Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

7:00 p.m.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Robert

Seaman, Councilman Robert Wilson, James Young,

and Chairman Syfert.

 

Members Absent: David Okum

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert stated that Mr. Okum had an unexpected vacation with his wife.

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING 8 JULY 1997

Mr. Wilson stated there was a typo on Page 13 "eight" instead of "might",

and moved to approve the corrected Minutes. Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six

affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 7/9/97 Letter to Randy Danbury, President of Council from Bob Seaman,

Secretary of Planning Commission re Preliminary Plan Approval of

Proposed Target Store and Zone Change to PUD

B. Planning Commissioners Journal #27 - Summer 1997

C. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes - 17 June 1997

D. Report on Council - Steve Galster

Mr. Galster stated the issue was the public hearing referring to the old Pizza Hut Restaurant, the proposed motel that Planning recommended. There were three people who voted for it and four against, so it failed. The basic reasons given were parking, traffic congestion and density. Mr. Syfert stated Steve and I discussed this and thought it might be a good idea to get feedback from Council in the future, and for that reason, we should leave that item on the agenda.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Approval of Proposed Addition for The Northland Group, 161 Northland Boulevard (former Ground Round) - tabled 8 July 1997

Dick Gorman of Roger Short Architects, and Ali Saleh of TEC Engineering were present. Mr. Gorman stated we have our proposal back with revisions that were discussed at the last meeting. The storage building has been deleted from the project, parking requirements have been satisfied with the city staff, and other submittals were made for them to complete their review.

Mr. Gorman continued the old Ground Round property was purchased and converted to an office building, which TEC Engineering is in. We wish to expand that building with a small addition to the east and a small addition to the west, reface the building for a new appearance (showed the sketch) , add landscaping and update the property.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Two

VI A PROPOSED ADDITION - THE NORTHLAND GROUP - 161 NORTHLAND BLVD.

Mr. Syfert stated I would like to congratulate you on going back and doing an A Number One job.

Ms. McBride reported all of the questions or comments we had have been addressed. The storage building which was not permitted in a GB District has been eliminated. They provide more than the parking required, added screening around the dumpster, additional landscaping and additional trees. We had a concern about their reusing the existing sign structure and they have changed their sign to a ground mounted one. All of our engineering comments have been addressed, so we are perfectly satisfied.

Mr. Galster wondered about the materials and colors of the addition and Mr. Gorman stated that there will be a forest green metal roof. We will have an accent band in the EIFS system to match that color, and there is a two tone gray EIFS system applied to the building.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant has complied with what we requested and has shown grading in the back of the building and changed the storm sewer alignment.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the proposed addition and Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Subdivision Plat Approval - Sterling House

Mr. Shvegzda stated they have divided it up into three lots. They developed one of the lots and the lot to the north of the building will be sold. The rear lot is the property the City has been in negotiation to purchase. Normally they would not have done a subdivision plat for the three parcels, but they anticipated the dedicated right of way to Route 4 so this is in effect to subdivide that existing parcel. Mr. Syfert wondered about the dedicated lot for the city, adding that it is not shown on this plat. Mr. Shvegzda responded it is not a separate lot but it is an easement which they do define on there.

Mr. Galster moved for approval and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Voting aye ware Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Concept Discussion of Proposed Multi-Family Development at Church, Walnut and Elm Streets - dropped at the request of the applicant

C. Concept Discussion of Tri-County Marketplace, 11741 Princeton Pike (former Swallens)

Greg Monnig stated we have a quality plan and hope you will concur. Duke Realty owns a substantial amount of commercial property in the midwest and our objectives are to develop manage and construct for the long haul.

Mike Flannery of Woolpert said I have a copy of the proposed site plan. It is roughly 10.3 acres. The parcels along S.R. 747 are not part of our development; they are Star Bank and Banc One. Our plan consists of a little more than 80,000 s.f. of new building to the south of the creek and a 6,300 s.f. sit down theme restaurant along I-275.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Three

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION - TRI-COUNTY MARKETPLACE-11741 PRINCETON PK

Mr. Flannery added we have two buildings and 3 separate businesses ranging in size from 17 to 18,000 square feet to 28,000 square feet and up to 36,000 square feet. These two buildings are in the location of the current Swallens building. We plan to raze that building shortly after we obtain approval from Springdale. The businesses will be national in scope. We have received a lot of interest from national retail businesses. Some of them have stores in the Cincinnati market and a couple of them are not in this market presently.

Mr. Monnig added we have one access point off S.R. 747. The primary entrance would be signalized. Our objective in dealing with the creek is to try to bridge over what currently exists to get to this plat that never has been developed.

Mr. Flannery stated the access will be the existing drive. It will be maintained at the present alignment will islands added on to each side. The major parking fields will be in front of the two main buildings, and each will supply its own parking field for that user. The truck access will be to the rear of the buildings. There are 377 parking spaces on the plan for the two major buildings, and the restaurant site has 64 parking spaces.

The storm water detention will be handled underground, and the north side of the channel will provide 100% detention.

There was an initial traffic study done that compared traffic generated by this development based on square footage in a general merchandise and compared to the old Swallens building. In that study, we found that traffic on this development would be less than what Swallens should have generated. This traffic study was conceptual and there will be a detailed traffic study submitted.

There is a recognized FEMA flood plain; 660 feet is the elevation. We would be proposing to fill a portion of that and there will be a detailed analysis with the final submittal that would go to the city engineer.

Darrell Pabo of FordBeery Architect stated there are two parcels, the existing Swallens is Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 is the undeveloped parcel north of the creek. We have three goals: (1) to provide a renewed interest and vitality in this areas at this location. We view this as the entryway to the commercial district; (2) to create livelier surroundings and backdrop for the existing outparcels that are located right here and (3) to provide uniformity for the three nationally recognized retail chains through the use of color and materials. The materials would be split face block, brick accent bands as well as synthetic stucco treatment for the trim and surface elements. We also are trying to identify key features for each of the tenants.

Mr. Pabo continued the site of the main entry is 40 feet above finished floor and the other two are 36 feet above finished floor. Mr. Syfert wondered what they proposed for the west elevation of the southern building and Mr. Pabo answered it probably would have the same use of materials.

Mr. Wilson commented Mr. Huddleston and I had a question about the signage. You are showing those signs facing State Route 747. Are the those the only signs that will be on those two buildings? Mr. Monnig answered the largest building would have a primary sign over the entrance, and there is a small secondary entrance with a very small sign over it.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Four

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION- TRI-COUNTY MARKETPLACE - 11741 PRINCETON PK

Mr. Wilson asked if on Building 2 there would be two signs, one facing State Route 747 and the other facing I-275, and Mr. Monnig confirmed this . Mr. Pabo added there is another sign here, so there will be three signs. Mr. Monnig added we have also requested an identification sign at the entrance on S.R. 747, which is just south of the traffic signal. We have requested a sign on the second parcel which is along the interstate away from the residential area.

Mr. Wilson asked the heights of the signs and Mr. Monnig stated we are requesting the same sign for both locations, 33í-6". WE would identify the three shopping center tenants, Banc One and the restaurant outparcel. WE are trying to tie this in with the color scheme of the shopping center so it is a consistent comprehensive package.

Mr. Shvegzda stated 1` Tri-County Mall has 35% detention volume provided, Cassinelli Square 20%. For the site south of the channel (existing Swallens) 30,500 cubic feet is proposed which is 50% of what would have been required if it had been a brand new development. For the proposed restaurant site (north of the channel) 100% of the total required volume is to be provided.

Concerning the 100 year flood plain, FEMA has determined that the flood elevation is 660 feet, and that probably is conservative. We had high water detention in 1985 well in excess of the 100 year storm, and it was 653.62 feet. Based on 660 feet with the proposed grading, they will fill in approximately 8,300 cubic yards into the flood plain. There are two options: 91) rechannel to compensate for the fill or (2) and preferred would be to provide HEC-2 water surface analysis to verify that it is not increasing the flood plain elevations. In addition for the proposed culvert to the restaurant, that same type of analysis has to be done to verify that there was no increase in the 100 year flood plain in light of the proximity of Princeton Bowl.

The traffic analyses submitted from Duke have compared the weekday and weekend peak hours. They submitted their analyses for what they considered maximum usage of the current building which was determined by estimates of all different uses on each floor. We would have questions on customers utilizing different departments. That is one of the questions we had. Ultimately, based on the numbers considered with the existing development, there has to be comparisons between proposed and existing usage, and if the numbers turn out to be greater for the proposed development, we will have to take a look at the 747 intersection.

Mr. Shvegzda added one item not addressed would be a new cross connection between this development and the Princeton Plaza development.

Ms. McBride stated the property is zoned GB (General Business) and would allow retail as well as restaurant. The permitted maximum building coverage is 25%, and this is 18%, which is acceptable. By our calculations for the three retail uses, we would need a total of 399 parking spaces, and they are providing 375. We are not able to do the calculations for the restaurant because we base them on the number of seats and assembly area. We would comment on the parking for the restaurant, assuming that the front door would be over toward Princeton Pike, the parking would not be the most convenient. This is concept, but I want to point out that we have eight spaces for Banc One, and I do not know if there is to be shared parking. Banc One is not part of the development, but they are on the sign, so I wonder about parking.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Five

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-TRI-COUNTY MARKETPLACE-11741 PRINCETON PK

Ms. McBride added some of the parking spaces shown for the three retail uses actually overlap into other properties, and we need to see as much detail as possible.

Setbacks meet requirements except that the restaurant requires 12 feet and they have 10 feet. Setbacks for parking areas (10 foot requirement) are not consistent. Some are at 0í and others are at 5í. We would be interested in seeing cross access easements. We did not get a landscape plan, and we have a concern about plantings along Princeton Pike.

The biggest concern that staff has is the restaurant near Neuss Avenue. They have the parking for the restaurant set 10 feet off their rear property line. That will be a problem, because we have an obligation to protect those residences. There must be adequate screening and landscaping in that area.

In terms of signage, they did not give us specifics. They are proposing two pylon signs, one on Tract 1 (Princeton Pike) and one on Tract 2 (I-275). We permit a maximum sign area of 50 feet and they are proposing 250 square feet per pylon sign. The sign on Princeton Pike (maximum 30 feet) is proposed at 33í 6". Currently there is one sign that is 124 square feet and 18 feet high.

We saw building elevations for Buildings 1 and 2. They indicated the highest point will be 40 feet and we permit 48 feet.

We did not see a lighting plan, and one of our concerns is that there be no light spillage from the restaurant parking lot onto the residential area. We would stress the need to protect the residents.

Mr. McErlane stated the property is zoned GB, and because the building area for the total development is less than 100,000 square feet, it does not make it a PUD. I raised the issue of number of parking spaces on the Banc On property, and I do not know if there is an existing easement, but eight spaces is not adequate for the bank. The restaurant sign definitely to stay outside the floodway and minimize the amount of grading.

There are 168 caliper inches of trees on the site; there are a few in the creek area and the balance on the restaurant site. On the restaurant site, 74 caliper inches are exempt from replacement, and there are two trees that could be saved based on the layout, so that leaves 36 caliper inches of trees to be replaced. The main concern is the buffering of the property and Neuss Avenue.

Mr. Osborn said a critical issue is the potential for cross access between this property and the Princeton Plaza property. This is something that we had talked about for years, and now we have an opportunity to really do some creative thinking. I think there are possibilities from some sort of private easement to a private service road that would link the two, to perhaps a repetition of Tri-County Parkway, a public street to link the intersection of McGillard and Kemper.

This is a critical piece of property. It is very tight in terms of site development and access and it would be beneficial to this party and the adjacent property to discuss this issue. We have had some discussions with the Gilharts about this, and I would like to suggest that we get our engineer and the Gilharts to the table and explore what might be possible. This will be our last best chance to do something

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Six

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-TRI-COUNTY MARKETPLACE-11741 PRINCETON PK

Mr. Galster commented the cross easement is a must. There was extensive discussion regarding the existing entryway. Mr. Okum has noted the safety problem with trying to go into Star Bank with people backing out, and we believe there needs to be at least two lanes coming in there.

Mr. Galster added in the back between Building 2 and 1 is supposed to be truck traffic, and it is awfully tight. Another suggestion might be to make this project zoned PUD for control of these types of issues.

Mr. Wilson stated I have a concern about the signage. You already have overextended it by three feet. I also have a concern about the restaurant. You have too much crammed into too little space. I am not in favor of the third building that is the restaurant at this point. On other possible entrances going into Princeton Plaza, you need to look at this three to five years down the pike when your businesses grow. You will need more than one entrance.

Mr. Young concurred, adding everybody would like to see something develop on that land, but the comments that the other members have brought up are valid. The property has been setting there a while, and this is an opportunity for us to do something creative.

I wonder why we are using a 1986 study on the traffic flow. I cannot believe those numbers will be that close and this project needs another source in and out other than State Route 747.

Concerning Building 3 (restaurant), I have a concern for the residents and the way that building is laid out. The way it is now, I would not be in favor of that building at all.

Mr. Young continued you need to look at the signage. I donít think there is a chance that the pole sign for Building 3 will go in at all. I also think Mr. Osbornís comments about trying to be creative is something you should take to heart.

Mr. Huddleston wondered about the total square footage of the existing Swallens building, and Mr. Flannery stated it is approximately 151,000 square feet. Mr. Huddleston said knowing your company, I can respect what you do and feel it would be a Class A job, but I am concerned about the density. I would be interested in knowing what acreage of this total acreage is lost to the flood plain. We need more information in the future about the cross easement situation; access and parking is relative to the two bank outlots. My biggest concern is not with the quality but the overall density. The City has indicated that they would be more than willing to be proactive with you and the neighbor in trying to develop a commercial viable secondary access to this site.

Mr. Monnig stated the bank has a cross easement agreement with this property. The width of this parcel is only 75 feet, so we believe what you see is what you get. The building is between 2,600 and 2,800 square feet; it is not ours, and based on the formula, there would be 15 to 16 parking spaces. Star Bank has cross access and they have no parking. The restaurant parcel is the most conceptual of our plan and I cannot address the comments about parking requirements at this time.

Mr. Flannagan added the grading is conceptual in nature, and there may need to be a small retaining wall to accomplish that.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Seven

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-TRI-COUNTY MARKETPLACE-11741 PRINCETON PK

Mr. Monnig said we intend to comply with the tree replacement program. We intend to make this area between the commercial and residential heavily landscaped and buffered. I do not I want to say what we will do until I have a more concrete plan, but we know it is an issue and we are prepared to address it.

Mr. McErlane stated one of the comments is the situation where there were number of trees in the interstate right of way. If they were considered an impediment to visibility of the project and the developers gained permission from ODOT to cut them down as well, Planning Commission would like to know about that in advance. The point about the amount of fill in the parking lot is to stress that there are a lot of factors that will go into this development.

Mr. Monnig commented we have thought about other alternatives to gain access from the south side to the north side, and we are trying to address a broader access or alternative access, but I do not have the final solution to this. Our plan has been consistent with what you see today.

Within a week of our initial meeting, I took one of the earlier plans and talked to Mr. Gilhart conceptually, and we came to no conclusions. We as owners of this property do not have any objections to gaining access to the south, but at the same time we have no control over what this private property owner wishes to do. We are more than happy to set a time with the City and the Gilharts to discuss this.

In terms of gaining another access to this site, we would love to have a direct access ramp off I-275, but I do not think we will get that. I do not know what other access points to the property there are.

Mr. .Syfert commented you are willing to sit down with the City and the Gilharts to see if there is some better way to build a mousetrap. That is all we are talking about at this point.

Mr. Monnig said he has existing tenants with BP Car Care and Kentucky Fried Chicken. That is an obvious place to have this cross easement, and we have talked about that.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they used the same book for parking requirements as Ms. McBride did. Mr. Monning indicated that on 82,200 square feet, we came up with 375 required spaces and 377 provided.

Mr. Monnig said on the services drives, we envision the service working for these two buildings from this drive. None of the tenants we are dealing with, the large companies, has an issue with the service corridor in terms of getting merchandise in and trash out. Do we have anything else to address with the Planning Commission?

Mr. Syfert answered one of the concerns was the fact that you have your service trucks gong into the same area.

Mr. Monnig stated most customers will park in a front parking field. We have found that most people will not park in a field that is not primary and in the front.

Mr. Galster wondered if they had a second entrance to Building C between the buildings, and Mr. Monnig answered we have an entrance proposed, but it would not be for customers. It would be for more ancillary service and not an area of high volume customer traffic. Mr. Galster commented 25 feet is tight with cars backing out and trucks going through.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Eight

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-TRI-COUNTY MARKETPLACE-11741 PRINCETON PK.

Mr. Monnig added on signage we want an entry feature and identification feature off State Route l747. We also want the look and materials to be consistent with the subject center to provide an area that is functional al for each of the buildings here.

Mr. Wilson said with the signage youíve on the buildings facing State Route 747, maybe you would want to reconsider the size of the sign at the entrance. I would think that they would see the signs on the buildings before they saw the signs on the pylon. Mr. Monnig stated on the line of sight, if you are going north to south, you will not see these two buildings until you are past where you need to turn in. Mr. Wilson said if the signage was not flush to the building but at an angle, maybe the people would be able to see it better.

Mr. Galster commented I do not have a problem with a pylon sign at the main entryway, but I have a problem with the one on the restaurant site. I would not vote for two pylon signs. I have a problem with the sign on Building 2.. You are trying to attract people coming up the ramp, and I think it will attract the people in the residential area.

Mr. Syfert added unless there is anything else to discuss, we have kicked this around pretty well. The main issue we have to address is getting the appropriate parties to the table for cross access there.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.

D. Concept Discussion of 3-Story Office Building at 11570 Century Boulevard

Don Hauck a partner in Kiesland stated we are the developer and owner of what we call Phase 1 of the Century Office Building at the corner of Century Boulevard and Kemper Road. We also own the service center which is at the end of the street next to State Farm. Steve Kelley is from Woolpert and my partner Jay Anthony is here with me.

It is our intent to build an office building speculatively, a Class A building. The building on the corner is now 100% leased and we want to build another building. We are long term owners, so we would build a high quality high image building. We will be asking the highest rents in the City of Springdale so we want to do everything in a first class manner. It will be a three story building and we expect to use the latest state of the art technology to provide the tenants with the best available resources to run their businesses.

Steve Kelley of Woolpert showed the site plan, adding we are taking the same footprint of the existing office building on Century Boulevard and Kemper and moving it onto a seven and one-half acre site and orienting the building in this fashion. Currently the office building is two stories and it will be three stories with a lower level on the back side. We have a limited amount of frontage on Kemper Road. Most of the property is contiguous with the Century office building and we back up to some of the office uses to the east of the site.

Currently the site has parking that rapidly falls off from west to east and comes down to the existing detention area which is basically a pond. The site to the east is little more wooded than our site. It has been a challenge; we have worked with positioning this building in several different areas. We have opted to position the building so its orientation takes advantage of the views overlooking the valley. We think this site is one of the highest in Springdale, and we want to take advantage of that with office views and a high quality space in this project.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Nine

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING 11570 CENTURY BLVD.

Mr. Kelley continued access to this site is proposed from Century Boulevard. Currently there is an access drive with parking on one side coming into the site, and we would like to recreate that entrance by adding five feet of landscaping on the south side and creating a common entrance into the development and repositioning some of the landscaped islands. As you come into the site, we would have a visitor point of entry for drop off. This would be a landscape feature, a type of circle entry feature, and parking would be in the front on the side and all the way around the building.

As I talk about the grades, this would be the high point coming into the site. You would be coming slightly down to the building and the grade wraps around the bottom. We have included a grading plan and it shows a line going around the perimeter of the site where our cuts and fills would meet the existing grade. We want to try and keep a perimeter buffer of trees. We are in the process of doing a tree survey, and we would like to have green around the building and inside the parking area with trees and landscaping to give it a good office environment feel. Because of the grade, we are not looking to preserve any trees but we want to put the landscape plan together.

Mr. Kelley continued there would be four points of entry into the building, and 100,000 square feet office, 25,000 square feet per floor with the lower level. I must have a different book than Anne has; I think we miscalculated our first floor. It is our intent to meet the code with parking, and we can achieve that with some of the parking on the front extended.

We would like to focus most of our landscaping around the building and in the parking area; this is where we would want to put most of our landscape dollars.

The cross access is here, and this might become a grouping of buildings with the common theme between the two buildings for added value to the plan.

Ms. McBride reported the property is zoned OB (Office Building) which permits office buildings as proposed. We require a maximum building coverage of 25%, and the site plan we reviewed had 10% building coverage, so it is in compliance.

They met all setback requirements for the parking areas and the building setbacks. They are proposing access through the existing Century Office Building to the west which eliminates the potential for an additional curb cut on Kemper Road and staff is very pleased with that.

I talked with Mr. Kelley this afternoon about parking; the applicant has ample area to provide that parking, and I am confident that they will satisfy the parking requirements. We didnít see a detail for the waste receptacle, abut I am sure that will be forthcoming on additional plans as would be lighting and any signage that might be proposed as part of the development. We did not receive a landscape plan; we have asked that landscaping be provided within the parking areas and we understand it is the applicantís intent to do that as well. We didnít receive building elevations or details. There is a maximum building height in the OB District of 48 feet, so we donít know how they comply with that.

Mr. Shvegzda stated one of the site plans indicates detention at the northeast corner of the site and will be required as the site is over one acre.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Ten

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING 11570 CENTURY BLVD.

Mr. Shvegzda continued no calculations were submitted at this conceptual stage, and at this point it is a little unclear where that particular detention basin will be outletted to, but those items will have to be developed as the plans are completed.

On traffic, I very much applaud accessing this development via Century Boulevard. We roughed out figures as far as peak pm traffic at 130 vehicles; it is very rough at this point. As far as its effect on Century, normally we would ask for some sort of analysis on that; we havenít in this particular instance because there are quite a few other things that are happening to this intersection that are outside the applicantís control. We still might have that submitted but we should take into account what is going to happen at this intersection potentially with Target affecting the extension of Century Boulevard plus the closing of Commons Drive which will force additional traffic from Best Buy and Dickís Sporting Goods out onto Century Boulevard also.

Mr. McErlane commented Mr. Kelley indicated they are working on a tree survey, and we looked at an aerial photo from 1960 and we are hoping to get a current aerial photo. The 1960 photo showed the property as pasture or farmland, so we donít expect there to be any massive trees with the exception of the perimeter trees on this property. A tree survey will be necessary when they do formally submit for site plan approval.

The current parking at 11590 Century Boulevard building is 209 spaces and with the connection that will be made from Century Boulevard and the connection between the two parking lots, there is a net loss of 20 parking spaces, which leaves 189 spaces for the 52,000 square foot building. The required parking is 228 spaces and I looked through our variance files and donít find that we ever issued a variance for the building in the late Ď80ís when it was constructed, so I donít know why it doesnít have 228 parking spaces. We will need to have some accommodation for the loss of parking spaces whether that be through cross parking easements between the two properties or something of that nature.

I also feel a variance would be in order for an off premise sign on Century Boulevard since we would encourage that to be the main access into this development rather than Kemper Road.

Mr. Galster commented I assume that the building materials would duplicate the existing building and Mr. Kelley answered we havenít finalized it yet, but it will be a very similar look. Mr. Galster suggested keeping the same landscaper, adding that the slope of the building is tremendous, and it is always cut and clean looking. I want to commend you and whoever takes care of it, it is awesome. I really like the whole feel of that building, and if this is a continuation of that, conceptually I think it is great. I think it is a good use; I like the access. I donít see any problems. Itís just a matter of getting everything documented.

Addressing Mr. Galster, Mr. Syfert said you did understand Billís concern about the loss of parking spaces at the existing building? Mr. Galster commented to a certain extent, except they are 100% full right now and they are not crying for parking spaces. Mr. Kelley commented we probably have 30 to 40 empty spaces. They are 100% full. We had a lot of discussion about what to do with the entry, and we feel it is important to eliminate spaces that would be on our main access. To do that, we will lose some spaces. We donít want to open up a can of worms wilth the existilng building, but what we would like to do is replace what is currently there for Phase 1 with our overall parking counts and meet the code with Phase 2.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Eleven

VII CONCEPT DISCUSSION-3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING-11570 CENTURY BLVD.

Mr. Kelley added we have looked at it several times and the Kiesland folks have indicated that it is 75% full in terms of parking; it fluctuates, but it is 100% leased. Mr. Galster commented if they are operating at 100% capacity and they still have parking spots left Iím all for keeping as much green as possible.

Mr. Syfert stated conceptually I like what you have done there, and even

though you are short a few spaces, I like your entrance. This is a conceptual discussion, but I have no real problems with it myself. If there are no other comments, weíll await your bringing in the preliminary plan.

E. Record Plat Approval - Pine Garden - Section 2

Ms. Judith Muehlenhard of C J Concepts stated we are asking for record plat approval of Section 2. We would be adding Units 4, 10 and 11 to the record plat.

Mr. Galster said donít we usually do this once, and Mr. McErlane stated it depends on how they record the plat. They are recording them in sections, and the Recorderís Office wonít take it unless it is signed off by Planning Commission. they really canít plat them in advance of locating the buildings because the property lines are dictated by where the buildings are actually located in the field, specifically with respect to the two unit buildings where you definitely have to locate that common property line exactly from a field survey. Mr. Galster responded so we still will have to do another one after this. Mr. McErlane answered at least another one. Ms. Muehlenhard commented we wish we could only do one; this is expensive for us, but it is the way it has to be. Mr. Galster wondered if we donít hold this off until everything is done, and Mr. McErlane answered you canít transfer any of the properties until they are platted and recorded in the Recorderís Office.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Young asked if there were any reason that we shouldnít do this. Mr. McErlane answered the basic plat itself is the same as what you saw the last time. The only modification has been to add these three units and the boundaries around them. Everything else is the same. Don has reviewed the plat with respect to the changes and he may have some comments. Mr. Shvegzda stated we reviewed it and compared it with what was previously approved and it appears to be in compliance with the subdivision regulations.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the record plat and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman and Mr. Syfert. Motion was granted, and Mr. Seaman as Secretary of Planning signed the record plat.

VIII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Syfert commented you may have read in the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes that they had a problem with the Pontiac dealership

A reminder that the September meeting has been changed to Thursday, September 11th. Will anyone not be here? Mr. Wilson said Iíll be late; Mr. Syfert added the secretary will be late but everyone will be in attendance.

Mr. Galster stated there will be an invitation so keep Tuesday open for the grand opening of Dave & Busterís.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 August 1997

Page Twelve

VIII - DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. McErlane said I know Mr. Galster talked to Mr. DeHamer previously, and I talked with him again today. You must have talked to him after I talked to him, because I suggested that he still come in, only from the standpoint of getting Planning Commissionís feel for the potential of this going to a multi-family. The point was why have him go through a revision of this if he doesnít know for certain that Planning will say it is okay to go multi-family.

Mr. Galster said I will tell you what I told him and I was trying to express what I thought the views would be. That is that multi-family back there is a good idea as far as development goes, but with his little bit of land that he is trying to do, it will be awfully tough to stick a project in that little lot. He suggested coming back with four pieces, and I responded that even that would seem tight and tough to develop. He may or may not bring anything back. He was pushed by someone to present it, and I told him let the City buy it back from him.

X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Wilson moved to adjourn and Mr. Young seconded the motion. j By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,1997 _____________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

 

______________________,1997 _________________________

David Okum, Acting Secretary