8 JUNE 2004

7:00 P.M.


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

  4. Members Present: Robert Apke, Steve Galster, Robert Coleman,

    Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Greg Dale, City Planner

  6. Mr. Okum volunteered to act as secretary this evening, and the commission will elect the secretary next month.

  8. Mr. Okum moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye except Mr. Apke who abstained, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that Ordinance 21 was passed by Council 6-0, the regional shopping center identification sign.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – April 20, 2004
    4. Zoning Bulletin – May 10, 2004
    5. Zoning Code Amendment to Section 153.531(D) and 153.531(1)
    1. Approval of Tri-County Mall Regional Shopping Center Identification Sign, 11700 Princeton Pike
    2. Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant called and asked for this to be tabled for an additional month while they worked on some design issues with the sign itself. Mr. Galster moved tot able and by voice vote, all voted aye. The item was tabled to July 13th.

    3. Request to Waive Water Retention Requirement – Kentucky Fried Chicken, 11701 Princeton Pike (approved 10/14/03)
    4. Mr. McErlane reported that a representative of Kentucky Fried Chicken phoned and asked to be tabled until next month. Mr. Galster moved tot able and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item as tabled to July 13th.


      Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      8 June 2004

      Page Two

    5. Approval of Modification to Final PUD Plan – Pappadeaux Restaurant, 11975 Northwest Boulevard (Approved 11/11/02)

    Dave Richards of Pappas Restaurant said we are proposing to add a patio to the approved restaurant. It will be used primarily for waiting three months of the year. It is not covered. It is basically a waiting seating area.

    The building will remain the same. Originally we had an entry walkway coming out and turning to go out to the parking. What we have done is taken that entry canopy off and the canopy will go across the patio to the drop off circle with entries on three sides of the patio. To give you a better idea of what the patio will look like,

    I took pictures of one of our patios. He passed them out to the members.

    Mr. Syfert asked if they would be serving in the patio area, and Mr. Richards answered that they would serve drinks and appetizers.

    Mr. McErlane reported that the property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development and is part of the Northwest Business Center/Pictoria PUD. Final development plan was approved the second time on this project on November 11, 2002. The original approval was 9/11/01. The applicant is proposing to add an outdoor seating area at the front (east) side of the building. Also included are changes in building elevations on the front to accommodate the change.

    We received partial building elevations which did not show the balance of the building, only the outdoor seating area. There was no new color palette submitted, but based on the photographs submitted tonight, there probably is no change to the color palette.

    The front yard setback for the building has been reduced from 115 feet to approximately 76 feet from the cul de sac at the end of Northwest Boulevard. The minimum code requirement is 50 feet so they meet that requirement.

    The parking requirement on the previously approved plan was 207 spaces. ON that plan the site accommodated 178 spaces with 29 spaces to be accommodated in the Pictoria Tower garage. That was based on 8340 s.f. of interior public area and that plan indicated 1172 s.f. of exterior patio area, which really wasn’t there. So there was some additional parking accommodated on the plan that was not a requirement. The real patio area on that plan was only 855 s.f.

    The current plan shows 1885 s.f. of outdoor patio area which results in a pubic area of 10, 225 s.f. The resulting parking requirement is 221 spaces. The plan shows 181 parking spaces on the site, which means they need to accommodate 40 parking spaces in the Pictoria Tower garage.

    You will note that they have picked up three parking spaces over what was shown previously and at the same time have expanded the patio area. They have been able to accommodate that by reducing some of the planting areas, specifically in the northwest corner of the building.

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Three


    Mr. McErlane added that one of the interior parking islands has been deleted. At the ends of several of the parking areas around the perimeter, the green area has been reduced.

    The tree replanting has changed somewhat on the site. The requirement was 126 inches of overstory hardwoods and two inches of evergreens. The previous plan showed 149 1/2 inches of overstory hardwoods, 54 inches of ornamentals and 24 inches of evergreens, after Planning stipulated that the evergreens be planted at the 10 foot minimum planting requirement.

    This plan shows 111 inches of overstory hardwoods, 77 ½ inches of ornamentals and 21 inches of evergreens, if we maintain that 10 foot minimum planting height.

    Overall the planting exceeds the number of caliper inches required for the site, even though the numbers have changed somewhat and there are fewer caliper inches being planted under this plan.

    Mr. Greg Dale of McBride Dale Clarion said my partner Anne McBride apologizes for not being here tonight. The revision would result in a reduction of the open space provided under the Planned Unit Development regulations. For this individual site, it would reduce it slightly below the 25% threshold required. Right now it is 25.3% and this would take it down to 23.18%. AT the same time, the overall open space for that PUD remains above 25%, so even though this individual site goes below, collectively the PUD is still above the 25%, within the appropriate range.

    There are a whole series of relatively minor landscaping issues. I won’t go through those, but they largely have to do with labeling a depiction of things on the plans. She is suggesting that if the commission is inclined to approve this, those be incorporated as conditions that can be addressed at the staff level.

    The building elevations didn’t address the way in which the addition would be related to and connect to the larger building. The photographs that were presented here tonight might help with that, but we would suggest that a condition be that the elevations showing the relationship to the larger building should be provided.

    As I understand it there are no changes proposed for the signage and no changes proposed for the lighting and there are considerations in Anne’s report that the commission should consider as possible conditions to any approval.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if these pictures are the same footprint, the same building that we will have here. Mr. Richards answered the actual elevations of the building are not changing at all from the original application. All we are doing is adding a patio attached to the building. Those pictures are of buildings a little bit older but everything is basically the same except for some architectural detailing.



    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Four


    Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had reviewed the considerations in Ms. McBride’s report and if he were in agreement with all of them.

    Mr. Richards responded the only one that we might have any discussion on would be the parking situation. I don’t see a problem with reserving the 40 spaces in the garage. I think originally there must have been some discrepancy, that there was absolutely no patio in the previous application. I believe what happened was that the covered walkway got defined as patio seating. There wasn’t a patio before at all.

    Also the patio is really not a building element; it is a seasonal area for three months of the year, so most people will be on that site one way or the other. The question is about adding all these other parking spaces. Mr. Okum commented you are adding 88 seats. Mr. Richards responded for three months out of the year as a waiting area. They will be either waiting inside or outside; all we are doing is adding a convenience for those people three months of the year.

    Mr. Okum asked Mr. Dale if there were general calculations for that type of use in our code or in general land use planning to accommodate this type of request.

    Mr. Dale responded not that I am aware of. I suppose you could make the argument that if they are going to be waiting, they are waiting somewhere and they may as well wait sitting down. I guess the argument would be that you really aren’t adding more people that are using more parking spaces. On the other hand, if there is more capacity for people to wait, it may tend to fill up and have even more people waiting and standing. You could look at that both ways, but you are conceivably adding capacity to this building to be able to hold people.

    Mr. Richards answered on the other hand you could define this as just an entry walkway area, an elaborate one, but that is basically what it is.

    Mr. Okum commented when you place seating in that area and have the option of serving food and drinks, I can see my family going over there for just appetizers and a drink, accommodate a parking space and not even anticipate going in to dine.

    Mr. Richards said you would be adding all those parking spaces for a couple of months out of the year that was an option. I’m not trying to be argumentative. My concern is that we have to add all these parking spaces for people that in our opinion will be there one way or another. We are just making a better environment for them to wait.

    Mr. Okum said the same applies to a restaurant that has a bar area to wait for a table to become available. Mr. Richards said ours is calculated under roof as a part of that structure.


    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Five


    Mr. Okum said I don’t think it will be an issue as long as the garage can accommodate the additional spaces. When the occupancy load for Tower I is calculated in terms of the capacity of the garage, is there enough to accommodate the 40 spaces?

    Mr. McErlane reported that there are 1100+ spaces in the garage and from a concurrent use standpoint, as far as peak times for the restaurant and the use of the garage, I don’t think there is a problem with 40 parking spaces in the garage.

    I think the real gist of it is whether or not the parking spaces provided on the site is a realistic number, based on their occupancy and the way they use it.

    In terms of the outside seating area, there are 84 seats and I doubt if 84 people would stand outside and wait for a seat. It may not generate 20-something more spaces, but it will generate additional parking requirements. It really comes down to whether or not Planning feels comfortable with 181 on site and if they do have needs for additional parking, whether or not the garage is adequate to do that.

    Mr. Okum commented considering the proximity of the garage and this particular development, it is very adaptive to utilizing the garage to access it. I wouldn’t have a problem if we could allocate those parking spaces to the garage space. Mr. McErlane reported that the garage is intended to serve the restaurants as well.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said so you are indicating that you could meet all the considerations. What about the landscaping issues. Mr. Richards answered that there are a few changes that we need to make on the plans.

    Mr. Okum continued Ms. McBride indicated some reduction in some green space on site, and I have a little bit of difficulty with that in addition to reducing the number of trees that you are planting. Are you willing to adapt and adjust to those shortfalls?

    Mr. Richards answered I don’t know if we can adapt to the lack of green space area, but we can definitely adapt to getting back up to 126 inches of overstory hardwood. We thought we were there, and it was a definition issue. Some of them were calculated as ornamentals, and getting back up to 126 is not an issue.

    Mr. Hawkins asked how the patio area would be lit. Specifically, would there be anything that would illuminate the area beyond the strands of light bulbs shown on the pictures.. Mr. Richards answered no. It all will be internally lit. The lights from those specific strands are what lights the patio.

    Mr. Coleman said I am concerned because I wonder what would happen if there are 100 people in the outdoor area, and you are saying only 88 would have seats. Would seats be brought from the inside to accommodate more people. What would prevent the patrons from bringing out seats?

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Six


    Mr. Richards said they could stand out there. We can‘t force them inside the building, but in the original layout, there is a bar area intended for waiting and drinking. There is also a lounge area off the bar which is also intended for waiting. We do have enough waiting area, and the building is laid out so that in the cold winter days, we are not forcing people out of the building to wait, because they won’t do that.

    Mr. Coleman commented I like the concept in and of itself, but I am concerned about the overflow. Eighty-eight people sitting outside could very well go into a whole lot more people standing and we may end up with a lot more than 88 people on the patio.

    Mr. Richards said all I can say is that we don’t expect there to be a problem with that. We have patios on 18-20 restaurants right now. We have restaurants of this size with two to three hour waits, and that has never been an issue. If you are not comfortable on the patio, you will move inside; it is the way people react to their space environment.

    Mr. Coleman added I heard you say that this additional parking was for only three months, and I am wondering how you would define the season of the patio; it could be warm in April and you would have more than three months.

    Mr. Richards answered three months here are different from three months in Houston. In the middle of summer in Houston no one will use that patio when it is 110 degrees and 100% humidity. The way we have it in Chicago and Denver, it is your summer months. The minute it drops below 60, most people don’t go out there, and we have the area inside the building to make them comfortable. .

    Mr. Galster said I think it is attractive addition and an asset to the site. It is well done and well landscaped. I agree with the applicant in that you need to make decisions as to whether or not you park the place properly; otherwise you lose business. If it’s too long a wait or they can’t find a parking spot, they will find another restaurant to go to.

    I don’t know if we have a requirement for your employees to park in the garage from our previous approval. Mr. Richards responded if the issue becomes that the parking lot fills up and the patrons are going into the garage, the next day our employees will park in the garage. We have done that in a couple of locations, because we want our patrons as comfortable as possible and as close as possible to that front door.

    Mr. Galster said there is a question on the size of the evergreens, whether or not they were the 10 foot minimum height. Mr. Richards indicated that was not a problem. Mr. Galster said otherwise I look forward to it getting open.

    Mr. Okum suggested that the landscaping in the patio area be counted as part of their green space, and Lani Wess of Woolpert reported that it is already included in the calculations.

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Seven


    Mr. Okum asked if they would have a problem keeping the string lighting in the patio area below the walls, so they are not hung above them..

    Mr. Richards answered that the problem is that the top of the walls are 11 feet at the very top. If you lower the bulbs, people will start messing with them. Mr. Okum asked how high they would be above the walls, and Mr. Richards answered that it is mounted from 14-16 feet down to right above the wall height.

    Mr. Okum asked if they could be shaded or globed. Mr. Richards answered most of the landscaping will take care of it. Mr. Okum said except for during the winter time. Those look like 150 watt incandescent light bulbs. Could there be some type of globe work or something ornate to shield them down

    Mr. Richards responded the problem is that the patio wouldn’t get an even spread of light. Then you would be creating spots on the patio and would have to add more lights to the patio to light it evenly. If we have the general lighting across the top of it, you would get more spread lighting across the patio.

    Mr. Okum said during the summer time when it is fully foliaged in, I don’t have a problem. The illustrations you provided show fully grown mature trees around the patio area, and I don’t believe our landscaping plan has that, and it will be some time before it is fully surrounded by green. During the winter time it will be four walls and a lot of light bulbs in the trees.

    Mr. Syfert asked if they would be on in the winter time and Mr. Richards answered yes, it is our entryway. For safety reasons and for the look of the restaurant, they have to be on. There won’t be a huge spread of light coming out of that patio. You will get more light from the parking lot lighting than from those bulbs.

    Mr. Okum responded I understand why you can’t keep it below the wall line height. What if you changed those bulbs out? I would like to see some limit on those bulbs, 150 watt clear lights. Mr. Richards said we have 100 watt bulbs in there but the first time someone slips on that patio, we are liable for not lighting the patio enough. The only thing those bulbs are supposed to do is light the patio. They are not an attraction feature from the street. We can limit them to 100 watt bulbs. Mr. Okum suggested they be opaque in color, the red and green you have now. Mr. Richards answered that is fine.

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that on the originally approved site plan at the entryway the vehicles could enter off Northwest Boulevard, drop off, circle around and exit out the same entryway. With this configuration, they can still drop off at the entryway, but they will not be able to make that turn to exit back out that same drive. They will have to continue on to the south and either exit out to the common drive adjacent to Bahama Breeze or circle all the way around the building to exit back out Northwest Boulevard.


    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Eight


    Mr. Shvegzda added that on the south side of the building, there is a difference from what is shown on the site plan versus the landscape plan. On the site plan it is indicated that a handicap ramp is located in a five-foot strip along the parking area. On the landscape plan, it is noted as a raised curb island area, and we need clarification on this.

    The parking drive aisle to the west of the building now has a pedestrian walkway that crosses over. In the prior approved plans, the walkway on the west side of the drive aisle was within a raised concrete median type area. That has been eliminated, and it is now adjacent to the parking stall.

    The other issue is the offset in the parking is such that it is about 14 feet. There is a 14-foot jog. Previously it was there, but it was only about one-half of that. That highlights the concern that the placing of the raised concrete median provides some kind of protection for particularly that first parking stall as you are heading south.

    It would be our recommendation that the raised concrete curbed island be placed back.

    Mr. Richards said it actually will be a brick walkway that will be at driveway height. We removed this for two reasons. One is that we would have to add ramp into it which would bring it back down to the lower level. The other reason is because we were having a problem with the turning radius. We can put it in, but it will be destroyed. That was more the reason why we took it out. We will put it back in; it is not an issue. The issue is that it will get run over.

    Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda for suggestions. Mr. Shvegzda said if the island is constructed sufficiently, if it is something more substantial than just the curbs at the end, it should be able to survive the dumpsters traveling over it. I know the wheel turning radius plan but we didn’t look at it in regards to how it would affect the island there. Part of the reason why it is an issue now is because of the additional offset in the parking.

    Mr. Richards responded not at all. We were going to see if we could get rid of it before we started messing around with it. The issue is that the truck drivers just don’t care about islands. They will drive over islands in a heart beat. That one specifically concerned us about the turning radius and them destroying it. I’ll put it back in, and we’ll make it as foolproof as possible, but the problem is that now you have a ramp at the end of that island to get that walkway back up to the island level. What we are creating is two little points at the end of that island, which we could fill in with concrete all day and they will just demolish.

    Mr. Shvegzda commented I think there are probably ways to work around. Rather than having a separate vertical curb at that point, to have it all be a solid concrete with the handicap ramp incorporated in that solid piece of concrete.



    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Nine


    Mr. Richards said I don’t want to argue about it; we can do it. Mr. Okum added I have seen areas where you can raise it up and have delineation to curb and bring it down. There are pavers to the left side, so they could carry pavers directly across as you indicated, like one of those speed humps, a higher area. Would that accomplish that?

    Mr. Shvegzda responded so you are actually talking about having some elevation difference across the parking drive aisle. It is a possibility. Mr. Okum added that paver area, which would separate for pedestrians, would definitely be identified by an increase in elevation all the way across the drive aisle. I am not saying raise it a lot; I am saying raise it some to get that separation, four or five inches.

    Mr. Richards commented I better pour that whole island concrete and put that ramp in, because now you are talking about a hump in the middle of the parking lot where if a Miada goes over it the wrong way and rips their tail pipe off, I am liable for it.

    Mr. Okum said I think you can work it out with staff, but staff is saying that they would like to see something there. Mr. Richards said that is fine.

    Ms. Wess said I want to let you know that the walkway is the high point along that drive right now. Mr. Okum commented if it is a five foot flat area on top, because of the width of sidewalk, it definitely would have a separation feel. I think you can work it out with staff and come up with a resolution to it.

    Mr. Okum said I would like to have some clarity on what Mr. Shvegzda indicated about what used to be a turn in and turn out situation at the entry at the cul de sac. Now it appears that it will be more of an in only with going out at the common drive by Bahama Breeze.

    Mr. Richards said this used to come in and was separated from the main driveway. It could be used as two-way traffic because of that island in the middle. Now because there is no room for that island, all they will be able to do is drop off. It won’t be used as a pick up area because it will be basically one way.

    Mr. Okum said I can see a person being able to come in and turn left, but if I was trying to go out going north, I would have to be careful at that curb turning right into that cul de sac. I see some difficulty with that because of the cars coming in.

    Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, he said if there were cars parked in that unloading area, I would tend to bring my car more to the east as I’m turning, which would clip that corner and force me more to the east side of that roadway. If I were a car going north out of that exit and wanted to turn right there, I would see some difficulty at that a congested point. Maybe it is wider than it looks, but it does narrow down to a standard 24-foot aisle way in that section. Is that where you are saying that it becomes more of an entry than an in and out entry?

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Ten


    Mr. Shvegzda responded that north/south drive aisle through that parking lot area towards the east of the site remains the same. That has always been there. There was room enough, almost like a small round about, that people would be able to drop off, circulate around and exit back out the drive to Northwest Boulevard. Now they will not be able to turn the 180 degree there and exit back out, but will have to continue to the south. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. It is just a change from what was originally presented.

    Mr. Okum said if there are cars parked unloading along that front, and there are three cars parked there and I am coming in that entrance, wouldn’t that hold me? I guess it does work. You are saying that it still functions as an in and an out, it just would be a little tighter than before.

    Mr. Shvegzda answered certainly if you have more than one or two cars there; it may be an issue, but only in that case. Mr. Okum wondered if there were a stop sign at the corner. Ms. Wess reported that entering the cul de sac there is a stop sign. Mr. Okum said so there would be a stop sign for the cars entering the cul de sac and they wouldn’t back up into the aisle way.

    Ms. Wess showed the drawing indicating car movement and there is plenty of room to turn in either area. This aisle way is wider than 24 feet, and that is where people drop off.

    The issue of about being able to turn around here and go back out is difficult. Mr. Richards said it is not an option at all. Mr. Okum sand people turning in are intending to find a place to park. Typically if they don’t find a place, they’ll end up out of the lot and going someplace else. Mr. Richards said that is not a good option.

    Mr. Shvegzda said we need to remember that we do have a number of different access points to the site that don’t necessarily go out to the public roadway. We have one that goes back into Karlo’s and two that enter onto the common drive for Bahama Breeze.

    Mr. Vanover asked if it would be beneficial at the northern radius if they pulled that nose back in and widen the throat? Mr. Shvegzda answered it would open the throat but also might reduce some of the landscaping area. We do have an existing drive apron that is there and has been established, and that would cause that to have to be modified.

    Mr. Okum moved to approve the minor changes to the PUD to include items submitted this evening and previously to the board and staff. This motion shall include all city engineer, city planner and staff’s recommendations. The string light fixtures in the patio enclosed area shall not exceed 100 watts and shall be opaque in color. The landscaping conditions shall be concurrent with staff review and clarification. The evergreens are to be planted at a minimum 10’ height as originally presented. The elevation changes only pertain to the entry canopy and patio area in concept with those photos provided.

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    8 June 2004

    Page Eleven


    Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

    All members voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

    1. Approval of Zoning Change, Springdale Elementary School, 350 West Kemper Road

Amanda Baker reported we have submitted a request on behalf of the Princeton School District to change the zoning at Springdale Elementary School. The school district has purchased six additional parcels adjacent to the existing school and we would like to rezone those from their current Residential Single Household – Low Density to Public Facilities so that we can use that additional property for the construction of a new elementary school to replace the current building.

Mr. Syfert asked if they had closed on the properties, and Fred Pensinger of the Princeton School District reported that we have closed on four of the properties and have reached an agreement with the church on their property.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant proposes to change the zoning district designation on six existing parcels, 4.03 acres total from Residential Single Household – Low Density (RSH-L) to Public Facilities Low Density (PF-L) for the construction of a new school building. IN addition to these 4+ acres, the school board currently owns 10 acres that currently is zoned PF-L.

There is one property of the six not currently owned by the school, the church property at 326 West Kemper Road. There is a section in the code that allows the City Council to adopt zoning amendments upon the recommendation of Planning Commission without their being a petition by the current property owner to do so.

The site plan is conceptual. The new building itself will be located on these 4.03 acres that are being rezoned. It is conceptual in nature, but relative to setbacks, the applicant has met all the setbacks with the exception of the rear parking, which has a joint parking and access agreement with the city through the existing parking lot that is there currently. That will be maintained in its current location.

As a point of information, we have determined the setbacks based on an assumption that the parcels that make up the school property right now will be consolidated. Even though there are six parcels that we are talking about rezoning, there are a number of other parcels that are on the property. The old platted parcels from the Baldwin Subdivision still exist, primarily in the parking lot of the school property. There are 66’ x 130’ lots there that would need to be consolidated into one parcel. There is also public right of way that still exists in that parking lot that needs to be vacated and consolidated.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Twelve


Mr. McErlane reported that parking required is one space for every three seats in the auditorium and a total of 160 spaces are shown. Based on the calculations on the plans, the required parking is 131 spaces so they exceed the requirement.

The maximum permitted building height is 50’ and the plans look to be approximately 44’ in height. It is our understanding that the existing school building will remain in place for a period of time and be utilized for classes after completion of the new school to accommodate the rebuilding of other schools in the district. This means that there will be an additional need for parking because the existing school will be in some of the proposed parking area.

Mr. Dale reported that the first issue raised in Ms. McBride’s report is the inconsistency in the square footage information. I think the plans indicate a little over 4,400 s.f. but the letter refers to 6600 square feet. Ultimately the commission will want to have it clarified.

From a planning and zoning perspective, I think it is important to keep in mind that what is being proposed here is a zone change. In other words, the site plan is not subject to approval as part of this process. It is there for information purposes and Anne had provided a number of good comments that are really a heads up to the applicant in terms of things that will have to be addressed in the site plan review.

What you are doing now is making a recommendation on the zone change. On that point it is important to look at from a broader land use perspective. As Anne points, out the Comprehensive Plan actually recommends low density residential for this property, so technically this proposed zone change is not inconformity with the plan. But, what Anne also acknowledges is at the time when the community went through the comprehensive plan update process, the expansion and relocation of the school was not anticipated. Anne’s perspective is that it would be appropriate to consider this zone change in spite of that inconsistency, but it is something that the commission should be aware of.

There are a number of other comments, primarily as a heads up. For example, we don’t know if 25% open space requirement and the 50% impervious surface area requirements are met, particularly because of the inconsistency of the numbers, but those will have to be complied with.

Other things that the applicants will need to address are the issue of the current school being used as a swing site for at least a couple of years. While other schools are being worked on, this property would be used and the commission will need more information in terms of how that will work, drop off, pick up, student parking, faculty parking, etc.

There is the issue of the multiple parcels, and there is a zoning issue there that the applicant needs to be aware of. That is if those parcels aren’t consolidated, thee probably will be the need for some variances.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Thirteen


Mr. Dale added we would concur with Mr. McErlane’s perspective that it is better off to get those parcels consolidated and go through the street vacation process for the paper street, the public right of way that still exists through there.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is a service area on the north end of the proposed school and we need to know how they would access that. It was confirmed that they will access it via Walnut Street. There is no intention of going through the common parking area there behind Springdale Police Department.

There is a proposed sidewalk that will be constructed along Kemper Road from the eastern terminus of the existing sidewalk to the eastern limits of the school property. There is an area where the sidewalk comes off the public sidewalk that will be running adjacent to the southern end of the guest parking lot area so there would be easy access for pedestrians.

The proposed detention area is located at the northeast corner of the school property. It is noted that an ornamental metal fence will be enclosing the detention area. We have indicated that there may be some flexibility with the detention volumes if it would make it a safer and more aesthetically pleasing slope out of the detention basin and towards the school.

When Walnut Street reconstruction took place and the sidewalk was reconstructed in that area, it was constructed between the new back of curb and the western face of the existing school. Therefore, part of that is outside of the public right of way. The applicant intends to salvage the sidewalk between Kemper and the proposed bus entrance. We would request a sidewalk easement to cover that one to 1 ½ foot sliver outside the public right of way.

On Kemper Road, there are two westbound lanes. Particularly at Walnut, that outside lane is very narrow, and it always has been an issue. If there is any consideration for future widening on that, additional right of way would be required and we requested that 10 feet of additional right of way be provided along the Kemper Road frontage. The applicant has submitted plans noting that it is 10 feet of potential right of way, so that needs to be clarified.

Mr. Okum said prior to deliberating on this, I need to advise the Planning Commission and the applicant that I was on the selection committee for the architects and the engineering firms that have been selected to perform this project. I haves no problem with expressing my opinion and being deliberate in my deliberations, but if the applicant feels that if any way I would take the information and misuse it or in appropriately judge the applicant based on my experience with the school district, I would want this commission and the applicant to indicate this. Also, my firm has contracted for two projects for the school district in the past two years. It won’t change how I deliberate on issues, but I do want you to have the opportunity to express your opinion and if you have a problem, I will step aside.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Fourteen


Mr. Syfert commented I have no problem; does anyone else? No one did. He asked if the applicant had any problem, and they did not.

Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant intended to consolidate all these parcels into one, and Mr. Penzinger answered that it would be much better to have them all consolidated. Mr. Syfert said once it’s consolidated, we can proceed with the vacating of the street, is that correct?

Mr. McErlane reported that it would need to be vacated so that they have those parcels to consolidate.

Mr. Okum asked if that would be a part of our motion this evening or a motion after the zoning change. Mr. McErlane responded I don’t know that the rezoning has any bearing on it. You could make it a condition of the site development plan approval when it comes forward.

Mr. Okum said as Mr. Dale indicated, this is strictly a zoning change. In my opinion the fact that they haven’t made the purchase yet; it is the only parcel not in the group, it would be a public facility use anyway since it is currently a church.

Mr. Dale added that before the Zoning Code as amended, schools were permitted uses in that zoning. It is only because they were removed that they now need this zoning change.

Mr. Galster moved to allow the zoning change on the requested five pieces of property, six parcels as requested to Public Facilities Low Density, understanding that this is a variation from the Comprehensive Plan but keeping in mind that the Comprehensive Plan originally anticipated the school to stay in its existing location and to properly buffer the school and its surrounding activities with a retail center. Based on the new information and the relocation of the school I believe it still follows the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommend this to Council. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

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

B. Approval of Zoning Change – Heritage Hill Elementary School, 11961 Chesterdale Road

Ms. Baker reported that in light of the fact that a school currently exists on the two parcels owned by Princeton City School District, and we are planning on demolishing that building and replacing it with a new facility, we want to align the zoning classification of that property. It currently is Conditional Use on a Residential Single Household High Density classification, and we would like to ask that the properties be rezoned to reflect the school usage as Public Facilities – Low Density.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Fifteen


Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant proposes to change the zoning district designation on two existing parcels that total 9.482 acres from Residential Single Household – High Density and one existing .671 acre parcel on Residential Multi-Household – High Density to Public Facilities – Low Density for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building in its place.

The site plan is conceptual, but it appears that it meets all the setback requirements. The parking is shown at 160 spaces and based on calculations provided on the plans, required parking is 134. Maximum building height permitted is 50, and the proposed building is approximately 44 feet.

The school is currently located in a FEMA flood hazard zone and all the construction will need to comply with the City’s flood control ordinance and FEMA regulations.

Mr. Dale stated that procedurally you have the same situation here as in the previous one. It is a straight zone change. The site plan is essentially background information. Our belief is that this one is even more straightforward than the previous one. Not only does the zone change bring it into conformity with the use, it brings it into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan (it recommends public institutional on that property).

Anne has outlined a number of other related issues, but the best we can tell right now is that the parking requirements appear to be met, the open space impervious surface, the height appear to be met. Anne has provided a list of the kind of information that would need to be submitted as part of the site plan, but this is straightforward from a zone change perspective.

Mr. Shvegzda said on the driveway to Chesterdale Road, the sidewalk is noted to be adjacent to that driveway location and is indicated to be eight foot in width and separated from the entrance drive via a vertical curb. The current sidewalk is separated from the drive via a guardrail. We need to see how separating the pedestrians from the vehicular traffic will be accomplished.

Eventually additional information will be needed on the sufficiency of the radius for the right turns from the bus parking area out to Chesterdale. This is particularly important to make sure that the buses can make the right turn and remain in the proper lane, so when we review the site plan, we will need additional verification of that turning radius.

It appears that the proposed elevation of the new school is set three feet above the current low point on Chesterdale Road, so that is an additional insurance that the flooding problems that have occurred in the school in the past won’t occur. It would have to go over the top of Chesterdale Road before it starts flooding into the building.

The only proposed modification to the existing signal on Chesterdale would be to move the traffic loop because of the reconfiguration of the lanes back on the driveway.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Sixteen


Mr. Shvegzda reported there is an area provided for detention, which will flow in from the creek into the detention area, so it is a little different than what is typically utilized, but there must be a detail design on that.

Fences are between the various play fields and the creek area and they are five feet tall and vinyl coated chain link. There is a break in the fence line that leads into an outdoor classroom, a concrete paved area with a 30 inch concrete wall. It has been indicated that because of budgetary constraints, that may not be in the final plan. So, we are assuming that the fence will be continuous through that area.

It is noted on the zoning plan that erosion protection of the type of the Beaver Run Creek restoration project will be utilized at various locations along the creek bank and across the frontage of the school property. They will be working with the apartment complex to get permission for access, since some of that is on the other property.

Mr. Vanover said the fence is in that field, and knowing that area and saying it will not flood again is questionable. Those fences will take some punishment from the water. They also will increase the clean up because stuff will be hanging on them. Do you really need that down there? It is something to think about. We know that creek; we have had two 500-year storms since I have been there (23 years).

Ms. Baker responded you made a very good point. The initial placement of that fence was because we have playgrounds as well as play fields down in that direction. The teachers talk about balls going that way and the children not wanting to go get them back. That is a good point, and we will have to take that back and rethink it. Mr. Vanover suggested vegetation which might be more resilient, or it might take some reconfiguration around the building.

Mr. Okum said I do have a couple of concerns regarding the rear yard and side yard setbacks based on the preliminary elevation drawings. There are single story ranches, and it appears that there are two-story elevations and higher going against those properties. That setback is fairly tight and there is no buffer. Besides that, preliminarily I think it is going in the right direction. I have to concur with Mr. Vanover’s comments regarding the flooding. I don’t know the answer, abut it is definitely a challenge. You can anticipate that parts of those fields are going to flood, whether the building does or not on a recurring basis by nature of that creek line.

Mr. Apke moved to recommend to Council the approval of the rezoning of the 10.153 acres at 11961 Chesterdale Road from Residential Single Household – High Density and Residential Multi-Household – High Density to Public Facilities – Low Density. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Seventeen


Mr. Syfert asked when this would be on the Council agenda and Mr. Galster answered it needs a public hearing but it probably will be in August, the 18th. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked when they anticipated the preliminary plans being brought in and Ms. Baker answered probably late summer.

    1. Approval of Tri-County Mall Renovation, 11700 Princeton Pike

John Ruda with Urban Retail Properties representing Tri-County Mall said we are requesting the modification to the PUD for the property.

Mr. Syfert asked the Council members of Planning Commission if this should be considered a major modification and therefore go to City Council.

Mr. Galster responded while I consider it a major modification to the actual facility, I don’t believe it is a major modification to the PUD’s intent, so I am okay with it staying here. Mr. Vanover said I could concur. Mr. Syfert said so it will be handled at this level.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane stated that basically that means that it doesn’t get referred back to Council for a modification to the original PUD plan. So, your next step after tonight’s meeting would be to develop new development plans and bring them back to Planning Commission for final approval.

Mr. Ruda said our proposal is to modify Tri-County Mall by the

addition of two restaurants at the front of the center, a modification of the ring road and the entrance drives and the addition of an out parcel location for a financial institution.

The two restaurants at the front of the property are Carabbas and Cheeseburger in Paradise. We have indicated those building elevations on the overall plan elevation. We have some sample boards and photos of the existing build outs of those tenants for review.

At this point of time, we do not have elevations or plans to submit regarding the financial institution out parcel location. This is simply due to the fact that we are in the midst of negotiations with several potential tenants. However, we felt it was important to present it all to you for a minor or major change to the plan.

Mr. McErlane reported that the current zoning is Planned Unit Development, which is the Tri-County Mall PUD adopted in 1988 or 1989. The applicant is proposing to construct two new restaurant buildings directly adjacent to the main mall entrance and a bank building at the corner of Kemper Road and Princeton Pike.

We did receive a color pallet for the Carabbas Restaurant but we did not receive one for the Cheeseburger in Paradise Restaurant. I think the importance of that is to give Planning Commission a handle on what those colors actually will look like. The rendering showing the overall building elevations differs somewhat from the renderings for the individual restaurants.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Eighteen


Mr. Ruda reported I do have a small sample board with paint chips of the proposed colors, as well as copies of photos of existing Cheeseburger in Paradise Restaurants, which are better than the photos originally submitted for review. He distributed the photos to the members.

Mr. McErlane stated that on the overall site plan, the bank canopy is shown within the setback lines, and it is the staff’s recommendation that the bank meet the setback requirements.

The signs are shown on the drawings, but there are no details as to the size, so we would not recommend approval of the signs until we get the details for them. I would expect them to come in with the final plan stage.

Mr. Vanover asked if there are any proposed additional curb cuts for the financial institution, and Mr. Ruda indicated that there were not.

Mr. Dale reported that the restaurants and financial institutions are permitted uses in the district. There are some parking issues that will ultimately have to be clarified by our calculations based on what we haves right now. They are providing 6213 spaces, but they would require 6314 so they are just under. In the grand scheme of things, Anne’s perception is that it is a pretty small gap, but it is one that the commission should be aware of and can act on.

The information with regard to the waste facilities, where they will be located and how they will be screened for the new uses will have to be addressed. Also as I understand it there have been discussions with the applicant on the possibility of carry out food locations at both of the restaurants, but there is nothing detailed on the site plan. If that is going to be the case whether it is pick up parking or drop off that is something that will need to be addressed.

Mr. Ruda responded that in our initial discussions with the tenant they had proposed the take out food service where you call ahead and they bring the food out to your car. They had asked us if it could be accomplished on the restaurant side of the driveway. Initially we were very hesitant to do that, because we as the property owners feel that prohibits traffic. After we took a further look at it with comments from staff, we were able to tell the tenant that it will not work. It is not an ideal solution for everybody. In other centers around the country where restaurants have attempted to do this, what we typically will do is identify some parking spaces in the general parking field and they will be signed for 15-minute pick up for take out orders for certain designated hours, and that usually solves that problem.

The original submissions included some drive up pickup areas adjacent to the tenants and we eliminated those on the revised plans.

Bob Rich of BHP Architecture said to clarify, I think the restaurant still desire to have take out.. Mr. Ruda added that the customer will need to park their car and go into the restaurant.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Nineteen


Mr. Dale added that there are a series of more detailed requirements that will have to be met ultimately, and those are pointed out in the staff report. Detailed landscaping plans, building elevations and signage will have to be provided for each.

Under the code the drive through windows at the financial institution would require fives stacking spaces and those would haves to be delineated on the site plan.

It doesn’t look like there are any changes to the exterior lighting plan for the mall, but if there are, those would have to be detailed.

There is a drop off facility in front of the mall that is being proposed. It looks to us as if it should be designated for one-way north traffic pattern.

The site plan submitted for the financial institution shows the drive through facility facing West Kemper Road. What Anne has suggested is flipping that .and putting the drive through facility on the north side so it is not up against Kemper but is more on the interior of the site. That is something that can be detailed on the final development plan.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that looking at the revised geometrics for the ring road, we utilized criteria for urban streets based on 20 miles per hour and with that in mind the minimum radius recommended was 195 foot. The applicant has revised it somewhat and has noted the radii that are in the center part of this relocated ring road as 175 foot. However, the adjoining radii on either end are not dimensioned, but it looked to be about 80 feet.

In extending those radiuses out to what they need to be, it almost looks like the preferred relocation would be to extend the ring road in the area north of restaurant #1, which would be from the ring road west of Lazarus in a straight line to where it has been pushed to the west. That would deal with the geometric issues and considering the possibility of a separate parking area for the take out service that could have been used for that. There will not be parking adjacent to the restaurants for take out service.

Because of the proximity of the drop off area to the mall to the intersection of the drive out to S.R. 747 and the ring road, it is very critical that be noted as a one way entrance northbound to the drop off area to keep conflicting movements out of that area.

The previously approved PUD plan noted continuous inbound movement from the driveway to the ring road. We looked at the site and there is actually a three way stop there, so you do have inbound traffic stopping. The preliminary plans indicate that the ring road inbound traffic will be continuous movement. With the reconfiguring of the ring road, approximately 31 feet of that driveway length is being eliminated.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Twenty


Mr. Shvegzda added that on the parking in the area and the access to the ring road adjacent to the drive entrance from 747, the drive aisle closest to the north and south of the drive entrance is being closed off and the ring road rerouted to the next drive aisle north and south. So it is being moved approximately 60 feet in each direction, and this is very beneficial from the standpoint of eliminating the confusing aspect of having additional intersections so close to the major intersection. This is very important to maintain an efficient movement at this intersection.

On the traffic overall, the city traffic engineer has provided an analysis on the effect on the entrance and the signalized intersection at 747. There is no degradation in the level of service and a slight increase in the time of delay at that intersection, which appears to be acceptable. However the reduction in the length of the entrance drive makes it that much more of a critical issue to maintain the efficient flow of in bound traffic onto the ring road. The elimination of that inbound stop sign is critical to that as well as the geometric design for the relocated ring road.

Concerning the bank, there is no designated main access shown and we need clarification on how that would be designated via signage.

In terms of storm water management, Tri-County Mall has over 168,000 cubic feet of detention via two large underground detention chambers. When you consider the footprints of the expanded restaurant areas and the bank, the amount of detention required will be about 2600 cubic feet. Considering the amount of detention that Tri-County Mall is currently providing and the relatively small area of the footprints of the proposed building, it would be our recommendation that additional detention not be required. Considering the whole site as undeveloped and what the requirement would be for volume of detention for a brand new site, they currently are providing just fewer than 70% of what would be required.

Mr. Okum said I understand the number of parking spaces and how this falls under, and I am encouraged to see Tri-County Mall doing things to keep it vibrant. I strongly advocate supporting the businesses and helping make them successful, but I do have some concerns on that area of the mall. On a consistent basis, that is the most difficult area of the mall to get a parking space. That is on a regular day, not even during the holiday season. I hope you can come up with some solutions that would deal with that. You do have enormous amounts of parking space in the back parking area and the garages, but in this area where we are going to increase the transient amount of traffic, I am concerned. I know that the mall needs that influx; I know other malls are doing that to encourage development, but I want to make sure that people don’t get so frustrated that they don’t want to come to the mall because of the congestion.

I am glad to see some of the changes you made to the ring road, those two driveways adjacent to the main entry. That is important.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Okum said additionally I do have some concerns regarding the building elements on Cheeseburger in Paradise. It has a big water tank appearance that has been constructed to the building, and although Carabbas has a landscape feature element on the building, that building can be utilized for other uses if Carabbas didn’t make it. I do think that we need to be concerned that if Cheeseburger in Paradise wouldn’t make it, we would have a major building element on the front of that mall that could be a negative to the mall long term. We need to consider that if Cheeseburger in Paradise has building elements that are specific and unique to their construction, we should address that in the planning stages so that we don’t end up with a box and a water tank setting on top of it.

Mr. Ruda responded I would have to say that in the retail game, the worst case scenario if Cheeseburger in Paradise opens up and goes out of business two years later, I would think that is a prime ideal location that would be snatched up by any other retailer, whether it were a restaurant or another retailer. We are trying to enhance Tri-County Mall, and the movement in retail is towards streetscape. Each tenant is given its presence and its identity individually as opposed to 10 years ago all shopping centers looked the same from the outside. Now everybody wants to be outside on the street with their presence. Should this tenant have a problem and go out of business, somebody else who comes in would most likely change the façade of that building in its entirety.

Mr. Okum said I agree with that. The key is what you do with those building elements while it is vacant and how that appears to the general public who uses that as a primary entry into your mall. We do have covenants on that site that could apply to that, which certain things are done to that facility if that business were not successful. Before it comes back in for final, these items should be addressed.

I have gone to Carabbas, but if you could supply us with some Cheeseburger in Paradise locations, maybe we could go look at them. The color pallet is pretty important but seeing the actual building would be best.

I do concur with Ms. McBride’s recommendation that the drive through should be moved to the east side so they do not front on Kemper Road.

Are you planning on repainting the façade on the front of the building at the same time? Mr. Rich answered that is a fairly new concept used by Jimmy Buffet, and it is not supposed to be repainted. Mr. Okum said it needs cleaning desperately; it is very dated looking.

Mr. Hawkins asked if the access to the restaurant would be from the street or from inside the mall. Mr. Ruda answered that it is from the exterior; they do not have an opening into the mall. The Carabbas entrance is on the short side elevation, facing the court we are creating between the two restaurants. Cheeseburger in Paradise is a little bit further on the corner, but they both are exterior entrances.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Vanover said on the storm water detention, we have the capacity. Do we need to look at the timing of the outflow? Is there any control release on this?

Mr. Shvegzda reported that both of these underground detention basins do have a restrictive outlet they capture the water that is upstream tributary to them and release it at a slower rate, so they do control the rate of runoff from the site.

Mr. Vanover asked if it would need to be adjusted. We just spent several hundred thousand dollars in the creek. Mr. Shvegzda responded realistically they are fairly throttled down that if you get it any more, it will make it more of a maintenance issue for cleaning out that release structure. We are at the lower end of what really can be done there.

Mr. Okum said there are six 25’ evergreens on the front of the building that will be removed. Since it is an existing structure, the code calls for 100% replacement of size and dimension. It appears you have added trees across the front. Mr. Rich responded we need to calculate the difference, but we are adding green space at the curb line with trees. We have proposed to add more trees than we are taking out. . The green space affected is very minimal. Mr. Okum said I’m not talking quantity; I am talking dimension. Mr. Rich answered we are taking some pine trees out that were planted in 1990. Mr. Okum said on your final plan, these would be calculated. I just want to make sure that those trees are addressed.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the preliminary plan for the Tri-County Mall Expansion #200400-1 -012 to include staff’s comments and exhibits as presented, including elevations and site plan drawings. It also will include all staff’s recommendations. In addition to that motion, I would like to include that traffic and street improvements shall be in agreement with staff and that the applicant shall provide and justify parking allowances for the Princeton side for increased uses in the area. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Rich said we would like to clarify the staff comments. On the configuration of the ring road north of the restaurants, I do not know what the recommendation was or if there was one, but there was an observation about the alignment.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there was a recommendation with regard to working closer to the 190 foot radius and essentially create the straight section between the existing ring road west of Lazarus and the proposed relocated section. Mr. Rich said so the recommendation was to meet the 190 foot radius. Mr. Shvegzda responded add a minimum, and it probably would come very close to approximating that straight line.

Mr. Okum said my motion says that traffic and street improvements are to be in agreement with staff. I’m putting it in staff’s hands to work it out with you so it can be resolved prior to final plan submittal. Mr. Richards agreed, and all members voted aye and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 June 2004

Page Twenty-Three

  2. Mr. Galster reported that Ms. McBride is working with Mr. Dale to come up with dates for the BZA/Planning Workshop. Mr. Dale reported we have provided four different dates to your legal counsel who is also going to participate, and we are waiting to hear back. They all are in August, the 9th 19th, 16th and the 30th.



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Apke seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________2004 ______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,2004 ________________________

David Okum, Acting Secretary