Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 November 2001

7:00 p.m.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2.  

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

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston

    David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover, David

    Whitaker and Chairman Syfert.

    Members Absent: Donald Darby (out of town)

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride – City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 9 OCTOBER 2001
  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that all incumbent councilmembers were successful in their bids for election (three were unopposed), and Council remains the same.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – September 18, 2001
    4. Zoning Bulletin – October 10, 2001
    5. Zoning Bulletin – October 25, 2001
    6. 11/20/01 Letter from Bill McErlane re Steak N Shake Approval by Planning Commission
  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Final Plan Approval of Karlo’s Bistro Italia – Pictoria Island (tabled 10/9/01)
    2. Mr. Syfert said for your information, final approval will take five affirmative votes.

      Art Harden said with me is Kevin Turkal the architect. After reviewing the staff comments, we made some modifications to the landscape plan and removed some parking stalls that were questioned. The landscaping is not only comparable but exceeds that of Bahama Breeze.

      Mr. Turkal stated that we have extended the renaissance masonry background around the rear court as requested by staff. The roof level on the service court was raised to be more cohesive and consistent, also as requested by the staff.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE TWO

      V A FINAL APPROVAL OF KARLO’S BISTRO ITALIA – PICTORIA ISLAND

      Mr. Turkal added that a green and white tile accent band has been added and oval windows were incorporated on the back of the building as requested by staff, and the building footprint has been revised to create a landscape area.

      The signage will be detailed explicitly when the signage company applies for the signage permit. Two signs are on the main tower and total 43.5 s.f, and there are three small signs which total 9.6 s.f. for a total of 27.8 s.f, so the total square footage would be 62-63 s.f. under what we are allowed. No freestanding signage is proposed at this time.

      Ms. McBride reported that the restaurant still contains 7,243 s.f. and 331 seats. It requires 115 parking spaces. The site plan is down to 89 parking spaces because they removed three parking spaces adjacent to the accent point to Pappadeaux, which staff requested. They are below the required parking, but the parking garage is readily accessible. They have added a pedestrian walkway to facilitate the use of that garage, and they also have revised the signage that we requested in terms of size and orientation so if the lot is full, there are signs directing people over to the parking garage.

      Our Code requires a shared parking agreement that needs to be executed between both the owners of Karlo’s and the City, because the City owns the parking garage, and we will need to see that.

      We also would recommend that Karlo’s be required to have their employees park in the parking garage so that as much of that parking area is available for customers as possible.

      There are several variances that they would need in terms of setbacks and they have not changed from the last meeting. They need a 10 foot setback from the parking area on the south property line (they have 9.13 feet). Staff doesn’t have any problem with that revision.

      Also in the rear yard setback for the outdoor patio area, they are showing 13.26 feet from the property line (where it goes into the Pappadeaux parking lot). A 30-foot setback is required, and staff doesn’t have any problem with those variations.

      The Covenants in the Northwest Business Center and our

      Zoning Code require 20% of the site to remain open space. They have revised their site plan to include .33 acres, or 22.96% open space.

      They have the common accesses going into Pappadeaux, and they did eliminate those three parking spaces northeast of that access point.

      They have revised their landscape plan, and there are still a number of items that we would like to see revised further. We think we can work with them on that.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE THREE

      V A FINAL APPROVAL OF KARLO’S BISTRO ITALIA – PICTORIA ISLAND

      Ms. McBride they have created a two-foot wide planting area on the north elevation, but two feet isn’t very much to plant anything in, particularly the type of plant material they are showing. At maturity it would have a 4-5 foot plant spread, which would be a maintenance nightmare for them. So, we suggested other plant material that would be more appropriate in that area.

      Our landscape architect looked at the west elevation and suggested the use of window boxes or something like that to take care of that bare look.

      We also have suggested some alternative plant material on the northeast and east elevations. Most of what they have now is low foundation type material and we have suggested things that would climb up the building to break up those elevations.

      The elevations look really nice, but they don’t match the landscape plan, and I want Planning to be aware of that.

      They have added the wall sconces and lowered them so they can maintain them and we think they look great. We want to make sure that will be live plant material, and include a stipulation that the material must be maintained.

      The applicant worked with staff on the building elevations and I think they are far more acceptable than they were. They have added the masonry work along the bottom and have staggered the depth of the footprint. They have raised the height of the service area and added the tile detailing along the top. This goes for the northeast and south elevations of the service area. They have added landscaping and oval windows, even though they are somewhat Victorian looking but they look great. Personally I think the building elevations really look and this is something that will complement the fact that they are on the public right of way.

      We didn’t get any new signage information with this submittal. We previously had gotten information for the proposed Karlo’s signs on both the west and north elevations at 21.75 s.f. each. This submittal has another Karlo’s sign on the south elevation and also a Salads Pizza and Pasta on the west elevation. We didn’t have any square footage on those so although I am sure they are under the 81 s.f. that they are allotted, we couldn’t recommend either way. If we could get the additional square footage and the Commission feels comfortable with that tonight that is fine. Otherwise we would recommend just the approval of the two Karlo’s signs at this time.

      Mr. Okum asked if there would be flat lensed lighting on the fixtures, and Ms. McBride said yes. They are using those Greenbriar fixtures that they are using throughout Pictoria Island. Mr. Okum said on Page LP 1.0 the fixture shows a domed lens. Would you have any problem changing out to a flat lens? Mr. Turkall indicated that he did not. Mr. Okum said I also would like to have all light packs on buildings down lit; you’ll need to have some. What about the dock area? Mr. Turkall answered I don’t believe there is one there.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE FOUR

      V A FINAL APPROVAL OF KARLO’S BISTRO ITALIA – PICTORIA ISLAND

      Mr. Okum said if I referenced in the motion that any exterior light pack should be downlit and non-glare, which would take care of it? Mr. Turkall answered yes; we will accommodate downlit lighting. Mr. Okum asked if the pole color was the same bronze with no stripe, and Mr. Turkall indicated that it was.

      Mr. Huddleston said last month I expressed my concern for an overall parking summary, and what parking is being diverted to the garage and what has been done about that report.

      Ms. McBride reported that they received an overall parking summary and an overall tree count. We are trying to keep track of both the spaces and caliper inches.

      Mr. Huddleson responded my concern is with the amount of parking we have diverted to the garage. I am not sure we know how much that is, but we have diverted that with all these restaurants as I recall. Do we have any idea of the implications of that?

      Ms. McBride responded that Bahama Breeze is free standing and sits alone on its parking; it does not draw from the garage. Pappadeaux and Karlo’s are drawing from the garage. We do have a summary for that; staff will have to look at it.

      Mr. Huddleston said what we are committing ourselves to by doing that is the bigger question.

      Mr. Turkall answered 115 is the required number of parking spaces and 89 are shown. In the worst case, we would be adding 26 spaces to the garage.

      Ms. McBride added those are the numbers per our Code, but I really think we will have to let them open and see where they are. I don’t think any of us would have guessed that Bahama Breeze is underparked on Saturday nights. I think we will have to let a couple of these restaurants get open and see where they are. It is my hope that their peak hours will be off peak for the office uses.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the more direct pedestrian routing from the garage to the restaurant, there is a crossing on the one side of the drive to the garage across Northwest Boulevard. They need to include curb ramps on either side of Northwest Boulevard, along with the appropriate crosswalk markings across the pavement.

      There was a concern last meeting on the location along the common drive to the west where the sidewalk along the back of curve of the common drive comes to the driveway. The concern was about where both those portions of the sidewalk cross the driveway. We would comment that the concrete sidewalk should be wrapped around the radius of that area, and put a radial curb ramp there.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE FIVE

      V A FINAL APPROVAL OF KARLO’S BISTRO ITALIA – PICTORIA ISLAND

      Mr. Shvegzda said the only issue with storm water management and the major storm is additional spot elevations at the point in the west parking field between the two developments regarding where that point will overtop the curb and cross the landscaped area. It is a matter of including additional spot elevations to contain that area and verify where the flow will cross the property.

      Mr. Okum said there was a comment when Pappadeaux was in that some of their storm water will flow over Pappadeaux property. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that they have provided an easement on the replat that indicates that is in place.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I have a question about the southernmost curb cut. Are those being provided by your firm; is that a part of your plan? It is more on Pappadeaux area.

      Mr. Harden said to provide a complete plan, we propose to do this, even though it is off our property. Mr. Okum said that makes sense; it is on public right of way, so it’s ours. Isn’t there one on the other side presently, where the access to the garage is? Mr. Shvegzda reported that there was not, and they would have to construct that as well. Not knowing what all was going in there, there was only a sidewalk on the east side of Northwest Boulevard. At that point the assumption was that they would be able to circulate there to the mall of the cul de sac.

      Mr. McErlane said the covenant that runs with the Northwest Business Center property requires lots to be 1 ½ acres minimum, and this lot is 1.43 acres. On your agenda, there is an amendment to the covenants to accommodate this. The developer of the Pictoria development has asked for the modification to 1.4 acres. My recommendation would be that if it is agreeable to Planning Commission any approval be conditioned upon the approval of those covenants later in the meeting.

      Based on the preexisting tree replanting requirement, the requirement is 59.3 inches and they are providing 77 inches on site. We have discussed setback issues in the past, and it looks like the signs they are proposing would fit within the allowable. I would ask that the Planning Commission approve the project conditioned on the signs meeting Zoning Code requirements as far as square footage goes.

      Ms. McBride added to clarify my answer to Mr. Huddleston’s earlier question, there are 10 extra spaces right now. That would include the parking required for the offices tower, Bahama Breeze, Pappadeaux and Karlo’s.

      Mr. Okum asked the number of square feet of signage allowed, and Mr. McErlane answered 281 s.f. What we know so far, based on a prior submittal, is 43 was based on the two smaller signs over the front door and we don’t have any dimensions on the south side or on the small ones around the canopy.

      Mr. Okum said I would like the applicant to give us a number that is representative of what they have presented to us.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE SIX

      V A FINAL APPROVAL OF KARLO’S BISTRO ITALIA – PICTORIA ISLAND

      Mr. Turkall reported that these three signs are 9.6 s.f. each or 28.8 s.f.. There are two signs with 45.5 s.f. for a total of 72.3 s.f.

      Ms. McBride added that there also is an additional Karlo’s sign on the south side that we have never gotten square footage for. Mr. Turkall reported that it would be 125.45 s.f., including that sign. Mr. Okum said I would like for staff to take a look at that. I don’t have any problem with the south building elevation sign considering the mass below it, but I would like the numbers set tonight.

      Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum said we talked about a cumulative tree replacement for the development. Has the developer presented to you a total count of where they will be?

      Mr. McErlane reported that we received a tree summary, but it looks at Bahama Breeze and a couple of other ones. We really need to evaluate what their actual tree requirement is. The thing that throws a little curve in it that the trees on Bahama Breeze were removed for another project that never happened and they were not even included in the overall tree replacement for the development. So, we have to go back to the Cantina Del Rio project and try to figure out what the tree replacement was for that project.

      Mr. Okum said so will we find a place for these trees? Mr. McErlane responded I’m sure they will find a place for it. I don’t think we will end up in a shortfall. Karlo’s doesn’t have an issue. What we brought up the last time was the fact that we now have a lake lot that is being cut out of the overall tree replanting requirements, and we wanted to make sure that was accommodated for in the tree replacement. I don’t think there will be a problem with trying to get the trees in. Actually I think Bahama Breeze did overplant, and we know that Pappadeaux overplanted.

      Mr. Turkall said we do believe that the signage drawing is accurate now, and reflects the total square footage, 125.4 s.f.

      Also there was a comment that the renderings do not match the landscape plan. When the computer generated the rendering, there was a large portion of the architecture that was not seen, so we cut in front of those trees to show the building. If you panned out, you would see the total landscape.

      Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Harden asked about the note on the parking lot striping being yellow and that it should be white. Our preference is yellow. In the wintertime, it is easier to see.

      Mr. Shvegzda answered the only reason we bring that up is in the areas of the driveways. The uniform manual traffic control devices indicates yellow only being used for the separation between opposing traffic. I realize it is quite common to use it for parking stalls and if that is your desire, that is acceptable. However, if we have any pavement markings in the vicinity of the driveways at the entrance to the roadway, we need to have yellow only for the centerline.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE SEVEN

      V A FINAL APPROVAL OF KARLO’S BISTRO ITALIA – PICTORIA ISLAND

      Mr. Harden responded we recognize that for separating the traffic flow but for the parking stalls, our preference would be yellow. Mr. Shvegzda answered if it is for the parking stalls in those types of arrangements, that is fine.

      Ms. McBride said I have had a chance to look at the sign area, and we differ from the applicant’s calculations in how the City calculates their sign area. Instead of 125.45 s.f., we come up with 143.25 s.f. That would be the 21.75 on the two Karlo’s sign, the Karlo’s sign on the south elevation would be 63.75 and the three pizza pasta are just under 12 s.f. for a total of 143.25 s.f.

      Mr. Okum said although the sign on the rear is 63 s.f., it is probably proportional to the arch they are showing above it. Ms. McBride agreed adding that some of the adjacent restaurants have signs on the buildings that are quite a bit larger. Mr. Okum said I don’t have a problem with that at all.

      There were no reference to the mechanical units and they should be screened from all areas and adjacent properties. The color pallet should remain with the City for our records.

      Mr. Galster said I want to thank the applicant for the changes that have been made to the building elevation, the service area in particular. I think you have done a tremendous job in trying to meet the goals we set forth. I am extremely pleased with the end result.

      Addressing the Council members on the commission, Mr. Syfert said we are talking about 1.4 acres versus the original plans and covenants. Do you have any problem with this? Neither member did.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the Karlo’s Restaurant, including specifications and designs contained in Exhibit DP 0.0, DP 1.0, DP 1.1, DP 2.0, DP 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 5 LP 1, A1, A2, DP 2 and A3 as submitted by the applicant. The motion includes all staff, engineer and planner’s recommendations. The mechanical units shall be screened from view of the adjoining properties and the public right of way. All exterior lighting shall be non glare and designed to not adversely affect the adjoining property owners and public right of way. Pole lighting is to be downlit and non glare with lenses set within the case. Wall mounted light packs if used shall be shielded and downlit only so as not to affect adjoining property owners and/or the public right of way. Lighting fixtures shall have residential shielding to divert lighting inward on all poles. I would comment that the pole on the driveway rear side is not noted to have residential shielding. Landscaping shall include all comments from staff. Traffic and street improvements shall include those recommended by the city engineer. Signing conditions shall include the plan and not exceed 143.25 s.f. This motion is also conditional upon approval of the covenant modifications being considered this evening. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

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

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      13 NOVEMBER 2001

      PAGE EIGHT

    3. Approval of Proposed Exterior Changes and Signs to Hobby Lobby, 11630 Princeton Pike (former HQ) – tabled 10/9/01

Wendy Klepcyk of Michael Schuster Associates reported that a revised site plan has been submitted showing the existing Just for Feet to remain on the site. There is an existing garden center on the south elevation of the building, which will not be leased by Hobby Lobby, and it will remain as is. However, it will be painted to match the color pallet of the Hobby Lobby façade as well as the south and west elevations of the building.

Potted landscaping and contained landscaping will be provided at the main elevation. There is no exterior lighting proposed for the building. Hobby Lobby plans to use the existing waste area. That area is screened, and they propose to reuse that existing screening.

In terms of the screening of the mechanical equipment, there is one rooftop unit that is currently visible that is serving the garden center. Since they are not leasing the garden center area, they plan to remove that rooftop unit.

The reader board will be removed and there will be no outdoor display, storage or sale of any merchandise or store equipment. Those were the items in question from the last meeting.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned PUD and is part of the Cassinelli Square development. The proposal is to construct what appears to be an EIFS parapet wall over the proposed entrance for Hobby Lobby, which is different than what the main entrance was for HQ, and recently occupied by Cheap Beds and Furniture.

The applicant has proposed a number of wall signs and is proposing to change out the panels in the pylon signs for a total of 444 s.f. The main Hobby Lobby sign on the front of the building is 250 s.f. and that exceeds the 150 s.f. maximum permitted for wall sign. The total signage of 444 exceeds their allowable sign area of 341 s.f. The applicant has indicated that the balance of the HQ building would be painted a lighter color represented on the building façade, and we are assuming that is the beige or cream color on it.

For clarification, will the metal on the HQ that is green be painted that cream color as well or will it be painted the same color as the metal on Hobby Lobby? Ms. Klepcyk answered that it would match the metal that is going to be painted by Hobby Lobby.

Mr. Syfert asked if there was a color pallet and Mr. McErlane answered that it was here last month and disappeared. However, there is a color picture that was submitted, but it only gives you an idea of the colors they may be using. It doesn’t give you what will be used on the metal. Maybe the applicant can clarify it for Addressing Ms. Klepcyk he asked if she had any idea what color would be on the standing seam metal roof? Is it the darker brown? Ms. Klepcyk answered I would say that it would be the darker brown color, but I don’t have anything to show.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE NINE

VI B EXTERIOR CHANGES & SIGNS – HOBBY LOBBY –11630 PRINCETON

Ms. McBride said although the applicant addressed a number of these comments verbally this evening, we have had these comments out for six weeks and want to make sure that in fact that the comments are incorporated in what the applicant does. I know that is your intention, but we don’t have anything in writing to match that. Any motion would need to pick up everything that the applicant has represented this evening to address these comments. Staff also had some basic concerns about the whole appearance of that center, and I know that is something that the Commission has been concerned with as well. Additionally, I don’t see the need for this much signage on this building and I would like to see that reduced. On the reader boards, we have heard before they were coming down, and they have to come down before any of these panels are changed. That is my personal opinion. Any motion needs to pick up all of these, because we don’t have anything to document that.

Mr. Galster said in terms of the pole sign in general, the Cheap Beds and Furniture looks like a painted old panel reused. If we are looking at changing the panels in the pole signs, we need to look at cleaning everything up as well, including getting new panels in for those tenants if they are going to stay. The last time I went by it looked like it was hand painted. I don’t know if you have the ability to make commitments on that or not.

Ms. Klepcyk responded I could check back with the developer in their tenanting to see if that could be arranged.

Steve Breitenbach of Ray Meyer Sign said I am here to clear up questions you had. On the panel and pylon sign, Hobby Lobby has contracted with us to take the panel down and replace it with a new panel that would be painted in the back like all the rest of them.

Mr. Galster asked if the work they were contracted for included any other panels on the pylon or removal of the reader board, and Mr. Breitenbach said no. Mr. Galster said the picture that I have shows a damaged area; is that still existing; are you repairing that? Mr. Breitenbach responded no, we weren’t going to do anything to that.

Mr. Galster commented that before I am going to approve any signage, all of that has to be cleaned up. I don’t know who you need to get in touch with or who you need to bring before this board that has the ability to say this is what we are going to do in reference to both those pylons. I can’t keep semi fixing those pylon signs and have that be okay.

Ms. Klepcyk responded I do know that once the theater is removed off the site, which is part of another portion of this development, that the reader boards would be removed, and that is imminent. Consequently any damage from the removal of that could also be addressed with the damage to those pylons.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Syfert said correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t that reader board supposed to have been removed when the theater closed? Mr. McErlane confirmed that.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TEN

VI B EXTERIOR CHANGES & SIGNS – HOBBY LOBBY –11630 PRINCETON

Mr. Galster said so you understand any additional modification of the sign or approval of your sign package in general will be tied to this pylon sign.

Mr. McErlane said prior to this, Cheap Beds and Furniture was occupying this building. Do you know if Kimco intends to lease the balance of the HQ building to them?

Ms. Klepcyk answered they are trying to tenant the remainder of that space, but I don’t know who they have in mind for that.

Mr. McErlane responded that if they are no longer going to be there, the lettering could be removed from that panel.

Mr. Okum said my concern is that Cheap Beds and Furniture currently has signage on the concrete block wall outside the landscaped area, and they have signage on which used to be the big Home Quarters panel sign. If Hobby Lobby is not occupying the whole space, that sign case is massively big compared to the amount of residue left in the building. That sign was for that entire store, and we can piecemeal that all we want, but we have a residue of space, oversignage that has been approved and exists on that site. Also we don’t really have a color pallet showing what will happen in this development.

I have concerns about that garden center area and whether it gets repainted. What about all the hanging down pipes and debris and residue in there? This is a Planned Unit Development with a very very poorly kept entity in it. I have heard good things about Hobby Lobby, and I don’t have a problem with Hobby Lobby coming into the community at all. I think it would be a good business for that area. But, it is a PUD, and we have to look at the PUD in itself; the developer has to get involved here. They have signage on the outside of that garden center that is not contiguous to your parcel. I have a real problem with that, because I thought when we looked at signage we looked at the use space and the signage attached to it. Now we have the sign on that wing wall that doesn’t apply to anybody. I would have a hard time approving this tonight. It needs a lot of work.

Ms. Klepcyk responded the existing garden center obviously needs some cleanup work and some painting. Until they have further tenanting for the remainder of the space, the developer is hesitant to completely remove the garden center. However, they do have some options for plans to remove that in the future.

Mr. Okum said but your space goes all the way to that wall, and the only thing they could use that for is an outdoor what? Could they enclose that and turn it into a store?

Mr. McErlane responded the parking numbers were evaluated based on a home improvement store, so it isn’t like you could take that and turn it into general merchandising and say that you meet the parking requirements.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE ELEVEN

VI B EXTERIOR CHANGES & SIGNS – HOBBY LOBBY –11630 PRINCETON

Mr. McErlane said my information is that the landlord is not intending to use it for anything, although I think it would be worthwhile to get a commitment from the landlord to clean it up.

Mr. Okum commented it is almost to the point of condemnation in its general condition. Mr. McErlane reported that most of that is racking and stuff they left behind when HQ moved out. Mr. Okum commented we are talking a debris issue, and Ms. Klepcyk said the debris could be removed from that area.

Mr. McErlane said one issue was brought up that is a valid point. When Hobby Lobby takes this space, if Cheap Beds and Furniture remains in there, they are considerably oversigned for the size of their space, in addition to having a sign that isn’t even within their tenant space.

Ms. Klepcyk responded I don’t believe that tenant will remain. As far as I know, the developer does not have a solid tenant signed in for the remainder of that space at this time.

Mr. McErlane reported that his recommendation would be if the tenant currently in the building is going to remain in the balance of space, that their signs be downsized appropriately based on the code requirements, and that the sign on the garden center wall be removed.

Mr. Okum said we are still talking the PUD and we have this garden center that could not be redeveloped as retail space. It is an entity in itself setting out there that can’t be used. By putting Hobby Lobby here, you are creating an untenantable area on the south side of the property. Hobby Lobby should go further to the north so that there could be a departation between Hobby Lobby and whatever would ultimately use that garden center area. If we approved Hobby Lobby as presented that garden center area will stay like it is forever and I can’t see that working.

Mr. McErlane said there may be some future use for that piece. It is just without knowing what that future use is and whether or not it can meet parking requirements and everything else that Planning requires of them, it can’t be used for anything at this point of time. I guess the owner doesn’t want to tear it down and find out later that there is some potential use for it.

Mr. Okum said we had a similar situation when Wal-Mart went into North American Properties, and there is a false wall between Wal-Mart and Famous Footwear. It is not noticed, but there is truly a 30-40 foot storefront space there that was never developed. We have here a screened partition with a concrete block wall and the developer needs to get involved in this. They are the ones that want to lease the space.

Mr. Syfert wondered if there was a reason why the developer is not here tonight. Ms. Klepcyk responded he asked me to represent both Hobby Lobby and other issues. Mr. Syfert asked if she could speak on their behalf of what we might demand? Ms. Klepcyk answered that she could

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWELVE

VI B EXTERIOR CHANGES & SIGNS – HOBBY LOBBY –11630 PRINCETON

Ms. Klepcyk reported I know that they are looking at options for the garden center, whether that would be in the future to try to provide some use for that as it is, or possibly tear it down and redevelop that area, or alter it in some way to make it more useful for a tenant. Those are their options right now. They are hesitant to do anything with this particular tenant because they are looking at different options for that area.

Mr. Syfert commented there have been a lot of concerns expressed here by the various members, so I don’t know where we are going.

Mr. Vanover said I have a big problem with the garden center and some of the hanging pipes. There are life safety issues; because part of that pipe is conduit, there would be live circuits in there. It is an eyesore.

Ms. Klepcyk reported that the landlord plans to clean up the landscape areas that need to be cleaned up. Mr. Vanover asked when, and Ms. Klepcyk answered when Hobby Lobby does the exterior improvements, the landlord also will do the exterior improvements.

Ms. McBride said the garden center has right of way exposure to Tri-County Parkway and the city has pumped a lot of money into that roadway. If the Commission was looking for some verbiage, it might be to restore it to the condition that it was in the day you approved it and the day it opened, or to tear it down, and you have 30 days or whatever to do that.

Mr. Huddleston said I would not be in favor of acting at all on this issue, until the conditions of the overall property are addressed, the garden center should be demolished, the exterior should be restored, and the landscape should be renovated and restored. I don’t like to penalize the existing applicant, but without the developer here, I don’t think we can act on this at all favorably tonight.

Mr. Galster said I know when we look at PUDs a lot of time we look at individual buildings, but it sure would be nice to at least look at the whole building instead of this one little sliver of that building, so we can get a feel for the complete project.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if she were getting the picture of what the commission needs? Ms. Klepcyk answered it is very clear. Mr. Syfert added that we don’t have an actual color pallet. I think that should be something that you should bring in next month. If you want to ask for tabling, I will accept it. Ms. Klepcyk agreed, and Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. .By voice vote all present voted aye, and the item was tabled to December 11th.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE THIRTEEN

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Concept Approval of Building Addition – Springdale Church of the Nazarene –11177 Springfield Pike

Todd Yoby, Environ Group Architects representing Springdale Church of the Nazarene reported that this is a 48,340 s.f. addition, approximately 37,840 on the first floor and 10,500 on the second floor. This would involve the removal of their existing gymnasium space as well as an existing accessory building.

Primary uses of the new building would be a new gymnasium multi purpose space with a platform area, kitchen space, teen activity area, new church offices that would be relocating from the basement of the existing facility and adult teen and children’s Sunday school spaces.

The addition would be located primarily on the west side of the property. Architecturally the attempt is to respond to the exiting church sanctuary. The building will be a brick façade that will match the existing masonry on the site. Both the existing sanctuary and existing classroom spaces are the same brick material. The new addition would match that. Also the addition would have similar detailing, that responds to the sanctuary, arched windows on the east elevation (office) respond as well to sanctuary detailing.

The primary reason for presenting a concept approval is to put the addition on the west side of the property, a variance would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals to abut the Springdale park property.

Some additional parking is proposed for the south and north parking lots, and resurfacing and repairing the existing parking lots as well as restriping those to meet the Zoning Code. Additionally, relocation of the dumpster pad and new landscaping around the new addition and as needed. In the parking area there are new islands proposed on the south parking lot and landscaping proposed on the north side. This is a concept plan and that landscaping isn’t fully developed.

We also are aware that expansion of the existing site detention will be necessary. Save & Walker has been contracted to do the civil design for site development and storm and building drainage. At this point it is not complete, but the feeling would be that the ideal circumstance would be to expand the existing detention area. If that is not possible, a new detention are, similar to what is existing would be proposed on the south side of the current access drive.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that topographic features 200 feet beyond the property line need to be indicated, so we can see how the relationship of the development affects the adjoining features.

We need to see the planned drive aisle widths in the parking field so that we can see that those meet the code. There is nothing indicating if the proposed or existing parking lot is to be curbed.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE FOURTEEN

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Shvegzda added that there was a question on the intent of the repair and resurfacing of the existing parking surface, and I believe the applicant indicated that it would be repaired and then resurfaced. The applicant confirmed this.

As the expansion to the west will be at the property line, the fences at the park along that property line is just over two to just under one foot offset to the west from the property line, so there is a question as to how that gap will be taken care of. There also is a question as to the construction and whether and easement will be required or some rights of entry onto the park property and how that will affect existing trees within the park property.

One suggestion would be that the fence on either side be terminated at the corner of the building. Mr. Yoby responded I think that would work and it would be acceptable to us. We could certainly replace the fence if needed.

On the proposed layout of the modification to the parking lot, there is an area where we have the addition on the south side of the main drive, we have the existing access for the main drive aisle from Route 4 that comes in at an angle. We have the drive aisle from the easternmost of the parking expansion coming east-west midway into a portion of that drive aisle. The concern is that because it is offset it will be confusing. I believe Mr. McErlane has a comment from he Fire Department on their concern on the accessibility to do the configuration of that drive aisle also.

We have a concern about the new intersection from the proposed parking on the north side of the main drive aisle from Route 4, and how it will affect the flow of that main drive aisle. Right now it operates very well and adding another intersection there is a concern.

On the storm water management, based on the proposed expansion and additional impervious area that will be added, a rough analysis of the site indicated approximately 11,000 cubic feet of additional detention. Because it is an older detention basin, and there have been some modifications to it over the years, we don’t have an accurate as built record of it, so we don’t know if it is efficient or has additional detention. We would recommend that the consultant review the entire site to determine what the overall detention requirements would be, plus an as built drawing of the detention to see how it could be modified.

Mr. Yoby responded on the parking circulation, when we resubmitted the plans (on 11/2), we did revise the south lot access. In our original submission there was a secondary access lane and we reworked that to try to accommodate your concerns.

Mr. Shvegzda responded I stand corrected; we must have omitted that; it has been revised and is located opposite a main separate east west drive aisleway from the area that would go alongside the building and it is much better.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE FIFTEEN

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Yoby said regarding the parking that has been extended to the east in the north lot, though it is not shown in the current application, we certainly would be willing to delete the additional access point at the south side of the main access drive. I think that is in concurrence with what you are suggesting.

The existing north lot and the existing lots around the perimeter of the church and the west side of the existing lot are curbed currently. All existing curbing would remain. The east end of the south lot currently is not curbed and not having the civil engineering, I am not what the intention is there. Our hopes would be to be able to utilize the same sheet draining that exists there now. There are some catch basins on the existing property, but there is not an extensive use of catch basins and we really are not proposing modification of grades on the existing parking lot. They are to remain the same. I would think with the expansion for creation of new detention pond that the curbing issue would be resolved.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that the subdivision regulations call for at least bumper blocks or whatever to delineate the perimeter of the parking lot, unless full continuous curbing is needed to convey the storm water flow. That is something that will have to be determined to see how it will affect the function there.

Mr. Okum said they want to build the building on the property line to the park, and it is not all two story. The two story portion on the rear would be the gym area. Mr. Yoby added that the teen center roof on the north side is a story and one-half; it is a higher elevation. Our current proposal would be that the one-story roof section (l-shaped between the teen center and life center) would have a raised parapet wall along the west property line.

Mr. Okum said the reason I bring this up is I have refereed soccer and a number of soccer balls go over that fence. Does the city plan on reconfiguring the direction of the fields in the park? The field goes directly against that building and would go right into it. Cameron Park is a pretty important soccer field for the city, and with its configuration going east to west, this will be a problem.

Mr. Yoby responded when we first looked at this proposal, the church was prepared to purchase property from the city. Some discussion between the church and the city had begun, and it was the city’s preference not to sell the property. When we looked at the proposal, our visual analysis of the area (40’ft. width from the property line) was not abutting the existing goal lines of the soccer field. Mr. Okum said they are set back 25-30 feet and the balls go over all the time. Mr. Yoby responded I may be wrong, but I thought it was a little further than that.

Additionally on the northern side of the park property there are existing trees and brush, so a great deal of the building would be behind that brush. Additionally the life center roof is approximately 20 feet above the existing grade of the field.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE SIXTEEN

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. McErlane reported with respect to the setback issue, when the church first considered the expansion of the building, there were several different layouts considered. They had made initial contact with the city about the purchase of additional property in order to satisfy Zoning Code setback requirements and at the same time we were evaluating how that was impacting them from a Building Code standpoint. When they chose this layout, they approached the city about the purchase of a 30-foot setback to satisfy the zoning requirements. Since that time we found that there is another setback requirement that may override that, and that was 55 feet. The city was receptive to that in order to allow the project to go forward. However, after we found out that from a Building Code standpoint, the architect had indicated that he didn’t need the 30 feet or even a setback from the property line to satisfy the Building Code, I presented that to Mr. Osborn, and Mr. Osborn indicated that if Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission were receptive to a zero setback, the city was satisfied with that because physically there would be no difference in the layout. Also from the city’s standpoint, the city maintains control of the property. We would control what happens up against the building on that side. We felt it was a better situation from the city’s standpoint that we would not be giving up any park property and would still maintain control of that piece of property.

The other concern might have been whether or not we would be setting a precedent from the standpoint of a 0 setback. It was felt that since it was adjacent to park property it is not the same type of situation that another developer might ask for. So, the city administration is satisfied with what is being proposed here in terms of the 0 setback.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if there was an access drive off Sharon Road that the applicant discussed? Mr. Shvegzda responded that earlier there were some very preliminary discussions on that, but it never made it to any particular plan development and is not shown on this plan. Mr. Okum wondered if that would be needed for the development, and Mr. Shvegzda answered I don’t believe it would be specifically needed. It is more of a judgment call by the applicant.

Mr. Okum commented that the Board of Zoning Appeals had an application or the removal of a garage on a piece of property that the church had purchased on Sharon Road. Is it the church’s intention not to do that?

Mr. Yoby reported that there was a preliminary intention to put the Sharon Road access in, but within the scope of this project. It is not our intention.

Mr. McErlane added that was the reason why we told the Board of Zoning Appeals that it was premature to act on that zoning variances when Planning had not even seen a plan for that access drive.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Huddleston said on the zero setback, doesn’t that require them a four-hour wall? Mr. McErlane said it is a two or three hour; it is a solid masonry wall. Mr. Huddleston wondered about what the fire Department said about the circulation on this whole site. It seems extremely tight for a highly densely occupied building.

Mr. McErlane responded that the Fire Department has reviewed this plan, and their only concern was maneuverability on the south drive coming in off the main drive and getting around the one landscape island in order to get along side the building. In their review, they didn’t voice a concern about no access around the back of this building. In prior discussions on other developments, they have indicated if they can in the vicinity of the building, and reach the building with hose trainers, they don’t have a concern.

Mr. Galster asked if the Recreation Department had looked at the effects of this park and soccer field? Mr. McErlane responded I am not aware of the Recreation Department having prior knowledge of what is proposed.

Mr. Parham said I talked with Mr. Osborn this afternoon, and he indicated that he and Mr. Burton, the Recreation Director, went out and looked at this site. He wasn’t specific as to the comments, so I can’t address Mr. Okum’s concerns about the balls. Mr. Okum said the field slopes to the north. Mr. Galster said it would be nice to have some input from the Recreation Department as to the effects it would have on that field or how it would need to be modified.

Mr. Parham commented since you are at concept discussion, in their walkthrough of the site, they seemed to have no concerns with what is being proposed here. I would think that Mr. Osborn probably shared with Mr. Burton what the intent is for the church, and he has indicated he doesn’t have a problem with it. As far as whether we would need to reorient the soccer fields, we can easily ask that question. I would think however that it probably was an assessment of what impact this building would have on the fields.

Mr. McErlane said this property is zoned Public Facilities – Low Density and is located in Subarea D of the Route 4 Corridor Review District. The plans show demolition of the westernmost 6,850 square feet of existing structure, which is the original auditorium. In its place they would construct a 48,340 s.f. addition for a total area for the entire project at 96,610 s.f. It is fairly close to the square footage that the Vineyard has, but Vineyard has over 2400 seats in their auditorium where this church has only 1200, so the parking requirements aren’t anywhere close. This building has a lot more double level space than the Vineyard does.

The rear yard setback is at 0’, and is required to be 55’. The Public Facilities District setback has to be that of the most restrictive adjacent use. In this case, the park is zoned Single Household Residential and for a single household residence, it is required to be 40 feet. For any other use in that district, it is 55 feet. So, if you use the most restrictive, it should be 55 feet.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. McErlane added that the parking on the north side of the site varies from 3 feet at the west end to 5 feet at the east end, and they are proposing to extend that 5 feet even further to the east.

There is an existing building on the site that is at 0 setback. It may have existed prior to the church building their first facility at that location.

Because the building is in Subarea D of the Corridor District, 50% of the building materials on at least 3 sides have to be brick or stone. There is no indication on the elevations as to the material, but there is a rendering that leads you to believe that it is brick. There is also the requirement of 50% of the site coverage of the structure to have a residential roof form. Both of these items are items that can be allowed to be deviated from by Planning Commission.

The impervious surface ratio cannot exceed 70% and 35% is indicated on the plan. The sanctuary is the most intense use at 1200 seats and parking is required at a space for every 4 seats, which puts them at 300 required spaces. The gymnasium is required to have one parking space for 50 s.f. which would total 203. 367 spades are indicated on the plan with eight handicap spaces. One of those spaces needs to be van accessible, which will take up a little more room.

There is a dumpster proposed to be located on the side yard. The requirement is the rear yard, but there is no rear yard since we have a zero rear yard setback.

The variances that would be required would be the rear yard setback, parking side yard north setback, the dumpster location in the side yard and if you look on Sheet CO-5, there is an indication of a temporary structure on the north side of the site. I had listed that as a required variance, but there is actually not a prohibition to that in this district. It is something for Planning Commission to consider, because it is a temporary structure. They are proposing to have it in place from March 2002 to June 2003 for Sunday School classrooms. Mr. Yoby reported that there are existing Sunday School classrooms that meet both in the accessory building and in the current gymnasium space. With the demolition of those spaces, the request would be that a modular classroom be allowed so their Sunday Schools may continue to meet.

Ms. McBride reported that staff had asked for additional information on how that expansion would be used. Where it was clearly labeled classrooms, it wasn’t clear if it would be a nursery school or what type of facility, but we have heard this evening it will be Sunday School classrooms.

They did not give us any information on revisions to signage, so it is assumed that signage will remain the same.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE NINETEEN

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Ms. McBride said that we also didn’t get any information regarding lighting. The southern part of that parking lot is adjacent to single family residences and they are proposing new light fixtures and expansion of the parking area. Staff would like to see the type of fixtures and make sure there is no spillage over onto those existing single family residences.

They did submit a landscape plan, but it doesn’t contain a plant schedule and it doesn’t meet the requirements of our Zoning Code, so on future submittals we would want to see that information.

We also didn’t see anything about the screening of the mechanical equipment. Mr. McErlane talked about the existing unscreened dumpster that is in the front yard. They are proposing to move that to the rear area on the north property line and to screen that. Staff would say that the enclosure needs to comply with our Zoning Code and they would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the proposed dumpster location.

Right now they have an outdoor play area and it is to the rear of their building. They are proposing to relocate it between the proposed expansion and the existing barn. That is directly adjacent to part of Mapleknoll and those residences do have patios with furniture directly adjacent to that area, and staff would have potential concerns about noise from that outdoor play area and how it might affect the residences of Mapleknoll.

There is a split rail fence that has fallen down and some light fixtures that are in need of repair and some general maintenance type issues that we are assuming will be done with the proposed expansion.

They are proposing a temporary modular classroom for a 15-month period and we didn’t see any information on the exterior of those units. In prior cases the commission liked to see details of the structures.

Mr. Huddleston said when we approved several temporary buildings on the site, wasn’t there a condition or an agreement with the church at that time that those buildings, as well as the accessory building are to go on the expansion? Mr. McErlane responded I don’t recall the accessory building. Mr. Huddleston answered I could be wrong on that, but that building almost sets on the property line. Ms. McBride said it is very close, and I believe it is the only structure that doesn’t meet setbacks. Mr. Huddleston asked that those Minutes be checked for that.

Mr. Yoby reported that the intent is that all of the facades would be brick to match the existing facilities.

Mr. Okum said if you have 0 setback, how will you maintain the property on the city side? Mr. Yoby answered that is not fully resolved. There would have to be some sort of agreement with the City to allow access to that property for maintenance.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Yoby added that the west side of the building is all masonry construction. There aren’t any window openings or door openings or accessways to that portion of the building, so the need for maintenance is pretty minimal.

Mr. Okum asked about emergency access doorways, and Mr. Yoby answered that they are not needed on the west side. There is a back patio area on the far northwest corner that allows emergency egress.

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride mentioned that the children’s play area would be adjacent to Mapleknoll residences. Have you thought about that? Mr. Yoby answered that they do have an existing playset on the north side of the property, which is fairly adjacent to the park area. The intent would be to move that between the new building and the barn area. There are some existing trees there and the intent is to maintain those trees or if need be replant. That would allow some buffering. I’m not sure specifically what kind of documentation would be needed for determining the sound levels there. The primary use of that space would be by their nursery school/Sunday School so it would be a limited use area. Mr. Syfert asked if it would be Sunday morning only, and Mr. Yoby answered Sunday morning and Wednesday night. Mr. Syfert said but not on a daily basis, and Mr. Yoby confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said you never know when a church will have a day care operation, and Mr. Yoby responded at this point of time, the church has no intention of operating a day care. However and in all fairness, the space is being designed that would allow them the future licensing of day care if they ever chose to do that.

Mr. Okum asked if they would have to take a lot of soil out to do this, and Mr. Yoby answered the cut on the southwest side is fairly significant. Mr. Okum wondered how many cubic yards, and Mr. Yoby answered approximately 7,000. We plan to move that soil to the softball field and reconstruct it and relandscape it.

Mr. Okum commented I am still not convinced that 0 setback is a good precedent for us to be dealing with; I am having a problem with that. I know that the administration has indicated that based on what they have seen it is a better solution than selling off the land. The real solution would be not to build too close to the property line. I think you have exercised every opportunity and plan that you can do to make this site work.

You have 375 parking spaces and our code only requires 300, but 1200 people in the sanctuary seems to be contradictory to what you typically see as the need for churches. Mr. Yoby answered that the sanctuary is not expanding. That is their use now. Their existing parking space count is less than what we are proposing to provide. We are increasing their parking, and they do have an existing agreement with Mapleknoll for shared parking on Sunday mornings, and I believe that accommodates about 85 additional spaces within 250 feet of their north entry.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VI B CONCEPT APPROVAL– PROPOSED NAZARENE CHURCH ADDITION.

11177 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Okum asked how many spaces they were adding. Mr. Yoby answered our total is 375, and I think we are increasing spaces by approximately 70.

Mr. Syfert said this is concept approval, but based on our opinion here, I believe you intend to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the variances required. Mr. Yoby confirmed that they wanted to further explore the west property line and other variances requested.

Mr. Okum said conceptually I think we will have to have a lot more information. I’ll be very critical of how that west affects that park. Currently it looks like a park and doesn’t look like a brick wall. I think it feels like downtown when you do buildings up against parks like that. I notice that we don’t have any elevations of that west wall. Mr. Yoby said that was not an omission for any other reason than the time involved. This is concept, but we would want to see that, as the grade applies to that elevation, how you would see that from the park. Considering you have no setback, that is important. I can’t tell you how the Board of Zoning Appeals will react to it. You will be on the agenda next Tuesday, and the more information you present them on how that will feel against the public park will be important to the board.

Mr. Yoby said so can we proceed to the Board of Zoning Appeals? Mr. Syfert answered you automatically will be on their agenda next Tuesday night.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

B. Approval of Exterior Building Elevation Changes – Variety Wireless 11512 Springfield Pike

Keith Bowens, representative of Variety Wireless said we are proposing to change the name of the business and give a more outstanding look to the awning.

Doug said it looks bigger on the picture, but it is 48" per word. Mr. Syfert asked if he intended to take down the pole sign out front and he confirmed this. Mr. Syfert continued so the only signage you would have is on the building, on the front and side. Doug confirmed this.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business and is located in Subarea C of the Route 4 Corridor Review District. The tenant proposes to install a yellow backlit awning with sign copy on it on the front and side of his tenant space.

We have not received an actual awning color sample. Color copies and color prints have been provided for it, and I think it is important to know what the actual awning color will be.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

VI B BUILDING ELEVATIONS VARIETY WIRELESS 11512 SPRINGFIELD PK

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing a 1 ½’ high by 8 ½’ message on each of the two sides of the awning, for a total of 25 ½ square feet. As the applicant pointed out, on the superimposed photo that you have in front of you the copy actually looks larger than it is.

Mr. Syfert asked if there was a color sample of what this awning will be, and Doug said not at this time. One of the reasons is that Voice Stream wants to know what color they are going to use. When he gets this approved, it will be up to them as to which color they want to use on their awning. We do have all the flame resistant samples.

Mr. Bowens added that there are only two colors, lemon yellow and golden yellow, which is a tamer color. Doug added that the Voice Stream logos have a yellow like a creamish yellow. Mr. Bowens added that the actual Voice Stream store is located on Kemper with a creamish yellow on the front of their building. So it is pretty much based on that tamer color.

Ms. McBride said staff is thrilled at the prospect of losing a freestanding sign on the corridor. They are within Subarea C of the Corridor District, and there are some pretty specific color restrictions on there in terms of earthtones and one coordinated color scheme for the building. The lemon yellow is just a bit too bright so we would want to see the actual sample of what will be up before the Commission approved that or contingent to any Commission approval.

Awnings are allowed to be backlit within the Corridor Review District but the light source has to be concealed, and we did not see any kind of note or specification as to how that would be concealed. We need to make sure that would be done as well.

Mr. Vanover said the rule is one color per building. Ms. McBride answered one coordinated color scheme, and you can use accent colors. Mr. Vanover continued isn’t that a plum colored façade? Mr. Galster indicated that it is red. Mr. Vanover added that the lettering would match, but we would have two colors. Ms. McBride said we have to look at those and we have to look at the fact that the pylon sign is coming down. It is a juggling act, and I’m not suggesting that we turn our backs on the color issue by any means, but we want to keep that in perspective.

Mr. Galster said as far as the property owner goes, I think at one time he had talked about painting out that red anyway, so whatever color we end up on the awning, do you know if you can get approval to paint the rest of those red panels a color that would coordinate with that? That will be a question as well. Also, are there any other earthtone type colors that you would consider?

Mr. Bowens answered I can submit an option to Voice Stream because those are their corporate colors that have to be approved.

Mr. Galster said getting rid of the freestanding sign is a big plus to the City, but we want to be careful of creating a big glow of yellow there. If we can get more of a cream, that would be better.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

VI B BUILDING ELEVATIONS VARIETY WIRELESS 11512 SPRINGFIELD PK

Mr. Bowens responded that there is a lower tone, closer to a peanut butter color that I can submit. Mr. Galster responded I am thinking that Shipps Yamaha has a cream-tan type color, if that is something they can work with. It would be more in that earthtone, and paint out the rest of those red panels. I think it would be a major improvement to the site and your business.

Mr. Bowens commented I think when you are thinking of yellow, you are thinking of Gold Star’s bright yellow. Mr. Galster said I don’t know that I would see a yellow there, other than a very very soft yellow that I would consider. That is awfully bright and awfully gold. Mr. Bowens said we would have to show you the material, and it would be a lot tamer. Mr. Galster added I personally would like to see it more toward the colors of Shipps, whether it would be an earthtone green or tan or whatever. I would be extremely receptive to that idea.

Mr. Okum said this awning is nothing more than a sign case. There is a flat face façade to the right of it and to the left of it, so we are really just talking a sign case with lettering on it. Let’s call it what it is. It is not a change to the façade of the building, and it is not a change to the structure. The base color of the building is a buff brick with a red top and I recall speaking to the property owner some time ago and he said that he was going to get it redone. That was some time ago and it never happened.

In regards to Voice Stream, this sign doesn’t say Voice Stream on it anywhere. Mr. Bowens indicated that it did. Mr. Okum said so it says Voice Stream four times on the sign.

I have to disagree with your measurements, Mr. McErlane. I know that the sign space that they are putting on this awning, but when an awning is put on a building strictly for the purposes of the sign, and there is nothing else on that awning and it doesn’t tie to the rest of the building, that awning is a sign. That whole case is an awning case and if you translucent it and put a light behind it, it is nothing more than a sign board. Certainly Voice Stream has a logo, and that logo may have colors, but I know the building on Kemper Road across from Tri-County Mall is not painted yellow or gold or goldenrod. It does have its logo on that building. Carrying a color from the logo into an awning doesn’t necessarily mean that you are meeting with the intent of Voice Stream.

I have to agree with you Ms. McBride, to have this pole sign removed would be a plus. But, to have an awning added to a building to create a sign would be doing nothing more than creating more signage or an albatross on an existing building. The building is plain and simple; the overhang of the mansard around the top of it is ugly. The red is not appealing, but neither is the goldenrod or yellow. I can’t see it as anything more than a chance to create a translucent awning or a translucent sign. I know it will be eight feet versus 15 feet, but it serves no purpose other than signage.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

VI B BUILDING ELEVATIONS VARIETY WIRELESS 11512 SPRINGFIELD PK

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if they would were interested in bringing back some color samples so we can adequately decide this issue? Would you like to table this issue until next month and bring that in? Mr. Bowens agreed and Mr. Galster moved to table the item. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and all present voted aye. Item was tabled to December 11, 2001.

C. Approval of Amended Covenants – Northwest Business Center (Pictoria Island)

Mr. McErlane said to give you an idea of where that requirement came from, when 5th/3rd was developing the property out of their receivership when Linclay went bankrupt, the developer wanted to use some of the frontage along I-275 for restaurant, or consider it at least. Planning Commission’s concern was that we would like to see more quality sit down restaurants, and not drive through fast food restaurants located there. So, there was specific wording in the covenants with respect to those uses as well as an attempt to keep the property from being subdivided into smaller parcels and eventually leading to smaller retail or restaurant users. The outcome was a minimum of an acre and a half lot for the subdivision.

As we have seen the properties develop, it is apparent today that we don’t have that much of a concern about fast food restaurants going in. Because of the way things are laid out with respect to Pappadeaux and Karlo’s, the lot for Karlo’s ended up being 1.43 acres. Mr. Tipton, or Northking Properties, has proposed a revision to the covenants to 1.4 acres as a minimum for the general business type uses. The general industrial would still remain at 2 acres.

Mr. Syfert asked if the law director had reviewed this, and Mr. McErlane responded that it has been faxed to him. I haven’t seen anything come back, but in general the wording is almost exactly the way the original documents read with that one change. Mr. Shvegzda has some comments, but I think we can accommodate those in another way, and I’ll defer to him.

Mr. Shvegzda said my comments regard another issue we talked about earlier during the development of Pictoria Tower site plans. What it involves is the fact that we have the circular plaza area with the brick pavers, and the brick pavers it extend out into the public right of way. The point was that it would be beneficial to have the maintenance of the pavers themselves by one entity. There was a discussion as to having a requirement in the covenants that the maintenance is by the developer. We were going to accommodate that at some time by adding that to the covenants. That doesn’t necessarily have to be done at this time, but it needs to be accomplished at some point.

Mr. Syfert said are you suggesting that this would be a good time to do it? Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, since we are looking at the revisions, and if that would be agreeable to the applicant.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

VI APPROVAL OF COVENANTS- NORTHWEST BUSINESS ENTER

Mr. David Tipton said we are totally agreeable. This is a very confusing situation. If it were not for Bill McErlane, we wouldn’t have even known about this 1.5-acre versus 1.4 acre, and we thank him for that.

We have amended the CCRs as it pertains to the ownership, which is Pictoria Corporate Center Owners Association. That document has been completed and is being signed to include the maintenance of those pavers.

What is confusing is that there are really two different CCRs. I don’t think it matters what document got amended, but the document that we amended is the one that will have the overall responsibility for the total project.

Mr. McErlane reported that there are two sets of covenants that the City is party to. This one covers all the properties in the Northwest Business Center, which includes General Advertising Products and the former IDI building. There is also one for Pictoria Corporate Center that the City is a party and this verbiage could be added to that one. The problem lies in the number of signatures that Mr. Tipton has to acquire in order to get the covenants recorded, so the Pictoria Corporate Center is probably easier to accomplish than this one. Our suggestion would be to put it in those.

Mr. Okum said I understand the Karlo’s situation, but if this 1.4 applies to the rest of the parcels in that development, what is to keep them from having a bunch of postage stamp developments all the way down. I’m not thinking that Mr. Tipton would do that, but what is to prevent it? Mr. Syfert said us. Mr. Okum responded not necessarily. I don’t know if 1.5 makes that much difference from 1.4. I don’t even know if 1.5 is right for office. If those buildings are going to be built as you presented in your PUD, somebody coming in and wanting to build a small State Farms claims office type development, it probably would fit on the 1.4 acre site. We are only talking .1, but does it make a difference? Mr. Tipton said I don’t think it makes any difference.

Addressing Mr. McErlane Mr. Okum said what you are saying is that having this covenant changed would be more difficult because it would have to have signatures of all associated with that development, versus Pictoria. Mr. McErlane answered you received a copy of it, and if you look at the first paragraph, it tells you who all the people are who would have to sign it. Northking is Mr. Tipton and his partners, Northwest Business Center Industrial is the former IDI building, GAP is General Advertising Products, GMRI is Bahama Breeze, and Riggs and Company is the office building owners. Those are the numbers of people who have to sign off on it at this point of time. I think the Pictoria Corporate Center needs two or three signatures.

Mr. Okum said so we have two overlying covenants on the development. Shouldn’t the verbiage be in both?

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-SIX

VI APPROVAL OF COVENANTS- NORTHWEST BUSINESS ENTER

Mr. McErlane responded the other set of covenants doesn’t have this same verbiage. The second set of covenants modified these.

Mr. Okum said I thought that when you have covenants on a PUD, they blend and mold into one covenant. Mr. McErlane responded that the unfortunate thing in this case is that one developer started developing it and then another developer picked it up with a different concept. At that point, you can only modify the future, and not go back and try to modify what is already there. Mr. Okum said the underlying original covenants still hold, and it is the one where the change should be, so I concur.

Mr. Galster moved to adopt the amended 1.4-acre requirement, subject to law review. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the amendment was approved with six affirmative votes.

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Old Town Springdale Land Use Study and Report – Anne McBride

Ms. McBride said I am going to give you a brief overview because I want you to come to the Town Meet6ing Thursday night. As you are aware, the City with CDS’ help applied for and received a grant to make certain improvements to the Springfield Pike Corridor. They had to deal with lighting and street trees and benches and paving and other improvements.

As a complementary part of that, the City has long recognized that the Old Town area is very important to the City; it was the original core of the City. They wanted to do two things. One was to maintain and preserve that residential area in there, because it is very important. At the same time, they wanted to help the businesses out on Springfield Pike continue to remain there and grow and thrive in that area.

Those two desires are not necessarily compatible unless the City steps in and tries to take certain actions. We put the Old Town Plan together. We did an analysis of that area. We did a land use survey and took pictures of each of the individual structures and that sort of thing. What we were charged with doing was to come up with some recommendations that would allow those two desires of the City to coexist. We came up with a series of different recommendations, and we will be presenting some of those on Thursday. We looked at some potential conceptual redevelopment opportunities. It is exciting because the City is off and running on this project. We’ll give a better overview Thursday night.

Mr. Galster said letter has notified all the property owners along the Corridor. Mr. Parham added that the City has sent out special invitations to the entire area, and we also have invited the entire city.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN

  1. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
    1. Fish Factory - 411 West Kemper Road – Ground Sign

B. CD/Game Exchange - 11435 Princeton – Wall Sign

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be able to make the December 11th meeting, other than our recording secretary. In December we will have elections, so you can think seriously about that.

Mr. McErlane said more and more we are making motions that require flat lenses for lights. I don’t know if the board in total feels the same way Mr. Okum does in terms of flat lenses. If that is the case, maybe we should be putting it in our code. It is not in the lighting section of our code right now. Our concerns there were shielding residential properties and prohibiting glare to residential properties and roadways, not necessarily requiring flat lenses throughout a site.

One thing you need to keep in mind, and you’ll see it in the streetscapes, is that on Route 4, the City is intending on 19-foot high metal halide lights that look like old gaslights. If curved lenses on 25 to 35 foot poles are a glare to you, what are 19-foot gaslight types? I’m not saying that it is bad; I guess it is bad if you stare at the lights. If they are glaring in your eyes as you try to drive down the road that is one thing. If they are creating a problem for neighboring residential properties that is another thing that you need to consider. The fact that they glare at you when you stare at them, I don’t know that is a problem.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree with Dave’s position on the lighting, but I think that position was established based on some canopy lighting with 100 foot candles with globe fixtures that really do draw a lot of glare. It’s a different situation and I’m not sure how you would address it.

Mr. McErlane reported that we do have provisions in the code now that talk about overlighting a site, and that is different than the fact that when you look at a 25 or 35 foot high pole and it glares in your eyes. It would be just as bad if you stared up at one with a flat lens.

Mr. Okum said I have to disagree with you, but I think Ms. McBride brought up the point of the lights that were going to be used at Springdale Plaza in lighting the building, and she was concerned about that when she made her comments. Springdale Plaza happened and that turned out to be an overlit site. They did go with bubble lens or drop lens. They did go with light packs on the buildings with no shielding and they did go with the bright lights lighting the buildings. I don’t have a major problem with the bright lights lighting the buildings because it is accent lighting on the building and it can be done very tastefully.

On the other hand, the one accent light that they are using to light Circuit City does catch you when you come around the corner, and does catch you on Tri-County Parkway. When we discussed that one specific light, they indicated that it would be turned so it would not catch you in the eye when you were driving down Tri-County Parkway.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT

VII DISCUSSION - CONTINUED

Mr. Okum said I don’t know if anybody else has seen the site since it has been lit. Obviously the lenses are affecting that. Maybe I’m the only one but I think if you want to cut down on pollution of lighting, you have to keep it consistent. If it means putting a box lens non glare lighting and without drop lenses, then you do it and you don’t have the problem. If it means a code issue change and we change the code so I don’t have to make the same motion every time, and the Building Department reviews every plan exactly the same way every time, I am all in favor of it. It is hard for you the reviewer of the plan to be consistent if we are not consistent and the code is not consistent. I think I have been fairly consistent in my motions, but on occasion I guess I have missed things.

Unfortunately the Minutes aren’t verbatim to the motion and maybe they should be so there is no ambiguity as to what the motion really was. If the Building Department goes back to the Minutes, it is an overview. Mrs. Webb said the motion itself is as verbatim as I can make it.

Mr. McErlane said I brought this because if it is the consensus of this board that they have a concern about curved lenses on the light, then maybe we should be including it in the code. Unfortunately, sometimes there are things that are said to applicants, particularly if it is a concept discussion or preliminary discussion, they walk away not knowing if they have a consensus or not; they have just heard a lot of comments. So if it is a consensus of this board that all applications from now on should have flat lenses, then we should have it in the code.

Mr. Vanover said I think the easiest way to accomplish light control, non-glare issues and light bleed is to maintain the bulb up within the case of the fixture. We can go to t he petroleum facilities that probably started all this. They did change the bulbs and the lens. Mr. McErlane said I have before and after pictures. The lenses were holding water at one time so they diffused the light pretty well. They did change the bulbs and they repainted the ceiling surface. Mr. Vanover said keeping it at least all the issues except overlighting, and that we control by the wattage of the bulb and the fixture. I would concur with Dave, and if the rest of the commission is in agreement, then we add it to the code and it solves that problem.

Mr. Syfert wondered why the industry produced curved lens. Mr. McErlane answered it is because it can accomplish better lighting levels with fewer lights. Mr. Syfert asked if it promoted glare, and Mr. McErlane answered if you stare at the light. Mr. Vanover added when the lens drops down below the housing, it makes that focal point a hot spot. Granted the lens will project it out, but you get that intense hot spot right there; that is the glare issue and the site issue that creates the problem. If we go with flat lenses, will we have more poles? Again, we can control the intensity of the light on that site by the wattage and the type of fixture. I think with that we can control some safety issues and I also think it gives a little better control.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE TWENTY-NINE

VII DISCUSSION - CONTINUED

Mr. Okum said I think there is obvious evidence in the industry approach to light as much as possible. Personally I don’t have a problem with more poles. If it would balance the light on the site more evenly and more consistently rather than putting a 5,000-watt high light directional light like they did on Best Western to light massive areas to get the volume out of it. I think we should encourage developers to balance the lighting on a site. I think the fall of light to adjacent properties is a concern. You know when you are coming into Springdale; we glow.

Mr. Syfert said how are we going to do it? Are we going to say that they can only have so many foot-candle powers? Mr. McErlane said our light standards include that. Mr. Okum said you require lighting buffer yards, you require non-glare, you require flat lens and I think it should apply to new development and old. It should be consistent.

Mr. Syfert said I don’t necessarily agree that we should require a flat lens. If the industry provides the bubble lens, I think we should be able to handle it some way or another.

Dave Whitaker commented I think as long as it is downlit and non-glare it is fine. Dave is right; Springdale Plaza has a glare problem when you are driving at night. It’s going to be a big issue with elderly drivers, especially the light out by Panera Bread at Kemper. As you turn onto Tri-County Parkway, it jumps out at you. You compare it to Lowe’s. It is basically the same light, but you don’t get the glare, and Lowe’s has a curved lens.

Mr. McErlane reported that they are older lights, that is part of it. Mr. Syfert asked if they needed adjustment, and Mr. Whitaker answered I don’t know. It has the same lens. Bill could be right; it could be because of the age of the bulb. It could be that the new bulb will lose that glare over time, but if you drive that place at night, those lights will affect your driving.

Mr. Syfert said if we have one that is presenting a specific problem, can’t they put a shield on it or redirect it? We’ve talked about that. Mr. Okum said they didn’t put a shield on any of the light packs on the back of their building. Mr. McErlane reported that they are in the process of doing that.

Mr. Galster said I look at the ceiling lights; it is up and it is recessed, but it still glares at me, and I look over there and it doesn’t because I am not at the same angle. It is all a matter of how they are positioned, the level you are at and the street level. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to try to keep the glare to a minimum, but it still won’t catch all the situations that are going to come up with glaring lights.

Mr. Okum responded I agree that if you look directly up at any light, it will bother you. But the difference is when light comes to you. Mr. Galster asked the standard height for the poles. Mr. McErlane responded most of the bigger shopping centers have been 35 feet.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

13 NOVEMBER 2001

PAGE THIRTY

VII DISCUSSION - CONTINUED

Mr. Galster said if they are close to the street, you will get some glare off it. Mr. Okum said I recall discussing that in the public hearing with Springdale Plaza. We discussed the light because their lot is higher and the applicant said he had no problem with it. Mr. Galster added and on those lights that are positioned close to the roadway where the 25-foot issue is a problem, they should be shielded.

Mr. Huddleston added it used to be that we had to legislate the minimum foot candle levels. Now you almost have to legislate the maximum foot candle levels. If Dave’s approach is legitimate, which I think it is, then we should have a consistent code codification. We also need to consider what is energy efficient; we have an obligation to that also. I think we need some consultation, but I would strongly agree that if we want some uniformity to what we are trying to do, the only way we can get that is through the code.

Mr. Syfert said what do we want to input to Bill? Mr. McErlane stated I can take a look at some photometrics on both flat lenses and bubble lenses and see how much difference it makes. Mr. Syfert asked Ms. McBride if any other municipality has dealt with this issue effectively? Ms. McBride answered not really. Maybe we could talk to some of the guys that do the photometric plans and try to get some information from them. Mr. Vanover said there is a handbook, "Engineer’s Lighting" for the industry.

  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

___________________, 2001 __________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

____________________,2001 __________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary