PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
7:00 P.M.


I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

`    The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:        Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman Steve Galster,
                Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, and
                Chairman Syfert

Members Absent:        Tom Vanover

Others Present:        Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
                William McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer
                Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert stated that Mr. Vanover had a work problem and will not be here. For the benefit of the applicants, any final action will take five affirmative votes.
               
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 12 JULY 2005

Mr. Okum moved to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Report on Council – no report
B. 7/13/05 Letter to President of Council re Springdale Town Center, 11560 Springfield Pike
C. Planning Commissioners Journal – Summer 2005
D. Zoning Bulletin – July 10, 2005
E. Zoning Bulletin – July 25, 2005

V. OLD BUSINESS

A.    Exterior Façade Alterations – Carpet Outlet (formerly Bings) 11649 Springfield Pike – tabled 7/12/05

There was no one present representing the applicant, and Mr. McErlane reported that after last month’s meeting, we sent a letter to the owner and the applicant advising them that they were tabled and suggested they be here for this meeting tonight, and if there were changes to their application to let us know. We have heard nothing.

Mr. Okum moved to remove it from the agenda and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.








PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWO

V OLD BUSINESS - continued

B. Kemper Square Landscape and Sign Plan – 107-139 West Kemper Road

Mr. McErlane reported that he received a phone call from the applicant yesterday asking to be tabled until the September meeting to address some of the comments of staff. Mr. Okum moved to table and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the item was tabled to September 13th.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A.    Approval of Driveway for Glenmary Home Missioners, 4085 Glenmary Trace

    Father Dan Dorsey, president of the Glenmary Home Missioners said
with me tonight is Father Bob Pundel, the First Vice President and Brother Bill Wright who is our house director and runs our residence and Sandy Becker, our civil engineer.

Father Dorsey said I am going to give you a brief introduction. We are a group of Catholic priests and brothers who are missionaries here in the United States. We work with the poor and forgotten, especially in Appalachia and the south. We are a non-profit religious organization.

We support our missionary work throughout the United States with donors and each year is a struggle to meet the budget. The Glenmary Home Missioners have been a part of the Springdale community since 1939. We have been around for over 66 years and have served many of the residents of Springdale.

As a community of Catholic priests and brothers, we believe we have been good citizens and good neighbors of Springdale. Our commitment to the area and the community should be evident; we say what we mean and we mean what we say. We are here to stay.

We own this property in Springdale and pay taxes on it. We have no plans to move, sell or develop any of our acreage. What we are asking of the City of Springdale seems simple enough. We are requesting what I am told is called a curb cut permit. We want access to our property from a public right of way.

We are asking for a curb cut permit so we can construct a driveway to our residence. We are not building a thoroughfare, but a private driveway to serve our membership. We are not developing the property.

The residence houses both active and senior or retired members. Currently there are seven retired and six active members living there. The main need for the driveway is that of safety. Approximately 35 to 40,000 cars a day pass by on Route 4, and getting in and out of this entrance is at times dangerous; during morning and evening rush hours, particularly so.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE THREE

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Father Dorsey said also there is a plan to widen Route 4 from five to eight lanes in front of our Glenmary Trace entrance. We as a community chose Yorkhaven over Ray Norrish, because of the safety factor. We realize that Route 4 will be under construction for a minimum of two years. This will be difficult for people navigating construction for this period. Imagining our older members dealing with this is troubling for me as a leader and dangerous.

Even if there were no construction, negotiating eight lanes with the amount of traffic at the intersection of Route 4 and Crescentville where the Ray Norrish Drive entrance would put us out into, we believe is prohibitive. We believe it would be easier to go over Kenn Road, and that was the main reason for choosing Yorkhaven.

Yorkhaven Drive allows easy access for our members to the necessities, the post office, Walgreens and Mercy Hospital without having to use Route 4. The choice was for the safety of our members.

The second need revolves around safety and accessibility. During rush hour, and even with a stop light at the other entrance, if there ever was a major accident or incident to block our entrance and the stop light at Route 4 and Crescentville, it would be impossible to get an ambulance to our residence. With the number of retired and elderly that we house, the accessibility factor by emergency vehicles is very important, and the access from the Yorkhaven driveway entrance addresses this concern.

We own the property; we are responsible, and as Glenmary Home Missioners, and I as the president am very aware of and have heard very clearly concerns about the security of our property, especially on the proposed driveway.

As the leader, the financial implications due to insurance liability are obvious. They are not only the concerns of Springdale, but also my concerns primarily. We will install a gate that will limit access to the driveway. We will also build a fence that will extend both north and south so that you are not able to walk around or drive around the gate. We will install lighting along the driveway that will be of the same type that we presently have in our parking lot at our residence. The number of vehicles would be about 20 to 25 per day.

I would like to make two points in conclusion. First we are asking for a curb cut permit that allows access to our property from a public right of way. We are not building a roadway. We are asking for an access curb cut permit to our own property. It is out intention to build a driveway for our residents, not a thoroughfare.

I would hope that the standard that we are being held to regarding security lighting and need is the same standard that everyone who applies for a curb cut permit is held to. Our driveway is longer than most and our residence houses more people, but we are asking only for a driveway curb cut.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE FOUR

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Father Dorsey said as president of the Glenmary Home Missioners, I have the responsibility to look after the welfare of our members. By choosing the Yorkhaven driveway entrance over the Ray Norrish driveway entrance, we have chosen the more costly route for us in a day and age where our dollars are very short and tight. Given our limited resources, this decision to choose the more costly route is significant. Clearly our choice is because of safety over cost. Our overriding reason for choosing Yorkhaven came down to the safety and well being of our membership, especially our older membership. As a leader, I don’t like the idea of spending more money, but when it is put in terms of lives and well being of members who have served in our missions very faithfully for many years, it is an easy decision. I respectfully submit this.   

Mr. Syfert asked if they had office personnel in and out daily and Father Dorsey answered yes and they use the Glenmary Trace entrance. Mr. Syfert asked how many there were, and Father Dorsey responded 20 to 25. Mr. Syfert commented so we are talking a total of maybe 33 to 35 trips a day. Father Dorsey answered yes, but this is mainly for our residents.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property in Springdale is zoned Residential Single Household Estate Density (RSH-E) and is currently undeveloped property. The applicant is proposing to construct a 20-foot wide driveway across their property beginning at the existing parking lot in Fairfield and ending at the west side, the dead end of Yorkhaven Road.

The zoning on the property in Fairfield is B-1 which allows for religious educational and charitable organizations and institutions and offices.

The applicant has indicated that the reasons for constructing the driveway were safe access and he has elaborated on that tonight. He also has answered some questions on frequency of use and security and lighting.

The Tree Preservation Ordinance typically exempts residential properties, but it specifically says developed residential properties, so it does apply to this property. Based on the amount of forestation that exists there, we are probably talking about a pretty substantial number of trees that will be removed. It will be up to Planning Commission to consider whether or not they would provide some relief from this requirement.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. McErlane if the applicant needs a conditional use and do we need to go through the notification time? Mr. McErlane reported that there is a section in our code that indicates that properties located in a residential district cannot be utilized to provide parking or access from non-residential districts.





PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE FIVE

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. McErlane commented that without knowing the mix of the uses on the property and it is in Fairfield, the district itself is a non-residential district, so based on that specific requirement, it would say that it is a prohibited use. However that same section goes on to say that Planning Commission can authorize conditional use to allow such access or parking on a residentially zoned property to serve a non-residential district. So it does appear that it would require a conditional use permit and hearing for it.

Mr. Galster said and we would have to advertise that 30 days prior to the hearing, so tonight we will end up with a discussion about the project understanding that a conditional use permit would have to be applied for and discussed at our next meeting.

Mr. Becker said that went over my head. What would the conditional use permit be for, the driveway? Mr. Galster responded to allow a driveway that has access from a residential street to a non-residential use. It starts at the end of a residential street and runs through a residential area into Fairfield that has a zoning that is institutional office and something other than residential zoning. Also the use is something other than residential zoning as it exists. Because of that it needs to have a conditional use to allow it to connect to a residential street.

Mr. Becker asked if it could be handled with a deed restriction. Mr. Galster answered if in fact we do a conditional use permit that would allow us to have restrictions and covenants in the conditional use.

Mr. Becker commented it really seems to complicate this issue. So the process would be a 30-day advertisement? Mr. Galster answered we have to advertise a hearing for a conditional use permit which is a 30-day notification. Our next meeting date is September 13th so we would need to have it advertised prior to that meeting to have a public hearing. Mr. McErlane reported that it actually is a 15-day advertisement period.

Mr. Becker said that would be the hearing. Could it be voted on at that meeting also? Mr. Galster said yes. Mr. Becker commented in the interest of time, can we work through the details this evening? Mr. Galster responded I think it would be very advisable to have the discussion so that there is no question as to where any particular board member stands or any input that you need so that suddenly you are not surprised at the next meeting.

Mr. Becker said while I am here, let’s deal with the biggest issue we will have, and that is the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Granted, this is heavily wooded but the portion where this driveway is going used to be pasture. This is basically overgrown pasture land. There is a pond (indicated on the drawing) and north of that pond is old forest, and we are not going through that. It is overgrown pasture land and not very nice vegetation at all.






PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE SIX

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Becker said so we would be asking for a waiver to the Tree Preservation Ordinance and I don’t know if that could be granted tonight of if it would have to be granted     at the next meeting.

The rest of the items are for the most part technical and should not pose a problem.

Mr. Okum said I tend to agree with the process because I feel it is important that the information be provided so at least some comment goes back to the applicant. On the other hand, I don’t want the applicant to feel that is full and final, because the purpose of the conditional use permit is to give the opportunity to the people from the public to address the commission as well and express their views. This could or could not change a person’s position on a request. The conditional use permit is not tied to a deed restriction. I am afraid to tie tree preservation to deed restrictions because it almost sounds like a take of property and restriction on the future development of the property. It is Residential Estate Zoning, and Father Dorsey has indicated that it is not his intent to develop the property, but he may not be here in five years and things do change.

If there would be the deed restrictions that Mr. Becker has referred to, I would rather see that come forward from you as an inclusive presentation. If you are asking for relief on the tree preservation ordinance, then you outline what you are willing to do in terms of deed restrictions. What is the City gaining by waiving the tree preservation ordinance from you? I would like for you to make that presentation; I would rather not comment on my feelings on the trees. There is no tree count but you have a situation here that could be significant. So I would say that I would rather the offer come from you the applicant than us making comments on our position on an unknown number of trees.

I think your creating this access driveway is potentially possible, but you need to present to us a reason why we shouldn’t hold you to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. That needs to come from you and not from us; I don’t feel it would be right for me to make a comment on an unknown number of trees. I want to be fair to you, so I think it should come from you.

Mr. McErlane said on the deed restriction, in a discussion that Mr. Osborn and I had with Father Dorsey, we talked about the possibility of a deed restriction. If Planning Commission sees fit to approve this driveway access, a deed restriction on the driveway that would require it to be vacated should the property in Fairfield be developed for something other than its current use, or be sold. That was the discussion of the deed restriction. Jeff Forbes is here tonight to answer any questions but we talked with the law director, and they felt that it could be a condition of the conditional use permit, that we could require a deed restriction or covenant that would have language to that effect and would run with the property.

Father Dorsey responded I hopefully won’t be here five years from now, but the reason for saying the 66 years is to let you know that it’s not like I’m going to pick my business up and move it. We have been good citizens here for a long time, longer than most of us here have been alive.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE SEVEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Father Dorsey added that should stand for something. I’m not trying to sell you some snake oil. We have been here 66 years and what we say is what we are going to do. If we have to write this down, then we’ll write it down, but you can trust what we say.

Ms. McBride reported I don’t have much to add to Mr. McErlane’s comments other than to make sure that the commission understands that staff’s concern is not whether or not Glenmary is going to be there, but they have a very large piece of property in Fairfield that is zoned B-1. That allows a whole variety of office uses and business type related uses in addition to what they are using it for today. The properties on Yorkhaven are actually zoned RSH-L under our zoning Code and the property that Glenmary owns in Springdale that they would be crossing to access Yorkhaven is zoned RSH-E. My concern is that should something unforeseeable happen 20 years from now and a developer come in and develop it as office, it gets a lot easier to go out Yorkhaven than Route 4 for all the reasons that the applicant has said. I would just echo the consideration that should the commission move forward with the conditional use permit, and I do believe that is the appropriate action, that a condition be placed that it be only for the uses that Glenmary intends to use the property.

Mr. Shvegzda said the driveway is a 20-foot wide paved drive and has 10-foot wide shoulders on each side with side ditches. It does connect from the Fairfield property into the east end of Yorkhaven. It appears that the clearing limits that would be a part of the project would be the top or bottom of the slopes that are created for the construction of the driveway. These slopes or clearing limits are as close as 0 feet to the property of the corner of the lots between 12185 and 12195 Springdale Lake Drive. The edge of pavement is about 30 feet off that property corner. One idea is to utilize the retaining walls in certain areas to minimize the clearing limits caused by the construction of the slopes in the area.

There is a question on one of the vertical curves, which is not a big issue. Per the Subdivision Regulations, there is a maximum grade for minor streets and alleys that is 10%. The maximum grade here is 11.7% so that led us into some of the issues regarding some of the site lighting for the driveway in certain locations. The drainage is comprised of roadside swales and I think there is one culvert in one location that carries it from south to the north side so eventually we’ll need calculations on that.

The proposed asphalt surface is approximately .92 acres. It looks like the majority of this actually drains to the north back into Fairfield so we will have to get input from the City of Fairfield in terms of any drainage or water management conditions such as detention for this improvement.
Erosion and sediment control plans will be an important part of this. There may or may not be a need for a geotechnical report because of some of the grades that will be constructed there.

We had some comments on the amount of traffic that would be expected to utilize the driveway. We also have an overall traffic in terms of the traffic and how that restricted amount of traffic would be regulated for the driveway.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE EIGHT

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Galster asked how the access would be controlled. Father Dorsey answered we have discussed different ways, electronic car key. As I said to Bill and Cecil Osborn, it depends on what we need. We’ll put in what we need because if your concerns for security are high, ours are even higher because we are liable.

Mr. Galster responded it is not only safety issues, but the concern is for people from the Oxford Hill area using this as another cut through to get to that part of Route 4. Or people on Route 4 using it to cut back over to Kenn Road. Even though you are telling me that there are only 2 brothers that would be using that access road, and you are going to run regular hourly employees out the front road, if it is there for convenience and safety, I believe everybody will use it for the convenience and safety. So now we have a through road that basically runs from Route 4 into the residential area, depending on how we gate it or whatever.

Father Dorsey responded we are committed to do whatever it takes to do that, whether it is a key or electronic. You have to understand one clear thing here. You are worried about people going through. They will be going right by our front door where we live and we walk, so we don’t want 150 cars going right by our front door. So we will do whatever we need to do. That is the one thing I worry about with any of these entrances, even if we go into Ray Norrish. Now it is just a dead end back into our property.

Mr. Galster said if it was hooked up to Ray Norrish, I can’t see anybody using that as a cut through in order to go around that little bit of Route 4. Father Dorsey responded no, but they still could get in the property and do mischief.

Father Dorsey commented so your concern is not so much security, as people cutting through. Mr. Galster responded I am just saying that is an additional concern. I don’t want to say that one is of more value than the other, but it is an additional concern. Any time you allow more cut through, you increase your security as well. They go hand in hand.

Mr. Butrum added you also have the concern about Yorkhaven. If not handled properly, you could suddenly explode the amount of traffic on Yorkhaven.

Father Dorsey said the electronic gate would solve that. Mr. Galster responded if you had an electronic gate at Yorkhaven and I have people
From Route 4 trying to use it as a cut through, they get all the way up to the gate and have to turn around and come back through your property in order to get back out. If I put it down at the other end, I have the people from Yorkhaven that may try to come down.

Father Dorsey commented it is true that they may try it once but they’ll never try it again. Mr. Galster responded as long as the gate is operated and closed. We have another situation where we have a gate at the church that comes out on Sharon Road, and I don’t think other than the first week that it has ever been closed. All those are concerns, and I just want to know what the plan is.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE NINE

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Galster added as a councilmember in the City, if you are asking me what I see eventually happening to that, we have it zoned as single family residential with those two roads meandering through and eventually connecting down there as well, but not on a straight through shot.

You are telling me that you have no intention to ever sell the property or to have it developed which is both good and bad because there are a lot of people in Springdale looking for more home sites as well.

When we were looking at that Thoroughfare Plan, we meandered those streets through so there wasn’t a straight shot, and I am not sure that if in fact this does get developed to residential later on, how this road would interfere or interact with whatever other roadway system might be there for the residential development if in fact it ever happens.

Father Dorsey said I understand your concerns. All I can say is I am trying to deal with the present. Obviously we are not the ones that backed these two roads into our pr9perty and all we are wanting is a curb cut access to them.

I would like to hear you all talk about what I say to our members. What if somebody gets killed at Route 4? I understand your concerns, but I hope you hear clearly my concern. All we want to do is build a driveway, and if we ever sell the property 50 years from now, they can come with a bulldozer and take the whole thing out. We’ll sign a covenant, but I can’t tell you what will happen in the future or what you all have planned for our property. All I know is that I can stand before you today and say we are not going to sell it. We don’t have any plans to sell it. We don’t have any plans to develop it. That may not be the answer you want to hear. All I want to do is build a driveway to make my members safer. We’ll sign anything. We’ll secure it as best we can with 140 acres, and we’ll make sure it is done properly.

Mr. Galster commented my intention was not to make a statement that said I want to see you do something with your property. That is totally your decision. I’m not trying to persuade you to do one thing or the other. However, part of the planning process is the need to look into the future. If we didn’t look into the future to plan properly, we would have a mishmash of all kinds of things going on. It is all part of the process.

Mr. Galster commented my preference would be to bring it out to Ray Norrish Drive, only because we have a signalized access point there and there are office and hotel uses presently utilizing that street. Granted there is a residential area as well on that street, but it is not anywhere near as high intensity wise as what we have in Oxford Hills.

Father Dorsey said would you then address my concerns. We looked at both of these and we chose Yorkhaven. What would you say to my membership about the safety issue? If that was your mother or father or grandmother, would you want them on eight lanes of traffic? Mr. Galster responded until they relocated, my parents did use that drive
to access their home and go through that Route 4 and Crescentville intersection.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Father Dorsey responded if you had the choice, which would you choose? If those were your parents, would you choose Ray Norrish or Yorkhaven, all things aside? Mr. Galster responded I don’t know; I think I would choose convenience. I can tell you that my mom drives 70 mph on the interstate and she would go the quickest and easiest way. My dad might forget where he turned in the last block, so I don’t know which way he would go.

My point is that the use and the end destinations are similar to what is on that road right now. When you are talking about addressing concerns about access for ambulances, etc. Ray Norrish Drive does address those issues. Father Dorsey answered not if Route 4 is blocked. Mr. Galster responded if Route 4 is blocked from one entrance to the other, that’s a problem, but the odds of that happening and an emergency vehicle not being able to get through are slim. How many residents live on Ray Norrish Drive with the multi-family and single family homes and the business access and everything else? When this construction is going on, that needs to be opened up as a regular through intersection.

Father Dorsey commented if I only had one entrance for that many residences, I would be very concerned. If something ever happens, you would only have one access to all of those people who live up there. Mr. Galster added I believe it has served the City so far pretty well.

My point is that during construction that access road is still going to need to function in a safe and orderly manner in order to service all the existing people. I am going back to some of your original concerns during construction. That was one of your comments, and I think that entrance would continue to be maintained during construction to allow pretty easy access to and from Route 4. My preference would be to have it to Ray Norrish Drive, but just because that is my preference doesn’t mean that you need to change your application.        

Father Dorsey commented I think that is where the City would rather see it.     That is the impression I got. Mr. Galster added it makes more sense from an end use standpoint, and it makes more sense from an existing use standpoint and from a through access into a residential area. All those issues make the choice of Ray Norrish seem more obvious than the choice you have made here.

Father Dorsey answered except to the people who live there. I agree with everything you have said, but the thing that is overriding is the safety of our membership, and I hope you hear that real clearly. Mr. Galster added that is why I was trying to say that from a safety standpoint that intersection would still be maintained through construction and always have a signalized outlet. There are safety concerns, but the intersection with the light also helps provide some of that safety.

Father Dorsey added all I am saying is from our perspective, and we are the ones that have to use it – those are our moccasins and we are saying it is a major safety concern for us.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE ELEVEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Galster said what about the safety concern for the residential neighborhood that suddenly has 50 more car trips coming through it every day? That is a safety concern for them as well so we need to make sure that we address additional trips regardless of whether it is 33 or 37 or 57. That is a lot more traffic for the person sitting up there thinking it is a residential neighborhood.

Father Dorsey responded I agree with that and again, have you ever been on Yorkhaven? Mr. Galster indicated that he had, and Father Dorsey continued it was built rather widely. It dead ends right into our property and it is obvious that it was meant to go through. If we sold the property tomorrow and they built 150 houses there, what about those residents? Are you going to say that same argument holds up? “We are going to have more traffic through here so we’re not going to build those houses.”

Mr. Galster said no. The way the Thoroughfare Plan is shown, if there were 150 houses built up there, there would be through traffic back and forth but there would be no direct cut through to save anybody any time to meander through the neighborhood. Also we have to understand that residential traffic that would be coming back through Oxford Hills is different from what could possibly come from an office building of institutional use. A residential trip is part of what comes with that development if that should happen.

Mr. Hawkins commented I basically would echo some of the sentiments that Mr. Galster had. My biggest concern and where I have great reservations is concerning the impact on the residents. I understand your concern as far as the folks you are representing and their safety, but this would have a large impact on a residence. I have a problem with the increased traffic potentially in the future, and even just now, and I think some of those residents would probably have a problem with that. For me to get on board with this, I am going to have to see something in terms of a way to regulate that traffic. I have some reservations in terms of the additional cars coming through there, even with just your staff.

Father Dorsey said I don’t mean to be argumentative, but can you explain to me the difference? In our best case scenario, let’s say that we would have 30 cars every day. If you develop that back there, that Yorkhaven entrance is the only one that butts up there. Would you not allow them to build houses because they would have increased traffic on Yorkhaven? That road was built to have increased traffic; it is wide. It is like a thoroughfare.

Mr. Hawkins responded that is a valid point. I think the issue down to the type of traffic. If folks are going to their homes or to a friend’s house, I think that the way they drive is different from people going to work. If all that is residential, I think people will be driving differently and with a different mind set. I understand your point, but that is where my concern goes.

Father Dorsey answered we are not hot rodding around. We live there. I understand your concern, but these guys go to bed at 8:30 at night. It’s not a nightclub where you would have people in and out. I hear your concern, but I don’t know how to respond to it because it’s the what ifs sand possibilities and the could be’s.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWELVE

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Addressing Mr. Becker, Mr. Okum asked him to straighten out the vicinity map for the next time this is presented. It is basically a Fairfield map and doesn’t show Springdale street system very clearly. I’d appreciate it.

Addressing Father Dorsey, Mir. Okum said I live on Springdale Lake Drive, and I drive through Ray Norrish Drive every day. I have very close personal friends who live on Ray Norrish Drive. The one thing that makes it difficult serving on this board and being a resident of this communty is sometimes you make comments that will impact people that are close to you. But, if I have a choice of weighing 70 to 100 homes that 30 to 40 cars would go past today, versus two homes, I would have to look at the better interest of the City and say Ray Norrish Drive is truly a better location for access.

I have a young son and a wife that drive that street every day and I feel a lot safer that they are entering Ray Norrish Drive at Route 4 than trying to come out at your intersection. My office is on Mulhauser and every day at 5:30 when I come home I go past your entrance, so you understand that I truly see your pain. I know that traffic is backed up beyond your entrance every day, and to have an elderly person turning left there across those two lanes of traffic is very difficult. I am sympathetic to that, but on the other hand I have a signalized intersection that I feel a lot safer with.

Even with all the improvements that will be done on route 4 and that intersection, I feel that intersection’s a lot safer for my family and our community rather adding an extra 30 cars.

Let’s say you did sell off all the property and it became residential. Making the assumption of what would happen at this point is not applicable, because this roadway is not being built for that purpose. This is a driveway for the sole purpose of access for your residents, and it is going to be an increase of let’s say 30 cars a day. Even if you put gates at each end, which I would certainly recommend that are automatic, if somebody got in a gate at Yorkhaven, you still would need a gate to prevent people from going up that driveway to that point. You have to understand that we are looking at a short term application; hopefully it will be 20 to 50 years, but we don’t know. You might have to sell the property in order to justify your mission. I would ask you right now; have you sold off property that you own?

Father Dorsey answered we have never sold any property, except for the original mission on 747. Mr. Okum said if the mission became strapped financially, what would be your alternatives? Father Dorsey answered I don’t know. Mr. Okum said we want you to continue with your mission. Except for GE Park, you are the last productive green space in our community. I see the fathers and brothers walking behind the property. It is a refuge for them and a refuge for wildlife. It is a phenomenal green space in our community and I hope it stays that way forever.

Right now we are looking at a need for you which is isolated to safety for your people accessing your facility. At this point and based on that, I would promote Ray Norrish Drive over Yorkhaven Road. If you sold off the property and it became single family estate housing, I would have to look at access points and everything.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE THIRTEEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Okum commented I see Mallard Lakes as a very good example of a cut that was allowed to go in that gets an enormous number of cars on it every day because it has a lot of residents. They are residents too but if I had that driveway next to my house, I would be pretty upset about it because of the number of cars. For the use you are talking about, I think Ray Norrish Drive is the best location. I would say a gate at that entrance and a gate at wherever the termination point would be into that driveway would be necessary in order to keep that driveway secure.

Mr. Butrum said I also live on Springdale Lake Drive so I travel Ray Norrish every day. I make the left at least once a day from Route 4 onto Ray Norrish. My parents make that trip to see their grandchildren multiple times a week; my father is 79 and my mother is 76.

Route 4 is busy; I won’t deny that but I personally don’t view it as unsafe. I understand that you do, and I respect that; I don’t want to imply otherwise. As Mr. Okum said, we have to view the overall safety, and the difference between passing additional traffic by far more homes on Yorkhaven than the couple of homes on Ray Norrish Drive. From the safety perspective of all the residents involved, you and the people you represent as well as the other residents of Yorkhaven I also have to believe that it makes the most sense to go through Ray Norrish Drive.

I completely respect the fact that it would cost you more to do what you are proposing and come out Yorkhaven, and that you are prioritizing the people you represent over those costs. I also would like to see whatever deed restrictions that would be involved because you can’t predict what will happen in the future. I am sure that given your mission, if you get financially strapped and are faced with having to preserve the mission versus preserve the ownership of that property. I think you are a man of honor and would do the right thing. I am confident I would do the same thing and sell that property.

That is another factor, but we are just talking about the driveway and I still believe that the overall safety issue has shifted to having it off Ray Norrish Drive.

Mr. Coleman said I don’t live on Springdale Lake Drive, but I do live on Yorkhaven. I am surprised that you haven’t requested a driveway from Ray Norrish before now because of the signal there. I certainly would not want to see your members or your staff continue to try to exit onto Route 4, making a left or right turn because that is a dangerous situation. I come up and down Route 4 every day, and I have often wondered how your folks get in and out without bad accidents. .Ray Norrish has signal restriction that would allow for a better and safer traffic flow, so I concur that Ray Norrish would be the better route to go.

Mr. Syfert said I don’t think there is any doubt that everyone here suggests the logical and most reasonable construct would be Ray Norrish Drive, but I think we have to keep in mind that this is the owner of the property and it looks to me like all he wants to do is put a curb cut on Yorkhaven, which our Thoroughfare Plan already provides for. If he is saying 20 or 30 cars go out there a day, that wouldn’t be as many as we would have if we developed that property. It doesn’t make any sense, but l don’t think his request is unreasonable.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE FOURTEEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Galster said in the past when we have had developments such as churches that have left a lot of green space, we have made concessions on the amount of tree replacement required when the end result is that we save the green space. I’m not opposed to making some arrangements in reference to tree replacement. Providing that all that acreage is left undisturbed, I have no problem with making some concession in the replacement policy.

Mr. Becker said from a common sense standpoint, if we had to replace the trees, I don’t know where we would put them. The site is already wooded and we would have to put them in the side slopes or the ditches which we really don’t want to do because you can’t maintain them. From that standpoint, I don’t know where we would put any more trees on the property.

Mr. Becker said let me ask a question. Did I hear that if we go to Ray Norrish Drive, we will go to a use that has offices and businesses so that then we wouldn’t need the conditional use?

Ms. McBride responded I don’t believe that is correct because the property in Springdale that the drive would access through to connect to Ray Norrish is still zoned residentially so we would still require the issuance of a conditional use permit by this commission.

Father Dorsey said before I leave I would like a clear statement on where we stand. If that is asking too much, tell me. You said that if there was one person against the Yorkhaven entrance, I would like you to be up front and have it in writing so I know.

Addressing Father Dorsey, Mr. Okum said I would feel that logic says to me that the disturbance to the area going Ray Norrish would be less so there would be fewer trees involved. That would lower the number of trees that would be impacted by the driveway.

Safety wise, Ray Norrish is the logical safety area because of the signalized intersection and only two homes versus I would say 40 homes on Yorkhaven. When you advertise a conditional use permit, that means that all the residents will know about this issue. I would rather be clearer on what that conditional use permit would be. Who knows who will be affected by the development? Your decision would need to be made pretty quickly on what you are going to request. My suggestion is that less impact and safer would be Ray Norrish.

Addressing Father Dorsey, Mr. Syfert said you pretty much have heard everyone’s comments. I think as it stands right now there are probably five who would be against your proposal and, depending on the public hearing; I am probably on the fence. I think that is a safe assumption, and I believe the next move is yours in terms of something concrete to bring to us regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Father Dorsey said I notice this meeting is being recorded and I would like something in writing if possible, a statement of where this is. I would really appreciate that, something very concrete and specific.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE FIFTEEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Ms. McBride commented I don’t know that would be appropriate given the fact that we haven’t had a conditional use public hearing and the commission has not formally voted and the application has not really been formally made to the commission.

Mr. Syfert responded I understand that, but I would say that the only thing that would be available is the approved minutes once they are approved.

Father Dorsey said so the clear understanding is that five of you are against this and one is on the fence. Is that accurate?

Mr. Butrum said I believe I am on the fence. I would really recommend reconsidering for the reasons I gave. I do wonder if a good portion of the safety concerns are based on the fact of how things are working out, which Mr. Coleman has mentioned. In other words, to make a left turn where you are at right now is dangerous. You don’t have any traffic signal access there.

Having lived where I have lived for 10 years, a lot of us around here travel that all the time. I think we probably have a very different view of those safety issues, but for very good reason. We don’t have the obvious hassles that you have had, and that is why I respectfully ask that you reconsider.

You have asked us to look at your perspective, and I think we have. At the same time I would say look at it from our perspective, not just as a Planning Commission, but even as the people who have and do live up there. We don’t share those concerns because we are in kind of a different world right now because that traffic light makes all the difference in the world.

I’ll close by saying I am on the fence. I have some strong beliefs and I can be very heavily influenced by the public hearing either way.

Mr. McErlane reported relative to the Minutes, we have provided drafts of the Minutes when they become available to developers so they are not coming in blind, just so they have them for reference to look back at the comments.

Mr. Galster said I was going to make a clarification. If you asked me my preference, that is my preference. Am I saying that absolutely not, this would never happen – I haven’t seen enough information to allow me to make that decision. I don’t know how you are going to control access. I don’t know what the covenants will be in the case of future development in an office zoning. I don’t know how many trees are impacted, so I wouldn’t say that I would vote absolutely no to this proposal because I don’t know all the facts. All I was giving you was my preference for that. It is amazing to me that we have three people here that have pretty much said that even though they would be most impacted by your running it to Ray Norrish Drive, they still think that is a better thing. They are going to be the ones that feel the negative impact of the connection to Ray Norrish Drive. I think that is pretty telling.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE SIXTEEN

VI A DRIVEWAY FOR GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS - continued

Mr. Galster said I wanted to clarify that I am not saying no to this application. I am not saying no to that entrance. I am just saying that was my preference this way, and I would need much more information to make the final vote.

Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant wanted this tabled, and Father Dorsey indicated that he did. Mr. Okum moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye and it was tabled to the September 13th meeting.

Mr. McErlane reported that he will forward an application for conditional use permit to the applicant.

Father Dorsey said if any of you ever want to come up to our property, we have a beautiful house and chapel, and you are more than welcome to look around.

B. Kemper Pond Landscape Plan – 1311-1313 East Kemper Road

Jeff Wolf, of Core Resources and Project Manager of the Kemper Pond project said I am here representing Brian Ross of Triad Commercial Development, the developers of the project. Brian intended to be here but he was called out of town and he apologizes he can’t be here.

I am here to speak to you about considering approval of a modification to our already approved landscape plan. The changes do have an economic upside. It is fairly well negated by the fact that there are no tenants yet.

The changes meet the criteria of the City of Springdale, without impacting the screening requirements and the overall appearance. There are no changes in the species of landscaping. We feel the changes to the landscape plan still offer a beautiful entry to the City of Springdale.

I pulled out a plan that is 8 ½ x 11 with some green markings on it. It basically shows the areas where we eliminated the 66 shrubs. At the top left of the page there is number 1 and going counter clockwise, it is 2, 3, 4 and all the way through 8. Those green areas are areas where shrubs were deleted and the area would be planted in grass. The orange area, the number 3 is a transformer pad that we had to put in that island. This is predicated by Cinergy.

The other page is a summary of the changes we are proposing. If you take item 1 at the top left corner of the page, that area shows what is deleted. There were 15 winter gem boxwoods that were deleted out of that part of the site. You can go around counterclockwise one through eight.

Further down the modifications summary is a description of the red maple which is a deciduous tree. The caliper was decreased by an inch and it is my understanding that still does not impact the requirements for approval of the previous plan. Further below the hicks yew and burning bush were height changes and don’t impact the overall requirements.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE SEVENTEEN

B. KEMPER POND LANDSCAPE PLAN – 1311-1313 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Wolf added we feel these changes do not sacrifice too much in terms of screening and they still fall within the city guidelines. I appreciate your time and input in considering this change.

Ms. McBride said the applicant had gotten estimate on the cost for the landscaping as approved by this commission. Planning Commission approved the project in July of last year, and it was done with the landscape details to be worked out with staff. That was formalized din October of last year.

The applicant approached us about eliminating some of the plant materials, specifically 66 shrubs that they wanted to remove from the plan and they wanted to downsize some of the plant material.

After a number of conversations and revisions and reviews of landscape plans basically what the applicant is proposing is acceptable to staff. With the 66 shrubs being removed from the plan, they still meet the buffer yard requirements for screening for the parking areas. The downsizing of the plant material is acceptable to us as staff. They also are proposing to downsize eight red maple trees from 3 ½ to 2 ½ caliper inches and that still exceeds the number of replacement caliper inches needed to meet the Tree Preservation ordinance. So, we have no objections to the revisions to the landscape plan.

The reason it is back in front of the Planning Commission is because that landscape plan was attached as an exhibit to the covenants to the PUD, so any modification to those covenants or an exhibit to the covenants requires this commission’s approval.

Mr. Galster said if this landscape plan had originally been submitted you would have approved it? Ms. McBride answered that is correct. Mr. Galster said I would move that we approve this revised landscape plan provided that the applicant modifies the covenants as required in the notes. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

Mr. McErlane said I don’t have a whole lot more to add to Ms. McBride’s comments, other than the tree replacement requirement was 111 caliper inches and although they reduced the amount of plantings from 144 inches to 136 inches they still exceed the requirement.

Mr. Syfert said it looks like a very acceptable plan.

On the motion to approve, all present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Approval of Exterior Changes, Crazy Buffet, 380 Glensprings Drive (former Chi Chi’s)

Xin Jiang, owner of the property said I want to do what is on the pictures you have. I also want to have two lions in the front of the restaurant.

Mr. Galster asked if the red tower would be there, and Mr. Jiang answered it would be green.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Motor Service and is located in the Springdale Route 4 Corridor District, Subarea B. The applicant is proposing to repaint the building exterior, install new awnings and incorporate new trim. The Corridor District requires that Planning Commission approve any changes to materials and colors and design and that the compliance be limited to those items being changed.

That section of the Corridor Review District requires that the primary building colors be earth tones and that accent colors be limited to 10% of the area of any building elevation. We don’t have a presentation of those percentages, but roughing out the numbers it looked as though the front elevation is about 29%, the right side elevation is 27%, the rear elevation is 6% and the left side elevations about 12%.

We have color samples that are on the board. They are a flat finish, but when the architect dropped them off with the applicant, he had indicated that at least the red and green will be glossy and not the flat finish shown there. Glossy is similar to what the photographs show. My understanding is that the off white color is not going to be a glossy shiny finish, but a flat finish.

The Corridor District also requires that the roof colors be non reflective. If you’ll notice on the rear elevation and the right side elevation there is a small area of roof that is a metal roof that looks like clay tile. It looks as though the applicant is proposing to paint that green. To be non reflective it would need to be a flat green color.

The applicant has indicated that he owns the property. The County Auditor still shows the owner as Springdale Motel. Today the applicant dropped off a copy of a deed that he had executed in may of this year purchasing the property from Springdale Motel. I’m not really sure why it doesn’t show up in the auditor’s page and I would recommend that the applicant have his attorney check and find out why it hasn’t gone through yet.

Ms. McBride reported that I tried to highlight the Corridor requirements that I felt pertained to this application. Of those Planning needs to make some determinations. The applicant is proposing to take the building to a cream color with the red and green as accents and the commission needs to determine whether or not that meets the intent of the corridor requirement. Also it is specific in that it says dark non reflective colors for the roof and they are proposing some gloss paint. The Corridor District also talks to blank facades not being acceptable on the rear of the building.

Obviously this is an existing situation, and the only thing staff would say is because it is visible, can that be improved on. That is up to the commission to determine.

They do have roof mounted mechanical equipment and that needs to be screened from view. They have indicated they will be adding a fiberglass fascia to the front elevation. We didn’t get any dimensions on that. The maximum height in the MS District is 60 feet, and I’m sure it doesn’t exceed that.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE NINETEEN

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Ms. McBride said they have indicated they will be adding fabric awnings on the front and side elevations, and we ill need to determine whether or not they will be illuminated.

On the picture there is a graphic to the left of the front door between the windows and we wondered if that would remain as some type of graphic or something that wasn’t going to be used. It wasn’t counted in as sign area.

The only other comment is that although they have applied for sign permits, the signage isn’t shown on the elevations submitted to Planning.

Mr. Okum said the last time I was in the parking lot but it was in a deteriorated condition. Will the applicant be sealing the asphalt and repair and restripe it.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said do you read and understand English? Mr. Jiang answered a little bit. Mr. Okum asked if he had read and understood the staff reports, and Mr. Jiang responded about half. Mr. Okum asked if he had an interpreter to help him so the commission can better understand him and Mr. Jiang answered let me call her; she might be coming soon. (phoned the interpreter)

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum commented I find it difficult to be fair to you without being able to understand you and your being able to understand me. It is almost 9:00 and we don’t want to inconvenience you, but we want to be fair to you. Do you understand what I am saying? (Mr. Jiang spoke on the phone to his interpreter). Mr. Jiang asked if she could speak to the commission on the phone, and Mr. Okum answered no, that the interpreter needed to be present. Mr. Jiang asked how soon, and Mr. Okum said now.
Mr. Galster gave the interpreter directions from Forest Fair Mall.

Mr. Jiang’s realtor, Joy Robinson of Remax walked into the meeting.

Mr. Okum said we have a presentation of that drawing and two pictures, and Mr. Jiang has submitted that as representations of what he wants to do, but there are things here that are not there. My question to him is what applies to the plan we are to be reviewing.

Mrs. Robinson explained this to Mr. Jiang and said that he can point it out for the commission.

Mr. Okum responded if you will come up here, we will take one picture at a time.

Mr. Okum said for purposes of the record, let’s have Mr. Jiang circle on the picture the items that are specific to this project, the roof, overhang, trim, and color.

Mrs. Robinson reported that all the façade and detail of the one corner of the roof is other people’s sample, and he will remodel that.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Mr. Okum asked if any of this applied to his presentation. Mr. Jiang answered yes and Mr. Okum asked him to circle the items on the drawing that apply to this project.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said that it looks as though this treatment is what you are showing across the top of the building. These are the awnings that you are using This is the red band at the bottom. Mr. Okum asked that these be circled on one drawing. Mrs. Robinson said the two white lions would be added.

The major alteration is the roof. Mr. Okum said it is this roof section in the middle, and no columns or color on windows. Mr. Okum asked if the treatment was fiberglass, and Mr. Jiang answered it is the real thing. It is tile, a natural terra cotta or is it plastic? Mr. Jiang answered it is not plastic. Mr. Okum asked if there were anything on this picture that is on the new building, because this shows a green roof so should we disregard this. Mr. McErlane answered no, because it says awnings, red band on the bottom, the trim along the top and the two lines, but not the roofs.

Mr. McErlane commented that the intent may have been that this is a glossy green, but the Corridor Review District requires that it be flat. Mr. Okum asked Mrs. Robinson to explain to Mr. Jiang that the roof cannot be shiny. Mrs. Robinson reported that Mr. Jiang says that the roof will not be glossy or shiny. Mr. McErlane showed the flat green color. Mr. Jiang reported that he was changing the green to Chinese tile. Mr. Okum asked if the tile was the same that is on Benihana. Mr. Jiang answered that it was not that either. Mr. Okum commented if it is a natural tile, we would need to know what glaze it has on it. Mrs. Robinson reported it is a plastic. Mr. Jiang added it is 2 x 2 and only five tiles that look like tile.

Mr. Okum commented I have a real problem understanding whether it is shiny or flat. We need the color pallet of the real material to understand it. Mr. Jiang said it is not shiny. Mr. Syfert asked if he could bring it to staff. Mr. Okum said staff could do it. I think we have a representation of what he has and staff can review the not shiny versus shiny.

Mr. Jiang said that he read the staff reports but only understood about 50% of it. If I made a motion, my motion would be conditional on staff reports, which would involve him understanding clearly what these mean. Mrs. Robinson explained this to Mr. Jiang.

Mrs. Robinson asked about the sign, and Mr. Syfert reported that it already has been approved. Mr. McErlane stated that it is a panel change on the pole sign, a wall sign and a small monument sign similar to what was there previously.

Mr. Galster said I am going to try to make sure that everybody understands what it is that is being presented. Exhibit 1 is Picture 1. The top left is #2, top right #3, bottom left #4 and bottom right #5.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Mr. Galster said I’ll start at the top, the left side elevation. At the top of what is presently notched out for the Chi Chi’s will be replaced with this look, which is in reference to Picture #1. The red and green part of the roofline is the main entry feature.

On the left side, right side and front elevations the green and red trim around the top of the building shall be as shown in Picture #2. The awnings shown on the front elevation are also the same as shown in Picture #2.

The material shown in the right side elevation which replaces the plastic corrugated roof on the existing building will be replaced with some type of a green plastic material that is made to look like tile of which a color sample and sample of material will be submitted to staff for approval.

Mr. Okum asked Mrs. Robinson to ask Mr. Jiang if that is the same material that is on the two-story roof. Mrs. Robinson reported that this is a mistake made by the architect. That is already moved over to there and it is not green. Mr. Okum said so there is no change.

Would you please clarify that the side where those fiberglass panels are is the same tile that is on the top of that main roof, the roof on Picture #2. Mrs. Robinson indicated that it was.

Mr. Galster said so the roof that is shown on the right sides elevation and the rear elevation is not green. It is existing and is to remain the same.

The awnings are shown in Picture #2 as is the red accent line. The two white lions shown in Picture #2 will be put out here. Mr. Jiang stated they are stone lions. Mr. Galster asked if they were painted or a natural stone. Mr. Jiang reported that it is natural stone. Mr. Galster asked if Planning could have a picture of it. Mrs. Robinson added it will be very elegant and very nice. I’ll help him get a picture of it. Mr. Galster said so there will be two lions, one at each side of the entryway.

Mr. Okum said along the top of the building where the red stripe is below the green, ask if that is the same as the bottom border, or is it just painted red. Mr. Jiang answered that it is part of the molding. Mr. Galster asked if it was similar to this molding here, without the flutes (Picture #2 left side). The detail to that is similar, just not as big. Mr. Jiang confirmed that.

Mr. Galster said he is saying that the lions will be unpainted natural stone. Mr. Okum said it is more like limestone. Mrs. Robinson said I can guarantee you that the stone is from his home town in China and is authentic and very nice.

Mr. Okum said I have taken the drawing and taken the pictures and put letters next to each item.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY- TWO

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Mr. Galster said so these windows will be removed and it will be a flat surface. There will be no fake windows. Mrs. Robinson said Mr. Jiang said it is up to you; if you want it to stay that way, he can keep it that way. If you want a flat wall, fine; it is up to you, but economically he would rather keep the same thing there.

Mr. Galster said but this is a Mexican picture. Mr. Jiang commented we could change it to a Chinese. Mr. Galster said we need to see what those will look like.

Mr. Galster said so all of the painted windows shown on the existing front elevation will have new features put into them, but we don’t know what they are. They need to submit that for approval. Mr. Okum said so faux windows are to be submitted later. Mr. Galster said right, and if they are painted in some oriental style l am okay with that. My concern is color – how much and how bright the colors are. So whatever he is going to put in these windows needs to be submitted to staff for approval.

Mr. Galster asked when he planned on opening and Mr. Jiang answered as soon as possible, two or three weeks. Mr. Galster suggested that the fake windows should be painted the same color as the rest of the main building walls until you bring us something that shows what you are going to do to those windows.

Mrs. Robinson asked if they could open the restaurant and then add the colored. Mr. Galster answered yes, just paint it for now and he can do something different afterwards. So he can bring it back to Planning rather than making it a staff issue. So if he wants anything more than just the painted cream color, he needs to resubmit that to Planning for approval.

The parking lot is in disrepair. Is there any plan to reseal the parking lot? Mrs. Robinson said he will do a finish job and clean it up and I told him that there is landscaping that needs to be reestablished and updated. He will do something to clean up the existing landscaping and parking lot.

Mr. Okum asked if he needed to submit a landscaping plan. Mr. Galster said yes, we will make that a condition. Addressing the applicant, he said we will ask you to submit a plan for your landscaping. He needs to show us what he will do for landscaping. If we allow them to occupy without a landscaping plan, what is the motivation for him to do it. Mr. Okum said it needs to be reviewed and approved before opening.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said in order for you to open in two to three weeks, you will need to submit a landscaping plan that is approved by city staff, even if it is just showing cleaning up what is there. We need to have a plan. Mrs. Robinson said he will do that.

Ms. McBride said we need to find out if those awnings are going to be illuminated. Mr. Jiang indicated that they were not going to be illuminated.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY- THREE

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Mr. Galster said we can see the rooftop mechanical units. When we add this fascia all the way across, we need to either screen those units or paint them out so they cannot be seen from the street.

Mrs. Robinson explained this to Mr. Jiang and he asked what color they should be painted. He’ll do whatever you suggest. Mr. Galster responded a dark gray to blend into the roof, a dark flat gray. We will need a color sample to make sure.

Mr. Galster asked if all the landscaping is done, and Mr. Jiang responded that he had finished the landscaping. Mrs. Robinson added that this picture doesn’t reflect that. Mr. McErlane said the picture was taken this morning. Mr. Galster said we still need to see the landscaping plan.

Mr. Okum said we need to talk about the dumpster enclosure, where it is and the condition it is in. Mrs. Robinson answered the dumpster is in the back with walls around it. Mr. Galster asked if it had a gate and Mr. Jiang answered yes. Mr. Galster said it needs to be painted to match the building, and it needs to be in good repair.

Mr. Galster asked if any other members needed clarification on what we are looking at this evening.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Galster said in order to clear up that rear elevation, would you propose to run that same fiberglass green and red around all sides. Ms. McBride answered if you do that it will increase the percentage of the accent color. With another building design, we might suggest shutters, but that is not in keeping with the oriental design.

Mr. Okum said I have identified Exhibit 1 which is she picture Steve referenced. Exhibit 2 is pictures 2 3 4 and 5 and Exhibit 3 is his drawing. I have identified each of the color segments and identified those on the pictures so there is a relationship between the three. I would like to so reference this so it will be a part of the record and be the working set that the City can work from.

I do have a problem with the color tones on the front elevation and the right elevation. It appears to me that it is the short wall treatment which is identified on my drawing as Item F. It is the lower wall that shows out the maroon all the way across the front of the building, and it shows it on the Perkins side of the building as well. If that were eliminated, those percentages would drop significantly and that could easily be painted out the beige color of the rest of the building. I think 29% and 27% accent color is extremely intense. Mr. Galster said so you are only talking about the lower red trim on the front elevation and right side elevation. Mr. Okum answered yes. Mr. Galster wondered about the vertical elements, and Mr. Okum responded that accent elements are okay. Mr. McErlane reported roughing out those numbers it looked as though the front elevation would be closer to 16% and the right side would be closer to 14%.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he would have any problem with taking out the lower red band and make it the same color as the rest of the building. Mr. Jiang indicated that he had no problem with that.

Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Galster indicated that the landscaping should be reviewed and submitted and approved prior to the business opening. Personally I would like to see it stated that it must be completed within so many days from that time of approval. Mr. Galster said I think the applicant is doing it and now he has to bring a drawing to match what he is doing. Mr. Okum said so you are saying 30 days. Mr. Galster asked the applicant if that was enough time to plant the materials. Mr. Jiang indicated that was enough time. Mrs. Robinson asked if he would submit it to staff or to Planning and Mr. Galster answered that staff would review that.

Mr. Okum asked if there was any comment on the parking lot and Mr. Galster said he is gong to clean it up. Mr. Okum wondered about restriping or resurfacing and Mr. Galster indicated that it would not be done at this time.

Mr. Okum asked what staff felt about that and Mr. McErlane answered if there are potholes we could cause them to be filled. Mr. Okum commented so we wouldn’t need that to be a part of the approval. Mr. Galster added pothole repair could be handled through property maintenance.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he understood everything the commission had discussed. He added you probably will want to review our marked up copy to make sure it is accurate. Mr. Jiang said he believed he did.

Mrs. Robinson said he is asking me a question about the lion. The lion is on the site and he wants to position it now. Can he do that? He says it is very important. Mr. Galster said if he gets approval tonight, he can set the lions out.

Mr. Okum said what about the faux windows and Mr. Galster responded that any reuse of the faux windows would need to be submitted for approval to the Planning Commission. Otherwise they would need to be painted out to match the existing building.

Mr. Okum said because that is the color pallet, we will make that Exhibit 4.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Crazy Buffet project at 380 Glensprings Drive. This motion includes Exhibit 1, which I have attached, a photo sheet, Exhibit 2 a second photo sheet, Exhibit 3, drawings of the building and Exhibit 4 the mockup board and building elevation drawing provided by the applicant. Included in the motion are:

a.    Staff and city planner recommendations.
b.    The applicant shall screen the mechanical units by painting them out with a dark flat finish gray color.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

VI C EXTERIOR CHANGES - CRAZY BUFFET – 380 GLENSPRINGS DR.

c.    The landscaping around the building shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to opening and shall be completed within 30 days of opening.
d.    The dumpster and refuse enclosure shall be repaired and the enclosure shall be painted to match the basic building color.
e.    The parking drives and site plan areas shall be cleaned up and the parking lot areas shall be repaired as necessary.
f.    All four building elevations shall be based upon the color pallet submitted, and those identifications on the attached Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
g.    The lower band, which is identified as Area F shall be deleted from the submission and shall not be painted in the color submitted. It shall be painted in the basic beige color.
h.    The existing faux windows shall be painted out the same color as the beige of the walls and/or the applicant may submit to the Planning Commission an alternate for those windows. At this point they shall be painted out the same color as the building.

Mr. Galster said in reference to the dumpster enclosure, we want to make sure that is brought up to existing code, because I am not sure what is there.

Mr. Okum said I will include that in my motion, brought up to existing code.

Mrs. Robinson said the dumpster is the way you like, covered with a gate. Mr. Okum added the code calls for the gates to be closed at all times.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Jiang and Mrs. Robinson looked at the marked up copy. Mr. Okum said we will make a color copy of that and provide it to you. You understand that this red horizontal band is eliminated. The verticals are okay but the horizontal is not.

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

Mr. McErlane said we will have the requirements in the motion for them and copies of the exhibits that they can have late tomorrow afternoon.

VII. DISCUSSION

VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

A..    Crazy Buffet, 380 Glensprings Drive – Wall & Ground Sign
B.    Frame USA, 225 Northland Boulevard – Wall Sign
C.    Northside Bank, 11628 Springfield Pike – Relocate channel letters


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 AUGUST 2005
PAGE TWENTY-SIX


IX. ADJOURNMENT

`    Mr. Okum moved to adjourn and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.   

                Respectfully submitted,



    ______________________, 2005 ________________________                             William Syfert, Chairman


    _____________________,2005     ___________________________
                Lawrence Hawkins III Secretary