PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7: 03 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Councilman Tom

    Vanover and Chairman Syfert.

    Members Absent: David Whitaker

    David Okum

    Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
    Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

    Mr. Syfert said we knew that the two members werenít going to be here tonight and for the record and the people in the audience, for any final action on any issue, it takes a 5-0 affirmative vote; a simple 4-1 will not suffice.

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETILNG OF 12 JUNE 2001
  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt the Minutes and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council Ė no report
    2. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė May 15, 2001
    3. 6/13/01 Letter to Shipps-Yamaha re tabling their request
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė 6/10/01
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė 6/25/01
  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Public Hearing to Reconsider Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center at 11285 Springfield Pike Ė continued June 12, 2001

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing, asking if anyone wished to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Syfert called on Mrs. Barnett, saying I will leave it up to you to convince us why we should continue to allow you to have the day care center.

Tammy Barnett, operator of the day care center reported we fixed the fence that was there, and we have added the additional fence as a boundary between the residential area and playground, and added the additional trees. We had sound tests done as well. (She passed out the results, which were done on July 5th.)

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE TWO

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mrs. Barnett reported that he used as a guideline the test that Ms. McBride had previously conducted. Two tests were done on July 5th with the playground at full capacity and we came within the sound barrier. AT this point Iím not sure what else we need to do. Weíve tried to adhere to all the recommendations as best we could.

Mr. Syfert wondered why the plant material that was put in was not as specified by this commission. There was no question about what it was supposed to be.

Mrs. Barnett responded what we gave the nursery was the documents you gave us in terms of what kind we needed to put in. I know there was a problem with some of the measurements. Mr. Syfert answered quite a bit of problem; there is a lot of difference between the four-foot we specified and the 6í-6" or whatever they are. Furthermore, I think we specified 8 feet high and some of them arenĎt quite six feet high, so I would just like an explanation of that.

Mrs. Barnett responded on the 29th when we contacted the fourth nursery that had those types of trees you requested, we got the trees that they had in stock. Nobody in this area could get those trees that size in that amount of time. The company we went with had 15 or 16; I think we were short three trees, and we discussed this with GRC and we went with this.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were a representative from GRC present. Robert Shank, Attorney with Frost Brown Todd said he was here on behalf of the landlord, GRC Properties.

Mr. Syfert said I am perplexed about the whole thing, and I will call on Ms. McBride who has been in the middle of all this.

Ms. McBride reported that when we left the Planning Commission last June 12, Mr. Barnett was here and he had asked where we had taken the noise readings, and I indicated that I would send him a copy of the cityís noise study, which I did on June 13th.

Further the Planning Commission had directed me to speak with our landscape architect and find out if there was additional supplemental material that could be added to this that would provide for the reduction of the noise level. Our landscape architect suggested the arbor vitae at 8 feet in height be planted four foot on center, and extend the length of the fence and wrap around the edge of the fence. That plant material was to be contained in a mulched bed because you are looking at a pretty narrow area between existing plant material and where the new fence is located.

Mr. Barnett contacted me on the 25th of June and had some questions about the plant material. I answered those and said if his landscaper had additional questions, to please call me and we old try to address those. Mr. Barnett also asked when we would be taking the noise readings. It was their intent to install the material on June 30th.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE THREE

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. McBride said I explained to him that given the fact that July 4th was a Wednesday and a lot of people were taking time off, and that it had been Planning Commissionís direction that we would have three noise readings taken simultaneously, it would be very difficult to get three qualified individuals with three noise meters out there that week and it might not be possible to do that before this meeting.

It is my understanding that the plant material was not installed on June 30th but was installed July 5th. The plant material that was installed is not quite six feet. Some of it is closer to 5 feet; some of it is tagged at 5 feet in height. The plant material has been planted 6í-6" on center as opposed to 4 feet on center. It clearly does not extend to the ends of the fence, nor does it wrap around

The edges of the fence, nor is it contained within a mulched bed. If the Barnetts were having trouble getting the 8 foot species, I wish they had contacted me and let me know that they were going with a 6 foot species, although most of these shrubs out there are not six feet in height. If we had known they were going with a six-foot variety, we would have required those be planted three-foot on center.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said it is my understanding that after our last meeting with your husband that he had mentioned June 17th he would have the fences up and one week later, June 24th he would have the landscaping done so we would have ample time to schedule the sound tests to get the most accurate fair and representative hearing of the sounds that we could. So it was July 5th before the plant material was installed, and not enough time was provided for us to get out there and do the sound testing. Because you werenít here last meeting, was that your understanding as to what was supposed to happen? Mrs. Barnett confirmed this. Mr. Galster asked if the owners understood that as well. Mr. Shank responded I was not at the last meeting, but our understanding was that all of the landscaping that the commission wanted had been installed and until I heard this I wasnít aware that it wasnít installed to the commissionís requirements.

Mrs. Barnett said we were working with your guidelines and waiting for GRC to give us approval to do everything. As Harlan left the last meeting, it was made very clear that there were several stipulations that you dictated. Then we had to go back to
GRC and see how we could make it happen and how quickly. We worked with the time frame that they gave us. When he came back with the permission to do all of this, that left us with two weeks to do everything.

Mr. Shank said to be clear and for the record, from the landlordís perspective, we want this tenant to do whatever the commission wants this tenant to do so that the Conditional Use Permit is preserved. We are not in a situation where we are going to approve anything the commission wouldnít approve or disapprove anything that the commission would approve.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE FOUR

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Galster responded also understand that our Conditional Use Permit is not to your tenant. Our Conditional Use Permit is to you as the owner of the property. Our recourse is to make you, as the owner of the property, satisfy this commission, not to get the tenant to do it.

Mr. Shank responded another point that should be added to the record of this hearing, is that there are some background issues that we have been dealing with with the tenant, and we did file a lawsuit against the tenant for eviction. That issue, at least for the time being, has been resolved based on payment of rent made by the tenant.

Mr. Galster responded once again, that is an issue between the two of you that we are not here to consider.

Mr. Galster said I thought when we left the meeting on June 12th, not only were these the recommendations of this board, but that we were going to come out and do the readings, providing ample time for us to do those readings without giving notice and ultimately it was the responsibility of the owner to make sure the decibel levels that we took were lower than 65 decibels. If they werenít, whatever else that was needed to be done would be done by the owner of the property prior to this meeting. We have a little dilemma in the act that the plantings werenít put in a timely fashion to allow us to do the three readings. If I go by the one test you have given me here, and I see some 68ís 65ís and 75ís. It seems like there are still issues in terms of the level of sound, just using your own sound people. I am thinking that if I have my own sound people out there, I want the kids as quiet as I can, so I have a little bit more of a control to try to keep that volume down.

Mrs. Barnett responded to be honest with you, when we called the noise control company, we gave them the times that you gave us to be out on the playground, and they called us later on that evening. So the teachers and the students didnít know. Mr. Galster asked how many days did they have between when you called them and when they came out. Mrs. Barnett answered two or three days. Mr. Galster commented it seems to me that if I knew I only had two or three days to have these readings taken, I would have a pretty good opportunity to make sure that all the additional noise was kept to a minimum. Those are my concerns. Itís like we havenít gotten to where we need to be.

Ms. McBride said I havenít gotten to fully review the noise study done by the applicant, but the readings were taken on July 5th, the day that the plant material was planted. I suspect that they were taken when only part of the plant material was planted. Besides that, I would argue that just as the city engineer wouldnít take traffic counts that week, because they would be tainted with the July 4th holiday, that a number of those children might not have been present. I wouldnít have taken the noise readings that week because of that.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE FIVE

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked the day care centerís population on that date? Mrs. Barnett responded we probably had 15 to 20% of our students not there for that week, mostly summer camp students and our summer camp students are not on the playground anyway. There are never more than 24 children allowed on the playground at any given time. Mr. Galster said and you might have had 20% under that or 20 children.

Mr. Vanover said I think a lot of this scenario is an ongoing process. I would like to ask the representative of the property owner why on July 5th we are getting plant materials in when on December 21st the letter was sent outlining what needed to be done, a certified letter went March 30th, you had until April 30thl, and we are still playing around.

Mr. Shank responded I am not going to try to give you another excuse for that. The bottom line is if there are landscaping issues that the commission wants to be addressed, whether or not we have done what we should have done in the past, the landlord will actively work with this tenant and make sure any of those concerns are addressed.

To answer your question, it is an economic issue. There was a lot of back rent due to the landlord and there is only so much money the landlord can justify advancing that the landlord is not supposed to advances under the lease. In any event, Iím not trying to make excuses, and at this point of time the landlord is willing to do whatever the commission wants it to do to make sure that the Conditional Use Permit is preserved. To the extent that there are issues that have not been resolved to the commissionís satisfaction, and it sounds like there clearly are, we will work with this tenant to immediately make sure those issues are resolved.

Mr. Vanover commented the differences of options between the landlord and tenant donít concern me. We spelled it out in December; both parties were there and agreed. Whether or not they owed you money, the landlord said yes, we would do this. We are seven months down the road and now they are saying theyíll do what needs to be done. I am sorry but you have had the time to do what needs to be done.

Mr. Shank responded when I walked in here, I thought all issues had been resolved in terms of landscaping and the fences being erected. It was my understanding from the tenant, based on the tenantís communications with my client, that all of the landscaping issues and all of the fence issues had been resolved per the commissionís specifications. This was the first I heard that it is not the case.

Mr. Galster said just so you know, it is not a landscape issue or a fences issue Ė it is a noise issue. Even if the landscaping had been done, if the noise issue hadnít been taken care of, the main issue would still have been there. Iím afraid you still havenít been totally informed as to the actual issue.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE SIX

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Galster added that even after all this is done, if it the noise level was still up two weeks ago, additional steps were supposed to have been taken by today.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree that the issue is the noise issue and not just landscaping or fencing. Having said that, I think it is clear that we still have some significant issues here. What has been the condition of the Conditional Use Permit all along is that the noise issue is satisfied. I am frustrated as the other members are that this has dragged on for this period of time with basically no action for five or six months. Recognizing there have been disputes, we canít get in the middle of that. Our issue is with the landowner. Iím really stretching my imagination to suggest that we continue this for another 30 days and all those issues be resolved with satisfactory sound readings by the time this comes back to the board, or the Conditional Use Permit would be suspended immediately. I donít think we are going to resolve it here tonight, and thatís the only out I can see other than revoking the Conditional Use Permit. If we have a legal opinion, we might want to supplement that too.

Mr. Syfert commented part of the problem has been that we have never seen the same two people standing out there since we started this thing, never. Your landlord says they want to continue them as a tenant, but they didnít see fit to be here last month. Iím getting different vibes from everyone who stands out there. Mr. Barnett is the one who made all the representations last month, and heís not here to defend them. I think Mr. Huddleston probably has the proper solution and I would probably back it, but I donít like it. In my own mind, I donít want to lose the day care center if we can do something or if you had done something to convince us that the noise level is acceptable. I think the day care center is needed or it wouldnít be full. Even though I donít have children who go to the day care center, I know people who do, and they need this.

Mr. Darby said this is a very important issue, and it is almost like it has been treated as a game. Itís not a game. The owners of the facility, as represented by counsel, are willing to do everything they can to comply. Last month we had a letter stating that they were willing to do nothing. Am I to interpret that the payment of back rent has changed that attitude?

Mr. Shank stated that a portion of the back rent has been paid. All the back rent has not been paid. If I represented that we are willing to do everything to comply, I misstated it. What my client is willing to do is to work with the tenant and work with the Planning Commission to make sure that this child care center complies with whatever requirements the Planning Commission wants around this center. I canít represent to you that they are going to do everything from a financial standpoint, because I need to talk to them after this meeting. I can represent to you that we want this tenant to be in compliance with the requirements. We understand that the Conditional Use Permit is with the landowner, us and not with the tenant, so we will do everything that my client authorizes me to do after I report to them on this hearing.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE SEVEN

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Shank added that in response to a couple of the other questions, I canít go back and explain to you, and I donít want to provide the Commission with excuses as to why it hasnít been done yet. All I can tell you is that from here forward this owner will be at any commission hearings that address this issue and this owner will address t his problem. That is all I can represent to the commission.

Mr. Galster said this raised an additional question. You are telling me that you are willing to say that the owner will do whatever to make sure that the tenant does whatever it is that this commission wants the tenant to do. I think what I am saying is that this board has granted you a Conditional Use Permit and it has been conditioned upon getting sound levels to an acceptable level. Are you as the owner of the property and the holder of that Conditional Use Permit willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to get those sound levels to an acceptable level, or not? Leave the tenant out of the picture, because my issue is not with your tenant.

Mr. Shank responded I understand, and I am trying to give you the most honest answer I can give you. When I walked in this hearing, I thought those issues had been resolved. I understand that they havenít, and I canít in good conscience make representations on behalf of my client who is not here. All I can tell you is that my client will do everything that they will authorize me to do and they will do everything they can to comply with the Planning Commissionís requirements. As soon as I talk to my client about this, I can give you a better answer, but I canít make representations without telling them what has happened in this hearing, and telling them that in fact the noise levels may not have been abated to the commissionís satisfaction and the landscaping issues may not have been done when I didnít know that until 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Syfert said for the record, why isnít the owner here? Mr. Shank responded they obviously didnít know the issue either. Mr. Syfert said I asked why isnít the owner here. Mr. Shank responded they sent me to a hearing where they thought all issues had been resolved. They thought the noise issue had been abated; they thought the landscaping issue had been taken care of and they thought the fencing issue had been taken care of. Had they known otherwise, they would have been here. Mr. Syfert said they should have known otherwise; they knew what the ground rules were, sir.

Mr. Vanover commented it sounds like the hunt is afoot again and I think it is time to get on or off the pot, so I would make a motion to rescind the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Syfert seconded the motion.

Voting aye were M r. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Voting no were Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, and Mr. Galsterad thHad

. Motion to rescind the Conditional Use Permit was defeated 3-2.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE EIGHT

V A DAY CARE CENTER Ė 11285 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Darby said the last time we voted, the day care remained in business because of a one-vote majority. It is obvious from the discussion this evening that the issue remains one that is very very close. I for one will say this - I am tired of this issue. If this is on the agenda next month, which I am sure it will be, I donít even want to hear any discussion. I just want to see everything that has been specified here this evening compliant with what has been ordered by this Commission. I donít want to see any questionable sound readings; I donít want to see any areas that should have been planted that werenít planted, because unless everything is perfect and according to specifications, this person will be against the day care. Thatís the best way I can say it; I canít say it any stronger.

Mr. Huddleston moved to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Springdale Planing Commission. The Conditional Use Permit holder shall within 15 days from this date complete all of the requirements as specified by the commission, and notify the Building Department and the City Planner in writing of this completion. The city representatives shall then have the 15 days to complete the required sound readings and report to the Commission.

If these readings are substantially in compliance with the required DBA readings, then the issues will be considered to have been resolved. If the owner in good faith has completed all the requirements of the Commission, they shall still be responsible, at their sole risk and expense, to satisfy the DBA requirements in the event that the hearing shall be further continued because the appropriate sound attenuation has not been achieved.

Mr. Darby asked if the 15 days were business days. Mr. Huddleston said they are calendar days.

Mr. Galster said at our next meeting, if we find that the applicant has done the planting and the readings are still too high, did I hear in your motion that if there were conditional continuances, they shall be responsible to bring the decibel level down to an acceptable one?

Mr. Huddleston responded my intent is that the owner act in good faith to satisfy the conditions that have been imposed. We do not know if those conditions when satisfied will achieve the sound attenuation required. So the owner has to recognize that they are still at risk.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Vanover voted no, and the public hearing was continued until August 14th.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE NINE

B. Shipps-Yamaha, 11530 Springfield Pike requests approval of backlit awning Ė tabled June 12, 2001

Don Shipps, owner said we are proposing to put in an awning across the front of our stores, primarily to improve the appearances. There has been a shingled the front since the building was built in 1971. It was required some years ago to be the color red by the Yamaha franchises. I am getting tired of it, and I would like to change that with an awning to cover that shingled frontage with the color gray, for a more favorable appearance.

I am sorry I could not make the last meeting. My son attended, but was riding a motor cycle that was not safe to ride in the rain, so he had to leave.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is in a GB District, but within the Route 4 Corridor District, and if there are modifications to the exterior, it comes before Planning Commission. Also within the Zoning Code it is a requirement for awnings to be reviewed by Planning as well.

Ms. McBride said this is a very visible location. Staff does not have any problem with the awning; it is light gray and within the earthtones required for the Route 4 Corridor. The Corridor District allows for interior light sources as long as they are concealed, and that is not a problem. The awning that would front on Springfield Pike would contain 29 s.f. for the three signs (Yamaha/ShippĎs/Suzuki). The existing 48 s.f. sign on the Springfield Pike elevation is to be relocated to the south elevation and the existing 81 square foot ground sign is to remain.. The total proposed is 158 s.f. and they are entitled to 170 s.f.

There are a number of items on the site that do not comply with the Corridor Review District requirements, but it would cause a tremendous hardship for the owner to do so. There is one item that I would like to suggest and that would be to designate that outdoor display of merchandise be away from Springfield Pike and in areas not adjacent to the public right of way.

Mr. Huddleston commented that there are two issues Ė the outside storage and display. I question whether outside storage should be allowed and if there is outside storage, where it should be.

Ms. McBride answered that we would like to see them away from the right of way. Currently they have it on the south property in. There is a wave runner on the north property line and there are motorcycles on the front of the property adjacent to Springfield Pike. We would prefer not to see it against the Springfield Pike right of way. I would suggest that the applicant indicate the areas best for them.

Mr. Shipps said the only thing we have outside 24 hours a day is the wave runner, and at this point in our business and in the future, that does not need to be there. We have kept it up front because in the past we have had vandalism on items that were out of sight. We are no longer in the watercraft business so it is no problem for us to find another place for this.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE TEN

V B SHIPPS YAMAHA 11530 SPRINGFIELD PIKE BACKLIT AWNING

Mr. Shipps added that as far as the outside display, I would like to be able, during business hours only, to move a few units to provide space inside in order to do business. If we could have a small space in front of the store beside that sign and down both sides of the parking lot, that would be sufficient. We have parked vehicles directly in front of the store near the sidewalk. There is an area 5-6í deep from the sidewalk back to our parking lot. We are getting a bid for some low level landscaping along that area. The problem I have is that customers who come in riding their motorcycles prefer not to park in the automobile space. They like to park in safe places in our parking lot.

Ms. McBride responded I would make a distinction between customers parking and new merchandises you are moving out to display and store.

Mr. Shipps said that seems to be a gray area that I do not think is necessary. It would not be every hour of the day and it would be in the parking lot, not in the grassy area or the sidewalk. I feel I should be able to park vehicles in my own parking lot.

Mr. Syfert said perhaps you could meet with our city planner and work on that issue. We have eliminated the need for the wave runner, and we should be able to work something else out.

Mr. Shipps said at the east end of the city parking lot, there is a nice row of pine trees, some of them 30 feet tall, and two are quite close to my building. If we extended this awning to the rear of the building on the south side, the branches of one tree is against that building now, and it probably would cause the removal of the tree.

I have a proposal that might please the City. On that south side of the building from the front and back approximately 25í, the side is wood. Even though the building is brick, there is a big wood panel. Some of the wood needs to be repaired, and I planned on doing that and painting it gray. It is possible that we could extend that on halfway back and not interfere with the trees in the back. It also wouldnít cost me as much money.

Mr. Galster asked how deep the building is, and Mr. Shipps answered I believe it is 60 feet. The awning would be close to half or at least 24 feet. Mr. Galster asked what the front sign said, and Mr. Shipps answered that there is a 4í x 12í lighted Yamaha sign, white on a blue background which is required. I have to retain that somewhere on the building.

Mr. Huddleston asked how many units are outside at any given point and Mr. Shipps answered that when the weather is good we move approximately 12-15 outside. The majority are up against the city parking lot and next to the other building on the north side, and some are in front of our windows.

Mr. Huddleston asked how many parking places they had in the front of the building. Mr. Shipps answered eight or nine; we did have 10 until we had to put the ground sign in.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE ELEVEN

V B SHIPPS YAMAHA 11530 SPRINGFIELD PIKE BACKLIT AWNING

Mr. Huddleston said you are proposing to locate the temporary outside display of the units to the sidewalk in the front of the building and on the north side of the parking area. Mr. Shipps answered we also have an area along the south side of the building. We have blocks placed there so the cars have to stop at a place so there is room to line up the bikes.

Ms. McBride said there are some pine trees at the east end, and I would not like to see the trees removed. It may be possible to have them pruned. Our concern is that when you are going north on Springfield Pike, we would want you to see the end of the awning as you drive. Without viewing it, I would not know if 25 feet does that.

Mr. Syfert said it seems like a viable solution. The staff concern was for having a more finished appearance to that side of the building. Mr. Shipps added that it would correspond with the wood siding and both would be gray.

Mr. Huddleston said the plannerís recommendation says the light source should be concealed. Are you clear on what concealed lighting is? Mr. Shipps indicated that he did, and Ms. McBride added that he has indicated that it would be done, but we do not have details on it. Mr. Shipps responded the plan for the sign is for the letters to be translucent so that the lighting inside the awning would illuminate the letters. There would be no lighting exposed below the awning or above the awning.

Mr. Galster asked where the sign that is being remounted on the south elevation would be in relation to the awning. Mr. Shipps answered that they probably could center it front and rear with the awning proceeding down the south side. It would go on the wood sign area, and is 48 s.f.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the modification subject to the following:

    1. That the light source will be a concealed type with staff approval prior to installation;
    2. The illumination to be limited to the west elevation only;
    3. Signage will be limited to 158 s.f., with no window signage;
    4. Awning to be along the south elevation without signage or illumination;
    5. Awning will extend to the wood siding which will be painted gray to match the awning;
    6. Areas for outside storage for ATV and motorcycle type vehicles shall be limited to a designated area as specified by the City Planner and agreed to by the owner.

Mr. Darby seconded the motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster commented that there has been a lot of discussion about a comprehensive plan and Route 4. Is there anything you have considered to try to clean up the trailer and bike store?

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE TWELVE

V B SHIPPS YAMAHA 11530 SPRINGFIELD PIKE BACKLIT AWNING

Mr. Shipps said I have been trying to sell that truck or gives it away, and we probably can get rid of it in the not to distant future. The trailer is a necessity. We have tires and other items to dispose of. I have found it impossible to find someone to come buy at a specified time to pick it up and dispose of it for me. However, I do feel it is a necessary part of my business. I donít have any alternatives.

Mr. Galster asked how much of the land he owned and Mr. Shipps stated that part of the alley is an easement. The actual property I own is on the west side of the alley. Mr. Galster asked if there were any way to screen it any better and Mr. Shipps said that was a possibility. Mr. Galster said I would ask that you take a look at it and see what you can do.

Mr. McErlane reported that there was a variance granted in 1970 to restrict that area to employee parking only and parking of company vehicles, and only company vehicles could be parked overnight. At times we have had to advise the current operator about cleaning up the area. The property is actually owned by people who live on Plum Street.

Mr. Huddleston amended the motion to state that the outside display area as specified by the City Planner and limit any display to business operating hours only with no overnight outside display or storage.

Mr. Darby seconded the amended motion.

Mr. Shipps asked if that were referring to the vehicles and Mr. Huddleston answered that is part of it, whether it is a wave rider, trucks or anything else.

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

C. Tires Plus, 11700 Princeton Pike requests approval of changed roof color

Brad Chaney, Service Manager of Tires Plus was present. Mr. Syfert said that last month you were talking about possibly changing the color, and you were supposed to provide samples and an alternative plan.

Mr. Chaney responded our regional vice president has all that, and he will not be in town until later in the week.

Mr. McErlane said I have spoken with Joel Parker with Tires Plus, and there is one submittal that they submitted on July 5 that is on the dais. When I talked to Mr. Parker, we were talking about a terra cotta color. He indicated that he would submit a sample of that. The color rendering is not what I would consider terra cotta. Mr. Parker indicated that their preference is to use something with a reddish tint to it, and he would be willing to abide by any recommendations of Planning.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE THIRTEEN

V B SHIPPS YAMAHA 11530 SPRINGFIELD PIKE BACKLIT AWNING

Mr. McErlane said we did take some pictures of the Ruby Tuesdays awnings and got color samples similar to terra cotta.

Mr. Galster wondered if Planning were supposed to choose their colors, adding that he was not comfortable with that. Mr. Vanover agreed. Mr. Galster asked if the regional vice president would be able to come in to the August 14th meeting. Mr. Chaney said I could have him call and make sure he can. Mr. Galster said the problem is we would continue to have the red out there, but I will suggest that we table this to August 14th. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Huddleston said I would like to know our options. If the applicant does not come back with something satisfactory to the commission, my thought was that it would revert back to the original color. Is that new siding?

Mr. McErlane stated that the original roof was brown and they repainted it red.

Mr. Huddleston said if we are going to table this, the applicant needs to bring in some suggestions as to color, or the roof would have to revert back to the color prior to the repainting.

On the motion to table all present voted aye. Mr. McErlane added that the colors need to be here by the end of the month.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Alexander Patterson Group, 12075 Northwest Boulevard requests approval to place a trailer on the property from July 13-August 17, 2001.
    2. No one was present representing the applicant. Mr. McErlane stated that the request has been modified to July 13-August 17, so if the applicant is not here tonight, I donít know how successful it would be to consider this at the August 14th meeting. Mr. Huddleston added that he would not participate in the discussion since the work taking place inside the building is being done by his company. He added that he didnít think they needed a trailer based on their completion date. Mr. McErlane said my understanding is that their lease runs out at their current location. Mr. Huddleston responded our company was attemp6ting to complete thatís before the lease ran out. Mr. Galster moved to table the item and Mr. Syfert seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present except Mr. Huddleston voted aye, and the item was tabled to August 14th.

      Planning Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.

       

       

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE FOURTEEN

    3. Concept Discussion of Proposed Pappadeaux Restaurant, Pictoria Island
    4. David Richards of Pappas Restaurants, Houston Texas said we are a privately owned company, owned by two brothers and an uncle. We started out as a refrigeration company supplying restaurants with the refrigeration and equipment. In the mid-70ís we had to take a lot of that equipment back, and we decided to become restaurateurs. We now own 60 restaurants plus. We have the Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen, Pappaís Seafood House, Pappacitaís Cantinas, Pappaís Barbeques, Pappas Brothers Steakhouse, C & H Steakhouse and we own five Wendyís. Our Restaurants are in Texas, Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Beaumont. WE have expanded into Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, Albuquerque and we are working on one in Columbus and hopefully will be working on one here soon.

      Mr. Richards stated that our company is quality driven. Being owned by a family, we donít answer to anybody. We build them as we see fit when we have the people to staff them. Our company acts as the general contractor to all of our buildings. We design and build most of the equipment that goes into it. We have our own stainless steel shop and build a lot of equipment for the kitchen. We build all the ductwork for the restaurant. We refurbish the equipment and furniture. We have our own landscape company and maintenance. We take care of our buildings.

      We have 198 parking spaces. We come in on the east side of the property. Circulation will be around this island and we have a drop off point at our front door. Circulation will come through and back out N Northwest Boulevard.

      The building itself is 12,821 s.f. We have an additional patio area of 2,484 s.f. The dining seats 363 people and the patio seats 101.

      On the east side of the property is the glass canopy that you walk into the front door. The building is brick, with brick columns and both painted and mahogany siding and steel windows. The roof is composition shingles, slate and standing seemed roofing. The south side has a patio, which is brick walls, slate and brick flooring and red canvas awning. The comment was brought up that we do have an expanded metal security cage, which is there to protect our business. What we typically do is galvanize the cage and paint it to match the building or a complementary color, so it becomes not such a barren metal part of our building. Also, we will have landscape screening around it to take care of that issue.

      Mr. McErlane reported the property is part of the PUD that is considered Pictoria Island/Northwest Business Center. It originally was approved as a PUD as Northwest Business Center, and then Pictoria Island became a sub PUD of that.

      Parking requirements are as determined by floor areas that were provided in a letter from Lanie Wess. The public area inside the building is 7161s.f. Outside seating is 2625 and employee areas are 3546. The resulting required number of parking spaces is 214, and there are 198 spaces shown.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE FIFTEEN

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant in a letter indicated that the intent is to utilize the parking garage for overflow parking, which is expected to be finished.

      The signs that are shown on the drawings do not include a preapproved 100 s.f. sign as part of the joint pylon sign. The applicant has indicated they wouldnít need to be on that sign. Mr. Richards said that they would use the pylon sign. Mr. McErlane said that excluding that sign, there are three signs, one on the north, east and south elevations, at 149 s.f. each, and a ground sign which is 4í x 8í or 32 s.f. for a total sign area of 480.5 s.f. The permitted sign area is 220 s.f. As a side note, the total sign area on the Bahama Breeze building is 134.5 s.f.

      There are a few parking areas that donít comply with the setback requirements under the code. There is a section of the parking on the east side of the property adjacent to Northwest Boulevard that is less than the 10 foot required. The majority of the parking setback is 20 feet plus, but there is one area where it is approximately 5 feet from the right of way. Parking areas are less than 10 feet from the east west and north sides of the site.

      Mr. Galster asked if the monument sign included changeable copy, and Mr. Richards confirmed that it did.

      Mr. McErlane added that it looks like the ground sign increased by another four square feet, to 36 s.f.

      Ms. McBride reported that one of the concerns is that we need to make sure that throughout the development that it is adequately signed so people will know that there is additional parking in the garage. We need to see some kind of directional signage.

      The code provides for shared parking u to 50% where there are businesses that have complementary hours of operation, and even though Pappadeaux will be open for lunch, the bulk of their business will be dinner when most of the office people will be home, so that is complementary. It does require two other specific conditions, that the parking be within 250 feet walking distance. This is over 350 feet, so that is something Planning Commission might consider. I donít think it is necessarily a hindrance, as long as there is an adequate path of circulation provided that is well lighted and well signed. We want to make sure that not only the vehicles can get there but that the pedestrians can get from the garage safely to building and vice versa. Also there needs to be a written agreement between the owners of the garage and Pappadeaux saying that they will share this parking that would run with the property owners.

      The PUD requirements specify that a minimum of 25% of the site remain as open space . The site contains 4.1 acres, and because the majority of the detention basin is included in this site, 1.86 or 44.6% is open space.

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE SIXTEEN

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. McErlane said on the signage, they are proposing a total of 484.5 s.f. of sign area. We previously had received communications that they were not going to be using the 100 s.f. on the pylon sign, so that is why that is not reflected on that 484.5 s.f. They are entitled to 220 s.f. of sign area. As Bill mentioned, the Bahama Breeze on building sign area is 134 s.f. so we have to keep that in mind less other people come back in and ask for adjustments to their sign area.

      In terms of the south elevation, that is a highway orientation on that building and 149.5 s.f. of sign area is suitable. We would question whether or not the 149.5 s.f. of sign area is warranted or needed on either the north or east elevation. Certainly I donít think it is at all warranted on the east elevation, and the applicant has just indicated that they are willing to do away with that sign.

      Ms. McBride said I certainly would wonder if they need a sign on the north elevation bigger than all of the signage on the Bahama Breeze buildilng. Commission needs to think about that.

      Working on the prior representation that they were not going to be using that 100 s.f. on the pylon sign, staff had suggested that we look at revising the sign that we approved there. I think that still is a valid consideration for the Commission. We approved that with 4 100 square foot panels. The theory was that there was one panel for each of the four outlots for the restaurants. Understanding that Pappadeaux is going to use the 100 s.f., we have now reduced the number of outlots for restaurants from four to three so Planning needs to look at amending that sign from 400 s.f. to 300 s.f. and adjust the height of the sign accordingly.

      We did not see a photometric lighting plan or landscape plan, which is not required at this stage, but we want to point out that it will be needed in subsequent submittals.

      They have indicated that the patio dining area would be a stone and brick floor and would be supported by piers going down in to the retention basin. Staff wants to see those materials. It will be visible from l275, and we have concerns about seeing plain concrete piers or posts going down into the water. Based on the pictures we have seen, I am sure they will do a nice job with it but we wanted to point out that it might be an area of concern.

      They do have the expanded metal security cage and we understand the need for that. The expanded metal material is a problem and Iím sure they can work with that when they come back in with a more formal proposal for us.

      As a part of future submittals we will need to see color pallets and building materials. On one of the photographs, I donít know if the paint is peeling or the brick is coming off, but I hope that wonít be a part of their finished exterior look.

      Mr. Vanover asked the applicant if they would have valet parking and Mr. Richards answered typically we do not. That doesnít mean that we may not here.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE SEVENTEEN

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Vanover said my thinking was with this greater distance, and I donít see that as a major obstacle, possibly to roll the valet parking over there. Mr. Richards responded typically we have our employees park over there, which takes up 30 to 40 spaces. The time they are coming in and leaving we usually have a security guard out in the parking lot at night. During the day they come in at odd times so itís not an issue.

      Mr. Shvegzda said part of the building itself does encroach out into the retention basin. The applicant has indicated that approximately 505 cubic feet of the retention basinís volume will be utilized by this encroachment. That is well within the surplus volume that is provided with the retention basin, but I will need verification as to what amount of volume that really does take up.

      Mr. Shvegzda said that on the piers for the patio area, the foundation wall supporting that part of the building that is encroaching out into the retention basin will have quite a bit of the surface exposed, so there needs to be some consideration as to what will be done to make it an aesthetically pleasing exposure to the highway.

      There was concern about fire truck accessibility to the eastern and western face of the building as there is no circulation around the entire building. We would suggest that the applicant submit electronic drawings that the staff can review.

      Mr. Richards stated we would rather meet with you and give you a set of drawings. Our building has been copied in the past, and we are worried about giving anybody an electronic file. Mr. Shvegzda asked about just the site plan alone, and Mr. Richards responded that the problem is that the building on the site plan contains all the interior walls. Maybe we can delete everything on there and just give you the site plan with the outline of the building. Mr. Shvegzda responded the intent was for the staff to utilize certain software to take a look at the turning radiuses through there. Mr. Richards said I can understand that, but I think Lanie Wess has templated it out. Mr. Shvegzda asked that this be submitted with the actual turning radiuses shown on the drawings.

      The public parking garage will at a minimum be utilized for employees to park so there is a concern for proper pedestrian access from the restaurant to the parking garage., A brick paver walkway was indicated which runs through the open area. The circular path in front of the building at the eastern end has about 60 feet that runs through the parking area. The recommendation would be to bring that further to the south so they can transverse each side of the landscape island and actually utilize the landscape island as a refuge point for pedestrians. It does not provide protected crossing; you are running them through the middle of the parking area.

       

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE EIGHTEEN

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Shvegzda said on the access points to the site, the original approval for the Pictoria Island PUD and subsequently the Bahama Breeze Restaurant was that there be a cross access point between the two developments. The applicant has indicated that he wishes to eliminate that point, primarily because of a concern for Bahama Breeze parking to utilize their facility.

      We feel that this is a very important issue. The utilization of common access points between adjacent developments is noted in the City Thoroughfare Plan. Planning Commission has noted that this is an important issue, and has approved the PUD for this development with these interconnected access points. The particular area was arranged so that the property line traversed the driveway that comes into the Bahama Breeze site. Our recommendation would be that the common access point be placed opposite the drive aisle that traverses to the north of the Bahama Breeze site.

      Mr. Shvegzda said we feel this is critical, because traffic should be able to access adjacent sites without coming back onto the public roadway. We have indicated this in a number of developments throughout the city.

      Also in regards to emergency access, if there is an accident and Northwest Boulevard is blocked, that blocks the only real access point to the subject development. The elimination of the cross access drive between Bahama Breeze and the subject development really shouldnít be the means to deal with the perceived parking problem, especially when this could be compounded by the future development of the hotel, which is in front of this development.

      The other area of concern is the second access point asked for on Northwest Boulevard. The Thoroughfare Plan indicates that one access point along the frontage is permitted, unless that frontage is in excess of 500 feet. We have a number of drives along Northwest Boulevard that are very close together, and we feel this would cause vehicular conflicts and accidents, and with the inclusion of the cross access from Bahama Breeze this will not be necessary.

      On storm water management, the retention has already been provided in the existing basin. With the final plan development, we will need confirmation that the impervious area that will be constructed here is in the constraints of what the original design for the basin was designed for. Weíll need storm sewer design calculations, 100 year flood routing.

      We know that the building itself will be encroaching into the basin. It is indicated that a retaining wall will be placed about the western parking lot area to prevent encroaching into the detention. We just need a confirmation of what other types of grading issues are involved with the construction of the site and the retention basin.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE NINETEEN

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Shvegzda said that an overall revision to the preliminary plan has been submitted which indicates currently built structures. This particular development, the hotel, indicates that there will be no cross access between the Bahama Breeze and the Pappadeaux sites, so that is one thing that needs to be considered.

      The eastern drive to Bahama Breeze was unfinished pending where the common access point would come into the drive. In one manner or another that curving has to be constructed along the east edge of pavement of the eastern drive.

      Mr. Syfert said in terms of access between Bahama Breeze and this property, I am very adamant that will have to happen. We have been dealing with that right from the start and I donít think there should be any concession whatsoever on that.

      Mr. Richards responded that is fine as long as the access point is right there (indicated on drawing) so that it lines up with our driveway. If that is acceptable, we will put it in.

      Mr. Syfert said that sounds acceptable to me, but Don may have a specific site that he thinks best.

      Mr. Shvegzda responded in regards to the overall circulation, it would be best placed more adjacent to the Bahama Breeze drive, but we understand at this point with what we now know as the adjacent development plan that what has been drawn there would work best with the Pappadeaux site. Can we split the difference?

      Mr. Richards responded the problem is you start taking out a lot of parking spaces, and one of your issues is that we are too far away from the parking garage, so we are trying to do a direct route and eliminate as few parking spaces as possible and address our issues of people from Bahama Breeze overflowing into it.

      Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Syfert asked if he werenít suggesting one access on the east end of the parking lot. Mr. Shvegzda answered yes. Mr. Richards said the issue is there are too many drives on that end of the property. Mr. Shvegzda said in terms of the Thoroughfare Plan, there was only enough frontage for one driveway and that was constructed as part of Northwest Boulevard. If you eliminated that particular entranceway from Northwest Boulevard, that would allow you to provide additional parking in that area also.

      Mr. Richards said if this location is fine with you all, I will eliminate that entrance. Mr. Shvegzda responded at this point we can tentatively say that is okay, but weíll have to look to see if there are any issues. Lanie Wess is familiar with the Bahama Breeze property. Addressing her, Mr. Shvegzda asked if she saw any potential conflicts with the circulation.

      Ms. Wess answered none whatsoever. With the overall site, the drive should have been placed even further to the south than where David is proposing it right now. It never lined up with any of their drives in the past.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE TWENTY

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Shvegzda commented that it appears acceptable. One of the things weíll have to watch out for is any of the landscaping in the area that may cause sight distance issues.

      Mr. Galster asked the hours of operation, and Mr. Richards answered they are open from 11 to 2-3 and from 5:30 to 10 during the week and 11 to 2-3 and 5:30 to 11 p.m. on the weekends. Mr. Galster asked if all the locations were open for lunch business and Mr. Richards said they were not, but this one would be. Mr. Galster said my next concern is based on the location of the site, there is really no back to the building. Based on the elevations I see for the west side, it seems like it is missing some type of architectural feature, even if it were a false one. On Bahama Breeze, we had the bow windows put in. You have the nice architectural features all the way around the other three sides of the building. Based on the way t his sets on that site, it is going to be viewed from the 275 exit ramp, from Route 4 and from the Bahama Breeze patio areas. I would hate to see that be the backside of the building and treated as such.

      Mr. Richards agreed, adding that our landscaping runs $100-150,000 and this will be covered in landscaping. When you see our landscape plan, theyíll never see it. Mr. Galster said I would like to see an architectural feature similar to what you have on the other three sides, and just have the gates there. Granted it is false, but if you look at the overall plan, that building sets out in front of Bahama Breeze quite a bit, and that is what you will see from 275 and Route 4. I would hate to see that get the backside of the building treatment. Also, if you look at the patio off Bahama Breeze, that is what they would be looking out at. Otherwise I like the plan, the overall look and appeal of the building, and once we have addressed these access problems, I donít have any problem with the flow. In general I think itís heading down a pretty good path.

      Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. Shvegzda if he was comfortable that the public safety fire department issues can be addressed within the confines of the existing parking plan in terms of turning radiuses etc. Mr. Shvegzda answered as far as possible requirement of any elimination of parking, we will have to see. I have not looked at anything that had the turning radiuses indicated on the drawing. I couldnít guarantee that one or two parking spaces might not be a problem with the turning radius.

      Mr. Huddleston commented there would be a concern for accessing the building on several elevations. Even beyond that, your issue about the second entrances and maneuvering public safety equipment through that entire parking field, as well as the circulation to the east and west sides of the building. Will that be doable under this parking arrangement? Iím trying to raise the issue before we move on to something preliminarily that is not very workable. I am looking for an opinion on that.

       

       

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE TWENTY-ONE

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Ms. Wess reported that they did do truck turning movements on the east and west ends of the building and I will submit those to Don to verify. It does work. We used a 44-foot long fire truck. The worst case scenario would be to have to eliminate one parking space on either side, but you have the parking garage

      Mr. Vanover asked about delivery. Mr. Richards stated that deliveries have to be done by 10 a.m. Mr. Vanover said several of them use semis. Mr. Richards said they would fit in fine; this is not the narrowest area in our restaurant.

      Mr. Syfert said this is a concept discussion if anyone wishes to discuss anything else.

      Mr. Richards wondered if the commission wanted to review the signage issue. He stated that the monument sign and the pole sign meet your code. The Code also allows us 150 s.f. of building signage based on the elevation. We have eliminated one sign on the building, which means we are only talking about one sign that is over the code. We have eliminated the east side and would like to maintain the north and the south sides.

      Mr. Syfert wondered why they wouldnít want the north elevation sign on the south. Your south elevation just shows Pappadeaux; it doesnítí say a thing about Seafood Kitchen. Mr. Richards said we donít have a problem with people realizing what the restaurant is. Pappadeaux is our name, our logo and it fits more with the elevation. If we could have gotten more square footage, Seafood Kitchen would have been on there. Mr. Syfert said having Pappadeaux on the south side at that size doesnít bother me at all, because you are talking I-275. In staff meeting I questioned the need for that big of a sign on the other sides.

      Mr. Syfert said so if you eliminate the sign on the east side, where would we be on signage? Mr. McErlane stated that it would be 335 s.f. To clarify where the 150 s.f. comes from, there is a statement in our Code that says no one particular wall sign may exceed 150 s.f. It doesnít permit you to have 150 s.f. per wall. There is a maximum total square footage of all signs on the property that is based on the frontage of your building facing the public right of way, and that is where the 220 s.f. came from. Then there is an additional restriction on a particular wall sign, that it may not exceed 150 s.f. We havenít included the pole sign in the 335 s.f., but the 150 doesnít play into the correlation with the 220. It is the maximum you are permitted to have per individual wall sign.

      Mr. Syfert said this being a PUD, this commission is the judge and jury as far as that goes. I have absolutely no trouble with the sign on the south because you need some good definition there.

      Mr. Richards said we have the sign on the north elevation because of how people access the property; that is actually the front of the building. We have two fronts of our building because of the way it is laid out. We have an access point coming into the property plus we have the freeway driving by.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE TWENTY-TWO

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Galster said based on the elimination of the east side and possibly looking at reducing the north side a little bit, I think it is workable. Maybe it is my personal preference, but I am looking at your monument sign, and I have a problem with changeable copy type letters on this type of a sign and in this development in general. It seems like a nice brick or stone sign. Mr. Richards said we use reader boards not to advertise our product but using a saying every day. It becomes a challenge with our waiters and staff and for the people coming into the building, it is a fun option. You will never see crawfish $7.75 a pound; we donít have any drink specials ever. Mr. Galster asked if he had any pictures of actual monument signs for other facilities? Mr. Richards responded I can get them and have them sent up here tomorrow. Mr. Galster commented I would like to see those, because in general I am not enthused about this type of sign. I donít get a real good impression with this monument sign, so come up with a much better monument sign, and Iíll be a little more lenient on the total package. I still think thatís a big sign for the north elevation. I think that should be tweaked down a little bit.

      Mr. Syfert said this has been a concept discussion. Does the applicant have pretty much of a feel for this?

      Ms. Wess said I would like to bring out some points to reclarify setbacks for parking. You have said that 10 feet is required from the right of way. Right now we have 5 feet along the north property line, 20.12 feet from most of the right of way area and 10 feet down here.

      Mr. Syfert said some of that will depend on your landscaping plan. I could live with the 5 feet there if you do some good landscaping. Mr. Richards said we are known for our landscaping. We have won quite a few awards. Mr. Galster said we have closed that northern entrance and gained a couple of spots going north. We should try to keep the integrity of that circle.

      Ms. Wess said the property line jogs, and we are 1 foot at this far corner from the back of curb to the property line, but the six foot of greenspace still would be left.

      Mr. Huddleston said we will have the same problem with the secondary access to the future development site to the north. Would it make any sense to put a common circulation drive along this north property boundary with easements to both sides? I donít know that you couldnít park off that driveway.

      Mr. Richards said it may not be a problem because we are in talks with them to buy that property.

      Mr. Huddleston commented I have a concern for whatever the future development of that is. If it is yours and encompassing one development, that is one issue, but if there is another property owner stepping in there, would it make any sense to put a common access point off Northwest Boulevard across the north boundary of your property with easements on both sides to use that as the through fare that we are looking for in this development?

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE TWENTY-THREE

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Huddleston asked if it would make development sense from an overall perspective to put a common drive across the back of this lot to open up the future development lot and maybe mitigate some of the circumstance on this lot and get the cross access to the Bahama Breeze lot at the same time in a safe and reasonable manner?

      Mr. Syfert asked if he were talking midway through the property. Mr. Huddleston answered I would go down the property line. I donít know if you would need to adjust it, but we are going to have the same problem on the future development site that we have here as far as access points onto the public right of way. Weíre going to have problems with the cross access points to the adjacent lots. I donít know that is the answer, but it might be something that should be looked at, and I think it could be a better utilization of the drive area space.

      Mr. David Tipton said it is something that we could look at. Mr. Huddleston said I donít proposed to have the answer to that; certainly you would have to look at it, but my point is it might be a common utilization. It might solve our problems and your problems at the same time.

      Mr. Galster said where the parking spaces come up close to the pond, if we can be sensitive to metal, aluminum, galvanized guardrails. I look at what was done at Bahama Breeze, and it looks like crap, because your view is of the guardrail and not the pond. Mr. Richards responded we typically put a taller curb there and also have a decorative black rail that blends in and is landscaped.

      Mr. Galster commented we have the same issues on guardrails. We have spent a lot of money on other retail developments where we have some nice wrought iron fencing, and suddenly there is a big guardrail in front of it, which takes it all away. I would hate to see us make the mistake we did over there and ruin that overall view.

      Ms. Wess said on acreage for the site, it will be revised. On this site plan we have included the lake as part of the site area, and there is an open area of 44% because it included that portion of the site. The owner would like to try to keep this lake a separate lot, which falls within the building footprint, and there will be an easement for Pappadeaux for putting their building in that easement. They would build the building on their site, but the lake itself would be another lot.

      Mr. Galster said so your numbers would be extremely low. Ms. Wess agreed adding that we would like to know if we could look at the entire area of the three restaurants as one area. That will be a concern. We reduce our site area and we now are looking at open spaces on the area of that site. It is not really true because this whole entire PUD has open spaces in it.

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 JULY 2001

      PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

      VI B CONCEPT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT

      Mr. Huddleston said I would consider looking favorably on that. My thought was that it would be a part of this open space as reported in the staff reports, in that you may need some of that open space for these other lots. I personally donít have any problem with that as long as it is reasonably done and still satisfies the other landscaping and other open space requirements. I think it makes a lot of sense, as long as you can work it out with the cross easements and satisfy the open spaces requirements for all of the lots. I donít see that should be a problem.

      Mr. McErlane stated there are a lot of issues that comes into play, and Iím not really sure I understand the reasoning behind making it a separate lot. The City has frowned on making detention basins separate lots in the past because of the maintenance issue. I realize that there are covenants that pertain to the maintenance. The problem is that there is a potential for properties like that to go to sheriffís sale, to be deeded over to charities and those types of things when they are not linked to another piece of property. WE have frowned on making them separate parcels in the past.

      Mr. McErlane added that another thing Pappadeaux may want to look at is fire separation distances from a building code standpoint, if their building ends up on the property line and what that does for fire ratings on that particular face of the building.

      Mr. Syfert commented so it may not work as easily as they envision.

      Mr. Galster said I know that Dave Okum will have a problem with four-foot wide islands in the middle of the parking field. Heíll wonder what kind of trees you will be able to plant in there that would survive, and how you would take care of them and are you going to irrigate them.

      Mr. Richards responded that typically they dig down 2 to 2 Ĺ feet and replace it with mixed soil, irrigate it and trench drain it. With the amount of money we put into our landscaping, we donít second guess it any more. Mr. Galster said I would anticipate that would happen around your building. Do you have any idea of how wide the islands are at Bahama Breeze? Ms. McBride indicated they probably are six or eight feet. Mr. Richards added the four foot island would be landscaped just as beautifully as the rest.

      Mr. Huddleston said it is a beautiful facility and I would love to see it happen. You have a lot of problems to work out with the density that you are trying to propose here.

    5. Approval of Revised Building Elevations for Circuit City Ė Springdale Plaza PUD

Paul Gugino said Circuit City has gone around the country and done a lot of remodeling. They have changed their concept and are updating their look. They would like to eliminate the tunnel wing wall entryway and brought out a round Circuit City sign, which catches your eye faster. They would change the purple/red to a China white, which is used in the rest of the center.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

VI. C. REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS Ė CIRCUIT CITY

Mr. Gugino said they will also use Dover Sky gray, which flows better with the DSW and Bed Bath & Beyond Ė it is more harmonious in terms of colors. We have submitted the color samples for your review. Along with that the signage has changed to go along with the new prototype. It increased a little bit in size but it is less than what was approved. So we are asking for approval of a different look in signage which is less square footage than what was approved, going from purple/red to China white.

Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the revised building elevations were approved.

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Modification to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Ė tabled 6/12/01

Ms. McBride said the only change that was made from last month had to do with that section 156.08(A) where we talked about removing the 10 feet outside of the building footprint from exclusion. We also added language about excluding from classification permanent structures such as parking garages designed for the parking and storage of vehicles. Those were the only changes, and I think it is in the format that the Planning Commission requested.

Mr. Vanover said I think it looks good and I will move to refer it to Council. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the Tree Preservation Ordinance was referred to Council.

B. Proposed Zoning Code Changes Ė tabled 6/12/01

Ms. McBride said there were minor changes to that. On the second page we changed gross to net in terms of leasable area for the floor area designation. We also deleted the tent sales; they are on page 3 under 153.218(E), based on the Commissionís recommendations last month.

Mr. Galster moved to forward to Council and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the Zoning Code changes were forwarded to Council.

Ms. McBride said there is one other item that is not on the agenda. At the June12th meeting there was discussion about the minimum size allowed for utility buildings in residential districts. Mr. Okum brought it up concerning the BZA cases they were seeing. We were asked to look at some of our surrounding communities with a similar buildout pattern and what they permitted and their regulations. We looked at Forest Park, Woodlawn, Sharonville, Fairfield and Hamilton County. What you find is either they go with the maximum square footage or percentage of the rear yard area. They probably average in the area of about 500 s.f. The largest was Hamilton County, which allows over 1,000 s.f.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE TWENTY-SIX

VI. B. MODIFICATION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

Ms. McBride said Woodlawnís is a little confusing. If the shed is 100 s.f. or less you can have it 5 feet from the property line. If it is from 101 s.f. to 600 s.f. you can have it in the rear yard only but not in the required setback.

Most of them permit them in the range of anywhere from12 to1 6 feet in height. Most of them hold three to six feet off the property line. All of them in the rear yard only and not in the side or front.

In terms of comparison overall, Springdale height wise is a little higher than the other communities. At five feet off the property line we are solidly in the middle. A number of other communities have the requirement s we do that they must be a minimum of 20 feet from the main structure. In terms of the size of the structure itself, we are the smallest at 120 with the exception of Woodlawn.

The other item was to look at the units on the market today. We contacted Home Depot, Lowes and Sears Hardware and asked their largest unit and the height. Home Depot had 140 s.f., Lowes was 52 cubic feet and Sears was 250 s.f. The heights were anywhere from six to 12 feet, depending on the units.

I donít really have a firm recommendation to Planning Commission. We said we would do this research and Iím sorry Mr. Okum isnít here. Maybe you would want to reconsider this next month since it seems to be the Board of Zoning Appeals that is most concerned with this information.

Mr. Huddleston suggested tabling this to next month. Ms. McBride added that the Commission might want to forward this report to the BZA so they can see what other areas are permitting.

Mr. Syfert commented I have a little trouble with some of these being 35% of the rear yard area. I canít buy that program at all.

Everyone agreed to table this to next month and forward it on to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. McBride will send her report on to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Huddleston said we had another item on the Corridor District and the renewal of that area and some of the things that are happening there. There is a presentation that was initiated by the City of Fairfax and co sponsored by the Planning Partnership. It is the 28lth of this month at the City of Fairfax. They will have an expert on urban area retail/redevelopment. I would suggest that we have somebody there. I may be there, but Iím not sure at this point.

Ms. McBride said our offices are in Fairfax and if the Commission wants I would be happy to attend the meeting.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present on August 14th. Mr. Vanover indicated that he would be out of town.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JULY 2001

PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN

  1. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
    1. Deveroes, 11398 Princeton Pike Ė Wall Sign
  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned t 10:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,2001 ________________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

 

____________________, 2001 _________________________

Steve Galster, Acting Secretary