PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

7:00 P.M.

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

  3. ELECTION OF SECRETARY
  4. Mr. Apke nominated Lawrence Hawkins and Mr. Vanover seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Hawkins was elected by acclamation.

  5. ROLL CALL
  6. Members Present: Robert Apke, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster

    Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert

    Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Pat Madl, Acting City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  7. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 8 JUNE 2004
  8. Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

  9. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council – no report
    2. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – May 18, 2004
    3. Zoning Bulletin – May 25, 2004
    4. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2004
    5. Planning Partnership Update – June, 2004
    6. 7/1/04 Letter from Michael Lyons, Urban Retail Properties re Tri-County Mall Project Identification Sign

    Mr. Coleman said when I opened the Planning Partnership Update, I saw the familiar face of Steve Galster, and I would like to acknowledge his election as Planning Partnership Chair. Mr. Galster said in the four years that it has been in existence, three of those years the chairman has been Springdale residents, so it is an honor.

  10. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Request to Waive Water Retention Requirement – Kentucky Fried Chicken, 11707 Princeton Pike (approved 10/14/03) – tabled 6/8/04

    Chris Chrzanowski representative for Food Folks and Fun Inc. the franchisee approached the commission. He said our KFC project was approved on October 14, 2003 with the requirement of 2600 cubic feet of water retention. Bids were received after that meeting, and as a result of the bids received by Bob Gilhart, the owner of Princeton Plaza and a bid we received from our own construction company, the project became prohibitive based on the cost of the storm water detention.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 JULY 2004

    PAGE TWO

    V A WATER RETENTION REQUIREMENT – KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN

    Mr. Chrzanowski reported that we notified Mr. Gilhart of our intent to discontinue consideration of the project. I believe he had contacted the City and offered an interim plan that in the future would incorporate our 2600 cubic feet of storm water detention into the overall plan of the Princeton Plaza project. I am here to request waiving of the water detention for the construction of the KFC.

    Mr. McErlane reported that we received a letter from Robert Gilhart of Princeton Plaza asking if the requirement that was placed on KFC for detention for their site could be waived for this phase of the project, and incorporates the 2,600 cubic feet into any future major developments that would require detention. This request was from Mr. Gilhart and he isn’t here, but there is one representative of Princeton Plaza present if you have any questions.

    Mr. Okum commented that I think for purposes of the record that the letter from Gilhart Enterprises offering to place that requirement under their own responsibility should be incorporated in the minutes and thus become a part of the record.

    "March 26, 2004

    Dear Bill:

    In 2003, the Springdale Planning Commission approved the KFC construction projected with the stipulation that KFC must provide adequate "water retention" somewhere in the shopping center. KFC received water retention bids of approximately $44,000 and $84,000. The lower bid represented on-site accumulation of water, and then simply expelling the water back on to the Francis Lane drive and parking area, not the best solution. The higher bid included a more comprehensive approach, elsewhere in the shopping center.

    On February 13, 2004, we received a letter from KFC (copy attached) indicating that the project had become much too expensive and not cost-justifiable. As such, they terminated the entire project.

    By copy of this letter to the Springdale Planning Commission, we are suggesting that the City waive the current "water retention" requirement for the KFC site and consider including such retention capacity as a requirement for a more significant shopping center project in the future. In other words, if additional water retention is required for a future project in this center, simply add the KFC retention requirement to the total capacity required for the new building project.

    Thank you for your consideration. If the Planning Commission chooses to waive the current retention requirement, please notify us accordingly. If such a waiver is received, we will contact KFC and attempt to generate renewed interest in the project.

    Respectfully submitted,

    PRINCETON PLAZA

    Robert H. Gilhart"

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    13 JULY 2004

    PAGE THREE

    V A WATER RETENTION REQUIREMENT – KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN

    Mr. Okum added that I think it is more of a deferring of the requirement rather than waiving it, and I think that would be a more appropriate reference, to defer the requirement.

    Mr. Vanover asked the actual shortfall for the complete site. Since the property owner of this property and one of the adjacent properties is probably the most susceptible to the runoff, if he is willing to forego it at this time and add it in at a future time, that is enough for me.

    Mr. McErlane said there is an underground pipe field that is in front of what used to be the Pier I Import building that was put in place when that building was built. My understanding is that it was originally designed to accommodate the footprint of that building. It may have had some excess beyond that, but it certainly doesn’t accommodate the entire paved site for Princeton Plaza. I’m sure there is a pretty substantial shortfall for the entire site.

    Mr. Madl added that we have those numbers from when it was brought up last time. It is roughly about 10% of what the required overall volume should be for the overall PUD.

    Mr. Galster moved to remove and defer the requirement of the 2,600 cubic foot water retention from the approval granted October 14, 2003, with the understanding that it will be required to be replaced and accounted for during the next major modification to a plaza site per the letter from the property owner. Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the motion was passed unanimously.

  11. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Exterior Modifications, Value City Department Store, 100 West Kemper Road
    2. J. B. Riegel of Sterling Construction the General Contractor and Denny Glassmeier with RVI approached the commission. Mr. Riegel reported that they want to replace the entry portion of the building only for the Value City Department Store side.

      Mr. Syfert said to be clear, it is only the Value City Department Store, and not the Value City Furniture. Mr. Riegel confirmed this, and Mr. Syfert commented I think that will look odd.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business and the applicant is proposing to modify the exterior façade of the main entrance to the department store only. The project also includes the installation of new signs. The proposed signs are a new Value City Department Store sign, totaling 201.4 s.f. and two banner signs on either side of the entrance, 8 by 4 ½ feet for a total of 72 s.f., which totals up to 273.4 s.f.

      The existing signs for the Value City stores, which includes the furniture store were given a variance for a total sign area of 765.6 square feet, which included the pylon sign.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 JULY 2004

      PAGE FOUR

      VII A EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS VALUE CITY DEPARTMENT STORE

      Mr. McErlane stated that at that time what was shown on the Value City Department Store was a 201 s.f. wall sign that said Value City, and a smaller 44 s.f. sign that said Department Store for a total of 245.

      With the two banner-type signs, it would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for total overall square footage of signage.

      Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals need to consider the whole idea behind the banner-type signs. Right now we allow temporary banners for up to two weeks four times a year with a month in between. In this case, it looks like they would be changed out on some regular basis.

      Mr. Riegel reported these would be done according to your regulations in terms of the period of time and number of times per year. They won’t be permanent banners. Mr. McErlane responded so they would be according to the schedule allowed in the code. Mr. Riegel confirmed this, and Mr. McErlane stated that if that is the case, they wouldn’t typically be included in the total overall sign square footage and there would not need to be a variance granted.

      Mr. Galster said so basically all you are doing is putting the hardware up there so they can mount the banners at a later date. Mr. Riegel responded there will be four aluminum pucks that stick out from the building so the banner can be stretched between them.

      Ms. McBride reported that the redevelopment for the entrance is for the department store only; they are not adding any building area to the site. On one of their site plans, they still show the garden center which has been removed, so that needs to be reflected on the plans.

      On the signage, all the letters are to be internally illuminated, and they are supposed to be white with the exception of the V and the swoosh, which will be red. The commission will have to decide how they feel about the look of the one entrance being modified and the other one not.

      Previously we had approved the landscape plan along with other renovation work to this center. It was quite a while before the landscape plan was implemented, but it was put in last week. My only comment would be that some of that plant material looks really bad out there.

      It appears that the mechanical units aren’t screened or painted out when I visited the site, and our code calls for them to be screened or painted out. You can see them from Kemper Road, and something needs to be done with that. He asked Mr. McErlane if there is anything the commission can do regarding the mechanical units. He said looking at what they presented when they wanted to change their façade, it didn’t appear that those mechanical units would be an issue, but it doesn’t seem that they did do any screening or carry it up high enough to block them.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 JULY 2004

      PAGE FIVE

      VII EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS – VALUE CITY DEPARTMENT STORE

      Mr. McErlane reported that the EIFS finish that they put on the building recently just covered the existing brick. It didn’t include an additional parapet.

      Mr. Okum asked if it would be required under our code. Mr. McErlane answered that there is nothing specific in the code that requires them to screen the units if they are changing the façade of the building. Mr. Okum commented in other words we should have caught it in our motion. He asked the applicant to convey to the owners that we would like for the mechanical units to be painted out. The appearance of the building is much better, but those things are still sticking up there.

      Mr. Apke said in the drawings, it says Phase I New Entry Pavilion Renovation. That leads me to believe that there is a Phase II coming down the road. Would that treat the other entrance?

      Mr. Glassmeyer answered the Phase II is the interior of the Value City Department Store building. Mr. Apke said so there are no plans to treat the furniture store entrance at this time. Mr. Glassmeyer said it is separate.

      Mr. Syfert asked the owner of the building, and Mr. Riegel answered Schottenstein Management Incorporation. Mr. Syfert commented so my concern about the other entrance not being treated is something that the holding corporation should be dealing with, is that correct?

      Mr. Glassmeyer confirmed this, adding that we just did this in Covington Kentucky, and Value City Furniture followed soon. I can’t speak for them here, but there is a chance they might as well.

      Mr. Syfert wondered if a motion was necessary, and Mr. Galster commented that if it was just a face change, it wouldn’t need to be here. This is a complete new look, and I don’t think we should set the precedent that a change in a wall sign doesn’t require approval, because I think that it does.

      Mr. McErlane said for clarification, the code does say that anything other than minor improvements to the exterior of the property and the site are to be approved by Planning Commission through a formal process. Staff felt this was just a little more than a minor improvement.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the request of Value City Department Store for the sign change with the same square footage and the addition of banner pucks, and also the remodel of the entryway per the color palette shown here this evening.

      Mr. Okum held up on his motion, adding I did not see those elevation changes, and all members need to see them. (The elevation changes were passed around to the members). Mr. Galster commented that we had the elevations in our packet, but we need to see the colors.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 JULY 2004

      PAGE SIX

      VII A EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS – VALUE CITY DEPARTMENT STORE

      Mr. Okum said I tend to agree with Ms. McBride’s comments regarding the entryway portico being different. We do have that at Tri-County Commons as well, with a variety of elevations.

      I certainly think that Value City Department Store and Value City Furniture should at least get together and have some symmetry between their entryways. I can’t hold them to that, but it will look a little odd with one being updated and not the other, but it’s their business and their building.

      Mr. Okum commented that what would concern me is the variance in finished colors on the other portico if Value City Furniture would come in at a later time. Then there would be a hodge podge of colors on the building.

      Mr. Riegel reported that the indigo blue will be generic to the department store. When they did Covington, they used neutral colors for the sign. Mr. Galster wondered if the sign script was the same, and Mr. Riegel answered that it is different.

      Mr. Okum asked where the indigo blue was located, and Mr. Riegel answered that it is on the arch behind the Value City sign. The top color on the color palette (B-1) is indigo blue. Mr. Okum said it looks like plum to me. Mr. Riegel stated that the picture you have of the Covington store is indigo blue, the actual color.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the changes to the portico entrance to Value City Department Store only with the color palette submitted and the signage permitted to allow for the same size sign as existing and the pucks to hold the banners as permitted. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

      All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

    3. Approval of Exterior Modifications, TGI Friday’s, 11340 Princeton Pike

Jeff Ritson of The Bistro Group, Zoe Hardy, Architects Plus, Anthony Amunategui, President of our project company, Kathleen Conway Bell, Vice President of Finance and Development, and Lew Lintereur, our President approached the commission.

Mr. Ritson reported that The Bistro Group is a local family-owned company, the second largest franchisee of TGI Fridays. We own and operate 32 restaurants in Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. We also operate two Karlo’s Restaurants as well as four McAllister’s Delis.

Our Tri-County restaurant was built in 1979. Historically it has been a pretty strong unit for us. There is a remodel effort worldwide to change the look of the exterior and interior of Friday’s which turns 40 years old January of next year. So we are here for approval to change the look of the exterior of our building.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE SEVEN

VII B. EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Ms. McBride reported that the applicant is proposing to add approximately 180 s.f. of building area to the northwest corner of the building. Right now that is within the existing roofline of the building, and it doesn’t increase the seating capacity of the restaurant. It will add space to their vestibule and lobby areas. So there is no impact on parking or impervious surface area.

They submitted building elevations and a floor plan along with a material sample board. They are not proposing any changes to either the south or east elevations (the back elevations). The existing illuminated vinyl awnings are to be removed from the west and north elevations, along with the small TGI Friday’s on the north elevation.

The west elevation (facing Princeton Pike) is to be treated with sunbrella awnings, red and white stripe, approximately the same size as the existing awnings. These are not proposed to be illuminated.

They are proposing a "TGI Friday’s" and an "In Here It’s Always Friday’s" sign to be added to the entry feature for that corner. We did not receive a height on the entry feature and we need to have that. The feature itself is to be constructed of marble tile. I have pictures of their Anderson Township/Beechmont Mall store. It is a little different, but it has the same entryway feature.

The west elevation of the store is getting substantially larger sunbrella awnings with the red and white stripe on the building. These are to be illuminated with a new awning light fixture, but we did not receive any detail of that fixture.

The awning area itself will be extended and increased so that it extends over that patio area. Currently the patio area only has a very small portion of it covered. With the advent of the heaters available to restaurants today, that patio probably will be used for an extended period of the year.

Similar to what we did to Pappadeaux, we required them to park that patio so we have asked the applicant to demonstrate that there are parking spaces available to accommodate that additional seating area.

That north elevation would also include the "TGI Friday’s" and the In Here It’s Always Friday’s" signs.

There is a 36 inch healthy tree at the northwest corner of the site. When we did our initial review of the project, we asked the applicant to consider maintaining that tree, and they have indicated that it is necessary to remove the tree to increase the visibility of the store.

Given the proposed entry tower, staff would again ask that the tree remain, and we would ask the commission to consider requiring that it be retained as a part of the plan approval.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE EIGHT

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Ms. McBride said I would like to read from Section 156.05 of our code, which deals with tree preservation in wooded areas. "The administrator shall approve removal only if a valid reason is stated. Valid reasons for non-development activity include the condition of the tree, impact on the existing infrastructure or structures, location of the trees in the areas of proposed structures or addition to structures or other existing conditions which might affect the condition of the tree." Obviously, none of those are applicable in this situation.

Regarding acceptable tree removal areas, Section 156.08 talks about in the case of landmark trees, "Every effort shall be made by the property owner/developer to protect and preserve identified landmark trees." I believe this pertains to the tree in question, so I would ask the commission to consider retaining that tree.

We had additional comments minor in nature with regards to their landscape plan, increasing the size of some of their plant material from one gallon which we did not feel was acceptable, identifying some of the species of some of their other plant material, and adding shrubs or ground cover to some of the landscape islands.

I have visited the site on a number of different occasions, and every time the gates to their waste area and service area are open on the east side of the building. That is a main access drive for the rest of the center and Section 153.489 requires that those gates remain closed except when the units are being serviced. We would ask that the commission instruct the applicant to follow the requirements of the Zoning Code.

Both the north and west elevations will have the "TGI Friday’s" sign and "In Here It’s Always Friday", and those are to be incorporated into their new design. They are proposing a total of 148 s.f. of sign area on the north elevation and 103 s.f. of sign area on the west elevation, for a total of 261 s.f. of sign area on the building. They are entitled to 164.5 s.f. by the code. The sign letters are to be channel with red acrylic face and internally illuminated. They also have 100-watt accent light to illuminate the north sign and the related design.

In calculating the sign area, we included the entire design. We checked with several other municipalities in the Cincinnati area and that is how they have calculated the sign area for the TGI Friday’s, so we are being consistent with other areas.

This property is part of the Cassinelli Square PUD. There were those two changeable copy signs, one on Princeton and one on Kemper that were to be removed when the movie theaters were to be removed from the site. The movie theaters are long gone and we have asked the owner of the center and different applicants repeatedly to have those two signs removed, and that has not happened. I think it would be fair for the commission to say that prior to this project and other projects moving forward in Cassinelli Square, those two signs must come down. It is an enforceable part of the PUD requirements, and we are well within our rights to make that happen.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE NINE

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Coleman said as I go about the city looking at different types of trees, etc. at what point does a tree pose a hazard because of visibility problems?

Mr. McErlane responded in this case the visibility problem is the visibility of the signs in the new entry feature. It is not a public hazard or a safety concern. There are things within our Tree Preservation Ordinance that allow the removal of trees when they become a hazard. There are ways of trimming it to gain a little bit of visibility without damaging the tree. In this case, I don’t know that it would be that easy to do because it is a tree that grows up with a number of different trunks from the base.

Ms. McBride added they have been in that site since 1979, and Friday’s is a fixture; everybody knows where Friday’s is. In addition to the entry tower, a pretty substantial structure, they also have the red and white trademark awnings. At what time do we say why bother to put the trees in at all because when they get this high we will let them all come down. It is a fine line, but this tree in particular adds an awful lot to that site and to the PUD. It adds to the ambience of their patio area, and I would urge the commission to require that the tree stays.

Mr. Galster said it is hard in black and white to see the new canopies; I’m not sure if they are continuous. Mr. Amunategui passed around color pictures.

Mr. Galster said so if I am looking at your drawing that shows the north elevation and those awnings, the light fixtures are accenting the white stripes only and each one of those is bounded by red. Mr. Amunategui said it is designed to have a scalloped look.

Mr. Galster said if you look at that drawing and see the first two set of lights, the red bands to the left and right are the ends of the banner. Is that correct? Mr. Amunategui confirmed this. Mr. Galster said and it continues in the next group. The lights are shining down on the white stripes, and the red is the outside color. So there are basically three awnings across there.

Mr. Okum said so what is now the patio area will have an awning over the entire area? Md. Hardy answered it will be over a part of the area. If you look at the west elevation, it is the center portion. The tower is to the right of that with a short awning, and between the two columns is the area that will be covered.

Mr. Okum asked if it would have accent lighting over the top of it or under lit. Ms. Hardy answered right now we are looking at an option to have the lights mounted at the leading edge and try to back up on it for illumination.

Mr. Okum asked if they were translucent or solid awnings and Ms. Hardy answered they are solid. Mr. Okum commented so light couldn’t be transferred through them.

Mr. Okum asked if there could be glare coming off those lights that would affect the motoring public since the building sets lower there.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Ms. Hardy answered that on those canopy awnings since it is so shallow, we would be mounting it at the end of the canopy facing back to the building. Mr. Okum asked about the awnings on the north elevation, and Ms. Hardy answered that they tilt in so there

would be no glare.

Mr. Okum asked the wattage, and Mr. Amunategui answered 150 watt. They are just for scalloping, not a bright overwhelming look.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you heard Ms. McBride’s comments regarding the tree, what would be your position on dealing with the tree?

Mr. Amunategui responded we agree with her; it is a wonderful tree and 25 years ago when we planted it, it was perfect for the facility. The picture you have doesn’t really represent well our concern.

We are about to spend $1.3 million to upgrade this building, and we feel that the location of that tree will cover up the beautiful façade that we are doing. We are proposing to add other trees throughout this PUD to facilitate taking this tree out in accordance with your Tree Preservation Ordinance. We agree to put other trees in of a similar caliper.

At the same time, we feel that putting all this money into a building and covering up the front of it with that type of landscaping doesn’t work for what we are trying to do here. We are planting other trees close to the patio area that will add to the ambience of the patio area. It is hard to have something right in front of a brand new structure, the gem of our new remodel.

Mr. Okum responded the problem with placing other trees in this PUD seems to be that they never are maintained and they end up dying off. This PUD doesn’t do well with maintaining their trees.

For myself, I would like to see the construction occur without the tree being removed. Then, give us an opportunity to observe it and see the effect of it and we can address it at that time. If it were to be replaced at 100%, I would want to see those trees placed on your portion of the site, not other portions of the PUD. Ms. Hardy reported that all of the trees that we propose to replace are on our property.

Mr. Okum said I would like to see the effects of the tree. I would agree with staff that it certainly can be preserved in the early construction. I understand your position; this is the main entrance into the facility, but I would hate to lose a good tree. If we accomplish the same amount of growth on the site, I might be open to that consideration, but I don’t want to do it initially.

Mr. Amunategui said I agree with you that we could take a look at it afterwards. If we do 100% replanting, it’s like a cover over the new front. Twenty-five years ago when we planted it, no one envisioned this having this kind of a new tower effect. It is a beautiful tree, and I would love to put all the beautiful trees in, but where else can I put them.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE ELEVEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Hawkins said I also would like to see the change and then look at the effect of the tree. As far as the patio goes, that tree has a big effect on the ambience that is created. You might gain visibility at the entrance, but you would be losing a lot with the patio.

Ms. Hardy responded we have an opportunity to place the replacement trees on the southern side of the patio where they would actually provide shade to the south end of the patio, which will not have an awning on top of it. There will be three to four tables that will not have awning cover, so it is a trade off from one side of the patio to the other side. Over time, there actually will be more caliper inches on the site, adding 12 trees of the same height and quality and category, as taking the one tree away. Eventually you would have 12 trees that size rather than just the one that is there now.

Ms. McBride said there is nothing to preclude the applicant from planting those additional trees now, if you think they will add ambience and provide shade for the portion of the patio that is not going to be under the screening. Let’s go ahead and get those trees in now.

Mr. Amunategui said we are trying to find the balance between proper landscaping and exposure. To your earlier point about safety, we found there are safety concerns with people driving by and not being able to see the sign to find your location. Although we are a fixture in this community, new people looking for us often may not know that we are at that corner.

If we did maintain the trees, would there be an opportunity to trim them back. Is there something in the ordinance that would allow us to prune it nicely? It is not just this tree, but is a combination of this tree and the one on the parkway. From the driveway, you see the two trees before you see the building. Between the two of them it is really affecting us.

Mr. McErlane said there is no problem with prudent trimming as long as it is done properly. Mr. Amunategui commented our goal is to maintain what we have created. We want to create a gem with this building.

Mr. Galster said you don’t have a monument sign on this site, and you’ll never hear me say this again, but because of the size of the tree, I would almost be wiling to give you a monument sign rather than taking the tree down, because I think it is that important. All the local residents know where you are, but if it is a question of visibility for the new people who don’t know where you are, I would support a tastefully done monument sign rather than taking that tree down. That is how important I think that tree is, it is a landmark tree and is extremely important. Otherwise, it seems like we would be going in the face of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Jeff Ritson responded I appreciate your comments. To clarify, are you talking about a monument sign that would be in front of the tree? Mr. Galster answered I don’t have a site, but anywhere along that frontage.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWELVE

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Galster continued I am not talking about just a TGI sign out there. I am talking about a nicely done sign that would attract to your business. I want you to continue to be successful in Springdale, but I also want to continue to see big trees. I think you should plant the other trees you have proposed and keep the big tree as well.

Mr. Amunategui said that is what we are looking for, something that will work for both of us.

Mr. Vanover said I am looking at this photograph, and part of your visibility problem is the topography; the store sets lower than the street. The pine tree there would have more of an effect because you are going to see the corner pylon as you come from the south. I don’t think there is anybody who has lived in this area who doesn’t know where Friday’s is.

I don’t buy your spin on the hazard. I think the tree adds a lot. I think your corner will be visible once you get into the site. The only place you will not see the corner is when you come in off Tri-County parkway at the back of the store. Once you get on that property, come off 747 in that main entrance, you have a clear shot in. That store is not blocked.

Looking at this photograph and all the dead and dying trees, that is another problem I have with your landlord. We have gone round and round several times. Unfortunately you came into this and I’m sorry, but there comes a time when we have to hold somebody’s feet to the fire.

Mr. Amunategui said we have heard the comments before about the landlord’s concerns, and I’m not sure that they are the exact signs that you are concerned about, but the signs that had the type face on them as of today have been changed. White acrylic faces have been in on the lower portion of the sign.

Ms. McBride said the portion of the pylon sign that was a changeable copy sign was to have come down.

Mr. Amunategui responded I thought he had done something, because after reading the comments, I got on the phone and told them that they were holding us up. I’m not sure what you are looking for, but there are no changeable copies, and there is one white panel at the bottom today. Ms. Hardy said the lowest panel is blank white. Mr. Amunategui said there is no changeable copy on those signs. The landlord called me and said that it has been done.

Mr. McErlane said on the pylon signs, when the original Cassinelli PUD came through, the bottom cabinets on those signs did not exist and were not part of the original sign approval. Because the cinemas were going to stay around for some period of time, they needed changeable copy signs to accommodate the cinemas until they were demolished. They furnished a letter saying that they would like to have these temporarily and would remove them when the cinemas were demolished.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTEEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. McErlane stated that the chairman of Planning at the time signed off on it with the understanding that they would be removed when the cinemas were demolished, and they still exist today and the cinemas are gone. It is really a case that those two bottom sign boxes are supposed to be removed.

When the landlord was in discussing Haverty’s, they talked about having to redesign the tenant faces on the sign because they may have more tenants than they have sign faces, but we didn’t commit to allowing them to keep those bottom sign boxes, so they are still under an onus to remove them.

Because we have discussed that, we could make Haverty’s aware that we won’t issue a Certificate of Occupancy until they take care of it, so there are a couple of other hammers.

Mr. Hawkins asked how long it would be shut down for construction. Mr. Amunategui answered just for a few days. We are going to work mostly at night; we do this nationwide. There will be a several week lead up to it, a few days of shut down, and a couple of weeks afterwards to finish up.

Mr. Okum said you have done additional plantings on the site to give some shade and extra ambience to the patio area. I also am sensitive to the tree, and I would agree with Mr. Galster provided that the tree planting that you have submitted stays, and the 36" tree stays. You then would be allowed a monument sign that would enhance your visibility. I think the size of that sign should be limited to 40 s.f. and it should be approved by this commission. Most of the monument signs that we approve have to be brick surround, brick wrapped, not just a pedestal for an aluminum case. You would need to submit this to this commission for review and approval. If that could work, it would help your visibility to the traffic coming down 747.

Based on the building placement and the tower which you are going to build, I think you would be able to see that element without being parallel to the business. Also, the square part with the lattice work would be blocked by that tree, but the shape of the glass, which is the real feature element to your entry, will be visible from 747 heading southbound.

This is a win for you as a business, a win for us as a community because we want your business to thrive and prosper. If you agree with that, I would be in favor of supporting it.

Mr. Amunategui said we could live with that. Would a prudent trimming of the tree with the guidance of your department be proper? Mr. Okum said we have a landscape architect on staff and an arborist with our city so both could consult and work with your people for limited pruning. Mr. Amunategui said I think that is a very fair proposal.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE FOURTEEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. McErlane said on the signage, if we count the backgrounds on this wall sign, we are looking at 251 ¼ square feet. If we were to only box the illuminated channel letters and include the ones over the canopies at the entrance, we are looking at 91 s.f. The allowable is 164 ½.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said when you say you are painting all the blue, does that mean the entire blue fence enclosure around your service area as well? Mr. Amunategui confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert asked if the handicap ramp changed things around a little bit. Ms. Hardy responded the current situation is that in front of the door, there is a small area that has the curb cut. The other portion is a ramp down, and is very dangerous in the winter. We would rather put a standard set of steps there that people could negotiate with a handrail on it. We are taking that wide steeply sloped sidewalk, compressing it to just in front of the doors and adding handrails.

Ms. Hardy said I reviewed the actual perimeter of those pieces, and the total area for all four of those pieces, the type face across the awnings and the two mesh backgrounds come to 226 s.f., with the rectangle being 97.75 and the tumbler being 117.8 s.f. It is a little bit less, but it is still over. Our contention, and what has been the norm in other parts of the country is that the actual TGI Friday’s is the actual sign. The graphic behind it is not essentially a part of the sign because they can be separated. Mr. Amunategui said we have had cities that have said it is, but the majority has not. Mr. Syfert commented the ones that say it is are right.

Mr. Okum said I can’t see the mechanical units on the building. Are they visible from the public right of way or adjacent properties, and if so will they be screened?

Mr. Amunategui said they are painted blue right now to match. Mr. Okum said I don’t like that idea; I think they should be screened in a staff-approved enclosure, and staff will deal with this directly. Mr. Ritson said I’m not too sure about this, but there may be new roof top units in the plan. Mr. Okum responded that is why I brought this up because those units may be taller than the parapet top so that needs to be dealt with. Mr. Ritson asked if they would prefer them screened in or the color that would match. Mr. Okum answered screened with a building element of some nature that doesn’t look like a chimney on top of the building.

Mr. Amunategui asked if that can be done after construction is completed, and Mr. Okum said I don’t have a problem with that because sometimes you don’t know how high it will be off the roof. Mr. Amunategui said we definitely can agree to screen them from view.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE FIFTEEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Van over asked if the applicant had any problem with addressing the dumpster area and keeping the gates closed. Mr. Ritson answered we will not have a problem with that We have talked to management about it. They said they thought that after 5:00 p.m. the gates had to be closed, but now they all have been instructed that the gates have to be closed at all times.

Mr. Oakum moved to approve the exterior modifications for TGI Fridays with the following:

      1. Shall include all exhibits presented and provided today and before this evening.
      2. Shall include all staff city engineer and city planner recommendations;
      3. Mechanical units shall be screened from view of the adjoining properties and the public right way;
      4. Mechanical units enclosure and screening shall be approved by staff
      5. All lighting shall conform to existing Zoning Code requirements
      6. Tree preservation and replacement conditions shall include the large 36" tree which shall remain;
      7. The dumpster and refuse enclosures gates shall remain closed at all times per Zoning Code;
      8. All four building elevations as presented shall be approved and the exterior color pallet shall be as per samples submitted;
      9. The tower element shall not exceed 27’ in height;
      10. Small monument brick surrounded sign shall be permitted not to exceed 40 s.f. This is to be approved by the commission in lieu of the removal of the 36 inch tree;
      11. All other trees on the plan as submitted shall be placed on the site;
      12. The sign boxes of changeable copy as part of the PUD shall be removed prior to construction beginning on this project.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Amunategui said on your concerns about the changeable signs, how will I determine if those have been changed out. Mr. Okum said staff will work with you on that

Mr. Ritson said we feel sort of handcuffed here on the problem with the changeable signs. If we had 15 months left on our lease, we could go back to Kimco and use that, but we have six years left on our lease. I thought that the Haverty property wouldn’t get a Certificate of Occupancy, which would speed things up in terms of that sign, and I heard someone that you had told the Haverty’s applicant that in an earlier meeting, and someone had made that recommendation.

Ms. McBride stated we have had representatives from Kimco before this commission before and they have agreed to take it down and nothing happens. Whereas I am very sympathetic to TGI Friday’s position, if you can’t talk to them, where do you think that leaves us.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE SIXTEEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Ritson stated we have a signed deal with Haverty’s, and Haverty’s is not going to be able to open based on Kimco finishing this little sign project that I consider to be small myself, I think they would be inclined to get that done quicker.

Ms. McBride said don’t you think Haverty’s lease is now longer than yours? Mr. Ritson said yes, but they are not going to get a temporary certificate of occupancy to finish their job if they don’t take the sign down.

Ms. McBride said I think the commission thinks about doing both. I don’t know what to do. We have asked nicely and we have demanded. All we are asking them to do is comply with what they agreed to comply with initially.

Mr. Ritson responded I totally agree with you. Maybe we came in at the wrong time and just happen to be the ones thrown under the bus because of the sign issue, but at the same time I really believe you will get a quicker result as opposed to us going back and trying to fight this thing. We will go back and call Kimco tomorrow morning and tell them the trouble we had with this sign issue. We called them and they assured us that it was taken care of. Mr. Amunategui added I called them both yesterday and today, and

their representative indicated that this had been fixed. I promise you that tomorrow morning first call he gets will be from us. If it has not been fixed, it will be soon.,

Mr. Ritson commented I just don’t feel it is fair for our project to be held up. Mr. Okum responded you have to understand that when you deal with a PUD, it situation, you already are far in excess of the sign allowance and PUD applies to the entire development. Unfortunately every time we have a submission brought to this commission, it is a final plan review of the entire PUD. This is just one element of the entire PUD. A month from now, when we have another Planning meeting, if it hasn’t been resolved, you can come back to this commission and tell us that you have done everything you can and that you need relief from this so you can continue to develop. You probably are talking an October process.

Mr. Amunategui said this is such a military operation that having something like this really affects our schedule. Having that hanging out there could ruin our schedule down the road.

Ms. McBride said I have an option. The commission and applicant were able to work out an agreement with regards to the tree and the addition of the ground-mounted sign. The ground-mounted sign doesn’t do anything until that changeable copy sign is down. I don’t want to push TGI Friday’s back, but at the same time I want Kimco to live up to what they have agreed to do for the City. To some extent their hands are tied, and I am trying to be sympathetic to that and understand our position as well.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VII B EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TGI FRIDAY’S 11340 PRINCETON PIKE

Mr. Ritson said I would be okay with going back to Kimco and saying they are holding up our ground-mounted sign, which is extremely valuable to our success. On top of that and for your information, Haverty’s is not going to get a temporary certificate of occupancy. I would be okay with that, if you would grant that.

Ms. McBride answered I think that is a fair trade-off. It is in their best interest to pursue it to whatever extent they can. Mr. Ritson commented if they are telling you that they have more tenants coming in, they would only face this in the future. I think that is a fair recommendation.

Mr. Okum said I would change my motion to state that the changeable copy for the PUD shall be removed prior to review and placement of the ground-mounted sign for TGI Friday’s.

Mr. Vanover seconded this modification to the motion.

ON the motion, all voted aye, and approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

C. Development Plan Approval for Building Addition, Walgreen’s, 385 Northland Boulevard

. Chuck Dietz of Cole & Russell Architects representing Walgreen’s stated that Walgreen’s has been in this building for a while. The dry cleaner has left and Walgreen’s purchased the building and property and want to bring it up to their current criteria and want to occupy the empty space. The drive through window will be moved and there will be two drive through lanes under a canopy.

There is some landscaping missing from the site. This occurred before Walgreen’s purchased the property, and they are proposing to replace all that and bring the landscaping up to code.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned GB, General Business and is located in Subarea D of the State Route 4 Corridor Review District. The applicant is proposing to construct an 1140 s.f. addition to the existing building and relocate the drive through to the west side of the building and construct a 15’ x 23’ drive through canopy over the drive through.

The landscape plan shows both existing and proposed plantings and many of the proposed plantings are to replace those plant materials that have been removed or have died in the past few years. Last summer MSD removed three trees when they put the sanitary sewer through and none were replaced. In addition to the trees that have already been removed, the plan proposes to remove one existing tree.

Parking is shown at 58 spaces and the required parking is 74. The original parking plan for Walgreen’s when it was approved in the early 90’s was 75 parking spaces. When the dry cleaning operation came in, they added a drive through which reduced the parking spaces to 65.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Mr. McErlane reported that this is a further reduction of seven spaces and an increase in floor area of 1140 s.f. Essentially Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals will need to make an evaluation of whether or not they feel 78% of the required parking will satisfy the site.

Setbacks pretty much remain the same with the exception of the side yard setback to the drive through canopy. It appears to be about 30 feet. There is no dimension indicated on the drawings, and the proposed setback should be indicated. The required setback is 12 feet, so it exceeds that requirement.

There is no new lighting plan. The back pavement area is lighted from wall packs off the building. The area where the building addition occurs needs to be addressed in terms of lighting. The applicant has indicated that there is a lighting plan being prepared for it.

The existing wall signs are being replaced and upgraded to include LED illumination. Channel letter signs typically have neon inside the channel letters themselves to illuminate them. We are finding more and more that LED is being used replacing the neon because LED is a lot more reliable in terms of not having service problems. It also takes a lower voltage to operate it.

The only new sign is the drive through pharmacy sign that is proposed on the canopy that would be on the north elevation of the canopy. Also the Food Mart and 24 Hour Pharmacy are proposed to be illuminated; right now they are not.

Ms. McBride said I need to disclose to the commission that we actually do work with all the Walgreen stores in town. Our firm does do work with Cole & Russell and for Cole & Russell. I wanted to make you aware of that, but I think you can tell by my comments that I was fair; I don’t think I was partial.

The parking setbacks, although they don’t comply with Subarea D requirements, are not changing. The impervious surface area ratio is staying the same as well. It is permitted to be .7; it is .44 today and will remain the same.

There are 74 parking spaces required as part of this redevelopment. The plan that they propose shows a total of 58. Planning has the ability to modify the parking required as long as justification is provided. The applicant provided information suggesting that not the entire store is accessible to the public given the pharmacy and storage area, and that the drive through windows would further reduce the need for customers to come into the store.

We pointed out to the applicant that the parking spaces needed to be 9 x 19 feet at a 90-degree angle, and they revised them except for the 15 spaces adjacent to Springfield Pike which are still 9 x 18 feet. They need to be 9 x 19 or go to the BZA for a variance.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE NINETEEN

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Ms. McBride added that for the two drive through windows, we require five stacking spaces, 9 x 19 feet from the point of transaction, that do not obstruct parking or circulation and they meet those requirements.

The waste enclosure is in the southwest corner of the site and is being reoriented. It is in the rear of the site, and is set back the required five feet from the property line. They will be enclosing that using an eight-foot brick enclosure to match the building. They also are proposing Norway spruce around it. They have solid wood gates that are to remain closed except when that unit is being serviced.

We also want to stress that there is to be no outdoor storage or display provided on the site. Sometimes the drug stores will stack up their plastic totes on the outside of their trash enclosures, and we want to make sure that the applicant understands that it is not permitted.

The ground-mounted sign is to remain unchanged. There is 246.7 square feet of signage on the building today, plus whatever signage would be allocated to the dry cleaner tenant space. The majority is non-illuminated; only the Walgreen’s is illuminated, and they are proposing a decrease in the Walgreen’s sign area to 220.8 s.f. All of that would be illuminated. For comparison’s purposes, the CVS was approved with over 300 s.f. of sign area on the building and the two ground-mounted signs.

We did not receive any information or lighting plan for the site. The applicant indicated in correspondence that the existing pole mounted fixtures in the front parking lot are to remain as is, as are the wall mounted fixtures. However, they were to be relamped and new lighting added under the canopy. We have asked to see details of the lighting fixtures that they are proposing.

The bases of the signs at the driveways need to be included in landscaped beds and we need to add at least one tree on the Northland Bouelvard frontage along with some shrubs. They need some trees added to some of the interior parking lot islands that are within the field right now. They need to add shrubs along the rear of the building to screen the service area from Springfield Pike. The height of the proposed white pine and Norway spruce is to be increased to eight feet. Right now they have some at four and some at six. Planning Commission will haves to decide whether or not you want to include the honey locust tree to remain on the landscape plan mixed in with the gingko trees.

The building addition is to be constructed of brick to match the existing building. The columns that they are proposing on the drive through are metal. We happen to know that they could be brick, so we are requesting them to be changed to brick.

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Mr. Okum said I have a problem with the wall packs in the back lighting the parking area, because it does cause a glare on the adjoining properties. There should be some lamping placed on the back perimeter to light that back area more adequately. I frequently go through that drive through and it is dark back there. I feel you should mount some poles along the property line and direct light in towards the building away from your neighbor. Mr. Dietz asked if it should be downlit, and Mr. Okum said yes, not in a heavy way. I would like to see less fall at the property line and the light directed inward toward your sites.

I also have some questions on those massive light additions that were placed on your existing pole lights. There were 1,000 watt halogens that were added to each of the poles, placed at a very low level instead of a high level. The Code calls for all lighting to be a non-glare type and not to affect the adjoining properties or the motoring public.

Mr. Dietz asked if he preferred to have them taken off, and Mr. Okum answered I don’t have a problem with accent lighting going on to a building, but these 1,000 watt type fixtures are massive and are a little bit overlighting. I think a lighting plan needs to be submitted for the site and reviewed by staff, because those were not on the lighting plan that we approved when that site was built.

Ms. McBride commented I think the fixtures probably need to come off. The signs are now going to be illuminated, so I would suggest that those fixtures come off. Also, on the glare to the south, that is the whole detention basin; it is not a developed area nor is it developable. Mr. Okum said I understand, but the west is. Mr. Dietz said the canopy will be lit. Mr. Okum said downlit, and any relamping requires flat lens.

Mr. Okum asked where the storage shed would be. Mr. Dietz answered it is going away. Mr. Okum asked where he would put the boxes, etc. Mr. Dietz answered they are increasing the general stock area and they will be contained internally. Mr. Okum asked where the storage for the grocery carts would be and Mr. Dietz responded that they are inside as well.

Mr. Galster asked the width of the first drive through lane, curb to curb. Mr. Dietz answered it is nine feet. Mr. Galster said I think that is what the other one was and we went to 10. I don’t think there is a setback problem there so we can take that first lane out to about 10 feet wide.

Mr. Galster said when you create a new landscape island, kind of an entry into the drive through lane, you have added sidewalks. Is there any reason for that to be concrete as opposed to grass? Mr. Dietz answered there is an exit door right here. Mr. Galster commented there is no need for the sidewalk to continue into the parking lot because there is no parking over there. Round the corner is fine, but I would like to see you get rid of some of the concrete where it extends to the west. Mr. Dietz said I believe that is existing.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Mr. Vanover said I would agree with Mr. Okum’s comments about the lighting on the back side. You could put two pole fixtures and light that back side up and they could be canted in at the building so you wouldn’t have the fall invading your neighbor, especially on the west side. That would light that up and eliminate the wall packs.

Mr. Dietz said there are some wall packs on the building now that are not on the illustrations. My understanding is that your concern is about the light level at the drive through. Mr. Vanover said they will come around the back of the unit to exit to give a safer egress and also to have safety lighting in the dumpster area.

I also am concerned about the 19 foot length on the parking spaces. I have a ¾ ton van and it doesn’t take anything to fill up an 18-foot parking space.

Mr. Dietz reported in the survey, this scales to 61’-9" and the zoning regulations call for 62 feet, so from curb to curb we are three inches short. We can increase the parking space size. I understand the concern.

Mr. Apke said you said earlier that there was going to be an increase in the size of the stock area. I am looking at Drawing D-1, and it does show a proposed increase of 24 s.f. As a former member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, Walgreen’s came before us every Christmas or Thanksgiving season, complaining that they needed a storage trailer in the dumpster area because they didn’t have adequate storage. Twenty-four feet isn’t much of an increase, and I am looking at the future.

Mr. Dietz responded I would have to look at the current plan. I can calculate how much the stock area is now compared to what they are proposing. Mr. Apke said it would seem that with all this added area they could incorporate a little more general stock area so down the road, the Board of Zoning Appeals will not have to consider giving them temporary storage come holiday season.

Mr. Okum said I agree 100%. They tend to use all the space they have and need more at the holidays. We would certainly want this to be a part of this record so that the Board of Zoning Appeals knows that they had a chance to deal with the storage issue at this time, and it has been brought to their attention in a formal sense.

Mr. Okum said there is an entrance off Northland and that median is all torn up and is always driven over the top of (showed picture). People have to negotiate a left turn to go into the parking field, and trucks are driving over the top of that curb; it is fairly narrow. That really needs to be widened to eliminate that problem and the cars and/or trucks driving over the top of that island. That needs to be brought to the north. Mr. Dietz asked if he were talking about the whole area or the drive, and Mr. Okum said I think the whole area needs to be cleaned up, and showed the areas on the drawings.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Ms. McBride said looking at this picture, I notice that the base of that sign is metal and I sure would like to see that bricked up to match the building while you have the brick people there for the expansion. I would strongly suggest that the commission include that in their approval.

Mr. Madl reported that the access points are all to remain. We did have a problem with that existing catch basin within Northland Boulevard. There is a problem with the original construction. Ouroriinal comment pertained to widening the flair section to provide a better angle. The widening of the drive is something new to what we had seen. If there are trucks turning, there oculd be damage, but we agree that the catch basin needs to be relocated and widened by about six to eight feet

The dumpster has been rotated so it is facing State Route 4. The applicant has noted that is to provide easier turning movement around the new canopy.

The sidewalk connection from the public sidewalk has been eliminated. There was a landscape island that had a sidewalk connection and they widened this out to add handicap spaces and indicated they wanted to provide access from the public sidewalk via the curb ramp from the handicap curb space which we find to be acceptable as it is striped out.

Mr. Madl reported on the detention, while there is no site specific detention, there is detention on site adjacent to the head wall under State Route 4. It far exceeds what would be required for this site. I believe this was a part of the original development plan or agreement, and we don’t foresee any need for a change in that.

Mr. Dietz said in terms of the catch basin, does it need to be moved to increase the width of the drive? Mr. Madl answered I did not look at it, but my understanding was that the assistant city engineer felt I needed to be moved six to eight feet to provide a better turning radius out of there. We can get more specific details as to whether or not we can add additional width to the flair, and perhaps some turning analysis could be provided to show it is not required, but at this point, my understanding is that is the requirement.

Mr. McErlane stated that the original plan for this development did not show that catch basin in the street when the driveway apron was built because there is a five-foot setback required. The purpose behind this was so the truck traffic does not damage the catch basin. If you flare it out, the truck could damage the curb casting, so that is part of the concern.

Mr. Apke said the existing circulation through the building will be the same pattern. Will that be the receiving area, and won’t you have a dock area where a truck can hide? I would see that as being a very bad choke point, especially with a double drive through feeding into that. It is already a bad situation and I see it getting a lot worse. Maybe you can restrict the delivery times.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Ms. McBride said Walgreen’s typically gets one semi a week for a couple of hours. It might be more than once a week. Maybe the delivery hours could be restricted to later at night or earlier in the morning. Tat might take care of this.

Ms. McBride reported that those drive throughs average five to six cars an hour. Mr. Dietz reported that Walgreen’s is aware that it is a tight site and they will have to juggle some schedules to make it work, and they want to make it work. Mr. McErlane commented that at 10:30 this morning there was a semi parked diagonally behind the building, and you could not get through the drive through. If a semi pulled fairly tight to the building, you could get traffic around it under this plan because they would be unloading on those carts into a door in the side of the building. It looks like the width of that drive is approximately 24 feet.

Mr. Apke said we are turning the dumpster to face Route 4, but our circulation pattern there is turning away, so how will the dumpster truck access that other than going the wrong way on a one-way drive?

Ms. McBride said staff discussed that, and the truck will have to go the wrong way. If they left it turned toward Northland Boulevard with the double canopy coming out, it would make it too tight to access that, so that is why it was turned the other way. .Mr. Okum said dumpster pickups are very early. Mr. Apke commented it’s not going to happen, but it will. Mr. Okum added he’s taking a risk going on the one-way drive.

Mr. Okum said this does not meet the prototype of any of the new Walgreen stores. Why not? Mr. Dietz answered that it is the renovation of an existing building. The interior circulation will be very close to the prototype and the exterior will be cleaned up and a gutter system installed on the roof. It is an overall facelift, but it will not look like all the other Walgreen’s.

Mr. Okum said so restricting delivery hours is not a necessity. Mr. McErlane commented that it would be better than the situation they currently have. The way they back into that notched area right now blocks traffic entirely.

Mr. Okum wondered if this requires a variance for parking from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. McErlane reported that there is a statement in the Zoning Code that says "Planning Commission may authorize a modification, reduction or waiver of the foregoing requirements (the parking requirements) if it should find that the peculiar nature of the residential business trade industrial or other use, exceptional situation or condition would justify such action. Such action from the application shall also show the strict regulations of this article can be met at a later date should the conditions of the property change."

Mr. Okum asked if they still own that storm easement and Mr. McErlane reported that the City has an easement through it. Mr. Okum said it is a storm easement and parking is permitted in storm easement areas.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Mr. McErlane responded if you can accommodate it and still accommodate the detention, offset the volume somehow. It slopes down fairly rapidly from the parking. Mr. Okum said so on their property they could accommodate the parking requirements.

Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding that this allows Planning Commission to determine if this is such an exceptional circumstance that it merits 78% of the required parking. Mr. Okum responded I don’t ever see them using that amount of parking, period, and they do have the drive throughs that will accommodate a lot of it. Personally, I think the parking they are providing is adequate versus what our code requires. I go there a lot, and there is more than enough parking in that field at 58 spaces. I don’t think it is exceptional; it is just the nature of their business.

Mr. Okum said I don’t know what is exceptional about this. Mr. Galster responded it is exceptional because we tried to keep the green space back there instead of making it a parking field.

Ms. McBride added in addition to that the applicant did submit a written statement indicating that the double drive through windows account for a percentage of the prescription transfers that normally would have to park and come in. Also, that pharmacy area is restricted and public access is not located within that pharmacy area. The number of parking spaces that they have for the store, 58, is above what the Walgreen’s minimum threshold is for that store size.

Mr. Syfert said are those enough exceptions. Mr. Galster responded I think so. You have a couple of people from BZA who have looked at it and said it is adequately parked anyway. We are just trying to save the applicant an extra trip.

Mr. Apke said I would agree that it is an exceptional situation. I would think that currently there are a lot of people who park because there might be a line in the drive through and with the double drives through, there will be a lot of people who will not park, so the reduction will be fine for the site.

Mr. Vanover on the aerial, you can see the track through the parking lot. You can’t come straight in to that entrance; you are automatically starting to veer inward to negotiate that island. That area definitely needs reworking.

Mr. Okum suggested that the space furthest west be eliminated, bringing the total down to 57 spaces and change that into the green space that Ms. McBride would be losing due to the widening of the driveway. The applicant will place a tree in that island as well. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Vanover said staff can work with you.

Mr. Dietz said essentially you want a large drive going into the site with more turning radius. Mr. Okum said it would give you the extra 9-10 feet there to accommodate the green space you will be losing, the space that everybody drives over the top of.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Ms. McBride said in looking at this picture, the base of that sign is metal, and I would like to see that bricked up to match the building while you have the brick people there for the expansion. . I would strongly suggest that the commission include that.

Mr. Galster asked if she wanted to surround it, or just the base. Ms. McBride said just the base. Mr. Galster said I think that would be a major improvement.

Mr. Galster continued where you are taking the old entry to the old dry cleaners, will that glass go all the way to the corner, or is there a brick column? I am concerned that the EIFS will run all the way to the end of that building; I can’t tell. Mr. Dietz answered I am fairly sure that there is brick at the corner.

Mr. Okum asked the type of tree to go into the reconstructed island, and Ms. McBride answered they could continue on with the gingko, a honey locust, red sunset maple – something in the 2 ½ inch caliper range. Mr. Okum commented I will leave that up to staff to work out with them when they redo that island..

Mr. Okum said on the sign, wouldn’t it be better to carry a couple of courses to the outside and up around the box, to give it a wrap and not have just a box. Ms. McBride responded without anything on top of the sign, I don’t know if that sign could take that weight. Mr. Okum commented the sign becomes too large. I am saying to go up eight inches out the width of the sign with a course of brick and carry up a limestone cap. Ms. McBride said that is fine; I just want something finished on the top. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you can work with staff on some type of a sign design.

Mr. Galster said in reference to the streetscape, I don’t know if there is any easement that might be needed along the Walgreen’s property for any of the chairs or walls. Do we need to address that?

Mr. Madl responded from the concept plan for the overall streetscape, we do not have any corner feature spelled out for this corner. That is not to say that one can’t be added.

Mr. Galster commented at Dunkin Donuts we had a landscape easement on the corner. That would be an attractive alternative here and become a city maintained landscaping, basically in front of their sign.

Ms. McBride commented I think the one in front of Dunkin Donuts was planned, but this could be a complementary one to that.

Mr. Galster said you don’t believe there are any benches or stone walls going south of Northland Boulevard. Mr. Madl responded I think there will be some streetscape features south of Northland for sure, but I know from the concept plan they didn’t intend anything specific (i.e. a little corner park at Dunkin Donuts) for this particular corner.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-SIX

VI C WALGREEN’S BUILDING ADDITION – 385 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD

Mr. Dietz asked if that would block the signage, and Mr. Galster said no

.

Mr. Okum moved to approve Walgreen’s renovation and expansion as presented this evening to include specifications and designs contained in exhibits as presented to this date. It shall include:

      1. Staff recommendations and review comments
      2. Any changes to the mechanical units shall be screened from view of adjoining properties and public right of way
      3. All exterior lighting shall be non-glare
      4. Lighting plans shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to commencement
      5. All lighting shall have less than a zero fall at all property lines except driveways
      6. Pole lighting shall be down lit and non-glare
      7. Wall mounted light packs shall be shielded if used
      8. Lighting fixtures (high intensity spots) shall be removed from the site
      9. Fifty-seven parking spaces shall be allowed due to special conditions as an exceptional condition as presented this evening
      10. Signage conditions shall include that the base of the sign shall be brick with a masonry base and side columns up to accent the sign.
      11. Approval shall be contingent upon lighting plan being submitted and approved
      12. The entrance on Northland shall be widened to correct the entry and island
      13. Applicant shall work with staff for a resolution to the turning problem with a new landscape island and a 2 ½ inch caliper tree in the reconstructed island area
      14. Applicant shall provide space for the expansion of the Old Town Street landscape treatment if requested

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

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

Planning Commission recessed at 9:33 p.m. and reconvened at 9:44 p.m.

D Final PUD Development Plan Approval, Kemper Pond, 1309-1333

East Kemper Road

Brian Ross of Triad Commercial Properties said we are here to present for the Final PUD approval. It was officially rezoned on February 18, 2004 with two alternative concept plans, a bank and a fast food restaurant. It was modified on March 9th to a retail building with the IHOP out parcel, which is the plan before you tonight. On April 21st Council approved that plan to come back before you for final approval. Tonight we are asking for approval of the retail option with the IHOP Restaurant.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Our architect was able to design the retail building to pretty nearly match the IHOP building in terms of brick colors, stone colors, EIFS, and same shades of blue. IHOP uses a custom colored blue and we will match that.

We have shifted drives so our part of Chesterdale which is private better matches up with the public Chesterdale Drive. That was a very big concern. There is also limited access - the truck access eastbound is eliminated through any times that would represent a problem. Chuck E Cheese will eliminate one of their drives and moving it further away from the intersection. That probably will be one of the first parts of the construction project we will complete.

Per CDS’ plan, we are putting in a median to better facilitate the office park traffic leaving which should help with traffic on Chesterdale. We also are putting in a right in right out on an unnamed private drive off Kemper Road. It is limited to right in traffic off Kemper eastbound and a right out exit there. The full motion access will be at the stoplight.

We are committed to bringing this project to Springdale, and we have closed on the property.

Mr. Ross said I have with me Lee Mahler, our architect and Josh McIntosh of CUC are here with me to answer any questions.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Planned Unit Development. Springdale City Council approved a modified preliminary plan on April 21, 2004. That modification included a 5,000 s.f. IHOP Restaurant and a 12,000 s.f. retail building.

When that preliminary plan was before Planning Commission, the 12,000 s.f. retail building was presented as an option to a bank or a fast food restaurant.

There are signs shown on the buildings, more representative on the retail building than on the IHOP, but in both cases there are no dimensions shown so we can’t evaluate their compliance with the sign regulations.

There is one monument sign presented, and we’re not sure if that is the same monument sign that will be used as both monument signs on the site. There are two shown on the site plan. The total height of the sign is six feet, but we don’t have any dimensions for the sign face.

Setbacks as they relate to underlying GB zoning meet or exceed the required setbacks with the exception of the rear yard setback for the retail building which is now 26 ½ feet (less than shown on the preliminary plan) and less than the code requirement of 30 feet.

The only other items that do not comply with code are pavement setbacks to the west side at 8 ½ feet (10 feet required). The side and rear yard pavement setbacks are 0 because the pavement runs entirely to the property line and there is a driveway on the east side.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Parking requirements are a total of 133 spaces. There are 155 spaces shown, 35 of which are shown in the overflow area. Impervious surface ratio is 76% which is what was shown on the preliminary plan.

The tree survey and tree removal plan shows a removal of 121 caliper inches of trees. Ten inches is exempt because it falls within the footprint of the IHOP building, which requires them to plant 111 caliper inches of trees. There is one 12-inch oak that is likely to be impacted by grading near the northeast corner. The plans show about a foot and ½ of fill in this location. The grading plan shows what looks like it might be a tree well, but it is not called out on the plan and I’m not sure if that is what the intent is. If that is the case it may need some modifications to make it work.

The replanting they show on the plans is 131 caliper inches (111 required). Tonight they have provided colored renderings to help us visualize what the color and materials are for both buildings.

Mr. McErlane stated that on the covenants we received, there is some suggested language that says that the dumpsters are to be located in approved enclosures for storage. Right now the covenants indicate that at least 70% of the front of the building elevations and 40% of the side and rear elevations would be brick and stone and we are not really sure if that matches, particularly on the IHOP building.

There is one statement in the covenants that relates to the building elevations and it binds the City to approving a plan for the IHOP building that matches the preliminary plan that was submitted on June 14th. Were not sure what the intent of that is, but the drawings that you have before you tonight are not the drawings that were submitted on June 14th. They have been superseded. The intent probably should be that they relate to the building elevation drawings approved by Planning Commission as part of the final plan, and not relate to the June 14th date.

Jeff Forbes of the law director’s office e-mailed me. We had been working on modifications to the covenants over some period of time. The last covenants were forwarded to him and he had no further comments, other than incorporating staff comments from tonight’s meeting.

Ms. McBride reported that the plan indicates 76% of the site will be impervious surface area. The district requires 20% and they exceed that at 24% open space.

All the setbacks are the same as what were approved on the concept plan with the exception of that building setback from the strip center to the south property line. This was approved at 30 feet and is now at 26.5 feet. That would need your condition and review.

They meet all of the parking requirements and 35 of the required parking spaces are shown in an adjacent lot. That is consistent with what we have seen all along with this development.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE TWENTY-NINE

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

 

We have asked for dumpster enclosure information, and we got it for the retail center to be located southwest of that building. They are saying that it would be with a six foot eight inch tall brick enclosure and the gates are to be painted tan metal. We would ask that the commission consider changing those gates to the solid wood ones we have been using throughout the city.

We have never gotten any information on the IHOP dumpster, and in looking at the picture I see why. It’s because they don’t have a dumpster. Mr. Mahler said the dumpster is the exact same dumpster with the same brick and whatever you want for the doors is fine by us. The two enclosures will be exactly the same.

Ms. McBride reported we have quite a few comments on the landscape plan, some of which have carried over from previous reviews.

Ms. McBride stated that we want to see additional material added to the bed south of the IHOP building, which will be the front to that strip center so it is important.

On the strip center, we want to see additional plant material south of that because that is actually viewed from the adjacent office building. There really aren’t any "backs" to either of these two buildings, so the landscaping is important on the rear of both of them.

We had some concern about the vibernum located on the southwest corner of the site, if that might cause a visibility issue for sight distance from the adjacent access drive. We would ask that they make sure that will not be a problem.

They have overused the blue rug juniper in this plan and we have asked that additional type material be included. We also have asked that annuals or perennials be added to the plan for more color rather than just the evergreens and shrubs.

Left over from other reviews, we have asked that trees be added to the landscaped islands in the parking lots and that the landscaped islands around the retail building incorporate additional plant material. They have large areas of mulch that need to be broken up, and we would ask for screening around both dumpster enclosures

They submitted a revised photometric lighting plan and it indicates that light levels are between 4.15 and 22.6 foot candles. They do hit the 0.5 foot candles at the property lines. Their pole heights have been dropped to 22 feet consistent with what is approved by the Zoning Code. They are using a flat lens down directional metal halide fixture. We still need fixture and pole color, and we have suggested that the commission approves that with a bronze pole and fixture, which is what we have used throughout the city, and that there be no striping on the fixture head.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Ms. McBride reported that they are proposing two ground-mounted signs that were part of the original approval. These signs have to be set back 10 feet from the right of way. The western sign is now nine feet and the eastern sign was moved to five feet, neither of which meets the requirement. We have no information about the sign area, the height or the illumination details so the commission will not be approving any free-standing signage this evening. Similarly, we have no information on the on-building signage so they will come back to you with their signage package.

We got building elevations and floor plans for the IHOP. Previously we asked for information about how the awnings would be illuminated, what building lighting would be utilized, and how the mechanical equipment would be screened. .

Ms. McBride said we asked for additional details information about lighting of the awning, screening of mechanicals etc., and we haven’t received any of that information. We did get very basic elevations on the shopping center. Staff has some concerns about on-building lighting. We don’t have details on that, and we don’t know and how the mechanical equipment will be screened. Portions of those elevations are incorrectly labeled, but the biggest concern is the rear elevation of that strip center. That is coming down from that office building, and now that I see it in this form, I have even more concerns.

Mr. Okum said so you are saying that if we were to approve these drawings it should be contingent on all your questions, which are a lot. I drove the site and the property behind it is definitely at a higher elevation, so it will be very difficult to screen those mechanical units on the retail center from view.

Unfortunately drawings of this size make it impossible to read site lines and numbers. Does our code allow this size or is this what we have to reduce it to? Ms. McBride responded I believe the commission said that they are easy for you all to look at. Mr. Okum asked if they could be upsized a little bit. Mr. Galster couldn’t read a 7 tonight and I have bifocals and couldn’t read any of these site numbers. Could we double the size a little bit so we can read the numbers? Mr. McErlane responded we can have all of them full sized. Mr. Okum said I don’t want full size. Mr. McErlane added in two instances this month we told them not to send us reduced copies on some of the drawings because you couldn’t read anything on them. Ms. McBride said we can talk about this as a separate item and I suggest we do that because there are some problems with just doubling that size.

Mr. Okum asked if there is going to be a drive along the back. Mr. Ross answered we eliminated the drive; there will be a walkway. Mr. Okum commented they would need to get to the trash dumpster location. Mr. Ross stated there is a sidewalk along the back. Mr. Okum added there are some light packs, so you will need to make it down lighting on those so they don’t protrude onto the adjoining properties.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY-ONE

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Mr. Okum said if we were looking for 10% accent color with that blue IHOP roof etc., would that represent 10% of those building elevations? Ms. McBride answered that it is probably more than 10% of the front elevation.

Mr. Okum asked if the awnings would be translucent and Mr. Mahler answered no. There was a question about the usable square footage (3200 s.f.), and the actual public square footage is 2783 s.f.

The dumpster enclosure we submitted was for both IHOP and the small shops with the exact same construction with the brick surround six foot eight inches high.

Mr. Mahler added we like using the metal gates; they hold up better than the wood, but that is no problem. It is just a matter of applying the wood to the metal frame so that will be fine.

On the lighting, we normally use bronze shoebox type fixtures and bronze poles. We have two monument signs with the same brick base and rectangle above it. Ms. McBride asked how big the signs would be, and Mr. Mahler answered they are 6’ x 10’ with a one-foot base, so 50 s.f. maximum, which is what is in the PUD. They are internally illuminated Plexiglas base with the IHOP three colors, blue white and red. The total height is six feet and will be set back 10 feet from the right of way.

On the IHOP building are two types of signs. They are showing two box-type signs and four IHOP Restaurant signs. Ms. McBride said we don’t have any dimensions on any of that signage. Mr. Mahler said we will submit that in writing, but we will have to reduce the number of signs from six to four to make it work. By my calculations you have 165.25 square feet allowed on the IHOP and 340 s.f. allowed on the shops, and we will submit that to you.

We have three colors on the IHOP sign. We were going to allow three colors on the shops but if we are limited, we will have a red sign where we show white signs on this. We have a fairly wide beige background so the red sign would at least be visible during the day. We normally make those larger, but to stay within your ordinance we will keep it 2’-30" and never come near the total maximum of 340 s.f.

There are no under canopy awning lights on the new prototype. The light that we have on the IHOP now is a recessed probe light that is underneath the upper EIFS band. These are fabric awnings so are all top lit and you will not see the source of the light.

The shopping center has a hard canopy and a metal canopy with a plank ceiling underneath with recessed lights that shine down. On the back of the building, by code we put an emergency exit halfway light that shines down on to the sidewalk. We also are putting shielded wall mounted lights that will shine down just to light the rear sidewalk. We do not have a drive in the back any more.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY-TWO

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

 

On the elevations we labeled the roof line, on the IHOP it is always applied to six foot high parapet all the way around the building so all the equipment is screened. The only thing we ever have any problem with on the IHOP is the possibility of a gas water heater stacked which sometimes would have to be two to three feet above the parapet.

On the shops, we will have to look at the exact final grade, but the design has a seven to 7 ½ foot parapet on the front, and a five-foot + parapet on the back. The equipment never goes above four feet. Depending on the placement of the site lines, which we will double check, we can raise the parapet on the back if need be and we will be able to screen these so you will not see them from the property behind where the office is.

Mr. Ross said on the trees in the islands, the only place we can’t do it is where the water detention is on the east side, because of the root system, but we would be happy to do it anywhere else. Ms. McBride commented that there may be different species that you could use there that would be more tolerant of having wet feet.

Mr. Galster asked if they could change the roof to a shingled roof. Mr. Mahler answered that IHOP is trying to maintain certain items with the architecture that let you know it is an IHOP, and frankly the blue metal roof is the most important thing they have. That has been on their restaurants forever, so they have a reluctance to give on that one item. We have increased the brick for this specific site to match and we have made the shops match with the IHOP as well. Their new prototype has a strong entrance feature. Mr. Galster commented that it is a very strong amount of blue.

Mr. Okum said there is a dimensional blue shingle that is used. You might accomplish that and you still would have that but it would be muted. It might be an alternative to that strong of metal on it.

This building will set up a little off the roadway, but you will look down at it as you are coming eastbound on Kemper. I think the metal roof would be to the east side of the building so it wouldn’t stand out. If you could examine that, I am a little bit concerned about so much blue. With all the buildings, the blue would be diluted a little bit. Mr. Mahler said we have the same blue on the shops, the same exact material. The accent blue is IHOP’s old blue, and the only place that shows up is the little stripe in the stone. The upper area above this band is a blue. It would soften things if we could retain the metal on the shops and change the EIFS to one of the beige colors instead. Right now it creates a big blue cap to this building and it would soften that quite a bit.

Mr. Okum asked if there would be lighting down lit on the shops, and Mr. Mahler answered no, the lighting is under the canopy only. You will not see the lighting. Mr. Ross said the blue metal roofs are IHOPS; that is their signature.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY-THREE

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Mr. Okum said this prototype is fairly new but it is going in other parts of the country and there are other restrictions. Mr. Ross responded according to the annual report, Cincinnati is the best practices market for IHOP. This is the only corporate market they are doing. If this store works well for them, we’ll do it. Mr. Mahler added this is trying to put a little more style with a little more corporate identity. There are actually two versions of this building, and the other one is more radical. Mr. Ross added you have seen it and the comment I received was that it looked like a Waffle House so we got them to come back with something we thought was better.

Mr. Okum said so you have not done any of this with a shingled roof. Mr. Mahler added we have been working on IHOP for six years, and there is a lot more metal on the new prototype, primarily on the entry tower which is smaller than this entrance structure.

Mr. Ross added this prototype is in three or four markets in Hamilton County in Ohio. They are all metal roofs because it is IHOP’s signature item.

Mr. Madl reported that on the proposed common drive, the applicant spoke of the restriction for trucks turning right from eastbound Kemper. It still requires some signage to specifically indicate that and it is not on the site plans.

They spoke about the unnamed access point which would become a right in right out only. They have provided some turning analysis for the current design. It is restrictive for people trying to make a right turn in and a right turn out. However, it is not restrictive at all for people trying to make a left turn out or a left turn in, which is really the intent. However, we feel we can work with the applicant to restrict those left turns.

On the alignment of the common drive, they have made some modifications and we feel it is now acceptable. The applicant previously had noted that the transition we had required would reduce the number of parking stalls on the adjacent property. Since the submittal of the plans, we have worked with them and come up with an alternate which does not impact any additional parking spaces. He passed a copy around to the members adding that it is a very insignificant change.

They have provided a connection for the public sidewalk in the area of the bus shelter to the subject site. We had requested that handicap curb ramps be provided along with a cross walk to get them over to the site itself.

On storm water management, we had a couple of detail issues that we are still working with the applicant on, but we don’t foresee it being a big issue. It is just coming up with the final detention volume.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY- FOUR

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Mr. Okum said this property has been spun off the adjoining property. Has it been sold? Mr. Ross answered the property has been sold by Kiesland to SS Kemper Pond. Mr. Okum asked if the 35 spaces were on the applicant’s property and Mr. Ross answered that the back portion is part of our property. He showed on the aerial the parcels that Kemper Pond owns.

For the record, Mr. Syfert asked the council members on the commission if this change of the rear lot line is significant and should be referred to Council, and both said no.

Mr. Vanover said on the roof feature, if they did away with the blue EIFS that would take away the big blue box feel. If we could find a suitable blue shingle that would do it and I would prefer that, but if we take some of this extra blue out, it might lessen the starkness of that intensity.

Mr. Galster said so the blue EIFS would become a matching color to the beige and what about the windows that are red. Mr. Mahler said that is not a bright red; it is a dark red, a maroon or burgundy.

Mr. Vanover wondered if the blue accent band in the stone work could be pulled out to soften the intensity of the blue. Mr. Mahler said I think that is minor. The blue roof is an important item; the others are less important.

Mr. Okum said on the back of he retail building we have a lot of blue downspouts. The back of that building needs to be treated with some sensitivity to the retail development behind it. Your accent would be a common downspout color and that would break that brick some, but the blue is a little strong. Mr. Mahler answered that is fine. We will double check and make sure we are screening from the eye line of the people in the area behind us. That parapet is an arbitrary height; we know we have it higher than the equipment, but depending on the angle, we might have to raise it another foot or two in the back. Mr. Okum said I would think that carrying the cornice across the back side would help to do that. Mr. Mahler said that is fine; we’ll carry it around.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he was okay with coming back with the signage package. Mr. Ross said yes. The biggest thing we need is to get the grading started before the winter season. It will take us three or four months to accomplish that, and there is a half million dollars worth of grading work in there.

Mr. Okum asked about the mound of landscaped area in front and Mr. Ross answered that it stays. We might cut a little off in order to make that right in right out better, but that mound is staying. Mr. Okum said that is in great shape and probably the nicest part of the development. Mr. Ross said it stays, but we want you to be aware that the right out movement will affect that a little bit.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY- FIVE

VI D KEMPER POND FINAL PUD APPROVAL – 1309-1333 E. KEMPER RD.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Kemper Pond PUD Development Final Plan to include specifications and design contained in the exhibits presented for this meeting. It also should include staff comments and recommendations and staff and law director’s approval of the covenants. As discussed and recommended:

      1. The mechanical units shall be screened from view from adjoining properties and the public right of way.
      2. The canopies as presented shall not be translucent and shall not be under lit.
      3. All four building elevations shall include the color pallet as submitted for both buildings.
      4. No blue banding shall be placed in the stone work.
      5. No blue EIFS shall be above the lower entry roof and it shall be replaced with the e-accent color.
      6. No blue downspouts shall be on the rear of the retail center.
      7. The applicant shall work with staff to resolve the rear elevation of the retail center as it is in proximity of the office building and how it affects the adjacent property.
      8. No signage shall be considered at this time.
      9. .Landscape shall be based on staff’s recommendations and final review, including addition of trees as discussed.

Mr. Vanover suggested adding the flat lens on the lighting fixtures, and Mr. Okum responded they submitted it. All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

VII DISCUSSION

Mr. Apke stated as many of you already know, it is with the deepest regret that I must resign my position as a member of the Springdale Planning Commission. I have nothing but the highest regards for the dedicated individuals in this room. I also would like to express my gratitude and best wishes to those great people with whom I have served on the Board of Zoning Appeals, and to the staff, administration, Council and especially the Mayor for the tremendous opportunity to serve the people of Springdale. My family and I will be moving to North Carolina, where I will begin a new position with Burlington Chemical Company. The position represents an incredible opportunity for me and my family both financially and professionally, and we are very excited about the possibilities. I would like to thank everyone for their encouragement and support over a rough period, and I will truly miss the people of Springdale, but I will be back to visit often as both my parents will still be residents of Springdale.

Mr. Syfert said thank you very much for your two meetings and your input. You took this position with the understanding that this might happen and we wish you the best of luck.

Mr. Galster said we have set the date for the planning and zoning training. It is Monday August 30th at 7:00 p.m. here in Council chambers.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 JULY 2004

PAGE THIRTY- SIX

  1. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
    1. Dollar Tree, 90 West Kemper Road – Wall Sign
    2. Office Depot, 11711 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign
    3. Hoxworth Blood Center, 280 Northland Boulevard – Wall Sign
    4. Ci Ci’s Pizza, 459 East Kemper Road – Wall Sign
  2. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Apke moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________.2004 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

____________________, 2004 _________________________

Lawrence Hawkins, Secretary