Planning Commission Minutes

13 July 1999

7:00 p.m.

 

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

Chairman William Syfert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David

Okum, Dave Whitaker, Don Darby, Councilman Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert.

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator (arrived at 7:15)

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator (arrived at 7:15)

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Wayne Shuler, City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner

III. ELECTION OF SECRETARY Ė PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Galster nominated Dave Whitaker and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Mr. Whitaker was elected by acclamation.

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 8 JUNE 1999

Mr. Whitaker moved for adoption and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

  1. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. 6/9 Letter from Albert Brown re Temple of Praise Rezoning
    2. 6/9 Letter from Bill McErlane to Enterprise Rent a Car
    3. 7/8 Letter from Bill McErlane to Eric Novicki, Sports Therapy
    4. Report on Council Ė no report
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė June 10, 1999
    6. Zoning Bulletin Ė June 25, 1999

Chairman Syfert said under New Business please mark off Item B. I have a letter from Sports Therapy dated July 12th, which says, "We at Sports Therapy would like to table our appearance at the July 13th meeting. We would like to appear at the August 10, 1999 meeting."

Mr. Galster wondered if there was a concern by the Fire Department in terms of the safety of the building in the meantime. Mr. McErlane reported I talked to Mr. Novickiís office yesterday and indicated that there was no problem with tabling it as long as it wasnít being used as a residence, and they indicated that it is not at this point.

  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Request to replace existing ground sign with pylon sign for Longhorn Steakhouse 11153 Princeton Pike Ė tabled 6/8/99
    2. John Muerer of Longhorn Steakhouse said we want to elevate our monument sign for visibility with plantings around the sign itself. We would take a 49 s.f. sign and put it to a maximum elevation of 10 feet to get it over the top of the existing parked cars. He showed photographs of the present sign and how it is obscured.

       

       

       

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Two

      VI A. Replace Ground sign with Pylon SignĖLonghorn Steakhouse 11153 Princeton Pk.

      Ms. McBride stated the original application was for a 49 square foot sign 20 feet high. This request is for the 49 square foot sign, which is permitted in other commercial districts, but they dropped it to 10 feet in height. It would replace the existing 27 square foot ground sign. Other commercial districts require 25-foot setback from the property line and ground signs require 10-foot setback from the right of way. The site plan isnít to scale and doesnít have any dimensions on it, so we canít verify that they meet the setbacks.

      They did submit the landscape plan that we requested for the base of the sign and the plant material and quantity, and it is all acceptable.

      There isnít any indication as to how or if the sign would be illuminated and we would want to see details on illumination of the sign and the dimensions of the sign to make sure that they meet setback requirements. Mr. Muerer stated the sign would be illuminated.

      Mr. McErlane reported this is before the commission because it is zoned PUD. The code requires a 10 foot minimum setback for ground signs from the right of way, and pole signs may be placed all the way up to the right of way line. This is kind of an in between type sign so the location is shown at 6 feet from the right of way. The major concern about setbacks for ground signs is the sight distance concern, and at its proposed location, Iím not sure that six feet is a concern from a sight distance standpoint.

      Mr. Okum asked the material of the sign base and Mr. Muerer answered it will be a six inch steel pole. Mr. Okum commented your drawing represents something different. It appears that you have a drivitt finish base currently. What color would it be?. Mr. Muerer answered black. Mr. Okum wondered if the sign were backlit and Mr. Muerer said the Longhorn portion is neon, similar to the Frischís and Cookerís signs. Mr. Okum continued so you are indicating that behind the letters there will be neon lighting. Mr. Muerer added it is channeled back and there is a clear Plexiglas in front of it. It is a neon tract system; the tubes are recessed in the letter itself. Mr. Galster asked if when you looked at the sign you would see the red neon tube, and Mr. Muerer answered yes.

      Mr. Okum commented your existing sign is 9í-6" x 3í. Is there any reason why you need to make your sign 14 foot long? Mr. Muerer answered this is our current logo design. Mr. Okum continued I made some site observations and I donít disagree with you; your sign is hard to be seen. I measured and you would have to have six feet to the base before you would have clear visibility coming down 747.

      According to the drawing submitted, it calls for a pole cover 22" wide painted to match the sign cabinet. Have you eliminated that? Mr. Muerer answered yes.

      City Administrator Cecil Osborn and Assistant City Administrator Derrick Parham arrived at 7:15 p.m.

      Mr. Huddleston asked if there is any variance required if we approve this sign? Mr. McErlane responded no, it is a PUD zoning, so it is up to the Planning Commission to approve any variances.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster wondered if he would be amicable to backlighting the Longhorn rather than having neon. Mr. Muerer answered we could, but this is more with the current logo. Mr. Galster continued I have a problem with the neon, which is much brighter and more intense that close to the roadway.

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Three

      VI A. Replace Ground sign with Pylon SignĖLonghorn Steakhouse 11153 Princeton Pk.

      Mr. Galster continued right now we are questioning whether or not we are far enough back from the right of way, and Iím a little concerned about having neon right there at the street. Again my question would be would you be amicable to doing that or would you rather stick with the neon and see what happens. Mr. Muerer answered we can change it to backlit.

      Mr. Huddleston commented while I somewhat share the concerns of Mr. Galster and Mr. Okum I would be willing to move for approval of the request to replace the existing sign with the new pole sign as represented, and do so move. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

      Mr. Okum commented I am looking at your sign and presentation of the sign you are requesting. There is really no difference in what the existing one says and what the proposed one says. They are relatively the same lettering. Personally I donít like to see poles period. A monument mounted is certainly a lot more appealing, and I have less problem with the width of the base being a base unit similar to the base you currently have. Maybe it is a little too wide because itís a monument sign. There is nothing wrong with your current sign; it is not beat up that badly. Is there any reason why you couldnít build a monument base and bring that sign up six feet, give it a monument base with some definition to it; maybe a drivitt finish like you have now. You have a good sign cabinet and a good box already there. The purpose is for visibility. If you create a monument base and blend it all together it makes it an architectural feature. I cannot vote on this based on the application, but if you are willing to work with the city and bring the sign back to the same size you have now but get the height; that is what you need. Mr. Muerer said so we can take our present sign up to 10 feet high; if the board allows that, that is what we will do. Mr. Galster withdrew his motion and Mr. Okum withdrew his second.

      Mr. Okum moved to allow a 10-foot high sign with a monument base of similar color and materials to blend with the sign. . The sign would be 9í-6" x 3í, which is the current sign size. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

      Mr. McErlane said maybe you can do t his afterwards, but I need clarification as to what the base would look like. I have a concern from the standpoint that if it is the full width of the sign you will have a six-foot high by nine-foot wide base. Mr. Okum responded from the picture here it is a 22-inch wide monument base, a column. Mr. McErlane added the sign people call it a column cover which gives it more mass than a pole.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval of sign was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    3. Proposed Garage, Enterprise Rent A Car, 169 Northland Boulevard Ė Tabled 6/8/99

There was no one present representing Enterprise and Mr. Vanover moved to drop the item from the agenda and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the item was dropped.

C. Approval of Proposed Building Elevation Ė Gold Star Chili Ė 11551 Springfield Pike (former Famous Recipe) Ė Tabled 6/8/99

Mr. Whitaker stated I need to abstain from the discussion and vote because of possible conflict.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Four

VI C BUILDING ELEVATION Ė GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Raymond Peterson and Mr. David Daoud approached the members. Mr. Daoud stated last time we had three matters which we resolved. The first was the seating-parking ratio. We now have enough Ė 66 seats to 24 parks, which meets code. The dumpster enclosure was discussed and approved by the commission to paint the three sides a sand color and add a new gate. The third matter was the sign. We had proposed increasing the size of the sign and have since conformed to the existing sign and will work with that. Unless there is any discussion on those maters, I will proceed to the outstanding ones.

Last time we requested our prototype building look, which included a red metal roof and the commission did not like that. We have gone back and researched the many options available, and are presenting a stucco EIFS building with earthtones as the code requires in the sand color and accented with a dark green, red and a little yellow on top. (Our store on Edwards Road has the same look.) We have tried to keep the red and yellow to a minimum as was discussed last time. There is one thing that is not on this which is a little metal roof above the vestibule. We feel we are able to meet code that way as well as get some of our signature. The EIFS is from top to bottom; we have the earthtones and awnings are above the windows backlit.

Mr. McErlane reported most of what he presented tonight is new information. What had been submitted prior to this date is a revised building elevation which shows a change in color of the mansard type roof to a beige although it still indicated red. It pretty much looked like the same drawings that you saw last month.

Mr. McErlane added since our last meeting we issued a permit for the interior work which included a reduction in the seating so that the parking meets code. We also have issued a sign permit, which basically is a sign that matches the existing panel.

Mr. Daoud said we debated what to do because the most logical thing is to use the mansard roof that we have and work with it. What we are proposing is a lot more expensive and more tedious, but we are willing to do it to get a good look; we donít want to do anything shabby. The drawing you have does include the mansard, and it is very similar to what we are proposing tonight. Mr. Peterson added one point was whether this was true mansard or slanted wall. I think the commissionís interpretation last time was this wasnít a roof as much as it was a wall.

Ms. McBride said what staff received was the one drawing that shows the cream color building which indicated Bob Evans red and neon accent lighting. I spoke with the applicant and went by the store on Edwards Road and that doesnít match what was submitted. What I am seeing tonight may be a third variation, so Iím not quite sure exactly what the Commission is being asked to approve tonight in terms of what we could take back and put in our files. That issue aside, the sign issue has been resolved, as has the parking issue. We still need the building materials for the vestibule, which has not been submitted. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to update some of the landscaping, and I think that is a fair tradeoff in terms of where they are. They also agreed to paint the waste enclosure a sand color and put gates on the fourth side.

The biggest concern that I have is where we are with the building design and the colors. We canít act on this because it is labeled wrong and is showing neon. Iím not sure where the commission is on the neon. It doesnít include the awnings that I understand you want.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Five

VI C BUILDING ELEVATION Ė GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. McBride added Iím not sure the model you are showing is exactly what you want, nor would you want us to put it in our files, so I am at a loss as to what the Commission can act on this evening.

Mr. Daoud responded I have a specific drawing for this restaurant. Planning last time advised that there were too many awnings, so we are not proposing awnings all the way around the building. The north side has no awnings at all, and the window on the south side does not have an awning. Our goal this evening is to leave Planning with some sort of working plan. If we need to get back to various members on details, we are willing to do it. We tried to do everything you requested last time.

Ms. McBride responded I agree; I think you have attempted to do that. Does that drawing include neon? Mr. Daoud answered there is no neon here. We would love it, but we would not like to have that issue dominate the whole session. Ms. McBride said I am just asking for clarification, because that drawing was not submitted to the City.

Mr. Daoud responded quite honestly, this drawing was finished today. For the last 30 days we have been getting bids and looking at options. I feel the drawing you have although it shows the mansard roof mislabeled red, attempted to show this. Ms. McBride added if it doesnít have the awnings. You understand my confusion because it is part of the model, part of the drawing and part of that.

Mr. Peterson added we would submit architectural drawings to the building department to take the mansard off and make this subject to their approval. Ms. McBride responded I am sure you will. It is just difficult for staff to review something when we donít have the drawings. If the commission feels comfortable with that, that is their decision.

Mr. McErlane said relative to finishes on the building, right now the lower portion is brick, so everything would be a drivitt? Mr. Daoud confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert commented I share some of Ms. McBrideís concerns. I like what I see on the model and I like what I see over here; it needs to be put together right. I far prefer what you have done here with fewer awnings.

Mr. Daoud said with this drawing, the earth tone requirement seems to be fulfilled. I donít know how the group feels, but we are trying to do the best we can with that property. That mansard roof is a problem. There is nothing we can really do to it to make it look nice outside of putting a metal roof system. If we do anything other than that, it kind of looks weird, so the only alternative is to rip it off and create this nice clean finish. Our apologies for not having that here a week or so ago, but we have really been hassling trying to figure out which way to go with this thing. This will cost the owner $20 to $25,000 extra and that was some of the difficulty in arriving at this decision hence bringing the drawing later than we should have.

Ms. McBride added I think this store is an attractive store and would be an improvement over what was there. My concern was what exactly the commission was approving. Maybe if we hang on to your board tonight if that is how the commission chooses to act.

There are two other points. The Corridor Review District does have a requirement of 55% of brick or stone on two facades of the building. Right now it doesnít meet that, but there is brick on there. It might be more appropriate if you painted that brick rather than covering it with EIFS, which would be completely taking away one of the requirements of the Corridor District.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Six

VI C BUILDING ELEVATION Ė GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. McBride said on the red band at the top of the building, the applicant would like the neon, and the commission needs to give them some direction. The other question I would have concerns the width of that red. Could it be reduced somewhat so that it is not top heavy to detract from the awning and the Gold Star sign, the vestibule and the entryway.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree with some of the comments, but in the interest of trying to keep something moving forward, I will ask the applicant if he is willing to accept approval without the neon tonight? Mr. Daoud answered we would like to hear the vote with neon. I think it is important; I know it is a stickler for this council. We donít want neon for flashiness; that is not the point. We want it for accent.

Mr. Huddleston said I understand and Iím not trying to state one way or the other; I just think if there is neon, details should be provided. If that is your decision, I will respect that.

Mr. Daoud continued for what is important to us is if there are issues that need to be resolved, we want to be able to resolve it tomorrow or the next day. If we have to wait until the next meeting, that is problematical for us in terms of getting the whole project going. It has been setting long enough. Mr. Daoud added we want to work with you. Letís see if we can gain some sort of resolution.

Mr. Huddleston responded I donít want to debate the merits of that or design your building, but on the other hand you are asking us to act on something on which we donít have all the details. There have been some comments, and I was going to attempt to try to move forward on this within reason, but the neon is certainly one detail, which would be onerous to all the members of the commission without further detail.

Mr. Daoud responded I would like to retract my answer and have a conference.

Mr. Galster said I like the look of this building a whole lot better. I am not in favor of the neon. I donít know about painting the brick to have a continuous look to it. I am leaning towards making it all the EIFS surface. I think the intention of the brick requirement was to have a natural stone and brick flavor to it.

Are we not approving signage tonight? Have we already agreed on signage for the pole sign? What about the sign on the building? Ms. McBride answered when I wrote the report I was unaware that the signage had already been approved. They literally plugged in their sign in the old sign. So that is not on the table. Mr. Galster continued so is the sign that is shown on this drawing and on that model a lit sign? Ms. McBride answered I assume it is a lit sign, but we donít have any dimensions so I would assume the commission would not be approving that at this point of time.

Mr. Galster said I personally donít have a problem with the vestibule having a red metal roof, but I agree with Ms. McBride that the red and yellow stripe at the top of the building seems extremely heavy, especially on this photograph. I think that also needs to be addressed.

Mr. Daoud commented that whole red band along with the yellow is a total of 15 inches. There are three lines of red and one line of yellow, and if Planning wants us to take out a line of red, we would be glad to do it. Mr. Peterson added it would make it 10 inches total. Mr. Galster responded that is reasonable to me. And what have we decided on the neon? Mr. Peterson answered if neon will be an issue; we will just drop it.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Seven

VI C BUILDING ELEVATION Ė GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

On the band going around the top, Mr. Osborn asked how wide the red band and Mr. Peterson answered it would be 6 6 and 2. Mr. Osborn added I agree with Ms. McBride; I think this is well beyond what we need for highlight. Something like 6 and 2 would be fine.

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride indicated planting four 2 Ĺ inch street trees along Springfield Pike, 40 feet on center to screen in the parking areas from Springfield Pike through the planting of 2 Ĺ foot tall hedge and the construction of a wall or fence in the areas to the north and south ends of the site. Are those recommendations still current with what you see?

Ms. McBride answered the applicant has indicated that they are willing to redo the existing landscaped beds with new evergreen and mulch. They have asked that they be exempt from the hedge. It is not a hedge to screen the entire parking field but the ends of several parking spaces and 6ton the alley as well. I donít feel as strongly about that as I have in some other areas so Iíll leave that up to the Commission.

With regards to street trees, there are some trees there; however, if you look at their landscaping per our code, there could be a couple more but Iíll leave that up to the Commission.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if there were any other items from your recommendations that need to be incorporated into this new plan? Ms. McBride responded I would ask that any action that the Commission might take favorably would also include a comment that they will screen the waste receptacle area with the four sides and a gate and paint it the same color, because we donít have any documentation for that. Mr. Syfert commented they indicated that on their list of resolved issues.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant how he felt about the street tree additions. Mr. Daoud answered we are concerned about visibility on the north and south sides. We donít mind putting in some sort of plants; we would rather they not be a hedgerow where the visibility is blocked. If we can plant three to four and have visibility through them, that would be okay. Mr. Okum responded so you feel some hedging no wouldnít be bad if it were spaced out and kept low. Mr. Okum asked him his position on the 2-Ĺ inch caliper trees. Mr. Peterson answered I would rather put them on the exterior since the sign is interior. We proposed to decorate the bottom of the sign base.

Mr. Daoud commented we have four street trees that the City planted, and visibility wise we are always battling with those trees, although they are beautiful. More trees make it difficult at times to identify the property. Mr. Okum responded it also gives a break and separation to the property instead of a massive wall.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked her if the applicant lowered it down to two trees planted, would that suffice? Ms. McBride answered that would be fine. What the Commission might want to consider is that they submit a landscape plan for us to review, but I think we can work with the two trees.

Mr. Daoud stated we would like to request that Planning forego the two trees. Mr. Okum commented your requirement is four, and if it is lowered to two, you should get some spacing. We are trying to be fair. Mr. Daoud continued that will be fine.

Mr. Okum added you already have indicated that the mechanicals will be concealed from four sides, not just three sides of your building. You have right of way on the rear as well as on the front of your property.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Eight

VI C BUILDING ELEVATION Ė GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Okum said the awning is illuminated with translucent panels. Most of the applicants have agreed to a not to exceed 30% of your signage illumination. Do you have any problem with that? Mr. Daoud answered no.

Mr. Okum continued you already have agreed that neon lighting is not an issue, is that correct? Mr. Daoud said no. Mr. Okum continued I agree with Mr. Galster on the brick and masonry issue. I would prefer to keep it brick, but painted brick is nothing more than drivitt wall with definition. If you could retain the brick and blend it with an EIFS it might work, but Iím not sure how it would. When you take the mansard off there, it could be an equally different looking building. Mr. Peterson said the only problem is there is some decorative wood built into the brick and we would ask to paint it sand color.

Mr. Daoud said after the mansard comes down, if that is stucco and the balance is brick, I donít know that you will achieve what you are trying to achieve. Possibly the back of the building (Van Arsdale) could be painted rather than stucco. That doesnít get us up to the required ratio, but that is available.

Mr. Okum said if you are going to treat one elevation different from the rest, I would not agree with that. If you are going with EIFS, and EIFS is an approved finish on three walls, I think it should go to the fourth wall as well.

Mr. Vanover said with the changes that have been made, especially with the elimination of the neon, I like the cleanliness of the look of this model without the red cap on the vestibule. I believe in the picture it makes it look top heavy, but Iíll yield to the majority rule on that. With the changes that we have worked out here, I think it can go.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the revised plan, the cardboard presentation we can call Exhibit A with the following conditions:

    1. That the four items of recommendation detailed out by our planner
    2. be incorporated into this motion.
    3. That neon lighting be excluded; there is not to be neon lighting accents on this building;
    4. That the waste receptacles both b screened on four sides with two gates;
    5. That the mechanical units be concealed on all four elevations from the adjoining right of way and property lines;
    6. That the awning lighting not exceed 30% illumination of the signage that will be approved;
    7. That the brick and masonry remain if possible; if not EIFS is an approved surface but must be used on all four elevations; and
    8. That the bulk of the yellow and red band on the top of the building be reduced to no more than eight inches.
    9. Final plans must be submitted per our plannerís recommendations.

Mr. Peterson said there is down lighting on the awning. Can that be excluded from the 30% requirement? Mr. Okum responded we have been pretty consistent with 30% illumination of signage. Mr. Peterson the downlighting will just wash the front door. Mr. Okum responded I understand; that is not a problem. For clarification, I have no problem with that. Downlighting will not be included in the motion.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Nine

VI C BUILDING ELEVATION Ė GOLD STAR CHILI Ė 11551 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Whitaker abstained, and the approval was given with six affirmative votes.

    1. Rezoning of Temple of Praise property, 1190 East Kemper Road

Albert Brown, representing Kemper Dodge as designee of Temple of Praise Property stated the existing Temple of Praise property is presently zoned R-1-A. Next to that property is the Kemper Dodge property, zoned General Business. Kemper Dodge is not a company store; Paul Kiels owns all the shares. There is an entity known as Kiels Real Estate Limited that is an Ohio Limited Partnership, and the partners are Paul and Iris Kiels.

Since Mr. Kiels started his dealership in 1985, he has demonstrated value both to the citizens of Springdale and to his customers. He has cooperated fully in the past with every requirement of the City of Springdale as he expanded the dealership and the property immediately to his west that adjoins his entirely is on the market.

Mr. Brown added what Mr. Kiels wants to do is make his business bigger, and at this point he needs an amendment of the zoning map for those three parcels of land. It is the first step in the process. He needs an amendment in the zoning map to close the sale transaction to get the financing and then to proceed with the more detailed and fuller development of the property consistent with the plan and the code of Springdale.

Every question raised in the Planning Commission comments on our current proposal is addressed by a separate later provision of your zoning ordinance. Every question is the subject of subsequent applications, subsequent procedures, and subsequent meetings before this Planning Commission.

Mr. Kielsí existing lighting seems to comply fully with the intent and requirement of the existing Zoning Code. However, before he can apply for and put the first light in place, there is an application and a process whereby he goes to the Planning Commission under a separate section of the code for the approval of the lighting, which is like what he presently has.

A change of this nature does require the approval of Council. Prior to that approval, it requires action by the Planning Commission. Under Section 153.230(C) the applicant must demonstrate that the property to be rezoned is adequate in size and topography to accommodate a usable structure consistent with the requirements of the zoning classification to which the applicant seeks to have the zoning change.

We have a parcel that is approximately 2.0 acres in size. There are two structures on the property Ė one is an assembly hall and the other is a 75í x 30í ranch house. Mr. Kiels proposes to convert that ranch type house to retail sales and sell automobiles. It is demonstrably less than 25% of the area of the parcel, so the use of that structure under GB is appropriate.

If all goes well, weíll be back before Planning with another bigger better different dealership, and that plan will be submitted to you for review and approval. At some point in the future the existing church sanctuary will be razed. That will depend in part on the wishes of the congregation who have told us that they wish to rent the sanctuary from us for a period of time until they find a new and different sanctuary.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Ten

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Brown continued with respect to any other question, those I would respectfully submit to the commission and the staff that these will be presented to you in detailed plans under 153.218 as the plans and elevations become appropriate. However, at this point we have to get the ball rolling with the first step, the zone change. With me tonight are Mr. Kiels and Terry Brennan his contractor, who would be happy to answer any questions you might have. It is their intention to comply with each of the requirements, but when you donít own the real estate, you canít plan on where you are going to move your trees, etc.

Mr. Huddleston asked us a month ago to get our act together, and one of the problems we have is that we understand that there is a new business involved, Costco. We have had some preliminary discussions with Costco and nothing we have seen so far in Costcoís plans for its property get in the way of our plans. Everything seems to be mutually agreeable and there isnít any point of conflict or bargaining at this point. When the proposals become more fully defined, we certainly can sit down and talk with them.

As I understand it, Costco plans to use a street or driveway in the neighborhood of McClellans Lane. McClellans Lane is a part of the proposal we have, and we have an access drawn on our plan from McClellans Lane into the parking lot. We can talk at some point in time either with Costco or staff about whether the six foot fence which would be required to be erected 10 feet inside the property line in a General Business area is better on the property line by agreement with Costco. That is a staff issue that does not need to get in the way of discussing whether or not the highest and best use of these three pieces of real estate should be R-1-A or General Business. All the other details are subject to further review by staff and the Commission.

I think the people I am representing have demonstrated with a 14 year commitment to this community and a substantial investment of their own money their willingness to work with the City of Springdale and develop and maintain a facility that is a credit to the city and the car manufacturer.

Mr. McErlane reported the only thing in question is the typical city requirement for the metes and bounds legal description for the properties so they can be properly platted on the zoning map. I am sure it is something that can be submitted, but it is necessary before Council can act on it.

Mr. Shuler reported I realize this is a rezoning request, and a detailed plan will be before Planning for final approval. However, I believe there are some five issues revolving around the site development that it is important that the applicant and Planning have a basic understanding of before we move forward.

First, regarding the existing storm water detention, it meets the Kemper Dodge site requirement and that site only, so storm water detention will be required in some form for this new site. It is not represented on this concept plan, and I think a commitment from the applicant that they will provide for that requirement is important.

Second, this concept plan indicates that not only is the new driveway going to be provided to McClellans lane, but also the two existing driveways onto Kemper Road would be maintained in keeping with our thoroughfare plan and the cityís ongoing work to try to eliminate as many curb cuts as possible. To make the traffic movement as efficient and safe as possible we are recommending that both of those driveways on Kemper Road be eliminated.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Eleven

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Shuler added regarding the McClellans Lane access, there is another applicant in this evening Costco that is showing in their plan that a new private drive will be constructed in approximately the same location as McClellans Lane so I think there should be a commitment that both applicants will work together for that new driveway is important, because we believe that is the best way to handle access to both sides.

Third concerns the right of way on Kemper Road. This is one of the older sites in town and the right of way is less at this location than it is in front of Kemper Dodge. It would require a 10-foot right of way donation from this site so that the right of way in front of this site would be consistent with Kemper Dodge. We would request and recommend that this take place at the same time as the rezoning and final plan approval.

In addition to the proposed driveway shown between the existing Kemper Dodge and the new site at the rear of the property, since this is one business we believe that at least some pedestrian access would be recommended between the two sites closer to Kemper Road, and should be taken into consideration when final plans are prepared.

Mr. Shuler said we would request a new legal description be prepared for the site. We find in many cases the old legal descriptions are sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect, and this would be the appropriate time to have a proper legal description for the entire tract that has to be rezoned so that when Council passes the ordinance, it does accurately represent the property that is being rezoned.

Ms. McBride reported the applicant has provided us with additional information, and we would offer these comments more for guidance in the future.

They indicate that one of the existing buildings is to be converted to retail sales, but we have no indication as to the type of retail sales that is. In the GB District we have no control over the type of retail sales; there are a variety of things permitted within our GB District.

There are a number of items that we would like to see addressed at a later date. A lot of these comments are directed at the fact that there is information contained on the site plan and we donít have the details. They would include the use in terms of parking compliance, and the building coverage. The maximum height of the building is 48 feet, and we need that documented. In terms of the sign on the site plan, we need the size, the height, and the illumination, materials. There is no indication of the location and screening of the waste container. There are light poles, but they are not labeled as such and we donít have any details on them. They also provided an area marked landscaped area but we have no documentation on that either. We are not showing any additional landscaping on Kemper Road or McClellans Lane and we would like to some type of streetscape treatment along there. The site plan does meet all the setback requirements. This laundry list is offered partially as guidance to the applicant and partially as information to the Planning Commission.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said your plan indicates that the church building is to be razed. Is that is what is to be done in the future? Mr. Brown answered exactly when this will occur we donít know. This plan represents our near term first plan at this location. Stage 1 is to convert the existing house to a retail sales facility for cars. We were demonstrating that we complied with the use regulations for the district that we wanted. Mr. McErlane responded we would only see a potential conflict if the church were still in operation and you had the lot filled with used cars.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Twelve

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Brown responded as a matter of fact the church has asked us to continue to lease the sanctuary to them until we need that property, with the understanding that we would reserve some 20 or 30 parking spaces for them on Sundays and Wednesday nights during the time they are looking for a new congregation. The church is a small community of approximately 50 members.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Darby asked if it were permissible to have a dual use of the property. Mr. McErlane responded both uses are permitted in the General Business District. The only concern would be whether or not adequate parking would be provided for both uses, particularly if the lot has a number of used cars in it for sale.

Mr. Osborn said if the church remains in place for an indefinite period of time, and you use the facility to the west of that as a used car dealership, I am concerned that we have a problem with the zoning code in that used car operations have to be assimilated with and contiguous to a new car dealership; it cannot be independent and stand alone.

Mr. Brown responded I may have misspoke when I said used. Maybe Mr. Brennan can speak better to this. Mr. Brennan added the drawing is to show the intent to convert the property to general business use.

Mr. Osborn asked what it would be used for. Mr. Brennan answered we donít even know. Mr. Osborn continued so you are asking us to rezone it without knowing what it will be used for. Mr. Brennan continued we are asking you to take a residential piece of real estate and convert it to general business for the best use. We have a lot of work to do as far as what the overall intent is. When Mr. Kiels buys the property, we will convert to some type of automotive sales and use, but we donít want to commit to that unless we get the zoning change. We also have some situations to do with the Costco group before we can move forward.

Mr. Osborn commented everything you said until a few minutes ago led me to believe that this was an expansion of the Kemper Dodge dealership. Are you saying that there could be a circumstance where that is not the case? What is the reason for not committing to say it is going to be an extension of the Kemper Dodge dealership?

Mr. Brennan responded it would, eventually. It is the intention of Mr. and Mrs. Kiels to continue to expand Kemper Dodge and provide more car sales and service. There are other business plans which he is considering which he would be happy to discuss with the committee in Executive Session.

Mr. Osborn answered that is fine. My point was if it is going to be an independent lot separate from the existing facility, it is going to have to be a new type new car dealership as opposed to a used car, because a used car has to be associated with the new car.

Mr. Brennan stated the business that will be operated in this area would be known as Kemper Dodge.

Mr. Okum said the existing entrance into Mr. Kielsí property is currently very difficult. The two driveways currently on the site are residential driveways not wide enough for ingress and egress and certainly do not conform to our subdivision regulations for ingress and egress for business properties. That would require widening of the opening. We do not have any traffic analysis to support those ingress and egress issues.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Thirteen

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Okum said it seems if it is going to be a common parcel or common use, there needs to be some cohesiveness between the two. If it is isolated as a single use GB and with these two single residential driveways going into it, I have some serious concerns about that. Do you have some sort of overall plan as to how these can integrate?

I tried to drive that driveway on the left side of the building, and if I were to try to go back to the proposed property line in the rear, I donít know how Iíd get there. Ultimately I went through the bay and around the back but it is fairly narrow there.

Mr. Brown answered when the existing sanctuary is razed, we would have enough extra width if that curb cut were still there. Staff says it makes sense to eliminate those curb cuts from a safety standpoint and it may be a point well taken and it is a matter we can resolve, but there is a conflict. Section 153.130 says parking area of more than 20 spaces shall have two 2-lane driveways located no less than 50 feet from the right of way line of the nearest intersecting street.

Mr. Brown continued whether or not there will be a left turn lane into whatever McClellans is, if a raised median goes along the center line of Kemper, it might be appropriate to work out a left turn at the top of the hill, but those are details which I feel more than certain Mr. Kiels, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Shuler can work out in the context of the detailed plans which we have to submit later. Today we have to ask you to start the steps toward the zoning change and recommend to City Council that the zoning in these three parcel be changed from R-1-A to General Business.

Mr. Okum responded you do have to show to us that the site will accommodate a GB use where it currently is a residential use, in terms of traffic conditions and ingress and egress. We have a proposed connector driveway across the back of the site and we have not addressed any traffic handling issues for either this site or the common site adjacent to it.

Additionally I have some concerns about the number of trees you are removing and their replacement. I donít see a large replanting and I must assume that your intent would be to do mounding and tree placement against the residential property behind you.

Mr. Brown answered operating on the assumption that Lot 4 remains residential, last time we presented you with mounding and trees along and set back six feet from the north property line. If that becomes PUD or General Business or whatever Costco wants, that screening fence isnít required. The screening fence is required so long as Parcel 4 remains R-1-A. I think we lose nine trees that we have to account for under your Tree Preservation Ordinance, but on tree ordinance issues we have to come back before you with a fully documented engineering drawing and full compliance with all provisions of your tree ordinance, which applies to any use of the property.

In order to get ourselves down the road towards acquisition of the real estate and financing of the real estate, we need to be moving toward the zoning change. The church has agreed to extend our closing date to July 31st. We may not make it even if you give us what we ask today, but we may be able to go back to the church and say that Planning has recommended it to Council and we ask your indulgence and we should be able to close on August 15th or something like that.

 

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Fourteen

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Brown said with all of the building code issues capable of being addressed in more detailed subsequent applications which we are required to file later, I think we are entitled to the favorable recommendation, and we ask that of the commission.

Addressing Mr. Brown, Mr. Huddleston said you have seen fit to excerpt from my remarks last month that I requested that you get your act together. Last month it was your choice to request of the commission that we on our own initiative rezone this property to suit your purpose. You can quote book page and verse of what our procedures and requirements are or should be, and everything we ask you is something you are going to determine in the future. I personally donít have a great reservation in considering the rezoning of this particular parcel, but I am not sure that GB is the right request without further definition of what your future intents are specifically. On that basis I am not willing to give any rezoning request consideration this evening.

Mr. Vanover said for clarification, on the map there is an existing storm sewer on the border of McClellans Lane. Is that a proposed reaction or the existing situation today? Mr. Brown answered I am informed that this is an existing condition which was discovered off the premises but within that area 25 feet around the premises which we were required to include in our plans. It is there under McClellans Lane and filled with mud.

Mr. Darby said I would like to agree with Mr. Huddleston. In my opinion much of the presentation has taken some forks in the road that werenít necessary. I have one question for staff. At this point in time, having seen and heard what has been presented, what are the major problems with us giving an affirmative vote for rezoning this evening?

Mr. Shuler said I believe the only issue is with the information you have before you, do you believe you can move forward with the rezoning

Understanding what will happen with the property. Iím not sure we do have sufficient information. There are a number of issues that I raised to try to get some consensus agreement, and I havenít heard agreement on any of those so frankly Iím not sure exactly where we are.

Ms. McBride added you need to look at the GB District in its entirety because there is no way we can tie the applicant to a car dealership use at this point of time. We have to look at all of the uses currently permitted within our GB District as uses that could go on this site provided they can meet the other requirements of the code, since GB is not as specific as PUD would be.

The Target property immediately to the west of the site came in as a PUD because the City had concerns about what would happen with that property, partly because McClellans Lane was still a residential street. One can argue that there is GB zoning to the east of t his site but that is an old zoning classification that has been on that property for some time.

Mr. McErlane added you do have to look at all the permitted uses within a General Business District. If we look at conventional zoning district classifications, GB is the only appropriate one aside from PUD, only because that is the only conventional zoning district it is contiguous with on this side of the road. Even a car dealership could be in an MS (Motor Service) district, it wouldnít be appropriate to take one piece of property and make it an MS District.

Mr. Osborn said ironically as difficult as the spokesman for the applicant is making it to vote in favor of this, I think we all recognize that it is an appropriate consideration. What he is failing to do is trying to make any effort to work with us on it and that is what is making it difficult.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Fifteen

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Osborn continued we have laid out to the spokesman what our concerns are. We can rezone this property to GB, but he is going to have to deal with all the issues such as the driveway. He pulled out a little section of our code that said he has to have two driveways. What he failed to pull out was the fact that you have to have so much frontage to have two driveways. He doesnít have that frontage, so he canít have those driveways. Those are the types of details that weíre going to work out, but he doesnít want to hear that now.

I would suggest that we consider the rezoning, because if you look at what we are doing overall in this quadrant of the city, it makes sense to rezone this property from residential. Now, we have tried to make it clear to this gentleman what our concerns are and he doesnít want to cooperate in this regard, so I would suggest we go ahead and do it the way he wants to do it, let him have the rezoning and weíll fight the battles when he comes in to try to develop the site.

Mr. Brown said I apologize to Mr. Shuler, Mr. Osborn and the commission, because I do not intend not to work with the city. I pointed out the problem of the double driveway simply as a matter of the Catch 22 that we found ourselves confronted with in trying to submit something to this commission that showed our willingness to comply with what we see the rules are and what the function of the Planning Commission is. Mr. Kiels and Mr. Brennan both have worked with the City in the past, and a lawyer doesnít need to get into the detailed construction process. It certainly was not my intention to do anything other than to point out that we felt we were in a Catch 22 situation on that driveway issue. Certainly we will be able to work things out all the way through.

Mr. Huddleston commented I appreciate the benefit of the city administratorís remarks and as I said earlier, my concern with rezoning this property is not what the highest and best use might be in the rezoning but rather how we might address the considerations not only for the property but for the adjacent infrastructure, traffic public safety and other issues we have to deal with. I still have serious concerns as to how that may be dealt with effectively with in the event we recommend rezoning this evening. I think one of the things that would be an absolute in my mind if we are to consider rezoning would be the deeding of the additional right of way to the City and immediately the agreement that the vacation of the existing drives would take place in that area of the frontage on Kemper Road. That would be my position on the rezoning of that t his evening.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Brown if he cared to address the driveway issue. Mr. Brown answered that is a question that I would have to sit down with Mr. Kiels and ask where he wanted to put the driveways. Mr. Syfert commented if you donít know what you are going to do with it, it doesnít make any sense to make that an issue, does it? Mr. Brown answered I would have to sit down and ask my client how he wants to sell cars, thatís what it boils down to. You are asking me how to design a car dealership.

On the vacation issue, has the Council passed a take ordinance on that 10-foot strip? Mr. Syfert answered I believe they are asking for a voluntary contribution of that strip. Are you willing to do that? It is that simple. Mr. Brown responded let me ask my client.

From the audience, Mike Annis, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Temple of Praise Church asked to speak to the commission. He said I am not a big zoning person or a big city planning person, but I sat through this meeting last month and I came again this month.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Sixteen

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Annis continued it appears to me as though, in my small amount of intelligence, it would be in the best interests of Springdale to take the small residential zoning area that is left (If McClellans Lane is zoned commercial) and rezone it. It would be a great benefit to our church and to the membership if the zoning would move forward and we could move forward. We are pretty much held in limbo until Mr. Kiels had the opportunity to either move forward or not. I hope that this doesnít come off in the wrong manner, but it appears as though we are winning a few battles but we are not winning any wars. We are winning a few debates, but the end result is what is best for Springdale, what is best for the Temple of Praise and what is best for the businessman who has been in your community for a long time, Paul Kiels. It is very important to us that this move forward and we be able to close by July 31st.

Mr. Okum said well prepared plans work well for everyone, and Iím having a little bit of difficulty understanding the July 31st deadline except for contract, and I donít want to get into contract terms. It is our understanding that for a short period of time your church organization may use the sanctuary as it currently exists. Then the time line of July 31st in my mind is not as critical as having a good plan before us.

Mr. Annis answered I appreciate that. Not all of the congregation would like to remain and utilize the building for a worship area in the future. Some of the congregation will be building a new worship center and going forward and until that time, we had asked Mr. Kiels for his permission to come on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings and utilize the building. In his graciousness he will allow that until we can get a building built. There are extenuating circumstances within the congregation that makes July 31st important to us. The world wonít come to an end, but it is very important.

Mr. Okum said I know we have two issues on the floor, but I think what Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane have identified and Mr. Huddleston has spoken very eloquently about the potential uses of this land. We do have to take a look at the use of the land as anything that can fit in GB, which means that traffic is an issue, considering Kemper Road as it is. If we had something more definite, a firm plan, PUD has been recommended by a number of people in this chamber, we would know what was being proposed, and we could do traffic counts and analyze the impact on Kemper Road and McClellans Lane. We have to continue forward considering Lot 4 and all of McClellans Lane as residential. Even the consideration of a potential Costco that might be approved, it still has to go through Council who has the final decision what happens to the parcels adjacent to this. We canít assume that Costco will happen; we have to assume that we have residential properties adjacent to this. We have an active church on the site and we do not have a plan before us that will give us the information that tells us the traffic and how it will affect the residential district and potential other uses that could go into that site. For those reasons, I cannot support it, whether or not there is a dedication of right of way, or the vacation of the two driveways along Kemper Road. There still is not enough information. Mr. Kiels, I know your intent is probably a car dealership; I canít comment to that because it is a GB request, and anything you as the purchaser want to put on the site, once it is GB if it fits within the zoning code, it can go there. So, based on those factors, I cannot support it.

Mr. Brown reported I reviewed with my client the issue of the driveways and we certainly could consent to the closure of the driveway access points along Kemper Road.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Seventeen

VI D REZONING OF TEMPLE OF PRAISE PROPERTY 1190 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Brown added donation of the property is properly deferred to a consideration between Council and the applicant. We are not opposed to it, but Planning does not have the ability to accept the gift if he makes it. It is a matter of active consideration on the impact on the plan we proposed. Does it move our setback another

10 feet back? That is one of the issues we can work out with staff, Council and the administration. There is an agreement that is called site control that keeps the Kemper Dodge property under the control of Chrysler Motor Corporation for another 30 years.

Mr. Huddleston moved to deny the request.

Mr. Galster commented for no detailed plan, no submission of traffic impact and a not adequate showing that this is the best use of the property, I will second that motion.

Mr. Darby said since the minutes were quoted, I noticed my closing comments were that it was my desire that the applicant and the staff be on the same page for this meeting, and I am not sure this has happened. I feel very strongly that the intent of the applicant is good for the City of Springdale. I hear the comments of the legal representative so the current owners are in agreement but the way things have gone, I find it difficult to support this tonight. I hope this can be worked out so this can go forward in the near future.

On the motion to deny, voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. The zoning recommendation was denied unanimously.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 9:22 p.m.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Target Store, 900 East Kemper Road requests variances to allow the placement of 2 storage containers behind the building on the loading dock slab for the Grand Opening and Christmas Season
    2. Rick Barnett, the store manager said opening a new store is not a science and to interpret the inventory levels is difficult. We do not need it right away; we are asking for approval if it is needed. This is temporary to be able to get through these periods if needed.

      Mr. McErlane reported that Target is requesting two storage containers near the retaining wall for their grand opening and the Christmas season. This is a deviation from Section 153.085 and the recorded covenants prohibit storage outside the building. There is no indication the size of the units. If Planning remembers, Wal-Mart had a similar request for Christmas and Planning granted the request until December 1995, strongly advising them to find other means in the future. In June of 1996 they again requested it and were denied.

      Ms. McBride stated we did not get dimensions or the exterior of the containers. I understand the Cityís position regarding Christmas season and the possibility of opening this up to other retailers; I know that is a concern of the City. The only other thing I would add is if the Commission would consider any type of approval, I would suggest that it is for a maximum of three weeks, and we would need to document that they could access their truck dock.

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Eighteen

      VII A TARGET STORE 900 EAST KEMPER RD. Ė STORAGE CONTAINERS

      Mr. Barnett responded there will be no signage and we have looked into a cream colored 10í x 40í container and trucks can maneuver. The semis are not, but we are nowhere close to that location. With the new store opening process, we have trouble guessing the levels of inventory. I understand that Wal-Mart has quite a turnover in managers, but I have been with Target for six years in the same store and I won't be in next year asking for this again.

      Mr. Okum asked how many deliveries they receive and Mr. Barnett answered anywhere from five to six a week.

      Chairman Syfert called on Mr. Shuler, who stated that his concerns had been addressee, the truck access

      Mr. Syfert stated I do not have trouble with dealing with the grand opening, but I have a lot of trouble with Christmas. You are big retailers and you have to be able to handle it. If we grant you permission for Christmas everybody else will be in, but I do want to help you with your grand opening.

      Mr. Darby said the applicant is requesting five weeks. Mr. Barnett responded the three weeks wold be fine. Hopefully we will not need it at all.

      Mr. Okum showed pictures of the trailers at an other Target. I agree it is a little hard to judge grand opening inventory and I would not have a problem as a courtesy to Target to allow trailers for the grand opening not to exceed three weeks.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston said what if we give you a three-week window on your grand opening and it expires August 31st? Mr. Barnett said that would be fine. The trailers do not have signs; they have numbers.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the temporary trailers not to exceed 10í x 40í for a period of 21 days during the grand opening and that the trailers would be beige, well kept and with no signage. Mr. Darby seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Permission was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    3. Approval of change to building elevation, Tri-County Commons,610 Kemper Commons Circle (Davidís Bridal)
    4. Ted Jacenty said Davidís Bridal has signed a three-year lease and wishes to do a storefront revision. The owner has sent a letter indicating his support for this. Mr. Jacenty showed pictures adding it is a gable that is the quality of the one on top of Home Place.

      Mr. Galster said it fits in with the development and is an enhancement, so I move to grant approval. Mr. Okum seconded the motion. Mr. McErlane added if Commission cares to, they can approve the signage at the 50 s.f. allowed. Mr. Galster amended his motion to include signage and Mr. Okum seconded the amended motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Nineteen

    5. Preliminary Plan Approval, Costco, Century Blvd. & East Kemper Road and Change to PUD Zoning
    6. Jeffrey Ashida said since we did our submittal, we have more accurate survey information of the site and have some adjusted property lines. We evened our property line and lost two parking spaces. We also propose to relocate the detention pond for Target and Costco. We also have an easement related to the detention pond to allow for the relocation.

      As a result of staff comments, we have shifted the building to faces Century Boulevard and away from Kemper Road.

      The layout aligns with Target access off Century Boulevard. Trucks would come in down Century, loop around the building, back into the dock and around and out.

      We have materials board to show you the overall look of the building. It is concrete masonry with a sandstone colored base with a red band and lighter band above that, and there will be various pilasters on the building.

      We have incorporated more landscaping in the parking area and more around the perimeter and around the detention pond. We have a number of consultants here to answer any questions you might have.

      Mr. Shuler commented it is difficult in that the comments that we had prepared and sent out were from the previous plan, and the plan just shown is different. There are significant retaining walls, and it is important to discuss the material and color.

      There will be construction entrances, one off Kemper and one off Century, and we recommend Century only.

      We will need letters from MSD and CWW concerning sanitary sewer and water availability before final approval. The sanitary sewer for Target crosses this property and ties into the existing at McClellans Lane. This needs to combine Target with Costco and work this out with MSD.

      Water electricity and telephone are shown under the new driveway at McClellans Lane on the east side and should be moved to the west side of the entrance drive to keep them on the property. The vacation of McClellans Lane will need to be coordinated hopefully with the development on the Temple of Praise Church property.

      There is a question as to truck maneuverability around the site for proper access. The site will require detention for a minimum of 205,000 cubic feet of storage for Costco only. The new plan indicates an existing storm water detention on Target property will be eliminated and incorporated into this detention. We will need to see the major storm routing across the site.

      A traffic report has been prepared and submitted. This indicates that the traffic this project would generate would be 30% more than the traffic we had anticipated for this area in the Kemper Road Study. This would relate to a 5% increase in the volume of traffic on Kemper Road. However, even with that increase, it would not alter the level of service at the major intersections. It would increase the delays during peak hours but not change the level of services.

      We would recommend consideration of an additional southbound right turn lane on Century at Kemper Road

       

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Twenty

      VII C. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Ė COSTCO Ė CENTURY & E. KEMPER RD.

      Mr. Shuler added this project will have a right in right out only driveway at the location of McClellans Lane. There will be a right turn in and out on Commons Drive at the west side of Target. Until both are opened and we see the actual traffic, the City has budgeted for some additional work on Kemper Road, and that would be a more appropriate time to reevaluate the traffic conditions.

      We feel the following restrictions should be required: 91) additional right turn lane northbound on Century; (2) additional right turn lane on Kemper from McClellans to Century; (3) raised concrete barrier median be placed on Kemper Road opposite McClellans Driveway; (4) signal head modifications necessary at Kemper Road and Century and (5) pavement striping modifications to access new driveways and additional lanes.

      The Covenants should include (1) additional right turn lane on Century; (2) additional right turn lane on Kemper; (3) raised concrete median at McClellans Lane; (4) maintain detention for Target site; (5) easements that may be necessary; (6) sanitary sewer easements for Target; and (7) ingress-egress commitment for Kemper Dodge on Temple of Praise property.

      Ms. McBride reported that the proposed building coverage was 20.6% and we allow 25%. Within the PUD minimum common open space required is 20%, and we did not have any calculations to make sure of that.

      They have relocated the proposed tire installation facility from the front facing Kemper to the west elevation and added the exclusion of any automobile services in the Covenants.

      Outdoor sales and storage of retail merchandise is prohibited with the exception of the storage carts, which will be completely screened.

      A total of 711 9í x 19í parking spaces are required. Their plan shows l783 parking spaces of which 144 are only 18í in length. The remaining spaces are 9í x 20í. This could be reconfigured to provide 19í spaces.

      The property to the southeast is zoned residential and if it is still zoned residential they should supply the necessary setback requirements, screening and buffering.

      A variance would be required on the east property line for the 5`í setback (75 feet is required) but staff would not have a problem if the Commission granted a variance for the 51 feet since it is appropriate given the land use.

      Given the height of the retaining walls along Kemper and Century, fencing would be needed on top that pedestrians could see through for safety. We also would like to see details on the materials of the retaining walls and details of the enclosure for the compactor/dumpster.

      The site may have 897 s.f. of sign area. On the building they are requesting 1,356 s.f. plus 106.8 s.f. for the gas canopy. No freestanding signage is proposed. Variances would be needed to permit that total and to allow the three "Costco Warehouse signs, which exceed the 150 s.f. maximum.

      Our landscaping comments are minor in nature. They provided a photometric plan for 35í high light poles with 1000-watt fixtures. There was no information provided for the color of the poles or fixtures. A series of wall packs is proposed for the building. There is .51 candles in the parking area, and the light levels vary from 13.98 to .51 on the site.

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Twenty-One

      VII C. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Ė COSTCO Ė CENTURY & E. KEMPER RD.

      Ms. McBride added the lowest levels are adjacent to the gasoline dispensing facility. We do a lot of gas service facilities, and the highest areas are around the canopy. Theirs was the lowest and that should be increased for security reasons.

      Mr. Ashida said we are flexible about the length of the parking stalls. Nine x 18í will work on the site, but we prefer 10í x 20 because it works best. However, if we went to 10í x 20í we would not meet a company requirement.

      Mr. McErlane reported the construction schedule or cost estimate is needed and a floor plan is needed. Structures within 200 feet of the project were not shown on the plan. There is concern about how the trees will be impacted. A metes and bounds legal description is needed.

      The plan shows one of the access drives across McClellans Lane which is intended to be vacated, and part will be on the Temple of Praise property. This will need to be worked out. There are 156 handicap spaces required. Building to land coverage is 20.6% and 25% is permitted.

      On the tree replacement, the applicant has shown a tree survey but based on the area and grading, almost all of the trees will be taken out.

      The landscaping plan showed 570 caliper inches to be planted. 39% of the proposed plantings are ornamentals where almost 100% of the trees removed will l most likely be hardwoods. Of the 570 inches proposed to be planted, approximately 168 inches replace those recently planted by Target. This results in 402 caliper inches to be planted in exchange for those removed.

      On the east side of the property against the Springdale Commercial Center we are looking at a 27-30 foot retaining wall.

      Mr. Osborn commented the design team has been very cooperative and professional. There are a number of detailed issues outstanding, but we feel they have responded to the critical issues. I want to compliment our staff on their review; we all want to move this project along after it meets the standard criteria. We think Costco has done an excellent job in trying to address our requirements.

      Mr. Okum asked if the retention basin would be dry or wet, and the applicant responded that it would be dry.

      Mr. Osborn stated we have future plans for this intersection and we would not feel it appropriate to require an exclusive right turn lane southbound because we will not know if it will be needed until after the openings of Costco and Target.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he saw any of these issues as major problems. Mr. Ashida answered we can accept everything but we want to see how it is resolved in terms of signage.

      Mr. Syfert commented we have heard a lot of things brought up but it seems that most of the major issues have been addressed.

      Mr. Galster moved to approve the change to PUD and to approve the preliminary plan with the items that the applicant is aware of and needs. Mr. Okum seconded the motion addling that the comments and recommendations of the staff should be part of the approval.

       

      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      13 July 1999

      Page Twenty-Two

      VII C. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Ė COSTCO Ė CENTURY & E. KEM PER RD.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Vanover said when one does his homework things happen. My hat is off to you for doing your homework. Mr. Ashida commented working with the staff and administration has been a very good process.

      Mr. Okum confirmed that the motion is not to include approval of signage.

      Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Preliminary plan approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    7. Final Plan Approval of Northwest Blvd. Extension & Retention Basin for Pictoria Island

Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests and Lani Wess of Woolpert approached the Commission. Mr. Woodward reported we wish to extend Northwest Blvd. Into a cul de sac and build a detention lake. The project is a 700,000 square foot office park with five buildings and four restaurants. He showed a rendering of the office building.

This building should start within the next couple of weeks with full engineering drawings. We have excellent prospects for the building, or we may start without tenants. Some of the restaurants looking at the site include Italian Grill and Bahama Breeze (New Orleans style restaurant) has signed.

Ms. Wess showed a color rendering of the extension of Northwest Boulevard at North Commerce Way, adding it is 350 feet south of the intersection to the center of the cul de sac. The road is 37 feet wide, which matches the road on the other side. There is a 60-foot right of way and five-foot concrete sidewalk. We are proposing alternating brick pavers to match the design in the cul de sac. It is one way around about with one way signs at each of the intersections. For a 55 foot length truck, the turning radius is such that the driver has to do some maneuvering to go all the way around, but to go straight across he can make it easily.

The standard cul de sac is 40 feet from the center to the back of curb, which is adequate, and we have 45 feet in the plan. Typically when a truck does a turn around, on the way around he will need a wider section.

We do not think the truck is that much of an issue. With the buildout of the development, there are other means of ingress and egress, but we are willing to work with you to see what solution you would have. If we got rid of the island, you still would have the problem of the truck turn around in any cul de sac.

Ms. Wess added we are proposing construction of Pond A as part of the primary PUD. There would be 105,000 cubic feet of storage volume from the west elevation to the top of the spillway to cover the 500-year storm minus the 25-year predeveloped.

Ms. Wess added for landscaping we have shown sweet gum and honey locust on the streetscape, honey locust for the cul de sac. Evergreens and shrubs are proposed for the landscaped island.

We have reviewed the staff comments and would be happy to address that. They indicate that for the streetscape instead of sweet gums we should plant red oaks and the cul de sac should include autumn purple ash. The island has a ratio of 18 feet or 36 feet in diameter)

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Twenty-Three

VII E NORTHWEST BLVD. EXTENSION & RETENTION BASIN Ė PICTORIA ISLAND

Mr. Syfert asked if there was a sidewalk on the west side of the drive, and Ms. Wess answered only on the east side where it would be used.

Mr. McErlane reported I received a tree-planting schedule, but it doesnít show any trees to be removed relative to the detention area. At some point we will need a right of way plat. Public Works feels that pavers would be acceptable in the right of way, but they would need to discuss the construction specifications before approval of their use. Also, the developer needs to submit the Cincinnati Water Works approval.

Ms. McBride reported that the proposed landscaped island planting material is fine but would need to be irrigated. Sweetgum and honeylocust are proposed as street trees, but our landscape architect felt that there should be stronger character trees such as a red maple or red oak and would want them to be planted 50 feet on center instead of 60í.

Mr. Shuler reported that the storm water dentition is a revision; it is smaller, but meets the requirements. The question as to whether the facility would fall under new drainage regulations needs assurance that it does not or a permit will be needed from ODNR.

The Water Management and Sediment Control bond is required in the amount of $114,000.

On the extension of the public street and cul de sac, Public Works has concurred with brick pavers, but we will need to look at specific material and construction details to make sure it is the same strength and wait as the streeee6 design. I heard a request for a brick sidewalk, and we will need to see the details. We want one-way traffic around the traffic circle so signage will be needed.

Mr. Okum said on the landscaped island, can you irrigate it? Ms. Wess answered yes, we will put in a temporary meter to landscape it. Mr. Osborn said I would like to see documentation as to the landscaped island and who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep. Mr. Woodward answered we would like to have the responsibility for the maintenance rather than the City. It will be the developerís responsibility during the development period and eventually an association will take care of this.

Mr. Vanover asked the surfaces acreage on that first retention pond. Ms. Wess answered approximately 1.5 acres.

Mr. Okum commented earlier I suggested a walkway around the perimeter of the lake. Mr. Woodward answered it is a good suggestion and we would like to incorporate it.

Mr. Syfert added as an alternative you mentioned pavers for the sidewalk. Ms. Wess responded it depends on the cost. Mr. Woodward added we talked about doing that; we are 80% sure it will be brick.

Mr. Okum said since the applicant has shown an interest in using pavers, it looks great and it will be a nice upscale development. He moved to approve the cul de sac with brick pavers and walkways. Mr. Galster seconded the motion, provided the emergency vehicles can negotiate the cul de sac and incorporating the staff comments.

Mr. Woodward responded you donít want to make the cul de sac any bigger than it is, but if it needs to get bigger, our alternative would be to leave it the size it is and put something in the middle.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 July 1999

Page Twenty-Four

VII E NORTHWEST BLVD. EXTENSION & RETENTION BASIN Ė PICTORIA ISLAND

On the motion to approve, voting aye ware Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. McErlane reported the applicant has asked about the potential of doing rough grading before the final plan approval. They have submitted a rough grading plan and tree removal plan.

Mr. Woodward said it is important. In order to get the first restaurant established, we have to level it out. There is a hump of 10 feet.

Mr. Okum moved to allow grading based on the engineer and building officialís approval from the cul de sac westbound.

Mr. Shuler said I do not have a problem with approving a preliminary rough grading because they will bc coming aback to Planning for final approval.

By voice vote, all voted aye, and the approval of rough grading was granted unanimously.

VIII DISCUSSION

  1. Zoning Code

With the late hour, Mr. Galster moved to delay this until the August meeting. Mr. Osborn added the changes I was concerned with have been accommodated, but I have noted substantive improper use of words, spelling errors, etc. The document is not ready to go out. Mr. Galster commented maybe the committee should meet again instead of the Planning Commission.

IX. CHAIRMANíS REPORT

    1. Donatoís, 322 Northland Boulevard Ė Painted Window Sign
  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be in attendance August 10th, and Mr. Vanover responded he probably will be out of town.

Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,1999 _________________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

 

______________________,1999 __________________________

Dave Whitaker, Secretary