates an impervious surface ratio of 79%, which is greater than the maximum permitted of 75%, so that is an additional variance that will be required.

      The CRD requires at least 50% of at least three facades or any façade visible from the public right of way to contain brick or stone. The only areas that don’t are the gable areas of the building, so they far exceed that minimum.

      The CRD also requires that at least 50% of the roof be a pitched residential roof form. Although we don’t have that, the only area that is not a pitched roof is the mechanical area in the back of the building, so that this plan also far exceeds that requirement.

      There are details provided for the UDF signs and just square footage is indicated for the other two tenants at this point. There were dimensions given that we figured at a different value than what was shown on the plan. That was because the ground sign detail that was shown actually showed the dimensions of the sign box and not necessarily the sign face. We figured the sign faces to be 30 s.f. each, instead of what was shown on the plan. So there were two monument signs for a total of 60 s.f. and a wall sign at 45 s.f. and four mobile logos at 76 s.f. for a total of 181 s.f. for UDF. The permitted sign square footage is 187 s.f.

      Although the bank is indicated at 45 s.f., we think the design is probably similar to what UDF is so that would be 30 s.f. The wall sign is indicated at 35 s.f., so they are shown at 65 s.f. The permitted sign square footage is 131.2 s.f.

      The bakery has a 30 s.f. monument sign and a wall sign indicated at 35 s.f. for 65 s.f. and their permitted sign area is 123.4 s.f.

      The bank use requires 12 parking spaces, the bakery seven spaces and a convenience store at 20. There is also a requirement that each pump island have a space allocated to it, so that is kind of a wash, but it also requires one for an employee so we have a total requirement of 39 spaces and there are 32 shown, not including the pump islands.

      In addition to the variances I had indicated for the setbacks and for the impervious surface ratio, there will be a variance required because of four monument signs (only two are allowed), and for the shortfall on parking spaces.

      Mr. Okum asked if the area in the front corner that will be given to the city is in their impervious ratio, and Mr. Johnston said it was calculated. It is a rough calculation, and I can be very specific when we come back.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE SEVENTEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. McErlane said with respect to the impervious surface ratio, is that something you can get a better handle on, because that is something that the Board of Zoning Appeals needs to act on. Mr. Johnston answered I can get very specific.

      Ms. Evers said there would be parking in the drive up windows for the bank that we are not taking into consideration. There would be customers being serviced that way.

      Mr. Johnston added our business has a tremendous amount of our space that is not accessible to our customers. There are freezer boxes, cooler boxes and shelving,. Ms. Evers added we probably have at least 1,000 feet or more that is not accessible at all to customers.

      Ms. McBride said having been involved with the review of the Corridor District and having worked on the Urban Renewal Plan, it has been very exciting to actually see something happen with this site, and work with UDF to see our plans come true.

      Ms. McBride reported that the outdoor eating area lends itself very well to a lot of the issues and goals that were expressed in the corridor plan. That was all UDF’s idea, so we were very pleased to see that.

      On the parking, I believe the variance is from 54 spaces to 44 spaces. I think a lot of people leave their cars at the pumps and go in and buy something. Also, our firm does a lot of work with different banks, and the banking institutions are really trying to push people through those drives through windows and ATMs and discourage people from coming indoors, so staff feels pretty comfortable with regards to the parking ratio that is being proposed.

      Their spaces are 9’ x 19’ as our code requires, and their drive aisle widths are 24 feet as required. They do have three drive through lanes for the bank, one of which will have an automatic teller machine. Our new Zoning Code requires that there be five off street stacking spaces per drive through window and that is from the point of interaction, so the space at the teller window counts as one. There are five provided for each of the three drive through lanes.

      Our Corridor Review District indicates that parking should be located in the side or rear yards. This site doesn’t have a side or rear yard so Planning Commission should look at waiving that requirement.

      This is a very unusual site in that it has four front yards, in addition to it being in our Subarea B, so I would hope that the Board of Zoning Appeals would take that into account when they consider that request.

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE EIGHTEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Ms. McBride added that the dumpster is proposed to be in the rear service area along Walnut on the east side of the building. It will be screened with wood gates and be adjacent to the building so it should be fairly unobtrusive.

      On the landscaping, it was a little unclear on the site plans as to whether or not the two islands north of the gas canopy were going to be curbed. If they were to be curbed, they needed to be landscaped and we have heard the applicant say that they are planning on landscaping it.

      Our Corridor Review District also requires a specific number of street trees. This site has four frontages, so Planning Commission has the ability to vary the number of perimeter trees that are required, and we believe you should do so this evening. We also would ask that the mulch be done at three inches in depth.

      In terms of signage, it is great to be able to say that they are actually under the sign area permitted. Staff suggested to UDF that they go to the four smaller ground mounted signs rather than two larger signs. They have landscaped around the bases of them. They have gone with the stone base to complement some of the accents on the building and so forth.

      They are within the height and square footage that is permitted, but they will need variances on the actual locations of those signs, but we would urge Planning Commission to consider the four ground mounted signs as proposed. So the variances needed for signage are the number of signs and their location.

      We have been working with UDF and are really pleased with the building elevations they have proposed. The building is finished on all four sides; it has four front doors, so that is extremely important and they were very willing to work with us on that.

      We are getting one coordinated color scheme for the entire building, in spite of the fact that it is three users, which is also very important to staff.

      Brick and stone are the primary building materials, which exceed the 50% required by the Corridor District. They are accenting the building entries with columns and details as is suggested in the CRD. They meet the requirements on the type of roof. They did submit elevations for the gas canopy on the east and west views, but we still need to see the north and south views. The canopy is to have a pitched roof, and the columns of the canopy are to be stone part way up, which is a nice feature.

      We would like to see the elevations on the north and south views of the gas canopy. On the east side of the building elevation, which faces Walnut Street and the school there are two areas that are blank and we would like to see some fake shutters put there or something like that to break up those expanses. We would like to work with the applicant on that.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE NINETEEN

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Ms. McBride added that the mechanical equipment will be screened on three sides by the roof, but on that fourth side, which is another front yard and also faces the school, they are indicating that there would be a railing, and that the railing and mechanical equipment would be painted out to match the roof. We would like to see if there isn’t some other type of screening that could be added to that. In conversations with the applicant, they indicated that there may be some type of slatting material that could be done there. We would like to see something done to screen out that mechanical equipment in that location.

      The applicant submitted two different lighting plans. Each has 13 pole-mounted fixtures and a pole height of 16 feet with a cutoff fixture. The lighting plan also proposes 22 canopy mounted flat lens fixtures. Four of those are to go into the bank drive through, and 18 are to go in the gas canopy. We did not get the hours of use for the fixtures on the concept plan, but we will get that on the final plan.

      The pole height meets the criteria of our lighting standards. The difference between the two lighting plans is that one has a maximum foot-candle of 28.2 under the gas canopy and the other one (B) has a maximum of 61.7. The difference is the different fixtures that they are using on those. We believe there is a compromise between those two plans. Given the type of this use, auto related, which requires people to get out of their cars at different hours, and also the people using the ATM at different hours, an increase over what our code recommends is appropriate. Staff thinks they can work with the applicant to come up with a compromise situation and we would recommend that.

      The applicant gave us a letter in writing stating that they would limit the hours of service for the dumpster enclosure that is on Walnut Street adjacent to the elementary school. So they would not correspond with the peak hours for the school. A similar condition was promised with regards to the delivery hours. They also have committed at our request that there would be no outdoor display or storage of goods merchandise equipment, etc. on the site.

      We would also ask that there not be any outdoor pay phones on the site. We also ask that there be the inclusion of a bike rack on the site.

      Overall, staff was very pleased with working with the applicant and with the plans that were submitted.

      Mr. Okum asked about the lighting underneath the canopy. Ms. McBride responded they are proposing non-glare down lit flat lens, so IS don’t think there is a problem.

      Ms. Evers added with regard to deliveries, that is only concerning deliveries to the back of the building. We would have Pepsi or potato chips coming through the front, and I can’t control those.

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TWENTY

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Ms. McBride added that staff’s concern was the proximity of the school. It wasn’t deliveries in general, so that is perfectly acceptable.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that currently there is no detention being provided, and the applicant is proposing approximately 7,000 cubic feet of underground detention. These would be split up into three underground fields, two of which will drain towards Walnut and one towards State Route 4. We will need the final detention calculations to verify those volumes. We have been working with the applicant to go through the scenario of which areas are more critical insofar as outletting rates and which have more leeway.

      There are a number of utility poles along Walnut Street that may or may not be impacted by the driveway locations, but that is something that needs to be taken into account.

      The access point via State Route 4 is a right in only, an excellent feature in regards to maintaining the viability of State Route 4. We are working with the applicant to iron out issues in regards to the geometrics of the driveway angle with those types of things.

      Pear Street has full access and we are working on the details of the geometrics there. West Kemper has full access, and we understand that the delivery of gasoline will circulate from Pear Street, entering that drive, and exiting from West Kemper Road. Those are critical issues that we are looking at concerning the geometrics of those driveways as well.

      On Walnut, there is the access point for the drive through bank windows and we are working to make that function and deal with the geometrics back out onto the corner of Pear and Walnut.

      The center drive, which is the driveway to the service area, is one of the areas where there might be a conflict with one of the utility poles. It is something that needs to be worked out in the final plan preparation. There also is a concern about the existing utility pole at the south access point.

      All of these would have to have the particular geometrics and concrete apron that would be required of any other drives within the city.

      The landscaped area at the corner of Kemper and State Route 4 would be an easement area to create the landscaping that would be a part of the State Route 4 Streetscape Program.

      Ms. Evers commented I think the Streetscape Plan was given to us a year or two ago, and we were able to work that in on the corner.

      Mr. Syfert said what I would like to do is open this to the public. Does anyone wish to comment on this, for or against? No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TWENTY-ONE

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Vanover moved to approve the conditional use permit to allow the outdoor eating section and drive through window for the bank. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.,

      Mr. Galster asked how long conditional use permits were in effect. Mr. McErlane reported that typically there is not a time limitation or a user limitation on them. If there were conditions applied to it, they would be conditions applied to use, and not necessarily user or time.

      Mr. Galster said if we are going to approve a conditional use for a drive through, is it this drive through here, or 10 years down the road are we providing a conditional use for a McDonalds drive through. Mr. McErlane responded you could specifically say for a bank, and Mr. Vanover did. Mr. Galster wondered if there was any question concerning the outdoor eating area. I want to make sure that we are not opening ourselves up to conditional uses that, while we are looking at them on this plan, fit this plan, and we are not opening up conditional uses that are extremely wide ranging for future development.

      Mr. McErlane responded that it wouldn’t be out of line to condition it on this plan. Your conditional use permit is based on this plan. However, I think there were some suggestions and modifications to the drive through tonight. Mr. Galster added to me it is like a variance from the BZA. It stays with the land forever. If we give a variance that allows a drive through, and I think UDF will be there for the next 50 years. But if they are there for the next 10 and all of a sudden we have a McDonalds on the corner with a drive through, that is different from what we are looking at here. I want to make sure that we are stating it properly so we have some control over a very important corner of the city. I have no problem with tying it to this plan and/or any subsequent approved plan for this development. I just don’t want to make it so vague.

      Ms. McBride said if the motion was amended to recommend approval of the conditional use as submitted by the applicant with minor modifications maybe that would tie it specifically to this project.

      Mr. Vanover said I would modify my motion to state that it was in reference to the proposed redevelopment of the site, allowing for minor modifications and the proposed redevelopment that has been submitted. Mr. Okum seconded the modified motion.

      All voted aye, and the conditional use permit was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    5. Concept Plan Review for United Dairy Farmer Redevelopment 11620 Springfield Pike
    6. Mr. Syfert stated this has to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals next week for the necessary variances.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TWENTY-TWO

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Galster said I wanted to reiterate Ms. McBride’s comments in reference to the side of the building that faces the school, her suggestion that they put some windows or something to break up those walls.

      Mr. Johnston added that the elevation you are interested in is going to be controlled by the bank and by the bakery. It is not inconceivable that elements of windows and things like that will be incorporated into it, but I don’t know at this time what they would be, because they don’t know what their layout would be. Mr. Galster commented if the bank doesn’t want a window in the back, we might want to put a fake window there. That part of the building is the highest point.

      A long time teacher at the school brought up the fact that now you have advertisements on your windows. In your new store, would you still do that type of window advertising. Mr. Johnston said no. We do have the window signs. Mr. Galster said those are the ones you change all the time, so it’s not like you’ll have cigarettes and beer advertised on the window.

      Mr. Sherry said would you have signage on the front of the canopy? Ms. Evers answered that it is on the corner. The canopy will be the same on all four elevations. Mr. Johnston added that everyone of the locations would have the same presentation with signage on all four. Mr. Johnston added we could add some detail, some color, but it is not obtrusive. It adds some character to the canopy. The canopy is a rather large element.

      Mr. Sherry asked if they would consider using brick on the canopy columns instead of the EIFS. It would be more consistent with the building. Mr. Johnston responded that could be done. We would have no problem with that.

      Mr. Sherry asked if there would be any UDF signage on the south side of the building, the Kemper Road Side, and Ms. Evers answered no.

      Mr. Vanover said since we are making Route 4 a right in only, which takes the southbound traffic out of the picture, the ground mounted sign for UDF will be at the southernmost. Have you considered flip flopping those so you could get closer to the ideal that we get them to use Pear? It might make the flow a little easier.

      Ms. Evers answered that operations would probably like your idea because of the people coming from the north. We certainly can take a look at it and do some line of sight.

      Mr. Okum commented one thing I have noticed on the UDF canopies over their island, some of them seem significantly high compared to the building. What is the height of the canopy? Mr. Johnston said 14’-6" to the bottom of the canopy is minimum and the other end of the canopy might be 16 to 16 ½ feet.

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TWENTY-THREE

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Johnston said I tried not to make it continuously flat. That is why we added the gables to it, to break it up and minimize the overall length .

      Mr. Okum added I agree with Mr. Sherry’s suggestion to change the columns to masonry instead of EIFS. I think it would be a real asset to the columns.

      You have not submitted a brick pallet, which we would be interested in having. Mr. Johnston responded we have a sample board that you can pass around and it identifies the materials. We will have molded red brick to have some character. Mr. Okum wondered if it were a real brick and Mr. Johnston confirmed this.

      Mr. Okum commented the other items I had were primarily Walnut Street issues. I think the screening of the mechanical units needs to be a building element, more than a railing system. I think you can work with staff on something that will make that work. I am not talking abort shields or painted out mechanicals or a railing. I think it needs to be a physical building element.

      I think the screening on the gates to the dumpster enclosure should be stained out or finished. Mr. Johnston reported that they would be stained; it shows it on the same board.

      Mr. Okum added besides that, I am extremely pleased and optimistic that this all can work and I will have the opportunity to see you again next week at the meeting with probably the largest list of variances requested on the Board of Zoning Appeals. It will be a pleasure to have you there.

      Mr. Galster said on the streetscape I see orange and I think pavers. On the part that we are doing now, what part is UDF doing and what part is the city doing? Are we coordinating at this point even though that is not where we are going first?

      Mr. Osborn said I can’t speak to pavers or anything physically located on their property, except for the are easement area in the corner. We will be doing the sidewalk pavers and the circular area and the three laterals off that that are paved. There will be a combination of pavers and cobbles.

      We are looking at some alternatives for the cornerpiece that will be the landscape easement. One vision has the center of that circle area in some sort of landscape format with perennials and bushes and things of that nature. Another concept that we have for that corner is to put in a six to seven foot fountain with multiple tiers. We don’t want to make every corner look cookie cutter to the rest of them. We are putting the budget together for a fountain feature there that would be unobtrusive in terms of the site but a big enough scale that it wouldn’t get lost with the signage. At this point that is a dream more than a fact. Once we find out what the budget will be, we will need to find some funding for it. I plan on approaching foundations or other types of groups that might be willing to contribute towards a piece of public art.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      9 JULY 2002

      PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

      VII UNITED DAIRY FARMER REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

      Mr. Galster said so the orange shown in that corner is a combination of pavers that will get a special treatment. Mr. Osborn confirmed this, adding that the circle is pavers and may be bordered by cobbles. For the centerpiece, one option is to go with a landscape piece and another is to fill it in with cobbles or a combination of cobbles and pavers and do a three tier fountain in the middle.

      Mr. Galster said along the outside ring, is that the city’s responsibility? Mr. Osborn confirmed this. Mr. Galster said according to our streetscape plan, will that also be pavers? Mr. Osborn responded if you look in the atrium on the display we had for the Corridor, the section shows what the sidewalk detail looks like. It should be a fairly complex combination of concrete paver and cobbles.

      Mr. Galster said going up Route 4, is UDF doing that work? Mr. Osborn answered that it is all the city’s responsibility. It is a part of Phase 2 and we will carry that down to Glensprings Drive.

      Mr. Okum asked about the irrigation on the landscaping and Mr. Johnston reported that it would be irrigated. Mr. Okum commented I would hate to see the city have to put a water meter out there for that one corner, but if it could be shared that would be better.

      Have you considered having your walkway areas be anything other than typical concrete, i.e. some areas of inlaid stamped concrete? Mr. Johnston answered that is a possibility; we could look at that.

      Mr. Sherry said the orange is the paver. What is the material between the curb and the paver? Mr. Osborn reported that UDF is trying to reflect our plans. Our sidewalk detail changes two or three times given the width of the right of way.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the concept plan with the inclusion of staff and associated comments from Planning Commission members at this evening’s meting. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

      All voted aye, and the concept plan was approved with seven affirmative votes.

      Mr. Syfert thanked the applicants for a very nice concept presentation, adding that next Tuesday night you will be on the agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

    7. Approval of Building Elevation Modification for H.H. Gregg, 650 Kemper Commons

Paul Gugino of Paragon Consultants said we are here to go over the minor renovations we are trying to do for H.H. Gregg in what was the Home Place building. With me tonight is Mike Crisup of Herschman Architects. This is the architect that did all the design for our successful renovation of Springdale Plaza.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

VII D BLDG MODIFICATION – HH GREGG – 650 KEMPER COMMONS PIKE

Mr. Gugino said this is a pretty simple application to make some minor modifications and to raise the entryway. Most everyone has been pretty supportive of that. There was no signage for the pylon sign indicated by application, but the intent would be to use the same pylon panel that is blank now that was used by Home Place.

With us tonight is Jim Wicher of HH Gregg and some gentlemen from Kimco if there were any additional questions. We brought color samples with us and a colored rendering (passed among the members). Mr. Wicher added that the example of what we want to do is much larger than what we are proposing.

Mr. Gugino added that we are looking for the signage to be pretty much in scale with the façade. We are asking for about 80 feet more than what is allowed, but we think it is in scale. Also, we are in a little bit of a hole down there, it would make it easier to see. We would hope you would entertain that.

Mr. Shvegzda said there is no increase in impervious area so there would be no modification to the existing detention basin.

In looking at Sheet T-1 in comparison with Sheet SD-1, there appears to be a modification to the existing loading dock to provide the access into the mobile installation area, but it doesn’t reflect that modification to the loading dock. We would need to know what was taking place there.

There is a proposed trash compactor to the east of the existing transformer in that area. Looking at the site, there is an existing street light for that service drive that appears to be conflicting with the proposed location of the trash compactor. In general, some of the pavement markings in that service drive area are faded and probably need to be repainted.

Mr. Gugino reported that the streetlight would be relocated and redoing the striping is not problematic. When we made the application it was still up in the air as to what exactly we were going to try to do with that customer install, but we have brought that with us and the architect can explain that as well. It is pretty minor.

Mr. Crisup showed the drawing of the truck level door that will be at grade. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda if that were a major problem and Mr. Shvegzda indicated that it was not, adding that it is a matter of filling in a part of the loading dock area.

Ms. McBride reported that the color samples are beilng circulated around. The one question that Mr. McErlane and I had is that there is a P-2 that is noted on the drawings. We have P-1 and P-4, but we didn’t have P-2 and P-3. The one that is marked fascia may be P-3. The applicant marked the drawings P-2 and P-3. Mr. Okum said I can’t see the difference between the two colors. Mr. Crisup said it is very subtle. Ms. McBride stated that clarification is needed as to which color sample is matching up with P-1 and P-2 on the building elevations.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY- SIX

VII D BLDG MODIFICATION - HH GREGG - 650 KEMPER COMMONS

Ms. McBride said the only other comment we would have is that the proposed onbuilding signage is a total of what appears to be 390 s.f, and the user is entitled to 307 s.f. It is larger than what is permitted, but you have to take into context the size of the user and the depth off West Kemper. Staff doesn’t have a problem with the increase in sign area.

Mr. Sherry asked the size of the Home Place sign that is there now. Mr. Gugino answered that it is 480 s.f.

Mr. McErlane added that the 480 s.f. I listed in my comments was actually Marshalls, the original tenant. I think their sign was slightly larger than that, but that was the maximum permitted for that space when Marshalls was there. However Marshalls was another third larger.

Mr. Gugino added I think that the drawing scales the existing to be 80’-3" x 6’ high. Mr. Crisup stated that we did the Home Place and this was the shop drawing; it is 480 s.f. Mr. McErlane added so they match the Marshalls that we approved initially.

Mr. Sherry commented it appeared to me that the Marshalls sign was larger than Home Place. You can still see the marks in the façade where it was.

Mr. McErlane reported that this store is 2/3 of what Home Place was. The proposal is to modify the fascia of the building to approximately 10 feet higher than what is existing. The previous sign on the storefront was 480 s.f. The allowable signage for that space at that time was 460 s.f. We didn’t get overall dimensions for the HH Gregg sign. Does the applicant have actual dimensions yet? Mr. Crisup answered that the dimensions are what you scaled. Mr. McErlane said the box is actually smaller than what the letters come out to on your elevation, but what we scaled off the drawing was the letters, and not the box, which was 390 s.f.

The architect confirmed that it is 390 s.f. Mr. McErlane added that the allowable is 307 s.f.

Mr. Galster asked if the center had a general color scheme, from Wal-Mart to Sam’s that is the same? Mr. Gugino answered they change; in some of the photos there are retail shops on the corner that have a different color canopy. Mr. Galster asked about the basic façade of the building, adding that he believed all the EIFS color on the center is the same. Mr. Gugino answered that it wasn’t it changes.

Mr. Sherry asked where the one-third of the building that HH Gregg is not taking. Mr. Crisup answered to the left, or the western side. Mr. Sherry asked the number of bays, and Mr. Gugino answered four and one-half.

Mr. Galster asked if where the old Home Place is a different color than the rest of the buildings? When we paint this out, will we end up with that 1/3rd that was left being an odd color? Mr. Crisup answered that it is all getting painted out the same color.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY- SEVEN

VII D BLDG MODIFICATION - HH GREGG - 650 KEMPER COMMONS

Mr. Syfert said so you are saying that the entire façade will be painted out. Mr. Galster added even though part of it is vacant. Mr. Crisup confirmed this.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the building elevation modification as submitted with a maximum of 390 s.f. of signage and with the condition that they work out the loading dock and trash compactor with the engineer to make sure there is no conflict, and with the colors submitted this evening.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

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

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Permits for Fences

Mr. Okum said this came up before the Board of Zoning Appeals, and we need to get some type of direction on it. Currently, we do not require a permit to construct fences. We have had a few situations where fences have been erected, not knowing that they need to maintain setbacks and so forth. Without a permit application requirement in our code, everyone basically feels that they can put a fence pretty much anywhere they need to. Because there is no process that a resident needs to go through, there is no supervision or review of the placement of that fence.

We recently had a situation at the Board of Zoning Appeals where a decision we made (requiring the applicant to remove the fence) we believe will be going to the Court of Common Pleas. Mrs. Webb reported that he had thirty days to file and that time has elapsed. Mr. Okum continued we had that situation, and at one time we did require fence permits. We recently passed legislation indicating what side of the fence is required to face the neighbor, but we do not have any review process of the fence itself through the permit process. I think we are missing something on the front end of that, and it would eliminate some issues from occurring if we could get some wording in our code to address it.

Mr. Syfert asked how often this comes up, and Mr. McErlane reported that it has occurred three or four times in the last 10 years, but it is a hardship when it does happen.

Mr. Okum added that the situation on Tivoli was that there already was a variance granted for the placement of a split rail fence. He took down a split rail fence and placed a stockade fence further into the front yard setback. His argument was that he already had a variance to have a fence there. You look at a split rail fence a little differently than you would a six-foot high stockade fence.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

9 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY- EIGHT

VIII – DISCUSSION – PERMITS FOR FENCES

Mr. McErlane reported we will consider an amendment to the Building Code requiring a permit for fences. Planning Commission will not need to act on this. Previously we required them for fences over four feet high.

Mr. Galster said tonight we had another item tabled for the second time (CVS Pharmacy). I wonder if this would be considered a denial under our code. Mr. McErlane reported that Council modified that. Mr. Osborn said we indicated to them that lacking a request for postponement on their part, we would be bringing in a recommendation to deny. They decided to ask that it be tabled, which I think was an appropriate thing to do. The site is clearly not at a point where staff feels comfortable with making a positive recommendation. In concept, it is still a good idea, so we want to see them mature the plan a little more and maybe come around with a few issues we are concerned about. Hopefully they will be back in August.

We didn’t want to see what they had done earlier. We had negotiated with staff for a month and they came in with a separate set of plans. They did it at the last meeting and they were going to do the same thing to you this time. They were going to bring in a whole new set of plans that staff has not had the chance to review.

Mr. Galster said so with the revised code, they can continue to request to table with no problem. Mr. McErlane responded certainly, but Planning doesn’t have to grant the table. We modified that in the last set of modifications. It probably wouldn’t apply to this application anyway because it is a PUD and a rezoning process.

Mr. Galster said it is not necessarily a PUD, because part of the application is to be considered a PUD because they are too small. Mr. McErlane responded that it is also a map amendment, which is a different process. That language was in the Corridor Review District for an approval of a development plan, not a map amendment that has to go through a legislative process.

  1. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
  2. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

___________________,2002 _______________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

__________________,2002 _______________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary