PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Councilman Steve Galster,

    Richard Huddleston, David Okum, and Chairman

    Syfert

    Members Absent: Robert Sherry

    Councilman Tom Vanover (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)

    Others Present Mayor Doyle H. Webster

    Economic Development Director Beth Stiles

    Building Official Bill McErlane

    Asst. City Engineer Don Shvegzda

    City Planner Anne McBride

  5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 8 OCTOBER 2002
  6. Mr. Okum moved to adopt and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with five affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council – no report
    2. 10/15/02 Memo from Planning Partnership re Approval of Amendment to Resolution of Cooperation
    3. Planning Commissioners Journal – Fall 2002
    4. Zoning Bulletin – October 25, 2002
    5. Springdale Comprehensive Plan
  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Color Palette, Retaining Wall, Mechanical Unit Screening and Building Elevations for Pappadeaux Restaurant, 11975 Northwest Boulevard

David Richards of Pappas Restaurant said we are addressing your old comments and concerns. We brought a color palette with a piece of the awning material.

On the retaining wall, we added a modular block wall which staff found of natural stone for a look of limestone. To break up the elevation, we added brick with a decorative light fixture across it to give it a European feel and a cross section of that to show you how it worked (he passed this out to the members).

The other question raised concerned the mechanical unit stacks on the building. We changed out the type of boiler and heater used in that room and installed a high efficiency heater with side discharge, which will be painted out to match the finish on that side of the building.

Ms. McBride reported that the applicant has supplied us with a site plan to indicate the area being calculated in the open space calculations, and it indicates that there is 25.3% of the site, or .696 acres of open space on the property.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE TWO

V A PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT, 11975 NORTHWEST BOULEVARD – continued

Ms. McBride added that the plan before you requires a total of 207 parking spaces; 178 of those are to be on the site and 29 (14%) are being provided in the Tower I Garage. The applicant has provided an ongoing calculation in terms of the number of spaces remaining in that garage. Right now there are three spaces available for Lot 13 or whoever might be using them.

They added a note on the Tower II garage, and I want to make it clear to the applicant that we are not agreeing that Tower II spaces are acceptable for use with Lot 13 given the distance between that garage and Lot 13.

They are indicating a 25-foot wide access point to connect Bahama Breeze and Pappadeaux. We have not yet received anything in writing from Bahama Breeze with their permission for that, so we cannot act on that without their written consent. Mr. Pappas commented I received that this afternoon, and I have the original copy here.

Ms. McBride added that we still are looking for an elevation view of what the guardrail on top of the retaining wall will look like. It is included on the elevations but the scale makes it difficult to read, and we would like to see the detail.

They have added the bumper blocks in the areas we requested. The waste enclosure is now entirely brick veneer. The gates on the west elevation will be black powder coated metal as we had requested. The mechanical equipment screening will be a dark green treated wood picket fence, and the material is included on their material board.

Last month their lighting plan included both high-pressure sodium and metal halide fixtures. They have gone with all high-pressure sodium fixtures on dark bronze poles.

There are a few outstanding items on the landscape plan, but they are minor and we can work through those.

The signage remains the same. The building elevations have been revised consistent with our last month’s comments. In other words, the elevations have gone back to what the commission approved initially.

Mr. Okum said I think that the awning material should be a part of the exhibit. I know your understanding of red is my understanding, but five years from now someone may look at these plans where it says red canvas awning. I think the word red should be eliminated and it should refer back to the color palette. Ms. McBride commented if they want to describe it as a color, I would say burgundy. Mr. Okum asked if he had a problem with taking red off the drawings, and Mr. Pappas indicated that he did not.

Mr. Galster asked about Lot 13 and Ms. McBride reported that Lot 13 is the last remaining of the restaurant outlots. It is to the southeast of Pappadeaux, right at the terminus of the cul de sac.

Mr. Shvegzda said on the retaining wall, it has been indicated to be keystone country manor system, which is more of a natural rock appearance.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE THREE

V A PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT, 11975 NORTHWEST BOULEVARD – continued

Mr. Shvegzda added that in addition there was discussion on the exposed area, the rock channel protection at the base of the wall. It will be regraded so that the rock channel protection will be two feet below the normal water surface elevation.

There are brick columns spaced about every 32 feet between the wall. The handrail system is on top of the wall and runs to each edge of the brick column. That combined with the 12-inch height on the curb in this area provides protection for pedestrians and vehicles. It just needs some additional details on the handrail.

On the connection to Bahama Breeze, there is a radius there as you head to the south parking field that needs to be enlarged. It is very sharp and would be difficult for vehicles to make that turn.

The storm sewer alignment has been revised to eliminate the two openings that were going into the wall. There still are some discrepancies in the storm sewer system information between the calculations and plans that need to be clarified but they are just details.

One other concern about the newly realigned storm sewer is that it runs parallel to the retaining wall, about seven feet away. It may or may not conflict with the geogrid reinforcing that goes back into the earth away from the wall, so there may have to be a note that the storm sewer installation may have to occur simultaneously with the construction of the wall.

We need a clarification on the revised maintenance access easement in terms of the ability of a vehicle to get down in that area. It would be our preference to have a clear record in the future that essentially the plat be replatted to indicate the new area of the easement.

Mr. Galster said right now the guardrail belongs to Bahama Breeze. We are redoing that entrance, and there is a note that just says that proposed guardrail for Bahama breeze is to be the same type material as previously used. I assume that there needs to be some modification to that guardrail to make that entrance work, and we are going to the same highway type metal rail. Mr. Pappas answered our agreement with them is that we bring it back to the existing condition.

Mr. Galster asked how far back the guardrail went, and Lanie Wess of Woolpert showed the plan and says it goes to the end of the radius. , five feet from the property line. Mr. Galster said the only thing I don’t like is that guardrail, and I am wondering how much of that you are replacing or extending. Ms. Wess answered we are extending it 25-30 feet west.

Mr. Galster asked the color of the brick wrap that goes around the pillars to break up the wall and Mr. Pappas answered it is the same as the front of the building.

Ms. Wess said I had a question regarding the plat. Don said it would have to be replatted for the easement changes. Does that mean that it needs to go through Planning Commission or can it go through staff level since the lots are not changing? Mr. Syfert responded we ultimately have to pass on it I believe.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE FOUR

V A PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT, 11975 NORTHWEST BOULEVARD – continued

Mr. McErlane responded typically if it involves right of way or easements, Planning Commission does have to review it. But Planning Commission can act on it pending approval by staff of changes to the plat tonight and have the Planning secretary sign off on it when it is available.

Ms. Wess commented we have the legal descriptions already done if we could handle it that way. We would not want to have to wait for another Planning meeting to get it finalized. Mr. Syfert said I don’t think that would be necessary. Mr. McErlane added that Planning Commission could consider it as one of the conditions in their approval.

Mr. Okum said the guardrail is going to be impacted by the applicant, and the applicant needs to tie into the guardrail. The one thing that stands out on that is the guardrail. If you were working with Bahama Breeze and you had to replace that…Mr. Pappas commented they would not replace that guardrail at this point. Mr. Okum responded I can’t cause you to do improvements on someone else’s property, but I don’t want that guardrail extending any further than it does. How can we get from Point A to Point B and limit that additional 25 feet? Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, he asked if the guardrail was necessary. Obviously it would look strange if it weren’t the same as what is there now.

Mr. Pappas commented we could raise the curb height in that area to 12 inches. Legally they wouldn’t need to have a person guardrail in that location if we raised the curb to 12 inches. It should take care of that situation. Mr. Shvegzda said we would have to take a look at it, but that could be a possibility.

Mr. Okum commented I would hate to see any extension to the guardrail. I would prefer to see the whole thing changed out to a wire type guardrail or something like that. Mr. Pappas said we could raise the curb in that area and float the landscaping up to the top of the curb so that it is not even apparent that we have done that, which would take care of the situation and we would not need to add to the guardrail. That guardrail is not a person guardrail; it is a vehicular guardrail. We could do that; we’re going to have to replace that curb anyway.

Mr. Okum said it doesn’t fix the problem. Mr. Pappas responded I cannot replace all of Bahama Breeze’s guardrail, and Bahama Breeze at this point has no financial reason to do it.

Mike Euerbrock of Woolpert said the guardrail we are proposing to extend is approximately 30 feet. Right now it wraps around the radius so we would be moving approximately 50 feet of the existing guardrail and replacing another 30 feet. Essentially we are relocating it along the other side of the drive, so actually we would be reducing the amount of guardrail. The reason we are using the same type of material (galvanized metal) is so that it will tie into the same type of guardrail that is there right now.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Pappas indicated that you could eliminate the 30 feet if you went to the curbs, and that would mean that 50 feet of that would be gone, which would be an improvement. If you don’t have a problem with it, and Mr. Shvegzda can review that section and make it work, I would like to eliminate as much as possible.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE FIVE

V A PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT, 11975 NORTHWEST BOULEVARD – continued

Mr. Pappas said we have to replace the curb one way or another, so making it a taller curb is not a big issue for us. I understand your concern, but there is little we can do about Bahama Breeze.

Mr. McErlane reported that the first item was a reiteration of the 16 conditions that were made on the partial approval last month. In essence we were looking for the four conditions that were required to come back to Planning. However, the applicant has addressed 13 of the 16 issues.

The issues that still remain to come back dealt with the mechanical unit, vents and chimney screening details, the updated color palette, retaining wall details and the associated landscaping, and revisions to the building elevations to match what was previously approved last year.

We didn’t receive a new color palette but in our file we had the color palette here tonight. That palette did not include a sample of the awning material or the retaining wall modular material, and tonight we received a copy of the awning material.

The retaining wall modular material is not called out in any particular manner on the plans. However in Ms. McBride’s report she does mention that what has been discussed is a material called country manor, that more simulates stone than the typical modular retaining wall does. We would recommend that be a condition of the approval.

We did receive the revised building elevations that showed the copper roofing on the south elevation as we saw last year on the elevations. The cage area in the back of the building near the loading dock has been removed from the plans, and the vent for the water heater has been removed and is now a horizontal discharge vent for high efficiency water heater on the north elevation. The applicant submitted retaining wall elevations; they show up on the south building elevation drawing and tonight he submitted a section through that retaining wall to show how the pilasters fit with the retaining wall. The pilasters appear to occur about every 30 feet on the retaining wall section..

The plan also shows the southern access connection with the Bahama Breeze site and up until tonight, we hadn’t received any indication that Bahama Breeze had agreed to that. We will need to get a copy of the letter for our files.

Since last month, there are additional hardwood trees provided to meet the replanting requirement. There are 149.5 caliper inches of hardwoods, 54 caliper inches of ornamentals and the plantings show eight-foot evergreen trees and the requirement is for 10-foot minimum trees. We would recommend that the plantings be 10-foot minimum in height. If that is the case, the replanting for evergreens would be in the neighborhood of 24 inches, all of which would satisfy the requirements.

There is a sidewalk shown on the north side of the building towards the west part of the building that is interrupted in several areas by some brick faced stairs that come down out of the seating areas and also some metal stairs that come out of a electrical room and a mechanical room. If you look at the floor plan for they building, there are a couple of ground mounted transformers that fall on the same sidewalk. Our recommendation is to eliminate the sidewalk and do plantings in that area.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE SIX

V A PAPPADEAUX RESTAURANT, 11975 NORTHWEST BOULEVARD – continued

Mr. McErlane said we also recommend that some screening be provided for those ground mounted transformers as well, whether that is plantings or a screened enclosure.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if he had any problem with removing the sidewalk, and Mr. Pappas indicated that he did not, he would screen the transformers and plant taller evergreens.

Mr. Okum said because the parking goes against the wall, is that guardrail necessary to keep people from falling into the pond? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this. Mr. Okum continued I have watched the lake levels, which are down about a foot. We still will have something pretty significant in elevation with that guardrail. Mr. Pappas added that there will be landscaping behind the guardrail that you will see. We moved the fencing back so that we could get vines that would drape over the front of the wall to give it a natural look and the vines will grow into the handrail itself. Mr. Okum said so this section in your drawings that show it growing directly into the wall is not correct.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the supplemental submissions, to include all comments by the building official, city engineer, and city planner, incorporating EX 3 section and A-6-A section. The motion includes supplemental color palette as submitted by the applicant that is in addition to the original board submitted. The applicant has agreed to remove the word red from the description of the awnings, which is to say only canvas awning. The retaining wall system will be Country Manor Random Pattern Wall natural stone appearance. The railings on the wall are to be reviewed and approved by staff. The rock channel shall be

below the water surface by two feet along the wall. The guardrail being removed from the improvement of 50 feet shall be replaced with 30 feet of modified curb detail reviewed by staff. The Bahama Breeze access point shall be reviewed and approved by staff. The replat of that location shall be reviewed and approved by staff.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion, adding I appreciate the applicant’s efforts to come back on that retaining wall. They have done an excellent job of addressing that concern. It looks very nice.

All present voted aye except Mr. Vanover who abstained, and the approval was granted with five affirmative votes.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Extension of Temporary Banner, Pictoria Tower (variance granted 3/13/01)

Bill Woodward, one of the developers of Pictoria Corporate Center said in March we received a temporary variance to put a leasing sign on the building. Unfortunately we are here to ask for a renewal of the variance. In today’s office market, it has been difficult to find tenants. The building is currently about 15% leased, and we would like to keep the sign on the building until it is approximately 85% leased, which would be about break even for the owners. This could take as long as five years in today’s market, but we think the office market will turn around and it will go quicker than that. We are looking for some bigger users to accelerate that pace, which aren’t in the market today.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE SEVEN

VI A EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY BANNER – PICTORIA TOWER – continued

Mr. Okum asked if the banners generated that type of business? Out of the 15% you have leased, how much came from that sign? Mr. Woodward responded I don’t know the answer to that question. The big guys are out there with a broker, but with the smaller firm, it could very well be the key.

Mr. Okum commented I don’t have any problem with extending it; I wouldn’t say five years, but at least six months to a year would be appropriate.

Mr. Syfert asked if the banner was in good shape, and Mr. Woodward indicated that it was.

Mr. Huddleston moved to extend the placement of the banner for a period of one year subject to the tenant maintaining the appearance of the banner and until the 85% occupancy he was requesting if that would occur before the one-year period. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the motion was adopted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Approval of "For Lease" Banner at 11775 Commons Drive (former Roberds Grand)
    2. Steve Adler with the Bergman Group that manages the center reported we have over 200,000 square feet vacant in the former Roberds Grand space and now we will have 40,000 square feet more when Mars Music moves out of town. So the owners are on the panic, and the way the economy is right now, people aren’t anxious to lease space there. We have been very proactive with our marketing and flyers and personal letters to every retailer in the country. We put the banner up a couple of weeks ago, and we got more calls since we put the banner up than we have had in the last year. For us, the banner has been a big help, and I am here to ask for approval of the banner I should not have put up before I had your approval in the first place.

      Mr. Syfert said that seems to be right over the Globe Furniture area; did that fall through? Mr. Adler answered yes, it is not going in at this time. Mr. Syfert asked if the issue was dead, and Mr. Adler responded it is on the back burner and very cold; I am optimistic that it will come together at one point, but right now, no. Mr. Syfert asked if they were trying to lease that space, and Mr. Adler indicated that they were. The owner said the first one in wins, and Globe Furniture Sales is aware of that.

      Mr. Huddleston moved to grant the request for one year, subject to their maintaining the banner or until the building is 95% leased as he requested. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

      Mr. Galster said there were questions on the dead landscaping; has that been taken care of? Mr. Adler answered that everything has been replanted at all the islands from The Great Indoors going east. There are some dead evergreens in The Great Indoors, and they are in a lawsuit with the contractor that built that space, a lawsuit with the landscaper to replace those evergreens. We had offered to cut them all down and they asked us not to because of the lawsuit. We have tried to get as much done as we can without taking out the evergreens.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      12 NOVEMBER 2002

      PAGE EIGHT

      VI B "FOR LEASE" BANNER AT 11775 COMMONS DRIVE – continued

      Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if the City could order those to be replaced. Mr. McErlane reported that the order would go to the owner, and I advised Mr. Adler earlier this week that when spring comes, we’ll be issuing orders to a lot of properties about replacing dead plant materials. It probably will be included in that if it is not replaced before then.

      Mr. Okum asked what they planned to do with the Mars Music globe and Mr. Adler answered that I am guessing that they will take all their signage when they leave. If not, I will be back here asking your advice as to what to do with it.

      On the motion to extend the banner for one year, all present voted aye, and it was granted with six affirmative votes.

    3. Concept Plan Approval of Commercial and Senior Housing Development, Princeton & Crescentville Roads (GEEAA Park)

Glenn Shepherd, President of Shepherd Industries stated we would like to develop a senior’s project and at some future develop a small portion of retail there. We are in the very early stages. We have had a preliminary meeting with staff members, and we are looking for direction from them in terms of what we need to do to make sure that we conform to your wishes. We have received some staff reports and are in the process of reviewing them now, and we would like to get back together with them to determine our next step.

Mr. Shepherd stated we have entered into an agreement with the park to purchase 33 acres; 23 would be the senior project and 10 retail on 747. With the construction of the underpass, the retail portion is somewhat out in the future. We have just identified some areas on the plan as what might be retail. At a later date, we will try to better define that.

Our senior’s project would be a three-part project. Phase I would consist of independent living housing in two forms, patio homes and four and seven unit buildings. Together that would be approximately 100 units of independent building.

Phase II would be a larger multi-purpose building with a combination of assisted living, independent living and adult day are and would total approximately 120-130 units.

Adjacent to that would be another building, Phase III, an extended care facility. This facility would consist of 60-120 units.

Our concept is to provide a full continuum of care. Seniors want to identify the ability to be taken care of as their needs change.

We will do this in cooperation with GEEAA Park. We want to maintain the integrity of the park and use some of the existing facilities in some kind of a shared relationship, like the golf course or tennis courts. We want to try to have a more efficient park and still maintain its integrity.

We are advocates of landscaping; we really get into land planning, and we intend to employ the top professionals in the area to achieve a first class project.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE NINE

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. McErlane reported that the plan indicates approximately 23 acres of retirement village, which would be a residential type plus institutional type use. It also shows an additional 10 acres for commercial use. We do have some details about the retirement village, but none about the commercial area as to uses or structures or what we might anticipate for that property.

The property currently is zoned General Business and Office Building Districts. There is a small corner of the southeast portion of the property that actually goes into the multi family district that is also on the property.

The area proposed for senior housing would need to be rezoned. Possible rezoning for the area could be as Public Facilities or Planned Unit Development for the senior housing only or Planned Unit Development for the entire project.

It is staff’s recommendation that the entire area be zoned as PUD. There are a couple of reasons for that. There are a couple of issues on setback that the developer would like to have some relief on. I am not sure about density because we really haven’t addressed those issues with the concept level detail that we have. Another issue deals with the fact that the senior residential area has no street frontage, so access easements and those types of things would have to be worked out.

The comments we have are for the retirement village only because we lack the detail for the commercial. There are some issues on setbacks to property lines and setbacks between buildings. The maximum density for multi-family units is 10 units per acre, and the buildings cannot cover more than 35% of the lot. At this point we don’t have the detail to determine that.

Our multi-family districts require two-car garages. There were photographs submitted and most of those units look as though they had one-car garages, so that is another issue that Planning would need to address as part of the PUD. There are some side yard setback issues with respect to the assisted living building, which is shown at 35 feet from the railroad right of way and minimum setback is 75 feet. We are looking at a maximum height of 50 feet for the assisted living building, but we don’t have the details on that.

Another issue is the fact that a Flood Hazard Zone AE burdens the southernmost area of the property. The Springdale FIRM map shows part of the AE zone located on about ˝ of the area designated as "Garden" residential units. That doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing can be built there, but it will be an issue that will have to be addressed in the design.

Another concern will be to provide adequate distance and buffering from the railroad right of way. Units are now shown at about 15 feet off the existing railroad right of way. Actually the tracks are a little further away than that; based on aerial photos, it looks as though they are 55 feet from the residential units. I am sure the applicant will need to take a look at some means of buffering residential units from the right of way.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE TEN

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. McErlane added that one of the major issues, and more of a concern for the commercial development is the tree preservation ordinance because of the dense number of trees in the northwest corner of the site. Making the entire project a PUD would allow for those trees to be spread throughout the entire site, and not be confined to just the commercial area.

Planning Commission and the developer will need to be sensitive to trying to preserve some of those trees if possible.

It will require a considerable amount of fill in the area to get out of the flood hazard zone so we could expect that any of the trees in that area would not be a part of the final plan.

We have little information on the commercial area, but in the PUD covenants, we might consider imposing some architectural controls and possibly some use controls in terms of no auto service or limitations on fast food and drive throughs. Some of that will be more dependent on internal traffic circulation when we get some details on those things. We might consider some controls in the covenants on the type of signs and access controls and those types of things.

Ms. McBride said the existing zoning is three different districts, so a zone map amendment will be necessary to allow the project to proceed as proposed.

We have recently adopted a Comprehensive Plan that does define this specific area as a focus planning area. The Future Land Use Plan that was adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the property remain as parkland and recreational use. That was done largely because that is the use of the property today, and at that point of time we did not see any reuse of the property coming forward.

However the plan did recognize the existing zoning of the property as well as the redevelopment potential of the site so we did make some specific recommendations that if the property were to be redeveloped, these items should be considered. I have listed those as well as attaching those recommendations in your staff report.

In summary, the recommendations were that this property be developed as a Planned Unit Development, that there be coordinated access both internally and externally, that there be coordinated signage plans for the development, and existing vegetation should be preserved as much as possible. Traffic was a very large concern, with the city undertaking significant improvements in that immediate area and recognizing the problems that exist in that area. .

We would ask that the Commission give serious consideration to maintaining those adopted recommendations. There are also some other recommendations that we would like to make:

      1. That the entire property would be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development so that the goals and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan can be achieved;
      2. That access to Princeton Pike (SR 747) and Crescentville Road be limited to whatever the recommendations of the City Engineer are;
      3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

        12 NOVEMBER 2002

        PAGE ELEVEN

        VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

      4. In addition, that the requirements of the PUD District (things like setbacks and open space parking standards buffering and landscaping yards) be adhered to;
      5. That there be a coordinated master sign plan for the overall development.

Ms. McBride added that in his report Mr. McErlane mentioned the concern about the location of the proposed residential units to the active rail line and I think that will come apart with the applicant’s further exploration of the site.

We also would suggest that a set of design standards be prepared for the overall development, things that would address land use, building materials, signage and landscaping to achieve a unified coordinated development for this property.

We believe overall that the mix of land uses that the applicant is proposing would be an asset to the area and would be a good redevelopment of the site.

Mr. Shvegzda said the proposed features on the concept plan indicate two unsignalized access points into the commercial area. One is located on 747 approximately 200 feet south of the 747-Crescentville intersection. The other is located on Crescentville Road, approximately 380 east of the 747-Crescentville Road intersection.

The concept plan indicates a proposed signal at what appears to be the existing entrance to the GE park site from 747, and in addition to the concept plan notes an internal roadway system serving the development, utilizing the existing access points at 747 and Crescentville. The assumption is that this internal roadway system is not to be public.

A traffic impact study would need to be performed to see what kind of impact the proposed development would have on the public roadways and what improvements might be necessary to mitigate the additional traffic.

No access point from 747 should be signalized. We are very concerned about traffic congestion resulting from the volume of traffic that exists on 747. The previous ADT for that roadway is 37,000 vehicles. Also, the grade that is necessitated by the creation of the grade separation is about 5-˝%. We are very concerned about the high level of truck traffic that is on the roadway that would significantly impact traffic.

A signalized access point should be considered for East Crescentville Road opposite Transportation Way. The Thoroughfare Plan indicated a public roadway within this site that basically intersected 747 about 500 feet south of the Crescentville-747 intersection and then intersected Crescentville Road opposite Transportation Way which is on the Butler County side of the roadway.

There should be no additional access points onto 747. The recommendation is that the commercial developments should be tied into the internal roadway system so that they could have access to a possible signalized access point at Crescentville Road as well as the unsignalized access point onto 747.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE TWELVE

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. Shvegzda reported that on storm water management, three proposed lakes are indicated. It is the assumption that these will act as retention basins. The one lake in the northern area, the proposed park area, is just over an acre in surface area. There are two lakes located in the Retirement Village area; one is about .2 acres and the other about .5 acres in surface area.

There are no proposed storm sewer modifications to the existing water courses, although it does appear that in the area of the ball fields there may have to be some enclosure of the existing creek in that area.

We would recommend that the July 1, 1985 rainfall event should be the design parameters for the retention basins. IN addition, in the area of the creek at the southern end of the development, there should be sufficient corridor between the proposed development and the creek to protect the riparian quality of the watercourse. We would recommend that storm water management techniques be utilized during and after construction to maintain the quality of the creek, that grading structure construction, etc. not encroach into the existing storm sewer easement along the CSX right of way.

Some of the units are located in close proximity to the CSX right of way. At last count, there probably are 40+ trains a day that utilize that rail line and at a point 370 feet northwest of the railroad bridge over the creek there is approximately a 20 foot elevation differential between the top of the embankment for the rail line and the bottom ground area adjacent to that. So, it would be very difficult in some of those areas to create a physical barrier to buffer some of the apartments from the railroad.

There was a question regarding the right of way lines. Do they actually reflect the new right of way that will be in place as a part of the 747-grade separation project?

Mr. Vanover commented said Mr. Shvegzda’s recommendation #3 says "the signalized access point on East Crescentville Road opposite Transportation Way". I live in that area, and you see the east-west traffic on Crescentville backed up beyond there waiting to get through the 747-Crescentville intersection. A signalized light there would only compound the problem, because you don’t have the stacking capacity in that roadway right now.

Mr. Shvegzda answered that is probably true with the existing conditions of the lanes on Crescentville Road. We are in the process of submitting an application to OKI to try to get funding for the improvements of Crescentville Road. This is in conjunction with providing the service drive to serve the residential area on the southern side of the road, and to add additional lanes at certain of the major intersections. One of the goals of providing those improvements would be to lessen that queuing distance for the westbound traffic on Crescentville.

Mr. Vanover asked if Butler County had their application in for this as well? Mr. Shvegzda reported I have a meeting with them this Friday; it will be a joint application.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE THIRTEEN

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. Okum said I appreciate this aerial photo of the site. Conceptually the type of use, would be an asset to the community. On the other hand, we are talking 200 to 350 residents in this area, and I am very concerned about the railroad impact on that, not only the sound but the vibration. I believe the decibel rating of a train engine is 90 and in an enclosed area it is even more. We also need to consider the sound of the whistles as they go over the crossing. There also are some studies that have been done on the vibrations of the trains as well and this should be considered when we consider this development.

There was a comment about working with the existing trees and environment to make a development of this nature work. I think it could, but it will take some work. There is a healthy growth of trees against that railroad line and I don’t know if it would be preserved or if it would go with your process. Trees help deaden sound, but not totally. I think this type use would be a good one for the development but I have some very big concerns about the trees in the commercial district as well as the area that would be needed to support that commercial district.

I agree with Ms. McBride concerning internal circulation and the things that need to be considered especially where you would be coming in if this primary entrance of GEEAA Park were the primary entrance. There might be some back up for the traffic that would be turning left going north into the commercial district. This needs to be looked at.

I agree that the entire site should be PUD as Ms. McBride recommended. Ms. McBride stated that it is for the portion of the property before us, the residential portion and the 10 acres proposed for commercial, not the entire park property. Mr. Okum commented I would like to see it for the entire park because that would incorporate the trees and green space. We will lose an enormous number of trees in this development. We did a preservation area of green space and trees with the Vineyard development, and something of that nature might work best for this development as well.

Mr. Galster said getting back to the PUD for the entire site, I think if we are keeping the golf course and green space, I might be more open to the density level of some of the other development. A lot of that can tie in.

Have you considered putting the residential area more towards 747 away from the railroad tracks and moving the park and picnic areas back toward the railroad tracks? I think that will be a pretty big issue to overcome.

Mr. Shepherd answered your concerns are our concerns. We want to make sure that we address that in order to do the project. We recognize and agree with the staff that more time has to be spent reviewing our plans as far as the location of the railroad tracks and the parkland.

Mr. Galster said if you put the park and picnic area up against the railroad tracks, you would use that in the flood plain and would have no where near the problems you would have if you tried to build housing there.

Mr. Shepherd responded what we were trying to do is address some of these issues with the layout of the plan. High-density units would be a little closer to the railroad tracks and the patio homes would be a little further away and more clustered around the golf course.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE FOURTEEN

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. Shepherd added if you look at this area on the photographs, there is almost no vegetation. We have tree lines here that we are trying to maintain. We would like to integrate the plan with the existing foliage there. If we flip flopped this thing, we would get into the heart of the mature forest and you would not be able to preserve those trees.

What you see here is a recommendation that we have made to the GEEAA Park. We are not proposing the construction of this lake, other than saying that it would be a nice amenity to the overall project. I don’t think we are in a position to be able to tell the park whether they were going to build a lake here or not

Mr. Galster said when you approached the park, I assume you told them you would be looking at commercial here and here. Did they say they wanted to have the homes in one area or another?

Mr. Shepherd answered it is the function of the land planner to utilize the topography vegetation, what would be desirable for commercial and those kinds of issues.

Mr. Galster commented with the exception of the trees, the only real major building in this whole area is the one main recreation building. Mr. Shepherd responded there are two, the clubhouse over here. Mr. Galster said that will stay, but I am saying that next to the two ball fields is the other main recreation building. Because of its central location, it seems to me that reversing that around might not be that bad because that building still would be able to service both sides.

My concerns are that the residential buildings are so close to the railroad tracks and also are in the flood plain. It seems to me that would be the area better serviced by the park area, which is not going to have anywhere near the impact from the train or the flooding. I agree that the PUD should encompass the entire site, not just the 33 acres.

Mr. Shepherd responded I am here representing the property we contracted (33 acres) and I want to stress the fact that we have the same concerns that you do in terms of the railroad.

Mr. Vanover said the two retention detention basins are setting at a high elevation, so this whole back row and that lower southwestern corner will go directly to the creek because of the fall of the land. Basically one-third of the development has no benefit, unless you are going to pump water uphill to get it to that lake to detain it before it hits the creek. That may exacerbate the effect of flooding on the creek. That is my backyard; I have seen both of the 100-year storms. The last one, last spring, our cul de sac was completely under water, and I am at a high point. I have neighbors further downstream and downhill than I am. That is another problem that I see that needs more attention.

Mr. Huddleston asked the total acreage in GEEAA Park. From the audience, Gene Neff of GEEAA Park answered 140 acres. Mr. Huddleston wondered if there was any consideration of integrating a golf course with a residential development.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE FIFTEEN

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. Shepherd answered that is what we are attempting to do in part. One of our marketing agendas would be to make this available to current and previous GE employees and members of the park.

Mr. Huddleston said I don’t see this as what I would consider to be an integration. Basically you are building a housing development next to a golf course. It is not really integrating the open space that that provides into a housing development.

Mr. Shepherd responded I totally agree and in our discussions, the impression we got from the park membership was that they wanted to try to preserve the integrity of the park to whatever extent they can without rearranging holes and things like that. To answer your question, to me that would be more preferable, but it was not something that was acceptable.

Mr. Huddleston commented my opinion is that you have a high density senior housing situation, a very high density that would destroy some of the tree cover in that southwest corner of the property. There is little or no indication of what would happen there eventually commercially and all of this sets at as primary an intersection as we have with the interstate and the 747 corridor. My first reaction is what the master plan recommendation is, that this would put the entire property into a PUD, which would require you to get the residual property owners to buy into this zoning, and would require more of a master plan for the entire property, not just this 33 acres. Nothing seems to me to be a real attractive or effective use of the property at this time.

Mr. Okum said the type of development is not bad, it is just how and where you put it. There is a lot of space on the GEEAA site, and we are looking at a postage stamp application to the entire development. Vacating part of the area where they want to put the housing and carrying the golf course around and integrating it into a residential common development might be a viable situation. If we are forced to look at this as a postage stamp approach, then I would have difficulty with it. I am in favor of integration and tying the entire development into something that can be a blended use. If GEEAA the sellers want this to work, it will take a blend to make it work and bring it together, not just postage stamping it.

Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant had questions of the commission. Mr. Shepherd answered not at this time. Keep in mind that this is a very preliminary concept. We certainly want to work with the staff to have something we can be proud of and you can be proud of.

Mr. Syfert said you have developed something like this somewhere else. Mr. Shepherd answered that the buildings that you have pictures of are being built at Northbend Crossing, which is at I-74 and North Bend Road interchange. It is a project that was requested by Green Township. Mr. Syfert commented that the concept is very similar to what we have in Maple Knoll. Mr. Shepherd added we haven’t looked at this from the standpoint of storm water retention. These lakes are more for aesthetics at this point of time.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE SIXTEEN

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston said what you have shown there, especially with your greenery and the black and white prints submitted to us looks pretty extensive. However the reality is that we are looking at is 33 acres. We are not looking at the 60 or 70 acres represented there. You haven’t implied that you are going to develop the greenspace up there, or even that roadway system. Mr. Shepherd said we would have to do the roadway system. There are a lot of partnership type things we have to address with the park in order to accomplish this.

Mr. Huddleston said I am not saying that you intended to misrepresent anything, but my point to that would be if you are showing something there, I would like to be assured that it is going to happen in the future, in this submittal or other submittals. Some of that property is not controlled by you; it would continue to be controlled by GEEAA. If that is what they intend to do and would stand behind it, which is one thing. But, to represent it on paper if it is not actually going to happen is misleading.

Mr. Shepherd answered as the process goes we want to document everything we are going to do so that everybody is in agreement.

Mr. Syfert added that ties a little closer to what two or three people have said regarding the PUD on the entire property. We are looking roughly 25% of it here, and there is quite a bit of it that hasn’t even been addressed.

Mr. Coleman said at this point I have looked at what appears to be preliminary plans for a partial development of that site. The pictures we circulated were impressive in terms of the buildings that you have at other locations. What I am not comfortable with and not impressed by is the fact that we are going to chop up some property that will involve adding some additional residential areas to an area that is already congested. I am concerned about additional congestion in that area as well. Given the fact that there are some components for substituting some things within the Comprehensive Plan. Based on what I have seen and heard so far, this is something I would not support in the development stage that it is in right now. It would have to include all of the property and not just the 33 acres.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said your purchase agreement is for 33 acres, so it does include the commercial part of it as well. Do you have any preliminary plans or concept discussion in reference to that or is it something that you will want to leave as blocks and have that type use zoning on them? Are we going to see something in that area, at least conceptually?

Mr. Shepherd answered we would like to be able to show you something conceptually. Our problem is one of timing with the work that is going on with 747 and the time period that will take place. Retailers at this point of time are not looking at something two and three years out to give any kind of a commitment to us.

Mr. Galster responded I understand that they are not going to, but is there something that you have a vision for? It seems to me if you are going to buy property for a retail development, that you have something in your head, whether or not you can sell it to the buying public. I’d like to see whatever those concepts are there.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VI C COMMERCIAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – GEEAA PARK

Mr. Shepherd responded that part of the process in acquiring the contract was to address some of the needs of the park financially. The issues of the amount of property to be developed, where it was to be taken and the uses of the property were addressed from that perspective as well as others. Mr. Galster commented that they are taking their biggest tax hit in that corner. Mr. Shepherd added so our attempt was to try to work with the park in a way to preserve as much of the park and yet meet their financial goals and develop a project that will work. That is the problem that we have at this point of time.

Mr. Syfert said I think we have had a pretty good discussion here. I appreciate what you have done, and perhaps we will see you in the future.

C. Right of Way Plat – Springdale Senior Subdivision

Mr. Shvegzda reported that Mr. Galster and I were discussing this earlier, and he pointed out that this particular plat does not include one additional parcel that should have been a part of it, the Jasper parcel in the southwestern corner of what is shown in the lines here. We would like to add to the motion that it would be included as part of it. We will have to revise it and get the Planning Commission Secretary’s signature on it at a later time.

Mr. Galster said we have Parcel 24, and there is a new parcel that includes 599.41-24 with the panhandle cut off, so we need a motion to adopt this plat which would be Plat S shown including Parcel 24, and I so move. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the right of way plat was approved with six affirmative votes.

E. Plat – Elm Alley to Walnut Street (United Dairy Farmers)

Mr. Shvegzda passed out copies of the plat, indicating that it involves the city-owned property that will eventually be a part of the UDF property, from Elm Alley to Walnut Street. This plat dedicates the public right of way that is required for Pear, Walnut and some right of way that was a part of West Kemper Road and was not previously dedicated. Mr. Syfert asked if this had to be acted upon this evening, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that it did not, but it would be helpful. The darker area on the plat is the proposed dedicated right of way. Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the plat was approved with six affirmative votes.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Huddleston said there is one other minor item with the Planning Partnership, and that is that we have an amendment to the By Laws which has to be back by December 2nd. The purpose of the amendment is "The affiliation of a friend of the Planning Partnership provides a means of individuals to indicate individual or personal support of the mission of the Planning Partnership and provides the Planning Partnership with a means of recognizing individuals who provide financial or other forms of support." This is a minor kind of item, but certainly should be acted on by the elected officials of the community and I would request that Planning Commission recommend adoption of this amendment to Council. I have a copy if anybody wants to see it; I apologize that it wasn’t in your packet.

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    12 NOVEMBER 2002

    PAGE EIGHTEEN

    Mr. Huddleston added we have a lot of people working in committees who are volunteers. The premise is that they do support the mission of the partnership. This would be renewable annually.

    Mr. Galster moved to recommend that Council authorize signature of this resolution amending the Partnership and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the motion was granted with six affirmative votes.

    Mr. Syfert stated that three of us attended the Certified Planning Commission Seminar and it started off slow but the second day especially was very good and three of us are now Certified Planners.

    Mr. Vanover said I appreciate the aerial photo, but could we have an updated one? We have tennis courts and two swimming pools on here that are no longer in existence.

    Mr. Galster said on the Planner’s Certification seminar, Ms. McBride’s firm did a wonderful job increasing participation on that second day. I don’t know if Mr. Huddleston has an avenue for feedback, but it is designed for the new planning people. We did a similar thing here in our own chambers for Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals. If we had on the first day what we had here, and the second day as it was presented, it would have been a tremendous program. The first day was slow; there were people who lacked the basics, and they didn’t get into that.

    Mr. Huddleston said I appreciate your comments. I would say that Springdale is a little spoiled because we do have a capable staff and many planning commissioners who have served for an extended period of time and do an excellent job. There are 49 jurisdictions in Hamilton County and some are as rudimentary as you can get in their efforts. I will pass along the comments. In putting the curriculum together, they tried to make it all encompassing. Maybe we should have a new planning commissioner seminar and an experienced planning commissioner seminar.

    Ms. McBride said in addition to that, there still remains the Ohio Planning Conference, Cincinnati Section Planning and Zoning Workshop which is in February and I’ll have that information in your December packets so you can mark your calendar in advance. Mr. Huddleston suggested integrating both of these group efforts.

  3. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
  4. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

_____________________, 2003 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

_____________________, 2003 ________________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary