PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
7:00 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

II. ROLL CALL

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

Others Present        Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
                Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 12 SEPTEMBER 2006

Mr. Butrum moved to approve and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, except Mr. Galster who abstained, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A.    Report on Council

Mr. Galster reported that there was discussion by Council on the sizes of garages and sheds, and we have been requested by the Board of Zoning Appeal members to take a look at it.
B. Zoning Bulletin – September 10, 2006
C. Zoning Bulletin – September 25, 2006
D. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – August 8, 2006

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside Display – Lowe’s – 505 East Kemper Road p continued to October 10, 2006

Tom Manley, Store Manager said I just received the site plan this afternoon which shows what we are asking for. He passed out copies to the members.

We would like to be able to use the space on the Tri-County Parkway side from March through September to store bagged goods like mulch and concrete pavers. It is tough to have them inside the small garden center.

On the front of the building next to the exit doors there are four propane cages, and we would like to continue to be able to display them there.

At the last meeting it was noted that I still had building materials to the left of the lumber canopy, and they are 6’ x 8’ fence panels. Mr. Galster asked if they were for storage or display and Mr. Manley reported that it is storage; the fence display is under the other canopy.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE TWO

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUTSIDE DISPLAY – LOWE’S 505 E. KEMPER

Mr. Manley stated that the landscaping in the parking lot suggested by Planning has been approved by corporate who said they need to know what type landscaping the city would like there.

Mr. Manley added there were issues brought up about the storage behind the building, and we have enclosed the storage area there. They finished the concrete work Friday, and all the landscape material behind the building will be enclosed.

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. McErlane said I forwarded what originally was approved by Planning to the members, and on Friday summarized what did not comply with that plan. The only real difference I see between this plan and what we saw on Friday are the utility trailers, which I understand you will not have.

Mr. Okum commented I think we are getting some idea of what they want to do, but it is a little difficult if you say that all products need to be under the canopy. I believe you have five propane cages and I can’t see any reason why you would need that many anyway. You could have two out there and three in the bullpen.

Mr. Okum added the intent was to have the merchandise under the canopies. When you get to the front of the store it trashes it up. I was at Lowe’s in Milford and there was very little outside the store. Mr. Manley commented it is different store, a deeper store.

Mr. Okum said I think the west side of the stories critical (loading area). We need to have a plan to screen it. We don’t have anything to say what you will do. I think it should be buffered so the materials are not visible.

Mr. Manley said I thought we would plant trees. Mr. Okum responded we need a plan. You could move it more to the back as the front needs to be used for loading and if you are pushing materials out in that parking area, you are losing it.

I want to compliment you on the landscaping in the shed area, and I would like to see how you are going to do that.

Mr. Manley reported there are certain representations that we want in certain areas. Is there a standard we are looking for? My corporate office said they need to know what the city will allow for landscaping.

Mr. Coleman asked if the applicant can comply with the requirement that says that all materials will be displayed under building canopies. Mr. Manley responded if you are talking about the fence panels on the side, we would have to not carry them any more. To be in compliance, I would have to resign the product line and make do. We could try to incorporate the propane cages. Ninety-nine percent of the products we have up there are such high turnover items that keeping them in the building is very difficult.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE THREE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUTSIDE DISPLAY – LOWE’S 505 E. KEMPER

Mr. Galster wondered if they typically had four sheds on display, and Mr. Manley reported four to six and they are on display year round. Mr. Galster suggested saying six sheds maximum and so many feet between them with landscaping around the sheds. He asked how wide the sheds are and Mr. Manley reported they are eight to 10 feet. Mr. Galster suggested eight feet between the sheds with six sheds the maximum.

Mr. Galster asked if there was other canopy space for the propane tanks and Mr. Manley said yes, I would have to put up safety bumpers, but I would make arrangements on that. I do not have a problem moving the propane cages. Mr. Galster commented I do not have a problem with the sheds or the fencing, but the propane tanks should be reduced to two or three. Everything else in the front of the store is underneath the canopy.

The loading zone needs to be on the west side. I think it is pretty well screened coming down Tri-County Parkway, but I do not have a landscape plan to approve. You need to tie up loose ends so we have something to vote on. Mr. Vanover asked about the utility trailers, and Mr. Manley reported that they will not be back next year.

Mr. Vanover commented I question setting the number of sheds. I don’t care if there are one or 10, as long as they fit in the space and the landscaping is appropriate. It is your decision. You know your business, but I would ask you to tell your corporate office that they need to rethink their design. We have had issues almost from day one.

He asked if the side storage could be set up against the landscaped peninsula rather than at the side of the building. Mr. Manley responded that having it closer to Tri-County Parkway may make it more of an eyesore.

Mr. Butrum added I am okay with more sheds and I like the recommendation of eight feet between them.

Mr. Okum said on the loading side (west) there have been times when there are three to four pallets high and pushed 14 feet from the building. There needs to be a limit in height and number of pallets, probably a 10 foot projection from the fence and no more than two pallets high.

Mr. Okum said there were some evergreens on the island originally, and a condition of this conditional use permit should be that they bring their landscaping back to what was approved by the city. I also would like to see the children’s play activity unit out with the sheds even if you would need to take more than 14 spaces. I do not have a problem with the storage of the fence material as long as it doesn’t project out. Staff still would need to review the landscaping and make sure it is back to what was approved originally.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE FOUR

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUTSIDE DISPLAY – LOWE’S 505 E. KEMPER

Mr. Coleman asked the timetable for the disappearance of the utility trailers, and Mr. Manley reported that they are on the active markdown list. I have sold about half, and right now they are at 60% discount, so they should be around no more than five weeks.

Mr. Hawkins said I want to commend you on how cooperative you have been. The biggest part is the landscaping. You have a lot of concrete, and there are certain areas more important than others. The more landscaping you do, the more inviting it will make the whole place. The west side by Tri-county Parkway is very important, but keep in mind that you will make the entire site look better.

Mr. Galster asked if they would take out the section of asphalt in the parking aisle and Mr. Manley answered probably. Mr. Galster continued I do not have any problem in saying that field can be a display for sheds and swing sets as long as everything is spaced out.

Mr. McErlane reported that realistically, I am not sure that with 126 feet you can get five sheds with eight feet between them.

Mr. Galster said let’s take that whole area. Mr. Syfert commented so you are suggesting that we green that whole part. Mr. Galster answered yes, with the condition that the sheds be one of a type with proper spacing and landscaping.

Mr. Okum said I do not want to see sheds that far out into Kemper Road. I was thinking 18 parking spaces or 180 feet and leave the rest asphalt. I do not want to see sheds all the way down to Kemper Road. Mr. Galster said I think six sheds are plenty; I would like to see more green.

Mr. Okum said I think the shed space needs to be 18 feet x 20 feet deep. Mr. McErlane said parking spaces of 9’ x 19’ totals to 162 feet. Mr. Okum wondered if 162 feet could handle the sheds and landscaping, and Mr. McErlane said that it would. Mr. Galster said he could put mulch around and display that as well.

Mr. Vanover commented what would help this site is if we had landscaping other than the blue juniper. I would like to see it look like Costco’s parking lot. They have one of the best looking parking fields in the city.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the conditional use permit to allow outside display at Lowe’s with the following conditions:

1. In the area indicated on the drawing the propane limited to three in front of the store.
2. The shed and outdoor play set area shall be approximately 162’ x 19’ on the parking spaces on the east portion of the lot as identified in green. It shall be a single unit display with at least eight feet between each unit. There shall be no voids without a shed or grass.
3. The landscaping shall be restored to the original approved landscaping.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE FIVE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OUTSIDE DISPLAY – LOWE’S 505 E. KEMPER

4. There shall be storage of seasonal merchandise on the south and west sides from March through September, limited to two pallets high and projecting no more than 10 feet from the fence.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Conditional Use Permit was granted unanimously.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of Christmas Tree Lot Sale at Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike

Diana Cantor approached the board and reported that 20 additional parking spaces will be lost, but everything else is exactly the same, so I assume that this is what you want in addition to what we have done in the past.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the Christmas Tree Lot Sale from 11/20/06 through 12/30/06. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and approval was granted unanimously.

B. Approval of Expanded Deck at Whiskey Willy’s, 12183 Springfield Pike (former Famous Dave’s)

Dr. William Geier said I am looking to expand the existing deck 365 s.f., approximately 8 feet out by 43’-3” wide on the south side. We are looking to add this option for our patrons to eat outside, especially with the no smoking edict coming out.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is part of The Crossings PUD. The property is also located in Subarea A of the Springdale Route 4 Corridor Review District (CRD). He is proposing to extend a portion of the front deck out 8’-5” from the current deck edge. The total proposed deck expansion is 8’-5” x 43’-3” (365 s.f.).

Ms. McBride reported that the proposed deck addition would require eight additional parking spaces. Additional information needs to be provided on the existing and proposed plant material mentioned on Sheet 1.

The proposed floor plan does not indicate that the deck will be enclosed with a fence at the southwest corner, which may be an issue if alcohol is gong to be served on the deck.

Given the proximity of the deck to residences, no outdoor entertainment or speakers should be permitted on the deck.

Ms. McBride added that they will roughly double the size of the deck, but it will not be encroaching into the front yard setback.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he had any problem with the staff recommendations in terms of no live entertainment. Dr. Geier said that is fine; it is basically an option for people who like to smoke while they eat.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE SIX

EXPANDED DECK – WHISKEY WILLY’S – 12183 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Dr. Geier said the egress will be on the west side. Liquor control manages that, and we have no problem with maintaining the shrubbery.

Mr. McErlane reported that on the original plans, there were 201 parking spaces for the two restaurants. It was under parked to begin with, but I don’t know that we have experienced parking problems in the past. Considering that this is a seasonal type thing, I don’t think it is an issue. I noticed a five inch weeping cherry tree and that would need to be replaced with 2-2 ” ornamental trees.

Mr. Okum suggested that the eastern portion of the deck be clipped at the corner because of the proximity to the parking lot curb area. Dr. Geir answered that is not a problem.

Mr. Okum said the gates to the dumpster area between you and Hooters are not closed. Dr. Geier said we barred them closed, and once we are open, they will be functioning properly.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the expanded deck, including all staff recommendations particularly the repair and restoration of the gate on the dumpster area. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

C. Zone Map Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan Approval – Medial/Professional Site at 242-252 West Sharon Road

Mr. Galster said for full disclosure, the applicant is my personal doctor but I don’t think I have to recuse myself. I also had a conversation with the applicant because I introduced him to the mayor and economic development director, but I have not had any conversation since then. Mr. Okum said you are a council representative in the city, and promoting development is germane to this. Mr. Syfert said he is my wife’s doctor as well. Mr. Hawkins said I don’t have a problem with this.

Dr. Michael Todd of Springdale Family Medicine approached the commission. Mr. Syfert said all three of these are tied together, so you tell us everything that you want to do and we will go through them one by one.

Dr. Todd introduced Bobbie Breeze Stringfellow and Rob Canfield the developers, Lee Ward of McGill Smith and Punshon and Ashley Todd his wife and partner in the project.

Dr. Todd said I have been in practice for 11 years and the idea for Glenview Greene started at that time, to get a development around the office with specialists. We would like to service our patients better by keeping them in the community.

My wife and I are partners with the Canfields and I am proud of what we have done. The architecture looks just the same and the communities of Maple Knoll expects a certain level of quality and this represents it very well.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE SEVEN

MEDICAL/PROFESSIONAL SITE – 242-252 WEST SHARON ROAD

Lee Ward of McGill Smith & Punshon said you have three separate decisions but we have tried to develop a unified plan. The medical/professional office building is in conformance with the land use plan, is located at 242-252 West Sharon Road and totals 1.55 acres. The coffee shop/deli is at 11093 Springfield Pike and totals .59 acres. This is a transitional infill development that does not comply with all of the zoning requirements.

The Zoning Code does not have a classification for a coffee shop, and there is not a classification that fits it. The zoning ordinance was developed for new large developments, and we will have to find ways to be more flexible. That is what we are asking you to do.

If we had the building setback at 100 feet, because of the topography you would not be able to see the building from Sharon Road. So we designed a two-story facility, one story from Sharon Road and two stories from the rear. We had an 85-foot setback on the office building because of the topography and sanitary sewer line.

We would like to develop parking in the front and back of the building for a balance, and we have two curb cuts with signs for entrance to the site.

We have to design storm water detention, and we are working with Metropolitan Housing Authority to locate a second storm water detention area on that site. Because this is preliminary, we cannot calculate the exact size to provide enough storm water detention.

This area is zoned for commercial use; it is GB (General Business) and could be developed now as is. The benefit is a coordinated access with the remainder of the site, shared parking and storm water detention.

There is not much conflict with the coffee shop/deli activity because that is in the morning. We would like you to have a clear understanding of what a coffee shop/deli is. It is an attempt to provide coffee plus snacks. It is not a sit down restaurant; it is a convenient coffee and light food facility. People would come to the coffee/deli in the morning when there is not much traffic into the medical/professional building.

The City has indicated that they want 28 parking spaces. We have 10 on site and we could have 18 on the office parking area. There are 100 parking spaces on that site so we would have a potential of 28 parking spaces that will not be needed. We will have a single point of order at the pickup window and five cars can wait in line. .

We have provided screening along the parking lot. On the coffee shop deli site, there are 12 existing trees. We are only losing one and we are adding 11 trees.

We are 100 feet from the existing residence to the west. It is vacant and is proposed to be developed as office in the future.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE EIGHT

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Ward added we have worked to satisfy as many issues as possible. The front yard is less than it should be, but we would not be able to get the parking in the front and back otherwise.

The structure is very residential with sloped roof and will hide the HVAC equipment. More than 50% of the building is brick and stone and siding which is called hard plank and is very durable (he showed the material samples).

Bobbie Breeze Stringfellow said we would like to see the gateway to the city improved, and we think this location offers great potential for medical practitioners and other professionals to come into the city. The buildings are residential in character and a high quality construction.

Mr. Ward reported that there are three building signs on the coffee shop. For the office building there are four entrances on the back side, two on the front side with small channel identifications.

Mr. McErlane reported that the Coffee Shop/Deli property (.095 acres at 11093 Springfield Pike) is zoned General Business (GB) and is located in Subarea D of the Springdale Route 4 Corridor District. They are requesting that a Transitional Overlay be added to that zoning so they can demolish an existing residence and construct a restaurant building with drive-thru and 10 parking spaces. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-thru. The additional residence zoned GB is not included in this project.

The zoning for 242-252 West Sharon Road (proposed office condominium building) is RSH-L (Residential Single Household Low Density) and they are requesting approval for a Transitional Overlay to that zoning.

The level of detail of the drawings submitted and questions about required vs. provided parking makes the final development plan approval premature. Staff would recommend that Planning act on the Conditional Use Permit and at most grant a preliminary plan approval.

Mr. Galster said I understand the preliminary plan approval rather than the final approval, but would it be preferable for the conditional use permit to be held until the final development plan with more detail is approved?

Mr. Ward said we want to develop this project as unified plan, and they need some commitment before they can contact the tenants. They need to know that they can have a drive-thru.

Mr. Galster responded this board would be willing to give you an indication on what they feel about what has been presented tonight, but approving a Conditional Use Permit based on this information would be difficult for me.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE NINE

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Ward said we do not consider this a restaurant; it is a coffee shop and there probably would be about 12 stools inside. Mr. Galster said if this board would give you a straw vote on the Conditional Use Permit would that be good enough to satisfy you until we have the final plan, and Ms. Stringfellow said yes.

Mr. McErlane reported that the question about the conditional use is if the use is appropriate for the site and would it accommodate the stacking spaces. It may not be out of line if you looked at the use and whether or not the drive-thru would work. If we give a Conditional Use Permit, it should be based on being a coffee shop and not a McDonald’s.

Ms. McBride reported that on the condominiums on West Sharon, a total of 91 parking spaces would be required if the office condominiums were used entirely for medical offices, and the applicant has 100 spaces.

Subarea “D” requires that buildings be located 100 feet from the right of way, and the building is 85 feet from the right of way. The requirement for minimum distance between curb cuts is 200 feet and these on West Sharon do not meet that requirement and cross access is not provided. Staff does not feel that an 18,000 s.f. office building warrants two full access points.

Total sign area for the site is 194 s.f. and they are permitted 265 s.f.

For the office condominiums on West Sharon, Planning would need to approve the front yard setback for the buildings from100 feet to 85 feet and approve the required front yard setback for parking from 50 feet to 10 feet. The parking setback from residential property lines requirement will have to be reduced from 20 feet to the 10 feet proposed. Planning needs to decide if the proposed roof is acceptable and the mechanical equipment location and screening details need to be provided for review and approval. More information on the signage is necessary, and the landscape plan should be revised and resubmitted for approval.

On the coffee shop on Springfield Pike, the 65.11 foot front yard building setback will have to go to the Board of zoning Appeals for a variance from the 100 foot requirement. The same is true for the 50 foot rear yard setback abutting residential districts. A 31.21 foot setback is provided and the BZA would have to approve a variance for this. The front yard parking setback of 50 feet is required and 10 feet is proposed so the Board of Zoning Appeals would also have to approve that. A variance would be needed to reduce the number of parking spaces required from 38 to the 10proposed.

Also, consideration should be made concerning the drive-thru window and the orders. An order of coffee or tea would not be a problem, but if the patron orders sandwiches, etc., which take a longer time to prepare, there would be a concern for the stacking spaces.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE TEN

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Galster said when we look at these lots, aren’t we better off to have transitional overlay for the whole corner? There would be more control and the applicant would be able to get all the necessary approvals here and not have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. It seems like it would be simpler and more inline with the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Ward responded it is a matter of reality with the timing. They have to proceed with the development plan and need some type of confirmation. We hope to have some type of zoning change for the office, and preliminary approval for the coffee shop so they can proceed.

Ms. McBride’s review did not include our revisions that we submitted, so we answered almost all of her comments. We feel that the commission needs to proceed with some level of approval.

Mr. McErlane reported that the review was confusing because one of the drawings showed a future sidewalk across there and we were not sure about the lighting plan.

Mr. Ward responded we would commit to the sidewalk and the widening on the revised plans. We tried to comply with the staff issues except for the setbacks.

Mr. Galster said transitional would allow us to address all concerns here instead of the applicant going to the Board of Zoning Appeals. I do not have a problem with the setbacks, given the two sites. In general I am looking at your plan very favorably. I wonder about curb cuts on Sharon Road, but that can be done at the final development plan approval.

Mr. Coleman said I am in favor of that.

Ms. Stringfellow asked if the zoning for the coffee shop location would go from GB to transitional. Mr. Galster answered it would have the transitional zoning on top of the GB.

Mr. Okum commented Planning could initiate transitional overlay zoning for that entire quadrant, including the properties not a part of this plan. The underlying zoning stays the same. It seems reasonable to incorporate that, and maybe go further west on Sharon Road so it would become an integrated district; it makes it cleaner.

Ms. Stringfellow wondered if it would impact the curb cuts. When we asked the David Family to sign they were resistant because they thought they might get their property back and it might be transitional rather than GB.

Mr. McErlane reported the property still can be developed under the GB Zoning, but if there was a different approach, they could use the transitional zoning with Planning approval.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE ELEVEN

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Okum added I believe you probably would be much better off if we would do it that way. I am very positive about what is happening here, but there are a lot of issues to be resolved before I can say go for it.

Ms. McBride said Mr. McErlane has gone to get a copy of the Comprehensive Plan, and I would suggest that we match the zoning.

Mr. Okum said staff has to have time to take in the information and review it. Mr. Ward said we did deliver that in a timely fashion, and staff missed it. I don’t think we should be punished for that. The timing is very important. If you could initiate that overlay issue, I could help them explain to the other property owners that it is a matter of delays.

Ms. McBride said we did miss the drawing, but everything else we reviewed including the lighting plan, which continues to have 0.01 foot-candles throughout the parking plans. We did review the right plans, and those plans are reflected in my report.

Mr. Galster wondered if there were any comments that are major issues. Mr. Ward answered the curb cuts on West Sharon are a concern. If we eliminate one of those, there would be a dead end parking lot in the front. Maybe a right in only would be appropriate. Because of the narrowness of the property, we believe that we need the two curb cuts.

Mr. Okum said that western entry on West Sharon Road could be paired with the adjoining property to the west if the development was designed for cross access. Where it is now, when the western property is developed, it will be right next to it.

Mr. Ward said they are willing to do that cross access. Mr. Okum said if the driveway was moved 15 to 20 feet to the west and it was shared, you would be further away than where you started with the two access points.

Mr. Shvegzda reported on the office condominiums on West Sharon Road that two proposed access points re proposed, one 460’ and the other 660’ west of Route 4. One of the Corridor District’s goals is to reduce access points so we would recommend only one access point is granted. The covenants need an agreement for shared parking and the cross access agreement needs to include rights for both properties. No agreement has been reached with CMHA to construct a detention basin on their property.

Mr. Okum asked if the drive access should be a right out only. Mr. Shvegzda answered that the intent is that it should be eliminated and additional parking spaces could be constructed. Mr. Okum commented that the Corridor Review District encourages parking in the back, but it would give more room for mounding.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE TWELVE

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Syfert asked if the transitional zoning would take the same amount of time as the applicant has requested. Mr. McErlane reported it could, if you included the preliminary plan for the drive-thru with the rezoning for GB-T overlay. Council has to approve both.

Mr. Okum said we could identify that as the Comprehensive Use Plan properties. Ms. McBride said I don’t think you should include properties other than the ones you are considering this evening. It would be better if you asked staff to make a recommendation next month.

Mr. Galster wondered about the access off Route 4 and the shared access with Metropolitan Housing Authority. Is that viable?

Mr. Ward stated we are negotiating with Metropolitan Housing Authority to build a sidewalk and coordinate the additional storm water detention. The problem is that their current curb cut is right out right in only, and we would be willing to discuss that with them but we cannot guarantee the results.

Mr. Galster said the idea is not to have curb cuts everywhere. You are amenable to the Route 4 access shared with Metropolitan Housing Authority. On Sharon Road, are you willing to look at one curb cut to service the front? Is that workable? Our intent is for everybody to have shared access.

Mr. Ward said yes.

Mr. Galster continued that is the biggest concern; the other things are workable based on the site and development that you presented.

Mr. Ward said we worked with MSD on the setback for the sewer line and we do have approval from MSD and CWW.

Mr. Syfert commented on the two curb cuts on Sharon Road, what about right only on the eastern and full access on the western? If you have one curb cut, they would have to come in and figure out which way they will go. If you have right in only, they will come in, take a spot that is convenient and have the other curb cut to go out.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the question is the backing up of traffic. They would have to back up and turn left to go out the one drive. I do not know the full concern but at the very most, a right in would be the only way to go. There is always the difficulty in constructing it to make it truly a right in drive.

Mr. Okum said since staff recommended that GB-T zoning be applied to only what is being presented here, they will have to show potential for cross access for future development. I am not comfortable with taking out parking spaces to have cross access. What we need to do is get this to Council on the GB-T Overlay and give them the review and recommendation based on what was submitted tonight. It is a great plan, but we have to get through the details.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE THIRTEEN

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Ward said they are trying to acquire the property to the west and include this, knowing they would have to resubmit a development plan and if that happened, we could align it. We do expect to have the house to the west included and then modify the development plan.

We do believe that this development plan needs two points of access. Our goal would be to have it across from the golf course. We feel the western curb cut is the more important point of access than the eastern one.

Ms. Stringfellow said we would appreciate any assistance that cold be given us on the CMHA property in working out that shared access would be appreciated. Mr. Galster said I saw Jeff Tulloch indicate that the city is wiling to work with the Metropolitan Housing Authority to help out. If the western curb cut were closed until the CMHA property is constructed, that would be the entrance and it would be a quicker and easier access

Mr., Syfert commented I think we are at a point where further discussion would not be helpful, and I have not heard anyone who is opposed to what is being proposed.

Mr. McErlane said you expressed concerns about the transition zoning delaying the process. To speed the process, your preliminary plan approval recommendation can go along with the transition zoning recommendation. Otherwise Planning can recommend the zoning but not necessarily the preliminary plan. Council approves the transition overlay as well as the preliminary plan. Planning can make that recommendation tonight conditioned on your getting the owner of the property to sign off on the transitional zoning.

Ms. Stringfellow said I think he would need a guarantee that it would not negatively impact his property.

Mr. McErlane responded it does not change any of his rights to develop the property under the General Business Zoning Distinct. No matter what he did on the property, he would have the same problems with setbacks under the GB Zoning. The transitional zoning would allow you or him to do this before this board rather than going before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Ms. Stringfellow commented if you could provide the assurance that the transitional zoning would not be negative to him, that would be helpful.

Mr. Vanover asked about the situation and Ms. Stringfellow answered we have the properties on West Sharon and Springfield Pike under contract, and our due diligence period is coming up for expiration in November on West Sharon Road. A lot of our delay was caused by assemblage because we did not have the David property. We do not mean to push you, but we are running out of time on the Sharon Road property. We need Council approval to get financing. Mr. McErlane reported that the earliest Council could approve this would be the second meeting in November, the 15th.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE FOURTEEN

GLENVIEW GREENE - 242-252 W. SHARON RD. & 11093 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Okum said so we would need a motion for Zone Map Amendment to RSH-L-T and GB-T. Mr. McErlane reported the preliminary plan for GB-T needs to be conditioned on the property owner signing off on the owner’s affidavit.

Mr. Okum wondered if the project would be phased. Mr. Ward reported that the phasing was for the landscaping for the office and the coffee shop. The problem is that w have to do grading all at once.

Mr. McErlane said the way it reads in the covenants which only apply to the office is: “The complete Landscape Plan, except for the western most buffer, shall be completed in phase one. The western buffer shall be completed in phase two. Both phases shall be completed prior to building occupancy.” Mr. McErlane added we are still working out the covenants.

Mr. Okum moved to apply Transition District Overlay Zoning and amend the Zoning Map for 1.55 acres of property at 242 and 252 West Sharon Road from Residential Single Household – Low Density (RSH-L) to Residential Single Household – Low Density – Transition (RSH-L-T. This approval includes the staff recommendations and comments as well as staff review and law director’s approval of the covenants.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the recommendation was approved unanimously.

Mr. Galster moved to take Item D (Conditional Use Permit) from the agenda since it is no longer needed. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion and by voice vote, all voted aye and the item as removed.

Mr. Galster moved to apply the Transition District Overlay Zoning and amend the Zoning Map for 0.59 acres of property at 11093 Springfield Pike from General Business (GB) to General Business – Transition (GB-t). Included in this approval are the staff comments, review by staff and the signed affidavit by the owner. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye and the approval was granted unanimously.

Ms. McBride said I don’t think the commission can take the item off the agenda. The applicant needs to request it. The applicant asked to have it removed from the agenda. Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted a7e and the approval was granted unanimously.

Mr. Syfert commented we have come a long way and we have a long way to go.

VII. DISCUSSION

Ms. McBride asked if the commission wanted staff to review the Glenview Greene area and make a recommendation on a Zone Map Amendment for the next meeting. Mr. Okum moved to request that and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE 15

VII DISCUSSION – continued

Mr. Vanover reported that Council brought up Mr. Howard’s lighting on the sign on West Kemper Road. I talked with him Sunday, and the landscaping is not finished and that will affect the lighting. I advised him that if he downsized it, he would be better off because those lights are way too big.

VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

A. Spirit Halloween Store – 50 Kemper Commons – Wall Sign

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

                    Respectfully submitted,



____________________,2006    __________________________
                    William G. Syfert, Chairman



____________________, 2006    __________________________
                    Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary