7:00 P.M.



  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

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

    Huddleston, David Okum, Tom Vanover,

    Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

    Dick Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  6. Mr. Vanover moved for adoption and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye except Mr. Syfert who abstained, and the minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that Council approved the zoning changes for the CMHA project and the PUD for GEEAA.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė August 10, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė August 25, 2003
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė July 15, 2003



    1. Approval of Color Palette and Landscaping for Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike Ė tabled to September 9, 2003

    Mr. Lohbeck said the best thing to do would be to table it until next month. Mr. Syfert responded table it again or drop it? Ms. McBride added that it is my understanding that we did not receive any additional information, but that the owner of the property or the franchisee of the property has retained a different architect to assist him with the project, so I think staff would recommend that the commission table it one more month.

    Mr. Galster asked if there was any problem with removing it. It seems like we get in trouble every time we table these things. We discussed that at the staff meeting, and Billís consensus was that we probably needed to table it one more month. Mr. Okum wondered if there would be any trouble with the action within a certain period of time issue. Ms. McBride responded I donít believe so. We are down to the issues of the landscaping plan and the building elevation colors.



    9 SEPTEMBER 2003



    Mr. Galster said if in fact it is removed from the agenda, all they have to do is complete the paperwork in time and it will be on the agenda next month. So the only reason to table it is to infringe upon the amount of time they have to submit it in? Ms. McBride answered it doesnít make any difference, because they will have to submit within the same time to get our conceptual comments back, whether they are tabled or removed from the agenda.

    Mr. Galster moved that this be removed from the agenda. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

    Mr. Okum said I think limiting it to just removing it from the agenda this evening without any additional supporting comment wouldnít be appropriate; I think it needs more clout. Possibly the motion should say removing it from the agenda until such time that the applicant competes the application process that was required under the original approval. It doesnít make a lot of difference, but somebody has to send a signal that it wonít automatically appear on the agenda the next time. Mr. Galster, do you have any problem with expanding your motion?

    Mr. Galster responded I modify my motion to include the reasons why as explained by Mr. Okum. Mr. Huddleston seconded the amended motion.

    Mr. Huddleston said I feel strongly that there has been an inordinate amount of time spent on this, either through the unwillingness or inability of the applicant to cooperate fully on a monthly basis. I think if we table it, we should make it very clear to the applicant that he either finishes this next month or it is done. It is ridiculous to go on like this.

    Mr. Coleman asked how many times this has been tabled, and Mr. Galster responded three. Mr. Coleman said in light of that, I would be most comfortable with removing it from the agenda.

    Mr. Sherry wondered if Mr. Okum wanted the applicant to submit everything that is required. Mr. Okum responded no, just the missing items that were necessary for consideration. I did not want to see it to continue to come forward as a table when they havenít completed their responsibilities for the approval. We gave them their approval conditional upon the Board of Zoning Appeals approval and excluding the items of colors on the building and landscaping. Board of Zoning Appeals acted on their issue, but we do not have the other two elements. This is very unusual, but I think removing this from the agenda until they get their stuff

    together is most appropriate.

    All voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.








    9 SEPTEMBER 2003



    1. Development Plan Approval Ė Proposed CMHA Senior Housing Project, 1111 Springfield Pike

Derrick Howard of DH Architects said with me tonight are Troy Stephens from our office, Bob Bailey our civil engineer and the ownerís representative Ed Patch.

We would like to share the presentation we made to Council and address some of the most recent staff comments. We are in a position to comply with the staff comments as much as possible and hope to get approval, making sure that we comply with all staff comments.

Mr. Howard began the slide presentation and brought out the model of the project.

Mr. Howard showed the site plan, stating that the main entrance is at the northeast corner. We have a retention pond along Springfield Pike, and our drives run around the west end and south end. At our entryways, you can only enter from the right and exit going right.

There are still some improvements that we need to make to our revised lighting plan to make sure we comply with all staffing comments. We were proposing 12 foot pole lights and staff requests that they be 10 feet and we want to comply with that. WE also need to do more calculations on our spillage.

There are 16 two-bedroom units and 84 one-bedroom units. We currently exceed the minimum square footage requirements.

This was the elevation concept that we showed Council, based on the comments we received recently. We looked at an elevation from Springfield Pike so we could break up the long elevation with a glazed setback there and provide more detail so we could use our accent brick in a larger area. These are proposed ideas.

We will have to provide retaining walls at the southwest corner of the property.

There are some trees that we think we can maintain on the site and there are more buffering and landscape details that we want to improve on to comply with some of the staff comments. This shows the existing buffers that are there now, and we will be adding landscaping along that line.

We do have retaining walls along the south and west property lines that we would have to install in order to maintain some of the natural growth there. We havenít presented it yet, but we thought that we could plant ivy or something to climb the wall to soften it, very similar to what is across the street.






Ms. McBride reported that the project is 5.68 acres. On August 20th Council rezoned the property to PF-M which allows institutions for the aged. The use is consistent with the Springdale Comprehensive Plan and our Urban Renewal Plan for that area.

This is for 100 units of elderly housing, 84 one-bedroom (739 s.f.) and 16 two-bedroom (935 s.f.) units. Both of those exceed our minimum unit requirement.

The Zoning Code would require 158 parking spaces. Staff looked at this and we have suggested and the applicant has incorporated 100 parking spaces for this site. That is based on the fact that they have 100 units. Not all of their residents will drive, but there also is staff and visitors. We feel 100 should be sufficient, and we would recommend approval of the parking as they are proposing it,.

This district has a maximum impervious surface area of 60%. They are at 53.4%, so they are under that requirement. We also require that 25% of the site be covered by the building and their building foot print is 21.2%.

They are proposing to locate their waste dumpster in the northwest corner of the site. That is to be screened on three sides by an 8-foot tall brick veneer enclosure with solid wood gates on the fourth side. In addition to that, they are proposing to plant forsythia and burning bush around that. The only concerns staff had about that were that they didnít know the size of the material, and because of the retaining walls, it will be a tight fit, and they will have to work where they locate that. That does exceed the requirements for waste enclosures.

They are proposing a 50- square foot ground mounted sign south of the main access point. It is to be constructed of brick veneer with a limestone cap and aluminum letters. It is to be externally illuminated, using one 100-watt clear mercury fixture on each side of the sign. They have landscaped the base of the sign using a mixture of plant materials, so the sign meets the requirements of the Corridor Review District.

Ms. McBride stated that the proposed development meets all the setback requirements for both the building and parking areas.

There are some pretty extensive retaining walls on the site due to the topography and the size of the development. The applicant had indicated that they would be constructed to look like split face block in a buff color. Staff has concerns about the aesthetics of those, given the height, the size and the length of the walls, and the fact that this is a residential community. These people will be looking out from their balconies to see buff colored split face block 14 feet high.

Also, from a safety standpoint there is a fence right now that exists along the south property line, and we would recommend that the commission make a condition of any approval that the fence be maintained in good condition along the south property line in particular.





Ms. McBride added that staffís concern is that if children are playing in some of those single family residences, they may stray across the property line, and we donít want them to fall down the retaining wall.

On the landscape plan, there are pretty much minor comments, like identifying plant material. There is a concern about one plant material impeding the visibility around an island near the entrance. We would like to see additional plantings around the foundation of the building and in some of the planting beds, but basically the landscape plan with some supplements and exchange of species is acceptable.

The evergreen trees that they were originally proposing were to be installed at six feet in height and we require 10 feet.

The landscape plan does not reflect the existing trees that will remain within the courtyard area, and it does not reflect the correct design of the retention basin as shown on the grading plan.

We have suggested that they install some type of aquatic plants around the rim of the retention basin, rather than just having rock. If that is the desire of the commission, we can work with their landscape architect to accomplish that.

Ms. McBride reported that they are proposing 41 pole mounted lights throughout the property. Those would be utilizing 175 watt metal halide lamps as well as the two fixtures that I mentioned that would be lighting the ground-mounted sign. They did not specify the mounding height of the poles that are to be used. Their information indicated that the poles could be anywhere between eight and 12 feet from the base, and the luminaire fixture adds another 30 inches on. Staff would suggest using a maximum of eight or 10-foot poles, not the 12 foot poles.

They are within the maximum and average illumination levels for foot candles in the parking fields.

Along that south property line, they are indicating light levels above the .5 foot candles that we have at the property line as it relates to single family residential homes. We think perhaps their photometric lighting plan did not take into account the change of grade and the landscaping proposed. The landscaping plan on the photometric lighting plan does not reflect the landscaping proposed on the landscaping plan. We think that they may be able to hit that .5. If not, they need to add some shields to those fixtures because residences will back up to this development.

We didnít get the color of the fixtures of the poles. The CRD requires those to be earth tone, and typically they have been bronze in the past.

The building is to be 40í5" high, constructed of brick with a varying color brick accent. The roof is asphalt shingled. Prior to the meeting we did not receive building materials for either the roof shingles or for the trim.





Ms. McBride reported that we didnít have any indication as to how the balcony railing would be treated, nor did we have any details for the screening of the mechanical equipment. Previous submittals had indicated that it would be located in the corner of the courtyard so we would like to see how that will be handled.

This will be a big building, and by the time we have a lot of buff colored block wall and buff colored brick, we have some concern about the massing of that, so we are interested in what the applicant can do to offset that.

Ms. McBride stated that the varying sheets within the plans do not all match up in terms of the landscaping plan, the grading plan, the site plan, retention, lighting and landscaping, etc.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the proposed drives on the north side of the site and the Maple Knoll driveway are basically misaligned. It is difficult to see exactly how bad they may be, because there is no proposed or existing pavement markings shown on either of the drives. That needs to be added on so we can get more of an appreciation for whether or not that is an issue.

On the same drive, the right turn only deceleration lane has been added, and I think there might have been some confusion as to what we were asking for. There are preliminary plans together for the improvements to State Route 4. However, there is no funding in place at this time so there is no date for that to begin. All we were requesting in that area is that the proposed driveway profiles somewhat match the proposed State Route 4 profiles so we donít have to reconstruct the driveway a good distance from the roadway. The plans actually showed the deceleration lane to be constructed where the proposed edge of pavement would be constructed. All we are asking is that it be constructed off of the existing edge of pavement and take into consideration any profile adjustments that would be done as part of the proposed plans.

We will need a separate detail showing all the information, typical sections for that widening to be a part of it.

In addition, the transition from that proposed grade back down to the right of way is a little steep; it is about 14% and we need it to be reduced to about 6%. The south access drive is shown on the site plans as running parallel to that south property line, and intersecting State Route 4 at not a 90 degree angle. The landscape plan shows it curving and intersecting at a 90 degree angle. This is a right in right out drive and has a raised median to force that right in and right out. It is considerably larger than we had anticipated because of the angle, and we would like to see that revert back to the 90 degree intersection with State Route 4 to minimize that island. If in fact that island is going to be a significant size, we would suggest that it would be a good location for some landscaping, provided it doesnít obstruct the sight distance.

Mr. Shvegzda added that in addition, part of the information for that drive is covered over by the title block so additional information is needed to detail how that will take place.





Mr. Shvegzda reported that there are several retaining walls on the site. The one at the south is about 360 feet in length with a maximum height of about 14 feet. The one on the inside of the curve at the southwest corner of the site is about 140 feet in length and a maximum height of about five feet. The one between the west parking field and the building is about 180 feet in length and a maximum height of about three feet. The wall that extends along the west and north sides of the site is about 510 feet in length with a maximum height of about four feet.

The applicant is proposing a modular wall of a buff color. He passed around a color photo of the wall. There is a concern about the 14 foot wall on the south side and another five foot elevation above the wall and you have a four to one slope and a fence at the property line. So it is critical that the fence be maintained.

The grading plan shows an area where you can see the wall and the existing contours come to the back of the wall. The top of the wall will meet those existing elevations. However, that particular wall requires some horizontal reinforcement with a GEO grid type material that goes back beyond the wall. So some of that additional area will be disturbed, and I donít know if that affects any of the existing trees in the area, but it is something that needs to be considered.

On the storm water management, we have a retention pond, a permanent body of water between the building and State Route 4. It is approximately 23,500 cubic feet of detention. It is an eight foot deep permanent body of water, two and one-half foot of depth for the detention and about Ĺ a foot for the overflow.

The actual volume for the detention looks about right, but we do need additional information to confirm the volume, the release rate and those types of things.

Mr. Shvegzda added that Anne had mentioned the method of providing the erosion control around the rim of the pond. We could have a combination of a reinforcing fabric with some kind of vegetation that can grow in the area that is going to change from being dry to submerged.

The shape of the retention basin on the site plan is different from that shown on the landscape plan. If you utilize what is shown on the grading plan, that probably would mean the elimination of some of the landscape features or certainly relocation of those.

The storm sewer system on the site is designed for the 10-year storm. This means that the difference between the 10 and the 100-year, which is the maximum design criteria for the retention basin, needs to be conveyed overland to the pond. The applicant needs to delineate how this will take place and supply calculations to verify that the routing has the capacity.








Mr. Shvegzda added that on the landscape plan, it shows the sidewalk along the north drive out to State Route 4 and back into the main pedestrian entryway into the facility. However the site plan doesnĎt indicate that sidewalk. It does show a sidewalk on the south drive. Being that the main entrance to the facility for pedestrians is on the north, we believe that a sidewalk is justified in that location.

Mr. Sherry said after Route 4 is widened, will there still be that deceleration lane? Mr. Shvegzda said yes, it still would be necessary, and it would be reconstructed at that time. Mr. Sherry asked if the City would pay for it, and Mr. Shvegzda responded that it would be a part of the project costs.

Mr. Sherry wondered who owns the fence you referred to? Is it owned by the applicant? Mr. Shvegzda answered I donít know if it is on the property or not.

Mr. Howard stated I donít think the fence is on the property. It looks like an older farm fence and is primarily on the south side of the property. There are openings in there also. Mr. Sherry said so you donít have control over maintenance. Mr. Howard answered I donít think so.

Mr. Sherry asked if the retaining wall on the Kemper Road widening was a Versalok system and buff color, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed that it is.

Mr. Lohbeck reported I wonít report on what has been said, but I would like to comment on the tree survey. A total of 219 trees, 2667 caliper inches are indicated to be removed. Of these, 574 inches are exempt from replacement. Twenty trees are marked to be saved, and the required replacement is 1,051 caliper inches. There is a 48 inch tree in this total and therefore 24 caliper inches of the replacement must be 3 Ĺ caliper trees.

For the strict replacement requirements of the ordinance, 24 inches of evergreens, and 1,027 inches of over story hardwoods must be planted. Because evergreens are not as naturally occurring in our locale, Planning Commission has allowed evergreens to be substituted for part of the deciduous replanting. Some of the trees marked to be saved are located in the proposed outdoor recreation area. The grading plans do not reflect the mounding that would be necessary to keep these trees, four foot at the highest point. An additional 55 inches of trees will be removed if these cannot be saved.

The landscape plan shows replanting of 930.5 inches of deciduous trees. Evergreen trees are less than the minimum replanting size of 10 feet, and cannot be considered for tree replacement. A tree survey is required to locate trees on adjacent properties within 25 feet of the property line.








Mr. Lohbeck said I would also like to note that I was out on the job site today, and the southwest corner does not have the fence. I didnít even see a fence coming up the whole south property line, but I didnít walk over to check it.

Mr. Galster said so are we a little short with the trees, or do we have it covered with the caliper inches being planted. If the evergreens are increased to 10 feet, do they meet the 1,051 requirement? Mr. Lohbeck answered yes.

Mr. Okum said we canít mandate that the fence be maintained when it doesnít belong to the site. The other option would be that they would have to place a fence for above the wall. Ms. McBride said staff has had some concerns because there are single family homes adjacent to that, it is such an extreme drop off and there are recreational fields in the proximity.

Mr. Okum said if they were to place a fence, wouldnít it be better if there is land behind that wall, that the fence be placed furthest back to the property line rather than right on top of the fence for architectural detail? Ms. McBride reported that the city is putting up wrought iron type fencing on Kemper on top of our retaining wall, so whether it is that or some type of chain link fence, something needs to be done along the south property line.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had discussed an alternative; did they have a recommendation on the wall. Mr. Howard answered that the only concern regarding the wall is the expense. Staff mentioned that it needs to be decorative. I agree with staff in terms of minimizing any potential hazard. One thing that may be better would be to provide fencing along the property line on that south side, something that the owner can control.

Mr. Okum asked the approximate distance between the wall and property line. Mr. Howard answered it would be a minimum of 15 feet to a maximum at the curve of 40 to 50 feet. Mr. Okum commented so you could move a fence back to the property line and keep it away from the top of the wall. Mr. Howard said yes, I agree with staff. It is just that we have to try to bring this project in within the budget.

Mr. Okum asked how staff felt about that, and Ms. McBride answered I think that is fine. The concern is to make it very clear that there is a differentiation between their property and surrounding residential properties.

Mr. Okum said so there is no requirement in our building code for a safety rail. Ms. McBride answered no, because there is no pedestrian walkway on the flip side of that retaining wall.

Mr. Okum said when the original plan was brought before us, the outdoor recreation area was considered a potential for some future space units. Has that been abandoned?







Mr. Howard said yes, right now the idea is to abandon the units that were shown in that area. Mr. Okum commented that it would be pretty difficult to meet the parking, tree replacement, all the other issues and the impervious surface issues. There are no hash lines or anything on the drawings which indicate any potential future area so Iíll assume that those cottages are excluded and will not be considered.

Mr. Okum said there was a comment in Ms. McBrideís report , "provide an area for additional parking if it were needed to be for future use". Where will that go, and how will that not be impacted by tree replacement?

Mr. Howard showed where it would go on the drawing, adding that it would impact the tree replacement. At one point of time, we were showing how we could include about 150 spaces on the site. It would involve an adjustment to the south retaining wall as well as taking out some of the trees in that island.

Mr. Okum said letís say you need to add about 20 parking spaces. I know that staff agrees that at this point 100 parking spaces are enough, but I donít want to see a situation where they are parked along the roadway or driveways in. If you needed additional parking, where could you place them that would not involve the trees? Mr. Stephens answered we would have to add additional trees to accommodate this. Mr. Okum said that is fine, as long as you understand that it would be necessary.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any light packs on the buildings for emergency areas? Mr. Howard answered yes, that is a code requirement. Mr. Okum stated that our code requires that they be shielded, and they were not on your lighting submittal. Mr. Howard responded we can take care of that.

Mr. Okum asked where the mechanical units would be. Mr. Stephens reported that they have been able to eliminate external mechanical units. Mr. Okum asked how the building would be cooled, and Mr. Stephens answered that we will use self-contained units through the wall.

Mr. Howard added that we are trying to make sure that we can keep those things off the face of the building that you see and bring it around on the inside face of the balcony so that you wouldnít see them.

Mr. Okum commented that if you put those units where the balconies are, there would be a noise disturbance for the residents.

Mr. Howard said we want to investigate to see if there is another way to do this so the units would not be in the front of the building.

Mr. Okum asked the staff if there should be anything in the motion to address that. Ms. McBride answered when the final elevations are prepared with the details of the HVAC equipment, it might come back to the chair for review, or something like that.






Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said there was a comment about something to break up the wall. The applicant has given us a sample of standard stone wall. There is the cobble look as an alternate on the drawing. Do you have an alternative to the standard Versalok?

Mr. Howard reported what we would do is take a look at the various options. One thing that we have to do is include three manufacturers in this project. Our whole goal is to make sure that we can accomplish that within the budgets. We are talking about the same manufacturer (Versalok) with that stone type wall, and we definitely will try to achieve that.

One other thing that we thought about, and Iím not sure if it would be acceptable, but there are some retaining wall systems that allow you to put plantings within those, but the only ones I have seen are pre cast concrete, and I am not sure if that would be desirable at all.

Mr. Okum commented that the difficulty with those types of walls is the maintenance of the landscaping. I think since there is so much of that wall system, we need to address it here. If I am correct, Pappadeaux presented a cobble look by Keystone.

Is the cobble wall the type you are referring to Ms. McBride? Ms. McBride responded that is one suggestion. Our concern is to break up this massive wall.

Mr. Huddleston asked her for a suggestion on how to breaks it up. Mr. Okum commented that there are ways to do offsets in the wall and plantings in those offsets. Ms. McBride reported that the hope was that with staffís suggestion, the applicant would come back with some alternatives. That is why we made the suggestion.

Mr. Okum said it sounds to me like an issue that needs to come back. Mr. Howard suggested to address it by providing something to staff that would be similar in appearance to the cobblestone as well as making sure that we break the wall up. We need to find manufacturers that produce that appearance. Also, one way to soften that is to provide plantings below to climb up, like ivy. Another way would be as you suggested is to offset the wall.

If you walked the site, it looks as if we should be able to address some of those grade differences; they are only three or four feet. We might be able to slope some of those walls in lieu of having a retaining wall. That would soften some of that. The real areas of concern would be the west side and the southwest corner.

Mr. Stephens said the main difference in the cobbles is the variety of sizes; there are three different sizes. Mr. Galster added that there is a weathered look as well that might be very good. Mr. Stephens added that on the retaining walls, where we can get the grade we eliminate the wall. A fourteen-foot wall is not necessarily a fourteen-foot wall. The wall steps up and down, so it is not a massive wall that goes all the way around the entire project. It isnít as massive as it sounds.





Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum commented you said the basic detention on the site is at 10 year, and that they will have to do over ground calculations to go over to overflow to the pond; is that correct?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that the storm sewer on the site is designed for the 10-year flow, so the differential between the 10 and 100 year will have to go over land to the basin.

Mr. Okum commented we go over the 10 year all the time. Mr. Shvegzda reported that 10 year is the design requirement of outside storm center. . However the major storm has to be investigated to see how that is conveyed, either through a major storm path or to get it to the detention basin. So it has to be looked at in addition to the storm sewer design

Mr. Okum said I see that nice lake in the front and internal areas in that courtyard and that outdoor recreation area that can hold a lot of water. That water will have to go into that pond. Is all the water that has accumulated in that inner courtyard area going to be conveyed by pipe into the pond?

Mr. Shvegzda answered not with what they currently have designed. If they look at it further, it may not be practical to do that by overland. They may have to oversize the storm sewer on the site.

Mr. Okum said if they canít do it practically on ground, they would have to do it in pipes to accommodate it. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this.

Ms. McBride said going back to the retaining wall, the pictures that we all like, not only incorporate their weathered option, but include multiple colors and multiple sizes of the block units. I think we would want to include in any motion that there would be a mixture to produce a result similar to the photographs that have been represented to Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum said how about variegated shape and color. Ms. McBride added and size. The weathered is the option that gives it the look that you find attractive.

Mr. Okum said if the architects cannot come up with multiple selections, they can come back to us. Ms. McBride said what we donít want to see is all the same color and size stacked on top of each other, but varying sizes of the block, the color and the texture. That is what we are after, and whether it is the "weathered" or some other feature, that is what we are looking for.

Mr. Okum said on the dumpster area, if those gates were left open, would they be in the driving path area? I am an advocate of having the gates remain closed at all times. Ms. McBride responded I think you should include that as part of your conditions, just because it is more attractive and there is no need for them to remain open.





Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he had any problem with the types of stone and break up that was discussed. Mr. Howard answered that the only thing we will have to address is the fact that we have to provide a minimum of three manufacturers. As we can try to match or maintain the characteristics that are desired, whether it is stone or poured concrete with a stone pattern or whatever, the idea is to try to get that appearance as much as possible. The aesthetics are what we are after.

Mr. Okum said I think if the motion were to say retaining walls shall be weathered look cobblestone effect in variegated shape size and color it should give you the flexibility to work with staff on it.

Mr. Okum said your feelings are to add plantings to break up some of the wall as well. Mr. Howard answered we will try to do that as we refine the site.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant had a problem with providing 10 foot evergreens and Mr. Howard indicated that he did not.

Mr. Sherry said you have one dumpster for 100 units. How does the trash get from the unit into the dumpster enclosure? Is the tenant supposed to take it over there? I donít see how that can happen easily or conveniently, particularly with the elderly. My question would be is one dumpster enough and if it is not, where should another be placed. Mr. Howard responded this is something we would review with the owner in terms of staffing and what is practical.

Mr. Sherry asked about the retaining walls and show us where the height is. Mr. Howard answered the highest wall (13-14 feet) on the model. We are trying to make sure that the elevation of the entire building at one level. We might not have to address the retaining wall along the south side because it is very gradual, and we would try to minimize that. There is an area closer to the churchís property that we have to be very careful about, because you have to excavate to install a retaining wall regardless of what type it is, and we still need to provide a buffer there.

One thing that we are trying to do, and the photographs illustrate it, is we are trying to maintain the existing buffers that we have. It would be very nice to keep that knowing that we will provide additional buffers over time.

Mr. Sherry said it seems to me that when you are looking at those walls from the units, rather than a 13-14 foot high wall, it is more 18-20 feet. You would see both of them. Mr. Howard said we can also terrace this rear wall; we have space to do that. This is our first attempt to try to make this site work.

Mr. Stephens added that there is landscaping at the top of that lower wall along the driveway, which would help break that up visually.







Mr. Shvegzda asked about the height of the wall between the drive and the building at the southwestern corner. It looks to be a maximum of five feet; is that correct? Mr. Howard said I think you are right. Mr. Shvegzda continued probably the roadway in itself will be utilized as a pedestrian access way at some point around that site, so the handrail may be required in that location.

Mr. Howard said if the finished grades meet the height that you are talking about, we would want to consider that because someone might walk along that area, or extend the wall a little higher and provide landscaping there or try to make sure that it is not as high as five feet.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that the choices would be to either reduce the wall height or to utilize a hand rail there. Mr. Howard confirmed this.

Mr. Howard said on staffís comments on how to treat the edge of the pond rather than rock; we have looked at a Type R product. a geo textile. That manufacturer has stated that plants can grow through that. Ms. McBride said we need to know what plants, and that is why we suggested that your landscape architect talk to our landscape architect.

Mr. Okum asked if all buildings would be masonry. Mr. Howard indicated that they are, showing the accent brick, field brick and trim color which is soft beige. There will be weather wood shingles. The whole idea is to try to fit in with the existing characteristics of the buildings along Springfield Pike.

Mr. Okum commented I want to verify that you will be using a dimensional shingle since the roof will be a big character of the building.

You had indicated a break in the building along the Springfield Pike space. Did staff comment on that or do you still want to work with the applicant?

Ms. McBride responded I think we would like to because they have added other brick accents. We would like to see what that looks like.

Mr. Galster asked if the limestone look, the white look, is the lighter color brick. He wondered if there were dimension to that on the wall, or just a color change. Mr. Howard answered that it would be a color change, and possibly we could provide relief at the corner with color.

Mr. Galster commented if that light color goes up between those windows, I donít know that actually would break up that wall. I would like to see a little bit more accent up and down the side. Instead of being so narrow, you might come up with some of the bigger pieces. I donít think those narrow bands would do it from the street. There needs to be more of a substantial corner.






Mr. Howard asked if there was something that the commission preferred. As an example, he stated that at Maple Knoll you have a lot of mass that is one color. In the most recent development, there is some variety. Further down the street, there is a building that is very nice in terms of a residential feel and gables, but it is one solid color. The most recent developments across the street, there is a different color compared to the other materials.

Mr. Galster responded I am looking to get away from the institutional looking brick wall façade and going toward something that looks more residential. When I see residential homes with limestone going up the side that is what I am thinking of rather than just a color change, and to get some dimensional change as well.

Mr. Galster asked how far it was from the balcony to the front of the gable, and Mr. Howard answered it would be at least six and possibly eight feet.

Mr. Galster responded that is my only concern; I want to make sure that there is some depth change there. When I see the balcony, I donít see a big change to where the gable is so it is only about a foot out from the balcony.

Mr. Howard wondered if it would be acceptable to work with staff regarding the appearance of the buildings, and Mr. Galster said yes; I just want to make sure that you understand what I would like to see come forward.

Mr. Okum moved to approve this project, including all the submissions and sections that were submitted with the respective dates, include all staff, city engineer and city plannerís recommendations with the following comment to match up the plans to meet staffís recommendations to the restrictive level:

    1. Mechanical units shall be screened from view of adjoining properties and the public right of way
    2. Mechanical units shall be in staff and Planning Commissionís approved enclosure and screening.
    3. Mechanical units shall be reviewed and approved by staff.
    4. All lighting shall conform to the existing zoning code.
    5. Tree preservation replacement conditions are to include increasing the evergreens to a 10 foot height.
    6. Dumpster and refuse enclosure are to have gates that shall remain closed at all times.
    7. Retaining walls shall be weathered look/cobblestone effect in variegated shape, size and color, with plantings to break up the wall, and breaking up of wall sections where possible...
    8. The applicant shall construct a four-foot high chain link fence per code on the property lines where the retaining walls would so dictate.
    9. Parking drives and site plan conditions shall allow for future expansion of parking spaces.
    10. .All building elevations shall be masonry and the color palette as submitted by the applicant.
    11. Final review of the building elevations to allow breaks in the elevations shall be reviewed by staff.

      9 SEPTEMBER 2003



    13. Coins and corners of the gables shall be worked on between the applicant and staff for resolution.
    14. Building elevations and HVAC unitís locations shall be reviewed by staff.
    15. The pond shall include staffís recommendations for materials at its rim in lieu of gravel and stone.

Mr. Galster said on Drawing Sheet C-101 Erosion and Sediment Control, Paragraph (F) (4), please change Fairfield to Springdale. M r. Okum said I will add that to my motion.

Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

Mr. Huddleston said the only thing I havenít seen covered adequately is the functionality of that single dumpster on the site and what the applicant proposes to do to rectify that or if they are saying that it will work 100%.

Mr. Howard responded we have researched the number of dumpsters and/or size of dumpsters required for the occupancy in this building, and we need to review this with the owner. The last service provider we talked to and indicated that one was fine. Mr. Stephens added that they have some they can compact so you would use fewer dumpsters.

Mr. Huddleston said my concern isnít the size of the dumpster; my concern is how the people will get the trash there. Mr. Howard commented that there might be something that if you are a tenant, you can get it to the maintenance area and perhaps staff takes it out; Iím not sure how we might deal with that. The other issue would be to provide compactors within the units and then staff would take it out.

Mr. Huddleston said how can we satisfy this commission that you are not going to have trash setting outside the units? I donít think you want that any more than we do, but Iím not very comfortable with what you are showing here.

Mr. Howard said are you uncomfortable because of the number? Mr. Huddleston responded the location of one dumpster with this many units. Those people are 1,000 feet removed from that dumpster. Mr. Howard said what is typically done in the housing units that we have worked on is that a staff person would take the responsibility to collect that trash in an area similar to the centrally located maintenance area that we have and take it out and put it in the dumpster. That is how we have seen situations like this handled.

Ms. McBride said if there are representatives of the owner here, they could have similar projects and could explain how they handle it in other projects. Itís a good point; you have an elderly only complex and if it is 10 degrees and icy, I wouldnít want my elderly aunt hauling the trash out.







From the audience, Tim Charles of CMHA said when I mentioned earlier about the residents, I didnít mean physically for the person to go outside and put their trash in the dumpster. Until we see a further set of plans, there are two options.

Mr. Charles added either it will be a staff responsibility from the inside, or we will run a chute from the second floor down to a compactor. So the resident never leaves the building. In the 13 high rises that we manage, no elderly person goes outside with the trash.

Mr. Huddleston commented that satisfies my concern. From what I have heard of the CMHA, they run very efficient units.

On the motion to approve, all voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. Approval of Proposed Change in Building Elevations, Value City, 90-100 West Kemper Road

Drew Chrien, Architect introduced Gary Brown, Cincinnati area property manager contact for Schottenstein and said we are here to request some modifications and repairs to the Value City building elevation.

That building is a white glazed brick building. There are two fairly recent entry elements built out in front of it. Over the years, it has gone under some disrepair problems, some soiling and staining of the brick and some spawling. The owner wants to cover the existing glazed white brick with an EIFS surface to correct and maintain the building and improve the elevation appearance.

There wonít be any modifications to the entry elements on the front, which is the tan brick and limestone banding. We are not proposing any other site modifications to the landscaping or parking. The landscaping will have to be removed while we do the EIFS work, but it will be replaced as it is currently.

There is one minor modification. There are four columnar oaks on the west side, and we are proposing to replace those with trees to match the other new landscaping across the front of the building. The landscape plan that we submitted is the current plan, and if you look at the photograph in your packet, we are trying to make a more consistent look across the front with replacing the four columnar oaks on the west side.

Mr. Chrien added that there is a Dollar Tree sign which is a stack sign. When we do the EIFS work, we would like to spread that out side by side. We are not changing the size, but we wanted to make it more consistent with the Value City signage, and at the same time raise their canopy a little bit to align with the new EIFS.









Mr. Lohbeck reported that the property is zoned General Business, and is occupied by the Value City Furniture and Department Stores and The Dollar Tree stores. The applicant is proposing to apply an EIFS finish to the front south face of the building, with the exception of the Value City Store entrance structure. EIFS also will be applied to the west building face back to the loading dock area.

EIFS was applied to part of the east elevation last year on The Dollar Tree side. The EIFS material covers a white glaze brick on the building which the applicant claims is spawling and discolored.

The applicant has submitted an existing landscape plan. The applicant has indicated that the smaller plantings are to remain and are to be removed and reinstalled to accommodate construction. The applicant has indicated that the four oak trees are to be removed and replanted with service berries. The Tree Preservation Ordinance will require that a total of 18 inches of trees be planted to replace those oaks.

Ms. McBride reported that the only things I have to add is that they are proposing to remove the four oaks and replace them with four service berries, but we donít have a landscape plan, and we need to see what plants are proposed to be in there in terms of type and size. That way we can make sure that the tree replacement plan is conformed with and we also want to see what is going in there. We would like to suggest to the applicant that if we can get some vertical elements in there to break up that massing, it would be great because the oaks to some extent do that. We would like to see what else might be done in that area.

Ms. McBride stated that on the EIFS on the east side of the building, they have wrapped it partially around, but since they will be doing it on both the front and the west elevations, we would like to see it continued back to that truck loading dock area. It is visible when you are on Kemper west bound and on the drive behind First Watch as you go to the bowling alley. It makes an abrupt stop now, and we would like to see that continued on down.

Mr. Okum said the plan marked existing plan says shape oaks to match oak transplant. Is this the old landscaping plan that they had? Mr. Chrien answered that is what is there now, and we want to maintain that. Mr. Okum said you wouldnít be able to shape the oaks to match. Mr. Chrien answered no, and I am requesting to be able to replace the oaks, because they do not fit in across the front elevation. We would like to replace them with similar trees that were added later, the service berry, so we would have a consistent look across the front of that building. As those grow, they will maintain a consistent elevation and growth across the front.

Mr. Okum commented that the services berries have been there for some time and they are not very massive. Mr. Chrien answered no, but we would like to have a consistency across there. Mr. Okum continued there currently are three service berries that are about seven feet tall on the front elevation. Mr. Chrien responded those are about 12 feet tall.





Mr. Okum said thatís pushing it, but letís say they are 12 feet tall; they are not very substantial. If we are going to do this and lose those four oaks, which do give some break to the elevation, what do you propose to do?

Mr. Chrien responded what would you like? Mr. Okum said itís not going to be those service berries, because those havenít done much at all to break the front. Mr. Chrien answered I am here to work with you and satisfy your requests. Mr. Okum commented fortunately this color will be a lot less stark than the white. I thought the two entry features that they put on there some 10 years ago was a little crazy because the white didnít go with it anyway.

Mr. Okum said I do have a concern with the light packs that are currently on the building. Our current zoning doesnít allow that type of lighting, and you have indicated that you would remove and reset those. They would have to be non-glare and down lit, so it would probably mean a different fixture that would need to be submitted.

Mr. Chrien responded that wasnít a staff comment, so we didnít pick up on that, but we will do that.

Mr. Okum commented I just think that the applicant needs to work with staff to do something with the landscaping. Basically that is an entire field of asphalt. There is nothing on that site at all.

Mr. Galster asked if the service berries are in pots or a mulch bed. Mr. Chrien answered that between the two entries there is a landscape bed in the concrete sidewalk area. The other ones are in beds on either side of the entry elements.

Mr. Galster said we canít plant mature trees, but can we increase the numbers across the front? It wonít be stark white after we do the EIFS, but it still will be a big wall. I have a concern with the landscaping as well.

Ms. McBride said we had pretty good luck in front of The Great Indoors for example. That building, although it is rather large, was broken up with a limited space between the sidewalk and the face of the building. If the commission wishes us to work with the applicant and the landscape architect to come up with a scheme that would work, that would be fine. Now if we canít come to an agreement, we will have to come back to you.

Mr. Chrien responded I feel comfortable that we can resolve this. Schottenstein Stores wants to improve the look of the building for the City of Springdale and for themselves.

Mr. Sherry asked about the EIFS samples. Mr. Chrien reported that there is a lighter color that matches the limestone on the entry elements, and that will be the basic background. The band will be the slightly darker color. Mr. Sherry commented there isnít much of a difference.







Mr. Chrien said I would suggest that you look at the colors on the east face of the building. Those are the color samples by the same manufacturer.

Mr. Sherry said I have the same concern about the wall packs. Are they used to light the parking lot? Mr. Chrien answered no, they are existing wall packs that we were going to pull off and put back on. If the commission wants us to look at something else, we will do that. It would be a feature element that we would coordinate with the vertical landscape element, so there is a light wall wash on there for an evening lighting situation.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston asked if he had any problem with staffís recommendation to continue to EIFS back to the truck dock area on the east side? Mr. Brown answered that the west side is pretty well buffered by the tree line, and we donít have any problem with continuing it back on the east side.

Ms. McBride stated that staff didnít have any problem with where you were stopping it on the west side because it is screened; you canít really see it even going east bound on Kemper Road. However, the east side of the building, the part that does already have some EIFS on there needs to go back further because (1) you can see it from Kemper Road and (2) we also have that access drive going back behind the center.

Mr. Chrien said there is a fence screening the loading dock; is that the line on the east side? Ms. McBride responded that it looked like a natural break. Mr. Chrien added that whole project came about when Frankís left and the garden center was torn down. There was a real awful look on that building, so the owner wanted to go in and do something quick to help market that space. That is the reason why that happened so quickly without review by your group. Mr. Syfert commented that it made it look a lot better, and Mr. Chrien responded that is what we want to do with the rest of the building as well.

Mr. Huddleston said so bottom line you are willing to carry that EIFS back to the truck dock area. Mr. Chrien confirmed this.

Mr. Galster said off the subject, I would like to thank the management and owners of the building for allowing the use of their parking space for the Youth Boosterís opening day ceremonies and parades. I donít know that there is anywhere else in the city that we could put that kind of equipment. Let the owners know that we appreciate that.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the elevation changes with the following conditions:

    1. That landscaping plan be revised and provided to staff, who will work with the applicant to resolve the landscaping across the front of the building as a break of the building elevation;
    2. That the EIFS shall be carried on the east side back to the truck loading dock as discussed in this meeting;

      9 SEPTEMBER 2003



    4. That the lighting wall packs shall be changed to down lit and non glare light fixtures as per code and where affected by the improvements.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven votes.

C. Extension of Temporary Sign Ė Family Christian Store, 403 East Kemper Road

Mark Stottman of Quality Signs said we would like to request an extension for our permit for the temporary banner, because the tenant and the landlord canít come to an agreement on exactly where the permanent sign should be placed. They are arguing back and forth and we are in a bind and not able to put the sign up. They would like to have something out there, so we are hoping we can leave that banner up there. We donít know for how long, but hopefully it would be no longer than the end of the month, or until we can put up the permanent sign.

Mr. Syfert asked if the sign was made, and Mr. Stottman answered that it is pretty much finished. The permits are approved for the sign. We are just trying to decide where on the building to put it.

Mr. Galster wondered if the location wasnít a part of the permit, and

Mr. Stottman responded that it is. It is just splitting hairs. It is on the same elevation, just moving it ever so slightly.

Mr. Syfert asked how long the temporary sign had been up, and Mr. Stottman answered it has been up for six weeks I believe. Ms. McBride reported that it went up August 11th and was supposed to come down August 24th. Mr. Huddleston moved that the temporary sign permit be extended 30 days, to expire October 11th. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster said only because there has been some conversation about variances and conditional uses and extensions of temporary signs, I would like to make note that it is for this particular sign, for this particular location and itís not like there are other banners that suddenly have been approved to go up throughout this PUD. It is because The Family Christian Store has no existing sign, and they are going to take 30 more days to get The Family Christian Store sign completed and to hang in the location of that banner. All voted aye, and the temporary sign was extended until October 11, 2003.








    9 SEPTEMBER 2003



Mr. Okum moved for adjournment and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


______________________,2003 _____________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

______________________,2003 _______________________

Bob Sherry, Secretary