8 MARCH 2005





Mr. McErlane reported that the property owner is requesting a variance from Section 156.15( C ) the Springdale Tree Preservation Ordinance that is titled Tree Removal without Permission.Planning Commission is the appeal body for the Tree Preservation Ordinance.


On November 5th of last year in the process of making an inspection relative to some of the sign permits issued, Richard Lohbeck observed that a number of the trees had been removed.At that point of time, all of the trees that had planned to be removed had been removed, so he noted the number and the size and advised the owner that they had violated the code.


On November 9th in order to clarify what needed to be done, I sent a notice to the owner indicating that for the total 41 trees that had been removed totaling 451 caliper inches, the Tree Preservation Ordinance required replacement trees at a one caliper inch per one caliper inch removed.In addition to that there was a $200 per caliper inch contribution to be made to the Cityís Tree Program, which totaled $90,200.


On January 19, 2005 we received a proposed planting plan which shows a total of 171 caliper inches to be planted, which results in a short fall of 280 caliper inches.In addition to that, there were some sample web site pages of plant materials that they intended to plant.We believe, based on the numbers that were submitted, they were to be planted at 3 inch caliper and not as shown on those web pages.


The variance request that we had received asked Planning Commission to approve the January 19th planting plan.Although it is not specifically stated in that request, we are assuming that they are also asking for relief from the contribution requirement as well.


The applicant indicated that a city official was asked about a license that might be needed to cut down trees.It is possible that the applicant had come into the office and asked about cutting down trees.On single family residential lots, there is no permit required to cut down trees.Obviously if the applicant had indicated it was for Cross Country Inn. or Super 8, he would have been told no.If the applicant had said he was going to cut down 41 trees on his property, it would have been enough to have sent up a red flag

and somebody would have been contacted about it.†† There could have been some miscommunication that occurred in the office.


As far as what is being proposed to be planted, I donít believe that 451 caliper inches can be physically planted back on the site.††


Mr. Galster asked for a ballpark figure of what can be planted on the site.Mr. McErlane said what they are proposing to plant is a pretty tight planting plan.I think Ms. McBride has some questions about the materials that they want to plant.






8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster said so if every place that they show a tree on this plan they put a 3 inch minimum tree, there is not a whole lot more that would fit back on the site.Mr. McErlane confirmed this.Mr. Galster said if they plant three-inch trees where they are shown on this diagram that totals 171 caliper inches, which makes them 280 caliper inches short.


Ms. McBride said the applicant submitted a replanting plan that included the attached sheets from a web site that had the Cleveland select pears being planted at four feet in height and the magnolia trees in 18 inch pots.Our landscape architect felt that to be very unacceptable.


The Cleveland select pears should be installed at a minimum, of 3 Ĺ inch to 4 inch caliper at planting.Our landscape architect has suggested that the magnolia trees, which requires extensive maintenance when they are used in vehicular use areas with regards to visibility, not be used at all and serviceberry trees be substituted at 2 Ĺ to 3 caliper inches at planting.


We also have suggested that there be some additional mixture of plant material on the site, i.e. red sunset maples at 3 Ĺ to 4 inches or rose hill ash at 3 Ĺ to 4 inches at planting.


There are areas where there can be some additional plant material added; 451 caliper inches cannot be planted on the site, but there are some areas that could hold some additional plant material and we have suggested they do that.


We shared these comments with the applicant in the middle of February and we did not get any response.I would remind this commission that there are other developers in the city that have been unable to make a tree replanting on site and have made substantial cash donations to the cityís tree fund.


Mr. McErlane said relative to the explanation that the applicant made on cutting down the trees and visibility, there probably is a valid point for a small window of visibility from Route 4, but it certainly didnít block the vision from 275 and it certainly wouldnít make any impact as far as visibility from the east side of the property, which is only visible from another motel.So Iím not really sure of the purpose behind cutting down all the trees, if it was for visibility sake.


Mr. Okum said I noticed that the trees on the landscape islands next to your building were cut down.Was there any tree left on your site?Mr. Patel said no.We were thinking that we would cut down all the trees and replant new trees.Mr. Okum asked if he had ever tried to cut a tree stump out of the ground.Mr. Patel said no.We are waiting for the city approval so we can take down the stump and reinstall new trees.Mr. Okum asked if he had priced out 41 stump grindings.Some of those trees are 20 inches in diameter and thousands of dollars to grind the stumps out.That doesnít necessarily mean you can plant a tree in that spot.You typically would shift it.You are talking a major undertaking.




8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Okum added if you look at your site, that photo is a good example of how stark that site can be.You literally have very little green space on that site, just concrete and buildings and these trees created somewhat of a canopy that gave you some green space.Now the site is virtually barren and raw.There is going to have to be a lot done to get this site back to the mature site that it should have been and this should never have happened.


So I do have some concerns about the canopy issue, the height of the majority of these new trees.The trees that were taken out were rose hill ash which typically grows 30 feet in height with a canopy of 20 feet in diameter.That is a lot of green, which was a complement to your site.


Obviously there has not been a lot of thought taken and I question whether the intent was to put trees back in but maybe that was your intent.However, there was no tree planting plan until the city addressed it, is that correct?†† Mr. Patel responded we did not know that we had to get the permit and that is why we didnít have a tree plan.Mr. Okum asked if he anticipated the cost of removing all those stumps to plant those trees?Mr. Patel answered I already talked with him and he agreed that he would remove the stumps after he cut down the trees.


Mr. Vaughn said the pictures I sent with the plans were from the web site.They are what nurseries buy, let them grow and sell the trees later.


Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he disagreed with what Ms. McBrideís staff has recommended on the tree replanting?Mr. Patel responded we can do the replanting; we donít have any problem with doing that.


Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride if she had a maximum caliper inches that they could accomplish with your landscape architect.Ms. McBride answered no.Essentially we would have done a landscape plan for them and we did not.We can do that if they wish.†† Mr. Okum said someone needs to do one and certainly there has to be some type of an audit or figure on how they are going to get rid of all those stumps and clean up the mess.


Mr. Butrum said the notion is that nobody saw this going on for a month and a half.You mentioned that you were cutting trees still in December, correct?Mr. Vaughn responded I said December, but I meant November.I could have done this in a shorter period of time, but a lot of it had to do with how busy Applebees was or the hotel was, so the job was spread out.


Mr. Butrum said based on what you are recalling now, what was the approximate time frame?I am mainly bothered by the notion that somehow it was approved by default because no one said anything

I go to Applebees twice a month and I suddenly became aware of it.If you were informed verbally on the 5th of November, and in writing on the 9th, I am trying to figure out the time frame.



8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Patel said we started in the second or third week in September and finished by the end of October.


Mr. Butrum said October is a long way from December, and you were saying that it was running over after you were cutting lawns.In October you probably would be cutting lawns.Mr. Vaughn said yes.The job was spread out so long, I really donít have a number.I can come up with a number of days if you need it.Mr. Butrum said thatís fine; it just bothers me, the idea that approval was granted because no one said anything or noticed it


Mr. Galster said right now they show 171 caliper inches being replanted based on 57 trees.If you think 10 more trees could fit on that site or another 30 caliper inches to a total of 200 caliper inches.Letís say they get 201 caliper inches and are still 250 caliper inches of what was cut down.


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said n the past we have allowed people who are not able to replant all their required trees to make contributions to the Urban Forestry Fund.The city then takes 2Ĺto 3 Ĺ inch trees and plant them throughout the city.So we reforest the city at your expense.


Are you ina position to say that you cannot plant 250 caliper inches on your site and you are willing to contribute to the Urban Forestry Fund for the city to take those 250 caliper inches and plant them throughout the city?


Mr. Patel answered I can do that but the City asks for $200 forÖMr. Galster said thatís a fine; thatís a separate thing.Mr. Patel responded then whatever the costs are we can do that; that is fine.


Mr. Galster said I talked to our tree person, and it costs about $100 per caliper inch to buy the tree and plant it.Just on what you are not able to replant on your site that is $25,000 to the Urban Forestry Fund.


Mr. Patel said I canít come up with $25,000.I already spent more than $250,000 to upgrade the property.When I bought the property, it was totally run down.So right now we donít have enough money.Plus, there is another problem with the cleaning of the creek next to the Extended Stay.I have to pay for that also, 50% of the cost of the project.So I donít have enough money to do that


Mr. Galster said we are looking at some pretty hefty numbers, $25,000 for the trees that you canít fit on your site, and there is an issue about the $200 per caliper inch in an actual fine for having cut down the trees.That is over $90,000, so you are looking at a total of $115,000 if this board requires you to do all the ordinance says you should be doing.


I want the trees back but I canít have them so the best I will be able to do is put the trees somewhere in the city.But then I am going to put in three inch trees as opposed to the 12 and 20-inch trees that were on the site.††


8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster added I can guarantee you that there is a big difference in the value tome as a resident of this community on whether or not there is a three inch or a 20-inch tree there.


Mr. Patel said I understand, but if you tell me where to put it, I can have a cheaper way to install those trees.I can do that.Mr. Galster asked how much it would cost him to buy and install a three-inch tree.Mr. Patel responded the tree would cost $30.Mr. Galster asked the size of the tree, and Mr. Patel answered it is the tree in the drawings.Mr. Galster responded that is a twig that you sell to a nursery that a nursery would take five years to grow that they would sell to the city and plant. We canít plant twigs in the city at $30; that wonít become a tree any time soon.Thatís a sapling.You are not going to be able to buy a three-inch tree, the minimum size that needs to be planted, for $30.Based on what it costs the city, 171 inches will cost you $20,000.


Mr. Galster asked what he would charge to plant a tree, but this is a sapling and not a tree.Mr. Vaughn said I have worked for people who have planted trees, but have never planted that many trees.I do mulching and mowing.


Mr. Galster responded my point is if you can find a 10-inch tree, it will cost you a fortune to plant it.The city plants three-inch trees for a reason.It is the most economical way that we have to reforest the city.


Mr. Galster said if you can show me a person who plants trees for a living who will supply and plant whatever number of trees to make up this 250 caliper inches you are short for less money than the city says it would cost, I would be wiling to entertain that.I am going on what we do on a regular basis in how we plant trees in the city.


Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he had any recommendations or solutions on how to make up the short fall.The I-275-75 interchange is probably one of the highest for diesel fumes of anywhere in this area. We took 450 caliper inches of mature trees that were helping clean that area and gotten rid of them.Now we are going to put three-inch trees around but it will take another 15 years before they are anywhere near replacing what was cut down, much less the fact that those trees would have grown another 15 years.You have caused a decrease in the quality of life for the residents of the City of Springdale, and I want to know if you have any idea or any solution you can propose.


Mr. Galster said my personal opinion is that this applicant, solely because of the potential for economic gain, did in fact basically butchered this site of its trees that were a value to this community and would have continued to have been a value to this community.I have a problem with the idea that there would be some kind of relief from replanting what he cut down.If I could fit 451 caliper inches of trees on your site, that is what I would want to-do, but that is not going to happen.There is no way it would fit.





8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster said short of that, if you can come up with a tree replacement plan that would letís say replaces 200 caliper inches and meets the species and specimen and size acceptable to the city staff, you are still short 250 caliper inches.†† And I believe you should be making a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund at whatever it costs to buy and replant those trees.Right now the city estimate is $100 per caliper inch so that is $25,000.If you can find a reputable tree person that does this on a regular basis for a living that can furnish and install the trees for less money, Iím okay with that, but I think the money should be there to replant those trees.In terms of the $90,000 fine,I have no objections to try to negotiate that or mitigate that to some extent,but I think the damage has been done and there needs to be a penalty paid for that.Iím not opposed to allowing that penalty to be paid out over a longer period of time if you have all these other things coming up, but I think there needs to be something to replace the fact that we donít have those trees anymore cleaning that air.††† Iíll defer to the other members of this board as to their feeling on this, if they are wiling to move or not, but that is what I would consider a starting point.


Mr. Okum said I see a situation where on February 18, 2005 staff shared their comments with the applicant, and the applicant made no response whatsoever.Lack of action is apparent here; we have not seen any action by the applicant.


Based on this, I would not be supporting a variance in any way until the applicant submits a plan.Otherwise I think the city needs to hold him to the requirements set by code and until he presents an adequate plan, bring about all city resources to take action against the applicant.†† Therefore I would vote to deny this request for a variance .


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he understood this, and Mr. Patel indicated that he did.Mr. Okum continued you have taken no action, done nothing in response to this and I think the city needs to hold you to the requirements set by our code and hold you to the penalty.It is your responsibility to find your way out of that.


Mr. Patel said I have been talking to my attorney all this time and he said that we applied for the variance and that is the reason why we did not contact the city.


Mr. Hawkins said I agree that in this situation since Springdale loses and the environment loses , as far as I am concerned your business loses.I donít think you make the site look better.I do not think these consequences are harsh; they are fair.You will not be able to make the environment whole, and I will not be in favor of avariance to the penalty at this time unless we have some other means of resolving this matter..


Mr. Syfert said we are doing all the talking and the applicant has not done anything.I do not know if 30 days to present us something is adequate.One of the reasons we sent our staff comments out to the applicant was to give them a chance to formulate a plan or respond in some way.



8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Syfert said I am not in favor of granting any relief at this point without something to talk about.We can take action tonight or maybe the applicant has some other idea.


Mr. Patel said to make the contribution, can I have a time period to pay the $25,000 or do I have to pay it right away?Mr. Syfert responded we donít know what you want to do yet; I havenít seen anything that fit what the city would like to have.Mr. Patel responded I need some time period to pay the $25,000.I donít have all that money to give you.Mr. Syfert said I think we understand that.We have to have some sort of plan to start with.


Mr. Okum said since the applicant has not brought forward any other solution to the problem, I think we need to act on the variance this evening.


Mr. Galstersaid I kind of agree, but the applicant has said that he will plant 171 caliper inches on his property or up to 200 inches on his property and if we gave him time, he would pay the $25,000 to the Urban Forestry Fund that will make up for the short fall of the trees.The only thing we havenít addressed is the penalty.Granted I agree that the applicant should make some type of proposal, but I think we are moving that way and to just put it off and not have action will not get the trees back any quicker.Itís not going to change the fact that it is a sizeable amount of money that according to the applicant he canít afford to pay right now.Where do we go?Do we come back in 30 days and do it all over again?†† The site wonít hold more than 200 caliper inches based on the root systems that are already there.They can only plant so many trees so I think we need to come to some kind of conclusion.


Maybe it is something we need to propose to the applicant and have him accept or deny.If we need to add a caveat to make sure that happens because of prior inaction, Iím not opposed to that.


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said correct me if I am wrong, but have you not stated that you will plant, modifying that plan to have minimum size trees, three-inch trees that will give you 171 to 200 caliper inches on site.You have agreed to do that.Mr. Patel said that he had agreed to do that.


Mr. Galster added you have agreed that for the short fall in those caliper inches, that 250 caliper inches, you would make a contribution of $25,000 to the Urban Forestry Fund so that we could plant them elsewhere in the city.You have said that you cannot come up with that in a lump sum at the moment.How long would we need to stretch that out in order for you to be able to do that?


Mr. Patel answered I can do monthly payments or I can do a six month, whatever the city says.Mr. Galster said do you want to do it monthly over a six-month period of time, something like that?Mr. Patel said yes.Mr. Galster said to keep it simple, five equal monthly payments of $5,000.


What about the $90,000 fine for cutting the trees down?Do you have any proposal?



8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Patel said the fine is for cutting down, or if it is not replaced.Mr. Galster said the fine is because you cut down mature trees. This $25,000 is not your fine.The $25,000 is to give to the city to replant 451 caliper inches.Only 200 of them are on your site; 250 of them are somewhere else.Iím not saying that in my opinion that there is not some flexibility to move from that number a little bit, but I at least need to have some indication as to where you stand.


Mr. Vaughn reported that the 171 caliper inches is what I came up with.That was before Extended Stay put trees there.Now that they have trees, thereís not much space.


Mr. Galster said awe would have the city planner look at your site and try to plant as many trees on that site as possible.We donít want your money; we want the trees.Whatever that number is, whatever you are short you make up.Right now I am saying it is $25,000 or five payments of $5,000 apiece.Mr. Butrum said you are estimating a 250 short fall.Mr. Galster said these numbers are based on the assumption that you can plant 200 caliper inches.If you canít you will have to pay more.


Mr. Butrum said if for some reason we find out he canít because of stumps and other issues, I donít want to get too stuck on this $25,000.


Mr. Galster said on the $90,000 fine, does anybody have any comments or suggestions?


Ms. McBride responded I know you donít want to continue this matter indefinitely, but if you were to continue it for one month, we could look at it, develop a landscape plan and come up with a specific number of caliper inches that could go on the property and you could work from there.You would know specific numbers and if you are thinking of making a motion, you need to have the exact numbers, and the applicant needs to know the exact numbers or he cannot commit.


Mr. Galster said I am confident that Ms. McBride will be able to come pretty close to this 200 caliper inch total.If she is not able to, this number we are using 171, is an okay number and will put a lot of trees back in the city and is a step forward as opposed to what we have now which is a butchered site with no trees on it.We should allow the applicant to work with Ms. McBride to plant as many trees on that site as they can.


Ms. McBride reported I feel real comfortable that we can get 200 on there because you are suggesting 3 inch and we are suggesting 4 inch caliper trees and that on 39 select pears is almost another 40 caliper inches.Our landscape architect felt comfortable that she could get some additional plant material on that site.It may be possible to upsize the service barriers off that 2 Ĺ to three inches as well. There may be additional plant material that is available.






8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster said my point is that if you can get 250 on that site, I have no problem with saying that is 200 short at $100 per caliper inch for a fine of $20,000.I want a commitment from this applicant to start moving forward to plant trees as opposed to looking at a barren site.


Mr. Galster added if in fact we have 200 to 250 caliper inches and the applicant makes up the balance between $20,000 and $25,000, I have no problem with reducing his fine to a similar number and allowing continued payments to the Urban Forestry Fund so we can put more trees out there since they are a lot smaller than the large trees.


Mr. Okum said I am gong to defer to the mayor.Mayor Webster said I think that what we are talking about here is for the applicant to make restitution to the city in the way of caliper inches.Why donít we hold the fine in abeyance until the restitution is made and then reconvene, say he has lived up to the caliper inches, he has lived up to his payments to the Forestry Fund Ė now letís talk about the fine.I think we will be in a much better position then.


Mr. Okum said I think the situation is that the fine has to hold on the property until restitution of the rest of the issues have been resolved.††† I also feel that the city should not bear the cost of the landscape architect determining how many trees can go on that site.That should go back to the applicant because he created the problem.So all costs associated with our city planner and her staff have to go back to you.It should not be a city expense.


Additionally I think the requirements have to state that the stumps shall not prohibit planting; those stumps must be removed.You must clearly understand that this is something that must be undertaken now.There is no reason in the world you cannot execute an agreement with someone to start removal of the stumps.I do not want the stumps to be a delay in the process.Does that seem fair?I think it is fair.


Mr. Coleman said it sounds like we need to wait until Ms. McBride and her staff come back and tell us how many caliper inches can be planted and go from there.


Mr. Galster said I understand that we need to wait for either the applicant or the applicant via Ms. McBride to come up with how many caliper inches will fit on this site, but I donít want to wait another month to have that happen. I want to have the agreement in place, because whether or not he plants 200 or 250 caliper inches on that site isnít going to change the basic agreement and understanding.I would rather get a commitment from the applicant to start moving toward getting these trees planted than delay it and wait for a plan to be done.I want an agreement and understanding at the earliest possible date.






8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster said I donít have any problem with having a motion right now that would allow the applicant to work with Ms. McBride to find the largest number of caliper inches that can be planted on that site.Any amount of short fall shall be made up with a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund in the amount of $100 per caliper inch which will be paid over a five-month period of time in equal installments.We will hold the $90,200 penalty in abeyance until such time that the applicant has completed the plan, planted the trees and made the complete contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund.Then he can come back in and have that penalty mitigated.†† I donít want to draw more plans; I want to start having trees planted.


Mr. Coleman said I donít think we are looking at a situation of not having trees planted.We are looking at a realistic number of how many trees can be planted, and until such time as we know that, I donít know that it is absolutely fair to jump ahead.You said you have indicated a desire to go ahead and put forth penalty provisions, and I donít think we can put forth those penalty provisions until such time as we know what it is they can do.


Mr. Syfert responded we are going to put the penalty into abeyance.The fine is based on $100 per caliper inch, and that will not change.Mr. Galster added it will be that amount of money based on whatever Ms. McBride or the applicant can plant on that site.Mr. Butrum added it is a balance.We know the fine is somewhere between 451 times 100, assuming no trees, or if 451 caliper inches can magically go back on there, it is zero.It is a matter of defining a motion that says 451 caliper inches need to be accounted for, one way or the other.

Mr. Coleman responded I heard that you canít get 451 caliper inches on the site††††††† Mr. Butrum said what we can do is get the combination of those dollars and the caliper trees that can be planted combined to 451 times 100.


Mr. Okum said I think there needs to be time limits set in the motion, that he has four months or six months to complete the project, whatever it is.I encourage the person making the motion to indicate that the costs associated with all this is the responsibility of the applicant.Also, all the stumps on site have to be removed so the stumps do not block the trees.


Mr. Galster moved to allow the applicant a variance from the required 100% replacement caliper inches, based on the following:


1.      He shall supply a plan or work with our city planner and come up with a plan that will plant as many caliper inches as the site will allow, including removing stumps so that is not a limitation.

2.      That meeting and that plan shall be initiated by the applicant and completed with Ms. McBride within 30 days, so that the total caliper inches that the site can hold will be determined within 30 days.





8 MARCH 2005





3.      Any shortfall of the 451 caliper inches that need to be planted on the site shall be made up by a contribution of $100 per caliper inch to the cityís Urban Forestry Fund, based on whatever that shortfall is according to Ms. McBrideís ultimate landscape plan.

4.      That contribution shall start 30 days after the completion of the plan.

5.      The applicant shall then make equal payments for a five-month period of time on a monthly basis until the total contribution amount has been met.


That puts it at six months, so six months from now the landscape plan will have been completed, the contributions will have been made, all stumps removed, and all the new trees that the site can hold will have been planted.


At that time, the applicant will appear before this board in reference to the $90,200 penalty that has been levied for the initial removal of these trees from a protected zone.


Mr. Butrum said you mentioned earlier on that removal of any stumps that would prevent limitations of new plantings.We want the stumps to be removed regardless, right?


Mr. Okum said I think a little of both.If you grind up the stumps you have mulch in the ground and you canít plant a tree in the mulch and have to go deeper.So you either get rid of the stump and put soil in that space, or youÖ


Mr. Galster said and the stumps shall be ground and/or removed according to the landscape plan.


Mr. Butrum said I am asking if we are permitting him to leave the stumps and Mr. Okum said no, I think they should go.


Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he understood what the commission was trying to do and does he agree with what we are doing.Mr. Patel said yes.†† Mr. Galster continued you understand it, and everything is okay with you as far as the way the motion has been presented?So you agree that you will get together with Ms. McBride soon so that within 30 days of todayís date you will have a plan that will show the maximum number of trees that can be planted on your site?Do you agree that 30 days after that time you will make your initial installment in five equal monthly payments to make up whatever short fall you have at $100 per caliper inch?Do you agree that six months from this date you will have planted those trees on your site and removed all the stumps that are there?At that point, you will appear before this board again so that we can address the penalty issue that was assessed.Do you agree with those time frames and those terms?Mr. Patel said yes.








8 MARCH 2005





Ms. McBride said for clarification, your motion said that either the applicant will prepare the plan or the city planner and staff will prepare it.We are happy to review a plan that the applicant is going to put together or we are happy to do that plan.We just need some clarification, because 30 days is not a very large window.If the applicant wants to do that and wants us to review that, that is fine, but it needs to be a professionally done landscape plan.We are not going to review what we reviewed this time around.They need to be planted so many feet on center, the species and size at planting all need to be provided, or we can do that.We need clarification tonight as to how that will get done.


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said do you have a landscape architect that you would like to have make the plan, or would you like to work with Ms. McBride, pay her expense to her firm to make the landscape plan in conjunction with your input?What do you prefer?

Mr. Patel said if Ms. McBride can do it, that is fine.I can pay her firm.


Mr. Galster said so I will add an additional condition to my motion that will include that the applicant get in touch with Ms. McBrideís firm within five working days to begin the process of developing the plan.


Addressing the applicant, he said is that okay with you, and Mr. Patel said yes.


Mr. Okum seconded the motion.


Mr. Syfert asked if everybody understands the motion?Does the applicant understand the motion?Applicant indicated that he did.


On the motion, all present voted aye, and it was passed with six affirmative votes.


Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m.


B.          Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Union Savings Bank, 11333 Princeton Pike (former Cookers)


Mr. Syfert stated that this is a Conditional Use Permit, so we will have a presentation, staff comments and then open the public hearing.


John Roll, Roll & Associates stated that Union Savings Bank has purchased several restaurants and have been retrofitting them.


They need the drive-through which is why we are here this evening.They are keeping some of the elements that are there, removing the awnings.Union Savings is mostly mortgages, so most of the building is office (30% is bank).



8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Roll added that coming off Tri-County Parkway made sense, and we created additional landscaping here.The drive-through is not that used; they might get 12 people through there a day, with plenty of stacking room.We do not have to remove that tree which is not particularly healthy, but we are replacing it with three trees and a larger landscaping area.There is some landscaping that is not in good shape, and we will come back with a detailed landscape plan.


The building materials use subtle colors in keeping with the bank.


Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business (GB) and was previously occupied as a Cooker Restaurant.They want to convert it to a bank building and construct a drive-through on the north side of the building.


The parking required for a bank use is 48 spaces and there are3 123 shown on the lot.


EIFS finishes are indicated to be painted, but no colors are indicated and no color sample was submitted


No sizes were indicated on the signs so that we can determine code compliance.A ground sign is indicated at 2í x 16í = 32 s.f.The height is indicated for one side of the sign at 4í.The end of the downhill slope will be higher than 4í, but may not exceed 7í.


The plan does not show all existing trees on the site.There are three trees along Tri-County Parkway and a total of six trees along Princeton Pike.If the trees that are not shown are proposed to be removed, it should be indicated on the drawings.The site plan does not show that the landscape bed adjacent to the north side of the building will be removed.Two trees are indicated to be removed, but their size and species are not indicated.A 24Ē diameter oak tree will need to be removed to construct the proposed drive-through addition.Because the tree is located within the footprint of the addition, no replacement is required.A 5Ē tree is to be removed from a landscape bed located at the northeast part of the parking lot.A total of 5Ē of deciduous trees must be planted to replace this tree.There is an existing 4Ē tree directly adjacent to and south of the proposed dumpster enclosure.The plan shows a proposed tree to be planted in the same location.It should be clarified if the existing tree is to be removed.


A new trash enclosure will be constructed to match the building, and will be required to be located a minimum of 5í from the property line.


Ms. McBride reported that the property owner has not executed the Application for a Conditional Use Permit.The bank proposed two drive-through windows which require 5 stacking spaces each.Their plan does provide this.







8 MARCH 2005





Ms. McBride stated that they propose a new trash enclosure, an 8 foot tall brick veneer enclosure painted to match the building.Planning will need to determine if the gates should be galvanized metal as proposed, or steel reinforced wood as preferred by Staff.Landscaping around the enclosure is indicated, but not identified by species or size.


With the addition of the drive-through, some landscaping will be removed near the building and in the parking field.Prior to the issuance of a permit, a landscape plan must be approved.


If Planning wishes to approve the Conditional Use Permit, they should consider whether the dumpster enclosure should have galvanized metal or steel reinforced wood gates that a landscape plan should be approved prior to issuance of the permit, parcels should be consolidated and cross access easements recorded


Mr. Madl reported that there are two parcels that make up this redevelopment and they should be consolidated.There is no cross-parking agreement with the property to the south and this will need to be resolved.


There are areas where there is parking blocking what appears to be a drive aisle.One location is at the south end of the west drive aisle and some type of curbed area needs to be constructed to separate the parking and drive aisle.This also could be utilized as al landscaped area.


Currently there is 2490 cf of detention volume on site. If the entire site were considered undeveloped, approximately 12000 cf of detention would be required.The trench drain at the drive apron to Kemper Road will need to be repaired.


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


Mr. Okum moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.


Mr. Galster said I seem to remember when we tried to allow this cross-parking agreement several years ago.Mr. Okum said OíCharleyís wanted it and Cookers did not.I would request that a zero net value be between the two properties to have the cross easement.


Mr. Galster asked the width of the drive through aisles and Mr. Roll reported that they are 10 feet.Mr. Galster said we had Kemba add 1 foot to make it 11 feet.Ms. McBride reported that the code does not specify the width of the drive through and Planning required 11 feet at Northside Bank.Mr. Roll said by my scale, the aisles are 12 feet.







8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster commented that it seems that we have an overabundance of parking spaces, and if we can get more green space, it would be appreciated.On the south side of the building, there area 11 spaces that come up to the building and I would like to see them turn green if possible.You only need 48 spaces and there area 123.If you can expand some of the landscaping and break up the parking lot, it would b great.


Mr. Galster said the dumpster location in front of the main entrance to the building to the west will not be very attractive.Why not put the dumpster where the other two dumpsters are now?Mr. Roll answered I think it is a good idea, because we are adding all these offices.


Mr. Galster said you could move your drive aisle out and create green space around the back.


Mr. Okum said I would hate to lose the oak tree.Can you put the drive through on the other side?Mr. Roll answered it would be a big investment to move the entrance to the building.Mr. Okum said we looked at the tree today and it did not look that bad.I would like to change the drive-through, but if it totally affects the flow of your operation, I will understand.Mr. Roll responded I believe there were other issues having to do with utilities, but I will bring it up.


Mr. Okum asked if the landscape islands would be irrigated and Mr. Roll answered that there will be no change to what is there now.


Mr. Okum asked if he saw any problem with the cross easement issues, and Mr. Roll answered not that he was aware of but that he would check on it.


Mr. Galster said if we vote on the conditional use for the drive-through, can we ask that it be considered a preliminary plan and the applicant come back with a final plan.


Mr. McErlane indicated that they could, adding that the actual application is for a Conditional Use Permit.Normally we would say proposed grading plans, but there is no grading involved.The utilities are already in place, so the drive way is there.Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he had any problem with bringing back a final plan, and Mr. Roll indicated that he did not.


Mr. McErlane reported that there are improvements to the building that are being done that will necessitate some site plan change modifications and will go before Planning.


Mr. Okum said there are two items involved that would still apply the dumpster location and construction materials.†† Mr. Galster said the motion is only for the conditional use permit.Mr. Okum said I think those two items should be tied to this Conditional Use Permit.







8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster said so you would like for us to modify the motion to include that a final site plan, landscape plan, sign package and dumpster location should be submitted.Mr. Okum added that the cross easement shall be at no cost to either party, and that the dumpster be located in the southwest corner.


Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.


Mr. McErlane asked what zero cost to the adjoining property owner meant and Mr. Okum answered so that the property owner cannot restrict an agreement.Mr. McErlane responded so we are going to impose a requirement on easement agreement relative to monetary issues.He suggested that it say ďnegotiate in good faithĒ.Mr. Okum said I can withdraw the issue of zero dollar cost.


Mr. Syfert said on the cross easement, we are mixing apples and oranges with a financial institution and a restaurant.I do not see that as a condition we should impose upon them.


Mr. Galster commented right now it is wide open.It would be fine with me to have an island to funnel, but we always try to get cross easements so they donít have to go back out on the main thoroughfare.


Mr. Syfert said we are hung up and making an imposition here that is not as relative as when Cookers was there.


Mr. Galster said I will amend my motion to remove the no cost to the adjoining property owner and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.On the amendment, all present voted aye, and it was passed with six affirmative votes.


On the motion to grant the Conditional Use Permit, all present voted aye, and it was granted with six affirmative votes.


C.          Preliminary Development Plan Approval of Proposed Dental Office, 311 West Kemper Road


Jeff Pearson of Childress & Cunningham said I am representing both the Pregnancy Care Center and the Dental Office. At 309 and 311 West Kemper Road.


This area has been declared a transitional district and each applicant has submitted separately.It was recommended to have a shared access drive, and we demonstrate that to you tonight.


The Pregnancy Care Center is a non-profit support service for women.They will use the existing building and the existing garage which will be renovated.Normally there would be two to three clients at any one time, one volunteer and two full time staff members.