12 FEBRUARY 2002

7:00 P.M.

  2. Acting Chairman David Okum called the meeting to order at 7:19 p.m.

  4. Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, David Okum, Bob

    Sherry, Councilman Tom Vanover, and David


    Members Absent: Richard Huddleston Ė arrived at 7:45 p.m.

    Chairman William Syfert

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Beth Stiles, Asst. to the City Administrator

    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

    Mr. Okum stated Mr. Syfert is away, and Mr. Huddleston had to leave for a special meeting at the community center and said he would return.

    Addressing the applicants, Mr. Okum stated that for a motion to carry, it will take five affirmative votes and there are five members right now which is a legal quorum so we can take action. We are going to modify the agenda some so the others can join us. Mr. McErlane also had to attend the meeting at the community center and should be arriving shortly. If you decide you do not want to have your issue heard, you can request that it be tabled.

  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. All present, except Mr. Galster who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council Ė no report
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė January 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė January 25, 2002
    4. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Winter 2002

Mr. Okum said we will consider the plat approvals first under New Business, Items B and C. We will then move into Old Business, Item B and then to approval of the Exxon pump island canopy and then final approval of the Springdale Church of the Nazarene.

    1. Plat Approval - Vanarsdale Lane (Rakan & Laila Shteiwi)
    2. Mr. Shvegzda reported that this relates to the earlier State Route 4 improvement project. There was right of way acquisition and several properties where the right of way was not recorded. These now have been taken to the property owners, signed off on and new dedication plats created.




      12 FEBRUARY 2002

      PAGE TWO


      Mr. Shvegzda reported that the Shteiwi property is the property where Gold Star Chili is located, and the other is to the north of the Wendyís property. These are the plats for that dedication. It is the same property that was acquired in 1987.

      Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the plat was approved with five affirmative votes.

    3. Plat Approval Ė Springfield Pike (Big D Realty)

Mr. Shvegzda said this is the same issue and the property is just north of Wendyís. Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and approval was granted with five affirmative votes.

    1. Approval of Panel on Existing Pylon Sign, The Great Indoors, 11925 Commons Drive -Ėtabled 1/8/02

Larry Bergman of The Bergman Group and Springdale Kemper Associates, the owner of the property where The Great Indoors is located. The Great Indoors was requesting permission to use the blue area of the panel owned by Kimco in front of I-275.

To give you some history, when we developed the Kroger building, there was land in front of it on Kemper Road, which we sold to North American Properties. North American Properties came before the city and were granted sign rights for I-275. That is where the Dave & Busterís pylon and the panel that The Great Indoors wishes to use is located.

Springdale Kemper Associates has no rights to that panel. The reason I am here is because Sears thought it would be helpful if I explained the circumstances. North American Propertiesí intent was to use those panels for two of their tenants, Wal-Mart and Samís. Wal-Mart and Samís didnít want to pay for that I-275 exposure, so a panel that wasnít needed set there.

I went before the Planning Commission with Dave & Busterís, and they had to have a pylon on I-275. Fortunately the city granted that right and part of the situation was that if that pylon was going to be there, Kimcoís sign had to be part of that pylon, which was also North American Properties. So the panel was erected in the dimensions that North American Properties were permitted to use.

That panel remained empty; open exposed lights were there. Dave of Dave & Busterís couldnít stand looking at it and asked the city for permission to put that material over the sign.

Someone from Sears wanted more signage and they have entered into a license agreement with Kimco to use a portion of that sign that is not being used. Kimco wants to retain half of that for what they believe could be the tenancy of the vacant space that used to be Home Goods.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Kim Welch of the sign company added that there was a question at the last meeting if there was actually a lease from The Great Indoors or Sears. Mr. Bergman responded I had faxed a copy over to Bill McErlane. There was a question about the appearance of the top and bottom half being very different. I think we put a color picture in that illustrates a little better the definition between the top and bottom half of the proposed new face.

The picture that you had last month was reduced from a larger picture, so the line that you saw that looked like a pencil line was reduced as well. The proposed divider is a pretty standard divider for pylon signs, which is 2 Ĺ inches.

Mr. Bergman added that one of the great concerns about any type of lighting is that it be maintained. There is very specific language in the license agreement that The Great Indoors or Sears is responsible to pay for the maintenance of that sign. Just from experience with the city, as much as The Great Indoors wants that sign, I think it is important that they work within the cityís criteria so it becomes pleasing, and for our sake we want it to be attractive.

Mr. Galster asked if this one large panel has the ability to have certain sections turned on or off? Is that top part going to be lit, or can it be separated out? Mr. Welch answered that there is a series of fluorescent tubes but it probably would be better for the whole thing to be lit.


Mr. Galster commented that right now we have a non-illuminated blue panel there temporarily. I was under the impression that we would end up with three individual signs in that area for whatever location or whatever identification. Now we are going to make it two, which makes the signage for any particular use quite a bit larger. The next issue is because it is not full, and the way the panel is made up, a lot of empty space would have to be lit up.

Mr. Bergman asked if it could be designed so it is not all lit. What is important to The Great Indoors is that they have their sign. I think they would be willing to work with the city on this. Mr. Welch answered I am sure there could be changes made. I imagine that the tubes run horizontally, so the top tubes could be dropped out, but there would be some bleedover. One of the three signs that you were talking about was the name of the complex, and according to Mr. McErlane, he discovered that there was never an agreement made for that to happen.

There also was a question on the overall size. Mr. Galster commented that it is bigger than what was approved. Mr. Welch answered as it turned out the overall size fell within the range of what was approved, because of some changes that had been made. He told me they were not issues any more.





12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Bergman added I always like big signs, and my recommendation would be to use that entire sign for The Great Indoors until that second user comes in line, and then have The Great Indoors reduce their signage to half of it, if we can get Kimco to agree to it.

Mr. Galster commented that the sign is 24í-9" x 19í. Mr. Welch said it is 24í-9" x 22í. Mr. Galster added that we are talking about dividing this sign with a line, a painted out stripe on the sign. I have a couple of problems with that. First, if it were a painted out stripe on the sign, we still would have bleedover into an unlit panel. I donít like the idea of having a 25í x 22í billboard for The Great Indoors. I love your store, but I think that is inappropriate for the size of the store.

If we are going to try to make this half or one-third work, I think we need to look at breaking that panel up. Maybe that would mean removing the middle bulb and putting a piece of sheet metal in there to separate that panel into two. Also, we could decoratively separate those two panels with something other than a two-inch piece of Plexiglas.

Mr. Welch said the face that will be on there will have some light coming through it through an off white shade of a material. Do you want that totally blocked out? Mr. Bergman commented I have experience with the Kemper Road sign. What Steve wants is an actual separation between the two signs. If you look at the Kemper Road sign, what we originally wanted to do was have an open panel with names. What the city wanted was a division between the signs. What will happen is that Sears and Kimco will have to find a way of dividing this in half with some type of separation that prevents any type of bleeding of light. I think it is very viable.

Mr. Galster added that maybe it is just removing the middle light and enclosing that. I read the minutes, and everybody seemed to be looking for about a 10-inch to 12-inch separation between the panels that gets painted out similar to the color of the poles that are supporting the signs and creating a dead space. Also, with electronics we could rewire it so that we would have two separate individually controlled signs. Letís say we put a second tenant up there, and a bulb burns out in your sign, and we are going to tell you have to turn that sign out because we arenít going to allow you to have it half lit. Whoever the tenant is on the top part of that sign would be a little bit angry at the fact that their sign has to go out because there is a bulb missing in your sign. I want separation of panels so that they can be individually controlled.

Mr. Welch commented that it would require redesigning the innards of the sign, but it can be done. Mr. Bergman added that what is really important for Sears is to get the approval within the requirements of the city.

Mr. Galster asked the difference between the approved amount of foot age on that sign and what is there. Mr. Okum responded my understanding is that the approved was 546 s.f. and the present sign is 550 s.f., so it is in line with the amount approved.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Okum added that what happened was that Dave & Busterís reduced their sign down, which allowed the other sign to grow.

Mr. Galster said if we can break that panel down, separate it out to two individual panels that are controlled electronically separately, I would be able to move forward. If I am looking at one panel that will be half written on and bled over to the blank panel, I donít like that at all, nor do I like the idea of not having any separation in the panels at all. You could put two channels back to back with a spacer in between them, take out a bulb and rewire it and you are done. I would like that separation to be in the neighborhood of one foot.

Mr. Vanover added as far as physically breaking that cabinet in two, you could put a 10-inch border on that molded face. The accomplishment that would make it successful would be to put a barrier, some sheet metal across there to segregate the lighting systems inside the cabinet. You can mold that trim on the big face and itís going to look just the same. However, if you do that and donít segregate the lighting within the panel, youíve got it bleeding all over, and if it is half lit, it is a problem. If you put a floor in the frame of that panel, especially if you are breaking the ballast down into two series, you could mold the channel the 10-inch or one foot break on the face of it. The biggest thing is that we segregate the bleeding of that light between the two cabinets.

Mr. McErlane and Mr. Huddleston arrived at 7:45 p.m.

Mr. Welch asked about the barrier, and Mr. Okum indicated that the two members of the commission are saying that the barrier should be 10 inches to 12 inches. They should be separated and the cabinet should be divided. Can that be done? Mr. Welch answered it can happen; what color? Mr. Okum responded our typical procedure is that it be blanked out, which means not to be illuminated at all. Is that correct Mr. McErlane?

Mr. McErlane responded I donít think that is the case. I believe what the applicant is asking is what color you want the separation to be. I donít know if that is to match the sign cabinet. Mr. Okum asked if the sign cabinet would remain blue, and Mr. Welch indicated that it would.

Mr. Vanover said in terms of the color, for continuity I would say letís match the blue out there on the poles.

Mr. Galster said my only concern with Mr. Vanoverís suggestion about molding the panel is if a tenant came in and then moved out, we would make you change that panel, and you would have to change the whole panel if you have them separated. So even though The Great Indoors is still there, if whoever uses that other space moves out and it has to be changed, you would have to change the whole 24í x 22í if you havenít separated them. That wouldnít be cheap. I donít think it would be a big deal to physically separate those panels and create a molding that would match the exiting poles.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane asked the applicant if it were possible to take the cabinet, and at the place where you want to make the break, put some kind of hat channel member in there and put two separate flex faces on each? Mr. Welch responded I think it probably is; I have to find that out. I canít tell you honestly right now that we can do that, but if we can, thatís what weíll do.

Mr. Bergman added that the motion could be conditioned on our meeting that obligation. If it canít be done, then the spacing wonít change. Mr. Welch added that he was pretty sure it could be done; I just need to get you an answer.

Mr. Bergman added what we need to do is to say that this is what has to be done. If they canít do it, there wonít be a sign there. If they can meet the cityís requirements, there will be a sign there.

Mr. Galster said that is basically the way that the motion would go. We have a 24í-9" x 22 Ĺí panel that we would like to have separated into two panels with a spacing of 12 inches between the two panels so they become separate faces and can be controlled separately electrically. The Great Indoors would then have approval for the sign that they submitted once that cabinet has been rearranged.

Mr. Welch asked if it had to be 12 inches of air. Mr. Galster answered it doesnít have to be air; I donít know that you can, but I would prefer to have space. But, because of the limitations of modifying that panel, if they canít do that, I would settle to have it painted out to look like the material on the pole.

Mr. Okum said The Great Indoors lettering is very hard to see, and we are going to have this big white or yellow board. I have heard some comments from the people in the Heritage Hill area about the amount of blue light that is cast into their community. When this thing becomes fully illuminated, we may have an enormous amount of additional light. You can overlight a sign, so we have to be concerned about that when they get into the amount of ambient light coming off these boxes. I donít know how to control that.

Addressing the city planner, he asked if there were any industry wide guidelines on signage illumination. Ms. McBride responded not specific foot-candle recommendations. They have general recommendations like they shall not cause glare to distract traffic. Mr. Okum commented I think if that type of wording should be put into the motion. When I saw that box, there were a lot of bulb channels in that thing.

This shows the panel as yellow; will it really be that color? Mr. Welch answered my understanding is that it will be a cream shade. Mr. Okum added that Mr. Huddleston just mentioned that you could set not to exceed .5 foot-candle to the property line, or 0-foot candle fall, either way. Mr. Galster commented that they are right at the interstate line and it would fall over that line fast.



12 FEBRUARY 2002



Ms. McBride commented that part of the problem is if you go out with the light meter, you would be picking up the light off the fixtures as well as that sign.

Mr. Okum responded you could do it today before the sign was illuminated. There should be something in the motion that would take care of that.

Mr. Sherry said one way to solve the lighting problem would be to light the letters only and have a dark background. That may take care of a lot of it, have the white "The" and "Indoors" and red for the "Great" like you have on the building. That may take care of part of the problem. On the other hand I am concerned about putting limitations on a sign that was approved several years ago, when I think Council and Planning Commission knew full well that it was going to be a brightly lit sign. Iím not sure we want to go down that road.

Mr. Bergman said my understanding is that the concern is for safety so as not to distract. The answer might be to illuminate not more than a certain footage. Mr. Sherry commented I do not know how to measure that prior to the installation. I know there are computer programs for parking lot lighting, but I have never seen it done for signs. Mr. Bergman responded that parking lot is well illuminated, and that is what is required by the city for safety.

Mr. Sherry asked Mr. McErlane if 546 s.f. was approved some years ago? Mr. McErlane reported that the drawing I showed you last month was a rendition prior to the one that was actually approved. We were working with a total square footage on the sign, including Dave & Busterís, and by the time the negotiations were finished with North American Properties, the Dave & Busterís sign got smaller and the one joint panel got larger to accommodate them. So the 546 s.f. was approved.

With respect to trying to just illuminate the letters, it is easy to do with channel letters because you have neon lighting directly behind the faces. Itís going to be tough to take a face and try to get the letters to shine through that.

The other thing I would be concerned about, from my standpoint in trying to measure how much light is too much coming off the sign, I donít know how you do that, unless you take a survey of 12 people and try to determine if they think it is too much light.

Mr. Vanover commented I appreciate the concern for the Heritage Hill subdivision, although the light on this sign isnít the one that we have the large orange and blue neon sun that never seems to set. With this light, the industry standard on these cabinets is HO high output fluorescence, usually about eight footers. If they are going to have to separate out the lighting to get two light controls, the ballast will only handle so many feet per ballast. With that cream color, it will reduce it a whole lot more.




12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Vanover said that the sign faces east-west, so it is perpendicular to the interstate, and a lot of the light fall will fall within their property and parking lot. Also, and especially since it doesnít have neon or external spots, I donít think you will get a bleed too much off the property line. I would have to bow to Mr. McErlaneís how much is too much, unless we can come through and say a foot candle and then, if you do two different nights youíll have a variation. A big bright sign is not necessarily what I like to see. I think that within reason this will work. They have shown the willingness to amend this. I havenít seen that much of a problem come out of a fluorescent lit cabinet. With this darker face, it wonít be the problem that some other lighting forms would be.

Mr. Galster said because we donít have a lighting standard, I think it would be appropriate to develop one in the future to try to control the brightness, but not with this applicant, other than to say that it should not create a hazard for the motoring public and the adjoining property owners. I would move that we take that 24í-9" sign that is 22 Ĺí wide and divide it into two separate signs with a 12 inch separator that shall be either open air and/or finished out to match the frame of the cabinet. The Great Indoors would be utilizing one of those sections of that modified sign as submitted as long as it is lit so as not to create a hazard for the motoring public or a nuisance to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Okum said you mentioned al lit or not lit. Mr. Galster added that the two panels would be controlled separately. Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

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

    1. Approval of Fascia Change, Pump Island Canopy, Exxon, 11144 Springfield Pike Ė tabled 1/8/02

Mr. Okum asked if there was anyone present from Exxon; there was not. Mr. McErlane reported that last month this application was tabled at the applicantís request. Subsequent to that, the applicant contacted an attorney and they have acted on an appeal, based on code section in the Corridor District that says that if Planning Commission does not act on an application within two months it is considered a denial. They have appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals based on that "denial".

I have talked with the law director to find out what we needed to do with this item as it was tabled last month and ended up on tonightís agenda. Legitimately because it was at the applicantís request, I donít know that Planning Commission could withdraw it. Certainly Planning Commission could opt to deny it or approve it. What the law director has suggested is that Planning Commission table it further, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Mr. Huddleston so moved.

Mr. Galster asked if we are sure we want to table it or do we want to remove it. If we table it, we are just not taking an action for another month. If we remove it, we remove it because there is a lack of representation here tonight to create an action.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane responded I think you could do that. Mr. Okum commented according to the law director, itís already been denied by lack of action. Mr. Galster responded whether it was applicant initiated or not might still be an issue. I believe the motion should be to remove it from the agenda due to lack of representation and nothing before us on which to vote. It is the applicantís choice to not be before this board, as opposed to our choice to not make any action.

Mr. McErlane commented I believe you can do that. I think the only reason the law director was suggesting that you table it is if by some chance they would withdraw their appeal request and come back. Not that he believes that would happen, but at least it puts it in a non-active state until the appeal hearing happens.

Mr. Okum said my understanding is that at the Board of Zoning Appeals our action would either be to confirm the denial of Planning Commission, or overturn it. Those would be our two options. If they confirm the denial, then the applicant has to go back through the process again and resubmit and come through Planning again. Mr. McErlane added that they could pursue the next appeal, which would be the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Galster added that my only point is that if for some reason we do have a leg to stand on as far as the denial issue is concerned in reference to the applicant requesting the tabling, I would not like to continue muddling that issue by making the motion to remove it from the agenda as opposed to tabling it.

Mr. McErlane said the issue of the applicant making the request to table is something that the attorneys are going to have to muddle through. I donít know what to tell you with respect to that.

Mr. Okum commented that the fact is that it is a dead issue as far as Planning Commission is concerned according to our Zoning Code. Mr. Galster said it is a dead issue because we have nothing here before us. Mr. Okum said it is not an issue for this commission to hear; it has already been denied, otherwise it could not be on the agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals. So the action of denial has already occurred by the effect of no action, even though it was for the attorneys to work out the issues.

Mr. McErlane commented whatever you wish to do. Addressing Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum said I donít think you need to withdraw it. The action that they have taken automatically indicates that they have withdrawn it from our hands. Mr. Galster responded then there is no reason to table it and continue it on our agenda. Mr. Okum answered I canít disagree with that. I would just say remove it from the agenda.

Mr. Galster moved to remove it from the agenda due to lack of representation. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.





12 FEBRUARY 2002



A. Final Approval of Building Addition, Springdale Church of the Nazarene, 11177 Springfield Pike

Todd Yoby of Environ Group representing the Church of the Nazarene reported that the proposed building is approximately 48,000 s.f. The primary areas of use include new gymnasium space, office space for church staff and Sunday School classrooms.

Variances have been granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow construction of the project along the west property line. Additionally a variance for the dumpster location in the side yard with a 5í setback off the north property line and an extension of the proposed new north parking have all been granted.

The primary building material is brick on all sides of the building. (He showed the proposed brick material selected to match the existing classroom building and sanctuary). The trim material for the metal coping, gutters, downspouts, etc. is to be a dark bronze. The intent is to match the existing sanctuary building.

The intent was to design a background building for the existing sanctuary. That has been considered throughout the design in the color of the brick and the trim material as well as the brick detailing and roof slopes.

We have made some revisions in response to the staff comments that we received yesterday, and I would like to talk about our proposed revisions to the west property line, landscaping as well as to the landscaping of the existing church site. .

Mr. Okum responded we will have staff comments, and then we will hear your response to those comments.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the site layout, there was a question on the east-west drive to the south of the building, whether that was one way or two ways. It has been indicated that it is a one way drive into the site and there will have to be signing or pavement markings provided to delineate that one way movement.

One of the comments concerned pavement sections. Those have been included except that the expansion and widening of the driveway out to the State Route 4 area has to be in accordance with the pavement section for State Route 4. It is approximately 20 feet west from the existing edge of pavement.

There was a question on how the park fence will be rearranged upon completion of the building. One of the issues is that the fence is anywhere from 2 Ĺ feet to just under one foot off the property line into the park property. If the building is on the property line, we do have a gap between the building itself and the fence. That is something that has to be clarified.





12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Shvegzda added that one other issue concerns the temporary fence during the construction of the building. I believe there was some wording to that effect in the BZA motion for the setback variance, but we need a clarification on that.

There have been additional details provided as to the geometrics of the driveway at State Route 4 and the proposed widening there. One of the issues is that there is an additional landscaped island in that area that would divide two directions of traffic. There was a question as to whether there would be a gap between that proposed island and the existing. It was indicated that the gap was intentional to provide a turn around point there. The question is if that turn around point is necessary, whether it would be better to have it further away from State Route 4.

On the configuration of the driveway, there needs to be more of a geometric provision to the exiting traffic, particularly the left turning traffic to get more of a 90 degree to State Route 4, primarily by reconfiguring the island somewhat and providing additional pavement markings there to accommodate that.

On the proposed widening to accommodate the second outbound lane on the main drive, there is an area where it is shown to be 19.4í. At minimum, the width throughout the driveway needs to be 22í to accommodate the two lanes.

There was an earlier comment on continuous curbing, specifically in a couple of areas to provide better collection of the storm water runoff. The applicant has added curbing to the east and south perimeter of the proposed parking expansion to the north of the main east-west drive.

The regrading that is being done in the area of the ball field is creating about an acre of that surface area to flow about one aisle width into the parking lot. We initially indicated that a possible solution would be to arrange to have a curb on the eastern perimeter of the parking lot to divert the water, keep it off the parking lot and possibly run it to a catch basin. The applicant has indicated that because of costs, they do not want to do that. Another possible solution would be to provide a swale or ditch between that ball field and the parking lot to intercept the drainage at that point. If the applicant does not wish to provide a continuous curbing at the exterior of the parking lot, bumper blocks will need to be around the perimeter to delineate the parking lot.

There was an initial concern for the turning radius of a fire apparatus to access the building. We initially looked at it coming through the one way drive immediately to the south of the existing building. In further conversation with the fire department, they indicated that was not the direction of travel that they were worried about. They were more concerned about the two-way drive aisle that is between the landscaped islands immediately to the south of the other location. We have looked at that, and it appears that it will function.



12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Shvegzda added that there might be some modifications to the landscaped islands that are in the direction from the north-south movement to the east west, the second row of landscaped medians from the east.

On the storm water detention and any modifications to the existing detention basin, the proposed volume that the applicant will provide appears to be acceptable. There will be no change in the outlet rate or the outlet structure.

The question is in regard to what is shown on the grading plans. There is a permanent water surface there and a certain depth of water below that water surface, and the grading plans only indicate what is taking place from the water surface up. That gets into some questions as to how that excavation will take place within that retention basin that will not lead to excess sediment problems within the permanent water that exists currently.

There are other issues regarding the detention analysis that need to be clarified in terms of the routing through the detention basin. In terms of storm sewers and catch basins in general, there was some confusion as to the tributary drainage map that was submitted. It is unclear as to which areas are tributaries and which are proposed catch basins.

The storm sewers are designed for a 10-year storm so the overland routing has to be indicated on the plan to note how the major storm would get to the detention basin.

On the inlet capacity calculations, I believe there were two that were analyzed, and those were the ones in the ditch to the south. The other ones need to be an analyzed too, particularly the catch basin at the northwest corner in an area of the building. There is about 2 Ĺ acres that are indicated to be tributary to it, and it is not clear as to when that catch basin capacity or storm sewer capacity is exceeded and how that will bypass the building and get to the detention basin. There is no proposed grading indicated in that area, and we do need the analysis to see what kind of ponding is on top of the basin.

Ditch analysis has been provided and is acceptable. On the north side of the building there is a catch basin that is indicated within a sidewalk but it is not clear the necessity for that catch basin.

On the grading taking place immediately adjacent to the property line, the applicant has indicated that there was discussion on getting permission from the adjoining property owner to physically construct it, because in order to construct it on the property line, you would have to be off the property.

Although the regular ditch section indicated by the analysis was acceptable, there was nothing indicated on the plans to denote the typical section, and the grading plans really donít reflect the continuation of that ditch section in a couple of areas.



12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Shvegzda added that on the grading, some of the plans indicate that the existing annex building would be relocated to the vicinity of the ball field. The grading plans donít indicate grading to take place to create the pad for that particular structure, and it looks like up to approximately five feet of cut would be required to do that.

Water and sewer availability letters are needed. There currently exists a 30-foot highway easement in the area of State Route 4 across the frontage. We would request that 15 foot additional right of way be provided in that area to be consistent with the width of the right of way that has been provided by the adjoining property owners and eventually for the improvements to State Route 4.

The applicant will need to acquire a street opening permit from the Public Works Department for the driveway and culvert work at State Route 4. Also, because of the close proximity of the proposed culvert to the existing sanitary manhole at State Route 4, they will need to work with MSD to clarify that. There is really no erosion sediment control plans for the work and there is a lot of earthwork taking place. With the permanent retention basin there, there are many issues concerning erosion control that needs to be addressed.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said since there are a good number of items here and you have prepared responses, letís take this on a per staff basis and allow you to respond individually.

Mr. Yoby said on the east-west drive aisle, we donít have any problem with providing signage and necessary pavement markings. I donít have a blowup of that section to show the update of that, but there were some pavement markings indicated on the resubmission, perhaps on CO-3.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that there were arrows, but the legend didnít indicate specifically if those were generally indicating direction of travel or in fact pavement markings.

Mr. Yoby added that the intention is to provide pavement striping and signage.

With the entry drive pavement detail, we certainly will comply as needed within the right of way of Route 4 to bring the proposed new pavement up to Route 4 standards.

To address the construction concerns, we have included a plan CO 8 that is a site plan during construction that proposes a temporary six-foot chain link fence approximately 20 feet off the proposed building line. Our proposal would be that part of the existing park fence would be removed, the temporary construction fence would be tied in to that to secure the area, and then wrapped around our building and tied back into our building to create a secure perimeter around the entire construction site as well as the staging area.





12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Shvegzda added that we did talk in the concept review about tying the new fence in with the old and terminating it at the building corners. That is still our proposal and the specifics of where the fence line is in relationship to the property line I feel is a matter that could be explored in the field as construction is underway to determine exactly how to terminate the fence into the corner of the building. Certainly we would want to terminate it to create a secure perimeter between the park and the new construction.

For the Route 4 entry drive, this is our original proposed radius, and you are proposing to reduce some of that radius down to allow better access for turning left onto Route 4 and providing striping to delineate the two lanes in that area. We donít necessarily object to that. Our only comment would be that it seemed in your notes that the primary concern was not necessarily a passenger car exiting, but a larger vehicle like a truck exiting. The time period that the church would likely have a truck or larger vehicle on the site would not be utilized at the same time as passenger cars, so the truck would be able to utilize the whole width of the exit to make a left hand turn.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that we try where possible to try and get the driveways to come out as close to 90 degrees as possible. We do look at it for a single unit truck as the worst case scenario, always recognizing that everybody doesnít always make the perfect turn, even the truck drivers, so that is a safety factor to provide a safe turning movement there. They may even with that provision utilize both lanes to turn out.

Mr. Yoby answered that we would not object to revising that island as proposed and providing the striping as proposed.

Mr. Galster said my concern was we have a lot of comments to go through, and it seems like the applicant is saying that he agrees with the staffís comments. I would ask that we go to where we donít agree, or have alternate solutions so we can clear this up.

Mr. Sherry said concerning your suggestion of a 20-foot offset for your fence, I personally donít think that is enough. Iím not sure how you are going to build the building, but I am a contractor, and 20 feet wouldnít be enough for me. It looks like you have a masonry bearing building, which means you would be bringing brick and block around the rear of the building; 20 wouldnít be enough, because you canít turn in that space to get your material where you need it. I think you will need nearly double that to accomplish what you are trying to do.

Mr. Yoby responded we feel the 20 feet is enough. That is a number we worked with in the Board of Zoning Appeals. Yes, it is tight, and if we had an ideal situation, we might want more space to work. We have talked to the masonry subcontractor, and he is aware of the limitations and doesnít have hesitation with 20 feet.




12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Okum commented that they will be working on city property, and there are a number of vintage trees in that area, very sizeable ones, that would be impacted. If they went 40 feet, you might as well strip out all the trees that are living there. He asked the applicant if they could live with that. Mr. Yoby responded that they could utilize more space, but if 20 feet is where we want to draw the line with respect to disturbing any existing trees, we are willing to live with 20 feet.

Mr. Sherry said since they are building right on the property line, how do you handle the building footer? Mr. McErlane answered we are allowing the encroachment of the footer and the foundation drains on city property.

Mr. Yoby said one question that I would have regarding the proposed entry drive with the request for 22 feet of width, I thought the Zoning Code read entry and exit driveways to be a minimum of 10 feet in width and a maximum of 12 feet, which would allow a 20 foot two lane driveway.

Mr. Shvegzda answered that is correct. It provides for a minimum of 10-foot lanes. For that long of a drive aisle, our recommendation would be 11-foot lanes. Mr. Yoby commented if we need to do 11-foot lanes, one of your comments regarding that was the moving of that existing 24-inch culvert. Obviously our preference would be not to move that. Would it be possible to take some of that two feet out of the existing median instead of relocating that culvert two feet?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that was going to be one of our suggestions. Does that affect any existing landscaping that is within that? Mr. Yoby answered I donít know, but that would be something that we would like to explore if we do in fact need to widen that driveway.

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride if this would impact the landscaping issue. Ms. McBride answered that it shouldnít be a problem. We didnít have any recommendations for that island.

Mr. Yoby added that on the southeast line, the request was made to curb that and put a catch basin in. It is the churchís feeling that parking along that area is really an overflow parking area and would not impact any main drive aisles if runoff were to affect that area. The cost of curbing is not something that the church would wish to pursue and the way the proposed grading allows, any water that would run off onto this area would then travel to this swale at the north and exit into that culvert. Our request would be that we allow that to continue to function that way. Although we have moved the existing lot line, that is really the way the existing runoff from the softball field works now.

Mr. Shvegzda asked if he didnít feel that the creation of a ditch between the two would be possible, adding that it wouldnít have much of a cost factor. I donít know the plans for pedestrian access across that, but it could be graded out to be fairly gentle in nature.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Shvegzda added that the concern is that you have a fairly good amount of area draining to that. It is really draining to about the same place that it does now. However now there is a parking lot aisle occupying that location, rather than grassy area.

Mr. Okum wondered if there wouldnít be an icing situation if the water isnít carried off into a swale. Mr. Yoby responded that in the opinion of the civil engineer, the proposed design wouldnít create a ponding effect in a typical situation. It would allow the water to travel on the parking lot to the north where there is a swale.

Mr. Okum responded if they both travel to one spot, coming off the high point from the ball field area and down the parking lot into that area, I would think that when we have freeze/thaw conditions, that area would be an ice rink. Wouldnít that occur Mr. Shvegzda?

Mr. Shvegzda answered it certainly could occur. If you have a snowfall event and then a warm day and melting and then if it cooled off at night, it could occur.

Mr. Yoby answered we would be willing to discuss with the civil engineer the possibility of introducing a swale between the edge of the lot and the softball field.

The only other comment I have is regarding the storm water management and the site grading issue, the ditch section. Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Yoby stated that Savage & Walker contacted your assistant today, and is in the process of updating that information and providing any necessary clarification. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that there was a conclusion on what additional information needed to be provided.

Mr. Okum said it is our understanding that all the other comments you agree with or are willing to modify as suggested. Mr. Yoby confirmed this.

Mr. McErlane reported that the existing facility is 56,120 s.f. The plan proposes to demolish 6,850 s.f. and a new two story addition at 48,340 s.f. is proposed. The total floor area will be 96,610 s.f.

The current plan shows a little deviation from the original concept plan in that it shows the annex building, one of the accessory buildings on the northwest corner of the site, being relocated to the southeast corner near the billfolds.

We talked about the fact that there is a temporary classroom proposed during the period of construction to accommodate classrooms that are being demolished. Most of the setbacks meet code with the exception of the rear yard setback, which the applicant obtained a variance for on 12/18 of last year. There also is a variance which was acquired for a dumpster in the side yard and extension of the northern property line to the east at 5.27 feet off the property line.






12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane stated that there were two conditions for the variance for the rear yard setback. One is that landscaping would be as approved by the Planning Commission, and on the park property on the west side of the building, and that a right of entry agreement be agreed upon by the city and the Church of the Nazarene.

We have a draft of the right of entry agreement, and it needs to be forwarded to the law director to make sure everything is okay legally.

The maximum height of the building allowed by code is 60 feet, and the height shown is 30í8". Fifty percent of the building materials on at least three sides need to be brick or stone. Mr. Yoby indicated to me earlier that there is one area that is not brick and it is an upper area above one of the pitched roof areas on the back of the building.

Addressing Mr. Yoby, Mr. McErlane said you had indicated that there was an area above one of the lower roofs that is a different material; is it drivitt? Mr. Yoby answered we prefer not to use drivitt in that location. What we would like to use would be a flushed seamed metal panel. Because of some of the history that drivitt has had, we would rather not see drivitt there. He passed around the proposed color of the panel which is a medium tan to blend in with the brick and the dark bronze trim.

Mr. McErlane reported that with that, we are still exceeding the 50% of at least three sides as brick in this case.

The Zoning Code requires that at least 50% of the site coverage of the structure have a residential roof form. Approximately 5,000 square feet of the roof area as a residential pitch, which is about 9% of their proposed roof area. However, the Zoning Code does allow Planning Commission to modify that requirement.

Impervious surface ratio is not permitted to exceed 70%. It is indicated as 35% on the plan. The required number of parking spaces is determined by the most intense use on the site. In this case, the two largest uses are the auditorium and the family life center. It looks like the auditorium overrides the family life center at 300 required parking spaces. The plan shows 362 parking spaces with eight handicap spaces.

The tree removal plan shows only three trees to be removed along the south property line, but based on the extent of the grading, it appears that 11 trees will be impacted by at least 50% of their root zone, which means that they will go. The resulting caliper inches removed due to that grading would be 124 caliper inches.






12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. McErlane added that on the west side, on the park property, the trees that are proposed to be removed look as though they are based on only having to remove the first 10 feet. However, we are looking at fencing off 20 feet for work area and if 20 feet ends up being the work area, I am sure the root zones of those trees are going to be impacted as well. When you get equipment around them or material stockpiled on them, they impact the root zones. The majority of the root zones on deciduous trees are typically within 18 inches of the surface. Not to mention the fact that we 4really are not sure how much excavation will end up occurring directly adjacent to that wall. On the southernmost end of the building wall, we are looking at about a 12-foot excavation to the floor level and as you go north it decreases to about eight feet below grade. To lay that aback and actually provide masonry work to occur will impact more than the trees that are shown.

If it turns out to impact the full 20 feet, it will remove 144 more caliper inches than what are proposed on the plan. Part of that is because there are some pretty substantial trees in that 20 feet. There is one 30-inch caliper tree and a 20-inch caliper tree that would be impacted by it.

The tree removal plan shows 123 inches of trees to be removed on the church property, but I could only come up with 73 inches of hardwoods and 24 inches of evergreens to be removed. Actually the evergreens because of their size (4-inch caliper) are exempt from replanting.

If only 10 feet is disturbed on the park property, it looks as though only 62 inches would be removed. If 20 feet is disturbed, they will be required to remove 206 caliper inches, which would require 103 to be replaced. It is our recommendation that the replacement occur on park property since it is being removed from park property. On the church property, we are looking at a replacement requirement of 81 caliper inches. The landscaping plan shows 60 caliper inches to be planted on the church property, so it is 21 caliper inches short of the requirement. On the park property, it is only showing 7 Ĺ caliper inches to be replaced, only because the larger number of plantings there are evergreens, but they are only six feet high, and the Tree Replanting Ordinance requires 10 feet for replanting. If they increase to 10 feet in height, a 10-foot tree would gain you about four caliper inches. The 23-Ĺ inches that I show as being short there is based on only disturbing 10 feet. If the 20 feet is disturbed, we are looking at about 90 caliper inches short on the park property.

The Fire Department has asked that the sprinkler connection be located at valve pit at Springfield Pike. Currently it is located at the front of the building and serves the sprinkler system inside the building, but I think service to the new addition will be off the underground coming through. By code, you can only have one sprinkler connection per building so the recommendation is to move it out at the street.



12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Galster said on the park property, it seems like with the big wall going up on the property line and taking out 206 caliper inches, they should be putting back 206 caliper inches. Does that make sense to anybody else? In addition to the trees being off the property, it will be a pretty stark wall. I would like to get as much planting in front of the building as possible. I would hate to see it diminish as opposed to increase, or at least stay the same.

Mr. Okum said you have discretion on tree replacement for this. What are your feelings on this?

Mr. Yoby said starting on the church property, we are proposing the removal of these three trees in orange. It is our feeling that while there is some work occurring under these trees, the grading there is of a minimal nature and we donít think would impact the health of the trees. However, we are proposing providing 33 new deciduous trees on church property of 2-Ĺ caliper inches each. We have added three new islands here at the request of Ms. McBride, so there are 30 trees in the islands and three new trees planted to the south of the parking lot. Eighty-one would be required if we would remove only the trees that Mr. McErlane is suggesting along that south side.

Our request would be that on church property we be allowed to conduct the proposed work along this south side and then evaluate any negative impact on the trees we havenít removed and remove them at that time if necessary. If all of these are removed in the process, we still are providing the necessary caliper inches of hardwood in the new islands and additional plantings.

On the park property, initially we did estimate four trees to be removed. That probably was conservative on our part in trying to salvage as many of those trees as we could. We have revised our estimates to a total of nine trees, some with multiple trunks, to give us proposed removal of 146 caliper inches. That would require 73 caliper inches of replacement. We would like to try to salvage these four trees, which Mr. McErlane suggested be removed. In addition we reworked the buffer area along the park. The proposed replacement included 30 new hardwood trees at 2 Ĺ caliper inches for a total of 75 caliper inches of replaced trees. In addition to that, we would plant four 10-foot pines, or an additional 40 inches of evergreens replaced. At the request of Ms. McBride, we are proposing supplementing the main buffer area to be designated with some underplantings of forsythia, burning bush and leather leaf vibernum.

This is something that Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane have not had an opportunity to review, but I think if we can agree what trees are to be removed, in our opinion a replacement plan similar to this would provide a pretty sufficient buffer area, certainly greater than what is along the park property now and with nicer tree specimens. While they are new trees and donít have the growth of some of the trees that are there, what we are proposing is a combination of maples, lindens and I believe a thornless honey locust.



12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Yoby added to summarize what we are proposing for the tree replacement, I think it is a substantial increase to what we initially proposed. The pine buffering that we proposed the first time around was a misinterpretation of the tree ordinance on our part, proposing those at six feet instead of 10. That is initially how we were wanting to utilize the caliper inches of replacement required. In response to Ms. McBrideís comments, we felt a more well designed buffer area was desired along that city property, so that got us to the 30 trees and additional landscaping.

Mr. Galster said based on your revised plan, even though staff hasnít had a chance to look it over yet, how many caliper inches would you replace on the city property? Mr. Yoby answered that on park property we are providing 30 hardwood trees at 2 Ĺ caliper inches each for 75 inches plus four 10 foot white pines.

Mr. Sherry commented I am concerned about post construction activities, the comment that Bill made about damaging the root system. I have had that experience; we built a house, stayed away from the tree and a year later it died. How do we address that issue a year or two years from now when clearly the cause of the problem is the construction here?

Mr. McErlane responded that certainly there are a number of factors that go into whether or not the tree is going to survive. You can still fence off the drip line, but if you change how drainage patterns occur around that tree, or if you cut out some of the portions that are currently shading the group of trees, it will sometimes affect the trees as well. I donít know how you would impact it later on.

I still have some concerns about a number of the trees along the south property line where you are going from the trunk of the tree and cutting at a 3 to 1 slope directly from the trunk of the tree down to meet the grade. You are talking about at least 50% of the root zone being cut away, and itís not gong to survive. There are several of them like that on the south side of the property. The only ones designated are the ones that end up in the flow line of the ditch that is being created. There are a few that may be questionable, but the big percentage of the ones I highlighted I donít think will survive.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Sherry brought up the issue of the 20-foot offset for the fence, and you feel 20 foot is adequate. We are going to have a fence that will need to be constructed along that 20-foot perimeter so I would have to assume a worst case scenario. There are other trees beyond that 20-foot line that are not even being considered. We definitely have to be concerned about that. I was concerned about that when we went to the 0 setback, and that is the reason BZA put it in Planning Commissionís hands, to make sure this was addressed.






12 FEBRUARY 2002



Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Galster said when you were talking about the south property line, I thought the applicant was saying that based on the trees that you think are going to be affected, he has already accounted for them in the new landscaping plan, which gets it up to 82 replanted inches on the church property.

Mr. Yoby reported that what we would like to do is instead of coming in at the beginning of construction and removing all those trees, we would like to try to salvage all the trees that we can. If all of those trees have to go as Mr. McErlane suggested, the caliper inches are accou0nted for on the church property. The replacement inches would not be the issue; it would just be the longevity of the tree. Certainly the church wouldnít want a dead tree on their property, and wouldnít have a problem removing those or evaluating them at a certain point during construction or after construction.

Mr. McErlane said with respect to the park property, it really comes down to how much room it will take to construct it. What is shown as being removed looks as though it is only impacted at a 10-foot distance off the building. If you actually go out 20 feet, and it is disturbed out 20 feet, it will impact a significant number more trees.

Mr. Okum commented you are going to be driving a buggy over top of that with masonry material. If you are bringing equipment on site, that whole 20 foot is going to be disturbed, and that a drip lane of trees back even further. That really does need to be carefully looked at. I agree with the rest of the members. If ultimately we lose 200 inches of trees, 200 inches have to be replaced back on that park property.

Mr. Galster said I think that the applicant is showing that he is trying to get to the numbers that we were originally looking for, and I have no question that is their goal. If we are telling them now that we want to see a one for one replacement on any tree that is damaged back there, I am open to saying that this is the general plan and idea based on what we think is going to happen. If it were more, we would replace more to match one for one on park property. We also would offer the same type thing that we offer to other businesses that are not able to do that, so they could make a tree preservation contribution. I surely would like to see the trees separating that ball field from the wall.

Dave Wagner, President of Environ Group stated that it is our intent to comply and do a good product for you and be very cooperative with your desires and wishes. We have had a great relationship with Bill; he knows that we are responding to the Cityís concerns. In our revised plan, we have attempted to respond to the initial concerns. We made a mistake; he had better trees and a better count on trees. It is our objective to comply with the statute and the code. We feel a little uncomfortable right now on plans because of the nature of some of the trees. We trust Bill to come out, take a look and weíll work together. If we have to take these down and replace a certain number of inches that is what we will do.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Wagner added that it is a different issue with the park property. Your concerns about the 20 feet are certainly legitimate. The wording in the zoning agreement said approximately 20 feet, knowing that there will be some areas where we may have to go a little bit more and some areas that might be less. Again, the intention would be to save as many trees as we can.

In that area, it may not be as good as you think it is when you look at these plans. There are certain trees that arenít in great shape; there are some trees that have multiple trees with a singular root.

The Board of Zoning Appeals was very cooperative on that side of the park. There was a meeting of the minds with the design intent. We felt that a brick wall was a physical attribute, a design plus that we were adding to this project that would be something worthwhile to look at as opposed to a wood fence. By the same token, we agreed with the Board of Zoning Appeals to comply with whatever Planning Commission wanted on the planting there. We have considered who does the planting or the possibility of coming up with a dollar amount, give you the money and have you plant whatever you want there. That was one alternative.

I will tell you when you start going one for one that is not what the code says. The code says we have to replace half, and because of the quality and nature of those trees, I am a little reluctant to say that we will double what we are required to put in by the code. That has a significant budget impact.

Mr. Galster responded there is also a difference between taking down trees on you property as opposed to going on another piece of property and taking trees out. Mr. Wagner responded I understand that, and this is an agreement that we would landscape it, assuming it was within code requirements.

An alternative that I would lay out would be to make the brick wall metal siding. There is a budget issue to deal with here. In conformance with the code, we could construct that wall out of metal siding. I think there has to be a design compromise here of what is effective from a design point of view. What is an appropriate physical material? Our preference is brick, but if we are going to have to double our landscape budget, we will have to look at the realities of budget, of brick versus siding.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Okum if the BZA approval of the variance was based on a certain construction of this wall on the property line and Mr. Okum answered no.

Mr. Wagner added we are here to be cooperative with you. I just wanted to address some of our concerns.

Mr. Galster commented I do think that the brick would look better than the siding but I donít want a Fenway Park type look from that soccer field. I want to see the trees in front of it and I want to see the plantings there, and I think more of a one to one ratio would be appropriate.



12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Galster added we created a tree preservation ordinance in the city to protect the trees, and here we are on city property taking out trees and not replacing them, or replacing them with the same thing that we would allow somebody to do on their own property. This is a convenience to allow the construction of the building the way you would like to have the building, and I hate to see city trees being chopped down for a development.

Mr. Okum commented that the BZA motion didnít say specifically that it would be strictly by the code. It was a motion that a landscaping plan as a buffer would be approved by Planning Commission for that property. I canít disagree with you that you did not submit to us a set of plans in concept discussion that it would be a brick building. It was not a steel-sided building; it was a brick building. That was what was approved by Planning Commission before it even went to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Ms. McBride circulated photos around the Planning Commission. The variance granted from the Board of Zoning Appeals reduces the setback on the north property line for the proposed parking lot expansion from 20 feet to five feet. The current landscape plan calls for six vibernum bushes three feet in height in that area, and that is not sufficient.

The signage is proposed to remain as is. They did submit a revised photometric lighting plan at the request of staff and they took the light levels beyond the pavement edge to a point where staff feels comfortable that there wonít be a negative impact on adjacent residences. That was a concern, because there are single family residences to the south, and Maple Knoll to the north.

They specified metal halide flat lens fixtures that will be mounted at a height of 25 feet. The poles and fixtures are to be dark bronze. They did not indicate any additional building mounted lights on that plan.

On the landscaping, we felt that the material that is to be installed on the city park property was not sufficient; six 6-foot evergreens would not be sufficient for screening of that wall. Staff calculated that the wall would be from grade to about 22 feet in height and that wouldnít make it. We suggested a mix of deciduous and non-deciduous plant material. The evergreens would have to be 10-foot minimum in order to comply with the code. We were not specific with plant material, but the hope was that they would come back with something creative.

We also requested that additional planting islands be added in the southern parking field. We didnít feel that what they were proposing would be sufficient. We asked that shrub material be added to all landscaped islands, that additional plant material be added to the north of the north parking area along the perimeter adjacent to Maple Knoll. That is to run the entire perimeter.





12 FEBRUARY 2002



Ms. McBride added that if you look at the photos, you can see that right now there is a chain link fence in there. There are Maple Knoll cottages that are very close to that and the plant material would be to buffer headlights and screen the backside of their proposed dumpster. They did provide enclosure materials for that dumpster with gates, and we would like to see additional screening along that north property line both for the dumpster and length of the parking field.

Additional shrub plantings should be added to create a continuous plant mass as shrubs mature. The number are not there to create that mass at maturity. The mass plantings should be incorporated in a hardwood mulch bed and delineated on the landscape plans. Wherever they are going to be proposing asphalt islands, we would ask that the asphalt be removed underneath those islands. There is an area at the ballfield that will be graded to an approximate 3 to 1 slope. It will be visible from Springfield Pike, and we have some concern about how that will be maintained, as well as the appearance from Springfield Pike. We would like to see some treatment of how that will be handled.

Staff raised the issue of mechanical equipment and screening and the applicant indicated that at that height it would not be visible on the expansion. The existing mechanical equipment on the ground is screened.

On prior submittals there was an indication of an outdoor play area. Staff questioned the proximity to Maple Knoll and the noise issue, and that has been removed from the site so there wonít be an outdoor play area.

We have a comment on the maintenance of the overall site, and the applicant has not addressed that. I am assuming a lot of those items will be taken care of with the addition and renovation.

Staff had asked for additional information on the proposed modular classroom that they are to locate on the site for a 15-month period. That will be off white and green aluminum. We asked about skirting and they are proposing white aluminum skirting.

There is a photo I submitted to the commission that indicates that there is an accessory structure right now in the northwest corner of the site and the existing church structure is another structure. They are proposing to move that accessory structure over toward the ballfields to use it for maintenance and athletic equipment. They will add a brick veneer to the exterior of that and that needs to be included in the grading and civil plans.

During the construction period, there would be a total of 195 spaces on the site. We raised that with the applicant, and they indicated that they have a parking agreement with Maple Knoll that provides 152 additional spaces which takes them in excess of the number of spaces required.




12 FEBRUARY 2002



Ms. McBride reported that it is very easily accessible; it is flat and paved, but the city needs to see a copy of that agreement for the shared parking even on a temporary basis. Otherwise, they would need to go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a temporary variance to reduce the number of parking spaces during construction.

Mr. Yoby reported that they did change the spacing of the proposed weatherleaf vibernums along the north property line. Originally the spacing was 30 feet on center, and we have reduced it to 10 feet on center to create a sufficient block along the new north parking.

I misunderstood Ms. McBrideís comment that additional landscape material should be added to the north of the existing and proposed parking area. My only concern with the existing areas is that Iím not exactly sure how much space we have from the curb of the existing parking lot to the property line, and I assume that proposed landscaping would require the removal of the chain link fence.

Ms. McBride asked if the chain link fence was on the church property, and Mr. Yoby answered that he wasnít sure. Unfortunately the existing site survey indicates the chain link fence but it doesnít clearly indicate whose property it is on although it appears to be on Maple Knollís property. Because the limits of the existing survey donít extend into Maple Knoll, the residences adjacent to the barn building and the north property line, there is a fair number of plantings on Maple Knollís property side that do already buffer that area with evergreens and white pines. Mr. Okum responded we have photos that are contrary to that. Mr. Yoby answered I donít think we have an issue with revising that. Ms. McBride commented if that chain link fence is yours and there isnít enough distance between the existing parking lot edge and your property line, my suggestion would be to put up a solid wood fence. The idea is to block the car headlights from going into the patios and living rooms. Mr. Okum showed the photo of the cottages and the view from the parking lot into those units.

Mr. Yoby responded that we would investigate that fence and where it is exactly in relationship to the property line. Mr. Okum added I have the same concern on the backside of the dumpster surround, that it be screened and treated with landscaping.

Mr. Yoby answered we would be willing to look into that and accommodate some screening along that north side towards the adjacent residential units.

The asphalt shown under the proposed landscape islands was a drafting error on our part, and will be removed.

I am not sure specifically what you are referring to with the appearance of maintenance of the existing facility. There was a period of time when the existing softball fence was in need of repair. That has been removed and the softball field is proposed to be reworked as a part of the addition.




12 FEBRUARY 2002



Ms. McBride added that on some visits we made to the property, some of the light fixture lens covers were hanging down and the asphalt is not in the best of condition. As I indicated, I think the majority of those items will be corrected with the expansion and renovation.

Mr. Yoby added that the copy of the Maple Knoll agreement can be provided to staff. The size of the modular classroom shown on the plans has not changed. However the church did meet with William Scottsman who is going to provide that unit and selected a physical unit to use as an upgrading of the unit proposed on the plan. It is a light tan wood siding with a soffitt of a similar light tan and window detailing similar to this. The front of the unit would face Route 4 and there would be an additional two doors into the classroom units and a ramp as shown on the plan. The unit location is in the north parking lot to allow easy access into the sanctuary. We feel that the unit selected is an upgrade to what was originally proposed. Additionally similar skirting material as on the plans would be provided around the perimeter of the unit.

Mr. Sherry asked if the Maple Knoll agreement was a permanent agreement or temporary. Mr. Yoby answered that it has been an established agreement for a number of years. The church has a paved access into the Maple Knoll lot. The agreement is that the church is allowed to utilize the Maple Knoll property for their Sunday morning and Sunday evening worship, a Wednesday event and special events. It is a reciprocal agreement. Maple Knoll utilizes the church lot for Bingo and ballroom dancing as major events. It has been in existence for a number of years.

Mr. Sherry added I was concerned about the parking. We built one of these a few years back and we had a gymnasium in it that they promptly converted into another use. We had an occupant load far less than what they are using it for now. Giving your relationship with Maple Knoll, I am a little more comfortable about the situation.

Mr. Yoby added that there are some members of the church that utilize Maple Knoll parking every Sunday morning, because they can park closer to the north entry.

Mr. Galster said to clarify, along the north property line between your property and Maple Knoll, would you agree to provide a four foot high wooden fence to protect the headlights from coming into those residences, and where the dumpster is, the fence should be to go up to six foot?

In trying to clear up this landscaping issue, we havenít had a chance to properly evaluate what you have tonight. I am toying with the idea of wording which says submitted and approved by staff and determined after staff review of final landscape plan may require up to 1 for 1 replacement if deemed necessary to create a proper buffer zone. Is that language that you are comfortable with?




12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Wagner responded I would like to get Ms. McBrideís opinion on this, because it is one thing to say we are going to put back the exact same number of inches, keeping in mind that a major portion of that is two major trees that are a bundle of trees. We are now planting mostly 2 Ĺ caliper trees that will get bigger. We could certainly use that as a goal, but I think we have to use some judgment in terms of how dense that would end up being, and how much that would encroach onto what you might want to keep as open area for play.

Mr. Galster responded I am trying to allow you to allow us to use our plannerís discretion to create a proper buffer zone that may include up to a 1 to 1 replacement. I donít particularly want a one to one; I want a nice buffer zone between the building and the place.

Mr. Wagner answered we want the exact same thing you want that is reasonable. I think Ms. McBride also can come up with something that we think is reasonable. In the alternative, we can come up with a dollar amount and let her design something. Mr. Okum responded I donít want money thrown at us.

Mr. Wagner commented my big concern here is that we are worrying this such that there is a possibility that our landscape budget along that property line could double, and that is a big number. Mr. Galster responded I understand that, and I hope that you are trusting our ability and our city planner and landscaping people to come up with a proper zone that takes into account everything that is on the site and hopefully that doesnít become the case. But, that is the only way that Iím comfortable with granting a final approval without having even seen your latest submittal on the landscaping plan.

Mr. Wagner responded we obviously trust Mr. McErlane to the hilt. We donít know Ms. McBride as well as we know Mr. McErlane, but I suspect she is good too, so we will agree to that.

Mr. Okum said I think the situation here is that in reality we should be reviewing what was submitted. We are allowing latitude to go into what are answers to staff comments as a resolution to the problem. Truly our motions from the floor should come from what was submitted and what we have reviewed. Landscaping and tree replacement are two key areas of this. We are looking long distance at what we are planning; it is not a fair representation and does not give Ms. McBrideís staff time to do the review. Personally I think we should exclude the landscaping and tree replacement at this point, so you can get on with your development and work out the fine details.

I think the City has given latitude in this project. We require a residential roof on a certain percentage of this building, and only approximately 9% of this building will have a residential roof. A compromise to that is the fact that the applicant has gone to an all brick building on all four sides. I think that is a fair adjustment to an issue on the building itself. In my opinion, that answers that issue.


12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Okum commented that I would like to see the commission bring a motion to the floor, but I also would encourage that for things that have not been finalized, letís push that aside. There is another meeting next month; we can have another phase on the landscaping and resolve the issues outstanding instead of making ad hoc decisions based on material that our staff hasnít had the chance to approve.

Mr. Sherry said Ms. McBride had another comment about the landscaping at the northeast edge of the ballfield, where the three to one slope is. Do you have a response to that?

Mr. Yoby answered I really donít; I guess my response would be that we would be open to suggestion as to what might be appropriate at that location. Our intention was that it would be maintained as a grassy area, a part of the field. We certainly would be willing to explore it. From the comment, I am not sure what needs to be provided to improve the appearance and maintenance.

Mr. Sherry repsonded I take it to mean that she is concesrned about two things, maybe the lack of some trees and more importantly, the manufactured slope. Itís going to look like an area has been filled. Maybe it should look a little more natural.

Mr. Yoby responded I would agree with that, with the comment that beyond that as you continue further northeast, there already are similar slopes that exist. Mr. Sherry commented it is a little more natural.

Ms. McBride said Mr. Sherry is correct; we had a couple of concerns and appearance of properties from the Route 4 Corridor is a critical issue for the City. How that is going to appear is important to us. I know that the church will maintain whatever is there, but we want to see exactly what is proposed for that area. We donít believe that grass is going to be appropriate given that new slope.

Mr. Okum said we have had a lot of responses to staff comments. It is a very large project with a lot of things interacting. We can act on it this evening with a lot of conditions, or we can defer it to the next meeting when some of these things can be answered. It is up to you as the applicant. Do you want us to act on a partial?

Mr. Yoby responded we certainly would like to be able to proceed with the development of the project. Please clarify for me. If we were to exclude the landscaping along the west side as you proposed, would that permit us to pursue the permitting process for the rest of the building?

Mr. Okum repsonded that my recommendation would be that all landscaping and tree replacement be excluded from the motion, and be approved by Planning Commission at a later date. That way it isolates it off the project, and gives you time to work with our city planner and staff to come up with a resolution.




12 FEBRUARY 2002



Mr. Yoby answered if that exclusion would allow us to proceed with the rest of the project, we wouldnít object to that at all. Mr. Okum asked if that would hold up the building permit process. Mr. McErlane answered that Don can review what revisions come in based on his comments and from the standpoint of a tree replanting bond, we will base it on what is being proposed to be removed today. (That has to be set before they can start moving dirt.)

Mr. Okum said letís say a development says they need to take out 30 inches of trees, and when we review it, they have taken out 60 inches. We would hold them accountable for that difference, is that correct?

Mr. McErlane said yes, but prior to the start of the project, we require a replanting bond to be posted. We can base that on what they currently show to be removed. As it stands right now, there may be instances where more trees come out or are saved than we think might happen.

Mr. Okum commented I am not thinking months; I am thinking about the next meeting. Mr. Yoby answered it would be my hope that we would be back here March 12th resolving the landscaping issues. It is certainly an item that we would like to find a resolution to.

Mr. Wagner added I think there are two alternatives, the one you are proposing and the one that Mr. Galster proposed earlier that we agree to the wording that you had. We would be amenable to either one, his wording or your process.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the project based on the following conditions:

    1. That they include all staff city engineer and city planner recommendations;
    2. That the mechanical units be screened from view of adjoining properties and public right of way;
    3. That no landscaping plan is approved at this time and will need to be resubmitted for final approval to the Planning Commission;
    4. That a four-foot high wooden fence on the north property line be constructed to block the automotive headlights and glare from the residential areas;
    5. That the dumpster be included with a six foot fence along that same property line;
    6. That no signage be evaluated at this time.

Mr. Sherry seconded the motion.

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





12 FEBRUARY 2002


  2. Mr. Sherry said on the Exxon situation is there some way in the future that we can avoid that situation; maybe not allowing the item on the agenda if it isnít fully complete? I think that was the issue. They didnít comply fully with the requirements of the Corridor District.

    Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant submitted what he wanted and Planning Commission didnít agree that it was acceptable. There was a second submittal where they thought they were addressing some concerns but there were additional problems with that. I donít think it was an incomplete application.

    Ms. McBride added that we are getting ready for code and text amendments, and that might be one that the commission might look at amending. You could add language that says, "unless tabled by applicant" or put some additional verbiage in there that provides relief in this instance where the applicant clearly asked on two occasions to have the matter tabled. That would release them from being able to appeal it directly to the board.

    Mr. McErlane reported that today he received from the law directorís office deeds involving the split of what will eventually be right of way of properties from the Burns property that are to be used for sidewalk in the future. He showed them to the commission, adding that normally if it were a lot split it is reviewed by the law director and city engineer and the secretary of Planning Commission signs off on it. We can do that, because we are pretty sure that the city engineer and law director are okay with it because the city engineer developed it and the law director forwarded it to me.


    1. Catherineís, 461 East Kemper Road Ė Wall Sign & Panel Changes
    2. Su Casa (former Amigoís) 11711 Princeton Pike Ė Wall Sign
    3. Payless Optical Ė 11812 Springfield Pike Ė Wall Sign
    4. Tres Amigos Ė 322 Northland Boulevard Ė Wall Sign

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:56 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,2002 __________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



_____________________,2002 __________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary