Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 October 2000

7:00 p.m.



  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Don Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover,

    Dave Whitaker and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved for approval and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were approved unanimously.

    1. Report on Council Ė no report
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė August 25, 2000
    3. 9/13/00 Letter to Kathy McNear, President of Council from Dave Whitaker, Secretary of Planning Commission re proposed zoning code changes


    1. Revised Final Site Development Plan Ė Sofa Express Ė 11750 Commons Drive

Kevin Blakener of Cole & Russell Architects approached Planning Commission. Mr. Syfert asked him to outline why they were here for another final plan approval, and Mr. Blakener answered we had submitted plans for the permit, were getting the pricing for the owner, and we are trying to do some value engineering with this building. We decided to look at alternatives to the west elevation, primarily to reduce the EIFS and do painting and reduce the landscaping to save costs.

On the north parking lot, we had presented a radial design, and it was determined it would be feasible to leave the existing parking and redo the building around it. It would not reduce the parking count that was previously approved.





10 OCTOBER 2000



Responding to the staff comments, Mr. Blakener reported there were no issues outstanding from the site engineering. The engineer deemed that we could leave the north parking lot alone. We had submitted a revised landscaped plan to reduce the number of plantings, and there were comments that came back stating we should look at a compromise or put back some of the plantings that we had removed from the west elevation.

Ms. McBride reported specifically, they are going to reuse that north parking area with the addition of six parking spaces. The earlier plan approved by the Commission had a total of 63 parking spaces, and the proposed plan has the same number, and the landscaping is basically the same within that area, so we didnít have any problem with the reuse of that area.

The plan that the commission approved had a total of 40.7% of open space and they are reducing it to 39.8%. We only require 20%, so they are way in excess of what we require.

The most significant changes came from the landscaping plan. The owner asked that they reduce the cost of landscaping, and so the amount of landscaping has been reduced. I would ask why they didnít price it out before they presented the plan, to us. The major revisions include the shrub massing along the west side of the south parking lot has been removed and replaced by evergreen trees. The trees have been removed from the islands in the south parking lot. The shrub massing design along the west elevation of the building has been modified and reduced in size. Landscaping along the north parking lot has been modified to reflect maintaining that parking lot. The shrub massing at the southeast corner of the building has been reduced in size. Specifically the plan shows a total of 30 red sunset maples, and there are only 28 so those two need to be incorporated into the south parking lot and the parking islands that are closest to the building. Another red sunset maple should be incorporated into the northwest corner of the building, per the landscape plan approved June 5th. The judai vibernum proposed along the west elevation to break up that massing have been removed. They have shifted some of the other plant material to compensate for that, but youíll remember that the commission had a lot of concern regarding how that west elevation would appear since it fronts the public right of way.

They have added some serviceberry along the south elevation and that compensated for some of the shrubs being removed in the surrounding area. We felt additional plant material needed to be added to the southwest corner of the building to soften the appearance of that corner. We suggested installing three red sunset maples in the lawn area or adding more serviceberry in that planting bed.

They took out a crabtree from one of the islands in the south parking lot and weíd like to see that elsewhere in the landscaping plan. A shrub massing should be incorporated along the west side of the south parking lot toward the entrance drive to enhance the evergreen trees.


10 OCTOBER 2000



Ms. McBride reported that they continue to show a flowering pear tree on their plant schedule, and stated they felt it was an inferior species due to its branching habit. We would suggest an aristocrat pear as an alternative.

They submitted a revised landscape plan to reflect the changes in the north parking area and we appreciated that. However, there were several areas on the plan that only provide .3 foot-candles and our minimum is .5 so the plan needs to be revised.

The other major changes were to the building elevations. On the south elevation, the area at the top of the steps is increased in size and another door has been added. I understand that is in response to a building code issue. The length of the ramp going towards the door also has decreased in length. Those are minor changes.

The west elevation has some pretty significant changes, and this was the elevation that the commission was most concerned with. There has been a portion of the EIFS that has been removed, and they are proposing to paint that existing concrete panel in a color that would match the EIFS at the north and south ends of the building.

Additionally they are proposing to eliminate 18 feet of window glazing in that area (over 472 square feet). That is at the north end of the west elevation. That is the elevation that the commission had a lot of concern with, and it seems like we are losing a lot of the detail of that elevation that we worked with the applicant to obtain.

They didnít identify any changes to the north elevation, but staff felt that the overall floor plan indicates a change in the shape and location of that exterior wall that they were to add, so we need additional information.

Mr. Darby wondered if the ramp would be in compliance with the ADA regulations. Mr. McErlane responded that the maximum slope is 1 in 12 and that is where this is.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if we have color boards with the new revised elevations. Ms. McBride answered no, but I donít believe the colors are changing; it is the proportions of materials that are changing.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said I think if you are trying to save money, youíre not saving much money by taking away what we thought was a pretty good program.

Mr. Blakener stated the maples in the landscaped islands can grow to a height of 30 feet; we have 30-foot light poles and we would like to propose either eliminating the trees or a smaller species where we have the light pole locations and the landscaped islands. Secondly on the west elevation with the vibernum, those will grow to a height of slightly over eight feet and would require trimming and pruning every so many years. With the material we have there it would grow to a height of six feet and require virtually no maintenance.


10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Blakener added on the south elevation, we removed all the planting materials and would like to work with staff to come to some mutual conclusion as to how we can go ahead and accommodate the landscaping, specifically in the islands with smaller species of trees so it wouldnít block the light, and also on the west elevation.

Mr. Okum asked if they originally proposed irrigation for the landscaped areas, and Mr. Blakener answered no. Mr. Okum asked the type of maintenance planned Mr. Blakener answered we would hire a third party for snow removal, landscaping, lawn cutting, etc. Mr. Okum asked if the final plans were submitted to the city for the permits?

Mr. McErlane stated we have issued permits for construction up to the point of what we are discussing tonight. We are not allowing work to occur on the west or north sides of the building, or site work to occur on those. The previous plan received the city engineerís approval as well. Planning Commission approved the sign sizes, but we do not have the final drawings.

Mr. Okum commented my understanding is that you want to change the red sunset maples to something different. Mr. Blakener answered what we had shown some of the maples we had removed in the south planting beds where we have the light pole locations because at some point they would obscure the lighting out there. We would like to have a compromise on the planting material in those areas.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if red sunset maples were commonly used in landscape areas and Ms. McBride answered that they were, adding that there may be a problem if they are going to put them close to light fixtures. We can work with them on a species that would be better, but we are not in favor of the elimination of all of them that they proposed.

Mr. Okum said landscaping wise I think some things need to be put back in, but on the other hand I think I could do without a couple of the trees. I am very disappointed in the west elevation. That painted concrete wall would be extremely visible from the interstate going eastbound and from the entire boulevard. I understand the economics of it. We approved one reduction in the glass previously to accommodate the applicant. If I were to make a decision on it this evening, I could not support the change to the west elevation.

Mr. Galster said this is the second revision to the final plan, and I was uncomfortable with reducing the amount of glass the first time and I am not comfortable with the painted concrete block, the loss of the glass, and the loss of the height of those trees along there. I have no problem trying to work out a different species where you have light pole problems, but other than that, I donít see the need for the change and wouldnít support it.






10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Darby said one of the statements made when the first final plan was approved was that this was a signature building and we were very complimentary about the plan you brought to us. That was modified, and now I feel a further modification would lose what we worked together. I am sure the staff would work with you on the lighting, but I cannot support the west side changes.

Mr. Huddleston wondered how deep the EIFS reveals that were created along that west wall, and Mr. Blakener answered four inches. Mr. Huddleston asked if the medallion pattern in the area you propose to leave in tilt up concrete changed? Mr. Blakener responded we have placed those in the areas where we are removing the exhaust louvers. Mr. Huddleston added that he assumed the color tone was the same and no variation in color in the EIFS, only the reveal lines that were created by it. I donít have as strong a problem as some of the other members do if the tilt up paint is the same color. Where the EIFS is shown, is it bands on top of exposed concrete in the recessed sections on the west elevation? Mr. Blakener answered they are two foot bands that have a depth change that would create a shadow line. We have lost that on the north and south ends of the west elevation adjacent to the glass; we have eliminated the EIFS between the glass only. Mr. Huddleston said the recessed area that you are showing on the west and south elevations, for example, is that exposed concrete or an EIFS material? Mr. Blakener answered it is EIFS coating over the entire surface. Mr. Huddleston asked if the surface would be textured as EIFS would be and Mr. Blakener answered we are just looking at painting it to match the EIFS, but we can look at that. If that is an issue, we can investigate the possibility of doing that, but that was not our original intent. Mr. Huddleston responded I think I would be comfortable with that if you would choose to do that and leave that wall. I am pretty comfortable with the landscape changes also, subject to staff approval on any of those substitutions. It is only the elevation that seems to be in serious question here.

Mr. Okum commented we are making an enormous amount of effort to have an advertising icon for this business, and they are shortcutting the part of the building that is seen when you come into the development. I have a serious problem with cutting back. I am glad Mr. Galster brought up the height of the trees because there is maintenance with the type trees going across that front, but there also is the situation of breaking that mass that runs along that roadway. I approved the last one and agreed to the lesser amount of spandrel glazing but in this case, I cannot support making this change.

Mr. Vanover said I feel exactly the same. It seems like a Hollywood backlot where you walk around the facades, and there is nothing there. That is disappointing because it is a highly visible site. We are going in the opposite direction that I would like to see us go.

Mr. Galster commented we are being economical by reducing the appearance of the building. I as a resident of Springdale would like to see you eliminate the pole sign to save the money and keep the appearance of the building.


10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Huddleston moved that the applicant be granted the changes as proposed to his landscape plan, subject to meeting staff approval on any suitable substitute species as contained in the staff report, that the lighting plan be brought up to standard as required in the staff report, and that the building elevation change be denied.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr. McErlane reported I had noted that there was a slight change to the north elevation as well. From a straight on view it is not noticeable. The original plan approved by Planning was an ess curve in plan view, and this is more of a convex curve. If you go forward with this motion, would that also mean denial of that change in the north elevation?

Mr. Huddleston amended his motion to include denial of the north elevation.

Mr. McErlane asked about the parking area changes. Mr. Huddleston responded that he had no problem with the parking changes.

Mr. Galster said we are saying allow the changes in the species; are we talking about the reduction of total volume of landscaping? What about the height of the trees along the west wall (from 8í to 6í)? What direction are we giving the planner if we are asking her to approve it.

Mr. Huddleston said your point is well made, and I would recommend that Ms. McBrideís comments be adopted in full. The only thing we are permitting is substitutions. I think the height consideration is a very specific one and should not be changed. Addressing the city planner, Mr. Huddleston wondered if this were negotiable.

Ms. McBride responded particularly on the west elevation, we had real concerns about that and we would suggest that the landscaping remain as the commission approved it. There are other areas that we feel that we can compromise in terms of species which can achieve the same intent that the commission wanted and result in cost savings for the applicant. On that west elevation, there was so much discussion that we didnít feel it was appropriate in that location.

Mr. Huddleston moved to amend his motion to maintain the proposed west landscaping elevation as approved previously.

Mr. Blakener said concerning the north elevation, when we are going to leave the parking in its existing condition, we are physically unable to create the ess curve and plan of that front wall, which caused us to go ahead and do the convex. There is not enough room to maintain the shape in that plan. I have revised elevations. We have not changed the appearance of the elevation, the height or profile.



10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Syfert said I donít believe this commission wants to look at a revised elevation. We have beat this horse far enough. Mr. Blakener responded the reason I brought it up was because there was a motion to deny the north elevation changes, and we are physically not able to maintain that shape and plan of that wall with the existing parking.

Mr. Okum said for the record, the applicant has drawn on this copy what they have done with the north elevation, and I would like to discuss this a little further prior to the vote.

Mr. Huddleston withdrew his motion and Mr. Okum withdrew his second. By voice vote, all present voted aye.

Mr. Okum said I think the original intent was to give that a more unique look across the front and I think the applicant is losing the advantage of the look more than we are, so I donít have a problem with it.

Mr. Vanover said arenít you adding the handicap spaces and Mr. Blakener answered yes, we are adding six spots in the front toward the northwest.

Mr. Huddleston moved to reinstate his original motion with the change of permitting the applicant to make the change to the north elevation for a radiused rather than an ess façade.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


    1. Proposed Expansion to Dr. Fogelís Office/Coin Laundry, 11550 Springfield Pike
    2. Shawn Randolph, contractor said Mr. McErlane gave me this letter with his comments this evening, and I am ready to answer any questions. Dr. Fogel is with me this evening.

      For your consideration, we intend to build an addition to the dentist office and the coin laundry, to completely remodel the whole outside of the building. Right now it is kind of an eyesore; it is white and stands out, so we are trying to fix that.

      Your comments indicated that we shouldnít have vinyl siding, and we are open to changing that. One side of the building is only 12 inches off the property line and we would need a variance. We are going to add 25 feet to the back, or north side of the building. It will be a cinder block wall and the entire building right now is cinder block.




      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Mr. Darby asked that the staff make their reports first and then hear the applicantís response.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that right now the existing building and site configuration is such that on the south side there is 60 degree angled parking with a drive aisle contained within the site where the vehicles can back out and circulate.. On the east side, there is an aisleway that dead ends against the building with something slightly less than 90 degree parking and a drive aisle where the cars can back out. The proposed expansion would move the parking to 90 degrees with access directly out onto Plum and Elm Alley. Based on safety conditions this raises, it is our recommendation that parking access directly into and off of the public right of way not be allowed for this site, particularly considering the width of Elm Alley, which is probably 15-18 feet wide.

      Mr. Galster commented with the parking off Plum that is similar to

      the way it is with Peach Street. Arenít they all like that? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, but I donít believe that was ever approved. It probably evolved. Mr. Galster commented I understand that it is not the best way to do it; you are saying it is almost impossible to do because of the width of the alley. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that normally to consider an alleyway to be a drive aisle for a parking lot, it would have to be 24 feet wide, and it is 15-18 feet wide. Mr. Randolph added I measured it and it is 18 feet. It is not used very much at all. On the west side of the parking lot, we have 28 feet from the building for pulling out, so there is plenty of room to back up and see anybody coming up or down the alley. On the south side, you would be pulling right out into the right of way, which is the same situation next door, on the other side of the alley. Behind Angiloís they only have 16 feet to their parking block from the street itself. We will have at least 20í-6".

      Mr. Shvegzda added it was a little unclear as to where the right of way on Plum Street was indicated on the drawing. Mr. Randolph answered from the street line to the parking spaces was 19.94 feet. That is on the Springfield Pike side. As you go back the property is on an angle and it gets to 20.39.

      Mr. Huddleston said as I look at the survey, I see four parking spaces on the Springfield Pike side. As I look at the site plan, I see seven. Whatís the difference? Mr. Randolph answered the architect put 90-degree spaces that you couldnít pull into towards Springfield Pike. The surveyorís copy is the way it is right now and the way we want it when we are finished.

      Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum asked if the 6-inch concrete curb was the cityís or the property ownerís. Mr. Randolph said it is the property ownerís curb. There is some landscaping there that will not change. Mr. Okum asked about the six inch curb along Plum Street, and Mr. Randolph answered it is public right of way.





      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Mr. Randolph added we planned on taking the parking blocks out and have straight in parking.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported we do have an aerial photo that shows existing configuration of parking there. You can see areas across the street and Plum where there is 90 degree parking on the Plum Street. You can see what is in place and some of the problems that may result.

      Ms. McBride stated the property is zoned GB but it also is within Subarea C of the Route 4 Corridor District so that is part of what produced the great number of comments. We have a 12-foot sideyard building setback, which is their north property line. Currently the building is non-conforming. The setback to the north varies anywhere from 1 to 3.8 feet. The applicant is proposing to extend that building addition one foot and a little less off that north property line, and if the Commission is in agreement with that, they would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance on that north property line for the addition.

      We also have a requirement of a minimum of 10 feet setback for parking areas adjacent to any right of way and a 10-foot setback from any non-residential property line. Additionally the Corridor District recommends that unless there is evidence of a hardship, the parking be located in the side and rear yards. The existing conditions locate the parking within the required yard setbacks and within the front yard, but the applicant is proposing to redesign the parking lot with a five-foot setback from Springfield Pike, no setback on Plum Street or Elm Alley and a 0 or 1 foot setback on the property at the north, so these would require variances from the Board of zoning Appeals.

      As proposed the existing building with the addition would require 23 parking spaces, 10 for Dr. Fogel and 13 for the laundromat/dry cleaner. All of those spaces should meet the design and access requirements of our current Zoning Code. Out of the 23 parking spaces, two of them meet jour existing requirements. The seven spaces that back directly out onto Elm Alley donít have an access aisle. The 11 parking spaces on Plum Street also back out onto the public right of way. The two parking spaces on the north end of the parking field that fronts on Springfield Pike cannot be accessed unless there is a cross access easement with the property to the north; that may exist, I donít know and that would be a question for the applicant. Obviously staff has a lot of concerns regarding the elimination of the drive aisles. I also think it is important that the Commission keep in mind that this could be setting precedence for other developments that choose to redevelop along the Route 4 Corridor.

      Subarea C has a maximum impervious surface ratio of 85%. The applicant didnít provide the impervious surface ratio for the proposed development. Mr. McErlane and I computed a 97% impervious surface ratio. If we are correct, a variance would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals.


      10 OCTOBER 2000

      PAGE TEN


      Ms. McBride added that the applicant hasnít indicated any trash dumpster location. Right now there is a dumpster located at the southeast corner of the site with no screening and it currently blocks one or two of the parking spaces depending on how Rumpke drops it down. So, if they are going to propose a dumpster, it couldnít take up any of the parking spaces and it would have to be screened with a material compatible with the building.

      We did not receive a landscape plan. There is minimal landscaping on Springfield Pike, and we would want to see landscaping as required under Subarea C, which includes the addition of street trees along Springfield Pike. We would suggest that some shrubs be located along the building to break up the impervious surface and give a little green to the site.

      We did not receive any lighting information. Subarea C requires that everything be cutoff fixtures and downlighting.

      There are a number of inconsistencies between Subarea C requirements in terms of building design and building material elements versus what exists on the site and what the applicant is proposing to continue. We got a floor plan for the existing building and the proposed expansion, conceptual building elevations for two sides of the development, but did not receive any information regarding building materials or colors. A coordinated color scheme is required with the predominant color and accent colors in Subarea C of the Corridor District.

      Also required in the Subarea C is that 60% of at least three facades and any façade visible from the right of way contain brick or stone, and this project has three sides visible to the public right of way. We need to have information on building materials and coverage. If they are not able to meet that 60% requirement on the west south and east elevations, a variance would have to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

      We have a provision that 70% of the site coverage of any structure shall have a residential roof, and that is not the case and a variance would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

      We did not receive elevations from the north or east elevations, blank facades on the rear elevation are to be avoided per requirements of Subarea C and we canít determine that because we didnít get those elevations. Without complete elevations on all sides of the building, it is not possible to determine that all sides of the building will be fully finished, a requirement of Subarea C. Also it was not possible to determine compliance with the provision that says there will be no more than two primary building materials and one or two accent materials. My guess is that it probably would not meet that and would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

      We did not receive signage information, and are assuming that the existing signage was to remain as is.



      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Mr. Vanover wondered if the rooftop units shouldnít be screened, and Ms. McBride answered that it could be included, since they are visible from the public right of way. The applicant might want to consider flipping that addition from the back to the front. One of the things the Corridor District originally tried to achieve was pushing the buildings up to the street and putting the parking in the side and rear. Then they might be able to pick up some adequate parking to the rear.

      Mr. McErlane reported that Ms. McBride covered most of his comments but added that the applicant originally came in to file for a variance request to the Board of Zoning Appeals and I informed them that it was required to come to Planning first for review under the Corridor Review District requirements.

      This plan is intended to be a concept plan discussion only. I realize there is a lot of material lacking, not only due to it being a concept plan but because it lacks a lot of material.

      There are some parking spaces, but realistically they donít work. To maneuver out of the two spaces on the front of the building without hitting something is next to impossible. So we will lose at least one space if not more in that location. Also, the survey plan we received doesnít indicate a dumpster location, so we probably will lose another space to accommodate that. Probably we will lose a third one due to the handicap requirements, which require a 16-foot wide stall for a van accessible space. We know we will lose at least three spaces, and based on what I scaled off for the floor plan in terms of parking spaces required, 23 are required and more than likely we will end up with 19 spaces, so a variance would be required.

      Mr. Huddleston said based on what I have seen here and the fact

      that it is in the Corridor District and the fact that it requires so many variances relative to the Corridor District itself and matters of public safety with backing out onto a public street, I would propose that we deny the concept plan this evening.

      Mr. Darby said there are already seven known variances that would be needed, and adding that to the other issues, lack of detail, questions about parking, I think the plan is too ambitious for the site.

      Mr. Okum agreed, adding that it is unfortunate, because Dr. Fogel wants to have his business grow and prosper, but sometimes site constraints prohibit that. If called upon, I would vote against this plan as proposed. .Mr. Syfert stated this is concept discussion only.

      Mr. Randolph said a lot of this can be resolved, except for the parking spaces and roof. When you do an addition, you donít want it to look like an addition, the existing roof would continue on around the building except for the back. I was going with the same look on the building, so there is no way I could do a truss roof on top of that.




      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Mr. Randolph added we donít have a problem because we do have another plan going back about 31 feet off the back of the building. It still would leave us the parking spaces on the back of the building and they still would have to back out into the alley, but the side of the building would have the 45-degree parking instead of the 90-degree. If I did the 45-degree parking, I would lose one parking spot. The handicapped parking space would be up front by the big double front doors, pulling in at 45 degrees. So two of the four spaces on the front of the building would have to come in at 45 degrees. Mr. Randolph asked if Dr. Fogel had an agreement with the neighboring business, and Dr. Fogel responded when they originally put the dental office in the building, we had head in parking off Route 4. Then they widened Route 4 and took away the ability to head in, and thatís the way it came out when it was all done. Mr. Randolph added the existing island with the landscaping stays the same, and we wanted to keep the parking spaces the same also.

      Dr Fogel added the current parking isnít much different from what we are asking for, because the two spots in the front on the laundry side have to back out into Plum Street right now, and we never have had a problem with that. All along t hose side streets, people back out into the right of way. In the back of our building, we have angled parking, but you canít get out of the angled parking unless you back out into the alleyway. I do it every night, and I have never had a problem.

      Dr. Fogel added we have 19 parking spaces now and with this addition we will have 21. Mr. Randolph added we want to set the dumpster behind the building so it isnít visible from Springfield Pike, so the parking space in the back corner will be occupied by the dumpster. We would have to use that back corner so Rumpke could pull in and get to the dumpster.

      Mr. Syfert commented this was a concept discussion, and we have had a lot of discussion. Mr. Randolph responded we need to know if t his is feasible and what you guys want; we are willing to change our minds on some of the issues. We have a rough drawing to do 31 feet off the back of the building, the width of the building itself, and not build out on the Plum Street side.

      Mr. Syfert responded it sounds like you want us to vote on this tonight, but your option is to take our comments and go back and come back with a more formalized plan. If you want to push us to a vote we can do that.

      Mr. Randolph responded we are looking for your opinion. Iím not sure what everybody wanted and I received this report tonight and see that there are a lot of issues that I didnít even know about. I turned this in seven weeks ago.

      Mr. Huddleston commented that he would not be in favor of any perpendicular parking backing onto a public street, in the alley or on Plum Street.


      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Dr. Fogel commented I think that pretty much says that we canít do it. Mr. Huddleston responded I think there is some latitude to expand your building to the front and to the rear, but that is your choice, not mine. I donít want to inhibit the expansion of your business, but on the other hand as itís been stated here you canít put 10 pounds in a five-pound bag. I am in sympathy with you problem and if you can comply with the redevelopment district requirements of upgrading your building and expanding it, that is one issue. The parking is another issue, one of public safety, and even though they do preexist there, I donít think it is proper for this body to continue to propagate that condition and make it even worse. The intent is to upgrade the area over time, not make it worse.

      Mr. Randolph said if we expand to the rear, there still will be a few parking spaces that have to back out into that alley. We do have a plan to expand the backside of the building and nothing up the side and keep the 45-degree parking on the Plum Street side. Would there be a problem with that?

      Mr. Syfert responded based on our comments, maybe you could reevaluate what you want to do and come back next month. Dr. Fogel asked if Mr. Huddleston is saying no matter what, he is not going to authorize parking pulling out onto a right of way, be it Plum Street or Elm Alley, there is no reason to discuss this any further.

      Mr. Syfert answered Mr. Huddleston is one vote of the board. Maybe some of the others havenít expressed that, but I would express exactly the same thing. I am not going to promote a worse condition than we have already.

      Mr. Randolph said we want to try and please you and everyone concerned here. We are trying to come up with options of what we can do and we do have a plan for the width of the building in the back, which is approximately 52 feet. We want to go straight back 31 feet. That still would leave us 21 feet for parking space, but there would be four spaces in the back. Actually we would end up with three because we want to keep the dumpster behind the building. So, there would be three spaces backing out onto Plum, and all the rest would be at 45 degrees. So we would lose a few parking spaces, and I am asking you if that is more feasible.

      Mr. Darby said in my opinion, to bring a plan that loses three additional parking spaces when already you donít meet the requirementÖMr. Randolph said they have 19 parking spaces at the moment. Mr. Huddleston added if you change the square footage of your addition, you also tweak the parking ratio, so I donít know if that is a doable or not. Mr. Randolph stated it is 350 square feet if we do the addition the other way.

      Mr. Okum said I think the applicant is grasping for ideas, and whether he got the comments two days or 10 days a go, the issues are significant. The fact that we have an increased size building, a parking situation that is already somewhat of a concern, especially that in front of the building.


      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Mr. Okum said back when we did the Route 4 improvement, there was discussion on the barbershop and your parking field having a common cut on Route 4, and we approved that in the plans for redoing Route 4. Ms. McBride has given you some suggestions; the commission has given you some suggestions; I think you are still trying to fit 10 pounds of sugar in a five-pound bag. Dr. Fogel commented I donít think it can be done. Mr. Okum added weíd like to help you, but on the other hand if you canít make your property any bigger than it is and we canít change the situation and we certainly canít propagate a bad situation. It is a safety issue, especially if a child is walking along behind the cars backing out into the flow of traffic. It is not a good situation and I canít encourage that or endorse it, so if I were to vote, I would not be in favor of what was submitted this evening.

      To conceptually discuss other ideas or concepts that you have without the planners taking a look at it first would be unfair to all of us, including yourselves.

      Mr. Randolph said we are not looking for ideas; we have one or two other ones. Mr. Okum responded you are presenting other alternatives that we have not seen, and that is not fair to you or us.

      Mr. Randolph said what I am asking is if the parking is feasible. Mr. Okum answered Mr. Huddleston addressed the issue. There are calculations that have to be done based on square footage and uses, and those calculations dictate how many parking spaces that site will need. I canít tell you what those numbers are, because I havenít seen your alternative concept. My suggestion would be if you have an alternative concept, you run it by staff. I havenít heard one person say that they are really excited about backing out onto Plum Street, so we all understand that. There is one commission member stated that he was not overly excited about pulling directly out onto Elm Alley. You have to take that for what it is worth. I can be a little more flexible on Elm Alley because of the volume of traffic that comes along there.

      I do know that the building that is next to yours is right on that alley, so clear sight distance for someone backing out of those parking spaces, if they were perfectly vertical into the site, would be very difficult. Angularly I can give a little more latitude if the traffic stayed to the right side of the alley, but I would have some concerns about it.

      Mr. Galster said I think the only way this building realistically can expand is up, and you might want to look at putting a second floor on. I donít see it being able to grow a whole lot out either way. It is unfortunate. I know your business has been in the community for a long time; we would love to be able to set you up on a nice piece of land that you could prosper and grow on, but I donít see it going anywhere but up.





      10 OCTOBER 2000


    3. Approval of Replat of Lot 6 of Northwest Business Center Subdivision and Change Street Name, Pictoria Island (PUD)
    4. Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests said Lanie Wess of Woolpert is with me. In addition to the two items listed on your agenda about splitting Lot 6 into two lots, which would be one lot for the garage and one for the office building, and renaming North Commerce Way to Pictoria Drive, there are a couple of other issues. The additional right of way that is requested on North Commerce Way to expand our entrance into the plaza area, and vacating a couple of sections of the detention basins that are unnecessary now that they are reconfigured.

      I think we will be asked this evening some questions about committing to cost for signage changes on Pictoria Island and committing to some covenants on maintenance, and we are gong to be willing to do that, but we will address the rest of the comments when we hear the staff reports.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported the plat does a number of different things. It vacates a portion of the two private detention basin easements to be more closely configured to the basins that are there. It dedicates additional right of way for the widening of North Commerce Way, splits Lot 6 into Lots 8 and 9 that accommodate Pictoria Tower I and the associated garage. They ask to rename North Commerce Way to Pictoria Drive.

      The easement shown on this plat allows the city service vehicles to utilize the plaza area between the two buildings as a means to turn around in that area. We asked that there be a statement clarifying what the responsibilities and rights of the city are in regards to that easement. We have attached our presentation of a paragraph that does that.

      The concrete pavers extend out into the public right of way about 25 feet. There was a discussion as to having the developer responsible for the maintenance of that area of concrete pavers, because it is contiguous to the remainder of the pavers within the

      plaza area. We looked at what we believe to be the last covenants submitted and did not find that in there so that needs to be addressed.

      On the additional right of way from North Commerce Way, we are in the process of finalizing our review on that. That should take place tomorrow, and it appears that the additional right of way will be adequate for those improvements.

      On the renaming of North Commerce Way, isnít that ultimately a Council decision? Mr. McErlane reported he asked the law director, and he indicated Planning could accomplish this through a plat approval. Eventually Council will accept the plat when the public improvements are complete When Ray Norrish Drive was renamed, that was a council action, but council also initiated it. It also was a street that was previously developed and platted and involved a lot of property owners with that address. So there was a lot of public input expected because of that.




      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Mr. McErlane asked if Bahama Breeze has been notified about this change. He added that all the permits have been issued to North Commerce Way. Mr. Woodward answered they have been notified and are in concurrence with the change.

      Mr. Shvegzda added concerning that name change, there are three signs that need to be switched out. One is the large interstate type overhead sign on State Route 4, the second is the large ground mounted sign immediately as you turn in near the first entrance to Showcase and there is the traditional intersection road sign that needs to be changed at North Commerce Way and Northwest Boulevard. Since the applicant is making the request, we would recommend that the cost for those revised signs be the responsibility of the applicant.

      Also, the covenants for this development need to be referenced on the plat. At this time, we feel that Council could approve the replat pending the resolution of these issues.

      We have mentioned before the area around the existing retention basin that was redone, between the Towers area and the Bahama Breeze area. We noted that there were significant erosion problems that needed to be taken care of. There is some substantial noxious vegetation growing in that area, and it needs to be taken care of. We may have to deal with it before we issue the Certificate of Occupancy for Bahama Breeze but we would like to take care of it as soon as possible.

      Mr. Galster said when we redid Commons Drive, was that Council or Planning Commission? Mr. Shvegzda answered that wasnít an existing roadway at the time. Mr. Galster added I understand that Planning is in charge of the Thoroughfare Plan and layouts and need for streets, but I donít know that they would get into renaming a street. What if this had 30 businesses on it? Mr. Shvegzda responded there was no street there; we decided to call that Commons and we have not as yet renamed what used to be Commons so that is still something that needs to be done. Mr. Galster commented in this situation I donít have a problem because you only have Bahama Breeze to consider. I just would hate to set a precedent where we would be changing 30 different businessesí street names on Planning Commission.

      Mr. McErlane added the law director did draw some distinction between streets that had occupied businesses on them and streets that donít. Technically this is under development.

      Mr. Okum commented I donít have a problem with renaming it. It appears you are down to two restaurants. Mr. Woodward stated originally there were four restaurants and now there are three. Lot 4 could be split again. Mr. Woodward responded in the current master plan, Lot 4 would have two more restaurants around the lake with the potential of a hotel along North Commerce Way.




      10 OCTOBER 2000



      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Parham asked if their ultimate goal was to have four restaurants on the site, and Mr. Woodward responded that the goal is three restaurants and one hotel. Mr. Parham commented originally you were going to do four restaurants and a hotel. Mr. Woodward responded potentially we were talking about putting a hotel perhaps on air rights over part of the parking lot for one of their restaurants. We have abandoned that idea. We have eliminated a restaurant and substituted a hotel.

      Mr. Woodward said we are prepared to pay for the signage to change the name. On the covenants, it is correct that right now there are no covenants to maintain the pavers, and there are pavers in place on the extension of Northwest Boulevard. That will be covered by a covenant between the two office sites that will encumber the land for both office buildings. Our attorneys are working that on; we will review it with the city attorney, and Iím sure we can find satisfactory language for that.

      On the detention basin, we agree that it needs to happen. We talked about that before, and have gotten proposals from landscapers. Unfortunately we have a bigger problem than just grading around the lake. The lake has a leak and is not filling up appropriately. It is leaking around the outlet structure. I recently received a proposal from a site contractor to do an anti seep collar around the outfall pipe. That will disrupt some of the area getting back to the work site. We have to fix the lake so it doesnít leak, and then we can do the landscaping and the recompaction of the material around the retention lake. Mr. Syfert asked if it would be done before too long, and Mr. Woodward indicated that it would be, adding that it shouldnít take that long. The anti seep collar is a concrete wall probably 12 feet wide, one foot thick and probably six feet tall that seals the area around that pipe. When the lake was originally built, it was a dry pond and that pipe was put in with granular backfill. Now that we are trying to retain water, that anti-seep collar needs to be put in. That is the process we have to go through. I got one proposal two days ago; I expect another one tomorrow and we will select the contractor and get it done.

      Mr. Okum wondered if there was a difference in how the lake appears whether it is soil based or lined? Will it be brown and muddy every time it rains? Mr. Woodward answered no, the reason it is brown and muddy is because of the erosion that goes into the lake. Once this is landscaped, that will not occur.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the requested plot plan for the Pictoria site, including renaming of the street to Pictoria Drive, with the applicant being responsible for the adjustments to the covenants, and changes to all signage related to the site, including the overhead sign on Route 4. Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover and Chairman Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.





      10 OCTOBER 2000


    5. Proposed Alterations to Donatoís 810 Kemper Commons (former Boston Market) (PUD)

Mr. Syfert asked if the owner has given permission for us to proceed with this, and Mr. Jack Metcalf, Construction Manager of Donatoís responded that he has a letter from Kimco Realty Corporation with their affidavit of ownership. They are both subsidiaries of the same corporation, so the original affidavit for ownership for Boston Market would be the same for Donatoís Pizza. McDonaldís Corporation owns them both.

The application did not list Kimco; we did not know that they were the lessors, and they are reviewing our plans now. Mr. Syfert commented anything we would do would be contingent upon their approval. Mr. McErlane added I think it would be worthwhile to at least read the letter to get a feel as to whether or not they perceive any problems.

Mr. Metcalf added if you have an affidavit of your own you want to use, we can have it taken care of by Kimco. We talked it over with them, but the leased documents for Boston Market are legally the same as they would be for Donatoís.

Mr. Shvegzda reported there are no modification to the site other than the removal of some of the items associated with the drive through. There is an indication that the parking lot will be sealed. It is just a matter of making sure that it is restriped as it is right now.

Mr. Metcalf stated we will seal the parking lot, weather permitting. If the striping is not very good right now, we probably will stripe it just for this fall and seal and stripe when the weather permits in the spring. It is something we want to do too.

Ms. McBride reported the site plan indicates a total of 30 parking spaces on the site. Our new code requires them to have 59 parking spaces. We want to make sure there is the additional 29 parking spaces available in the balance of the PUD.

There will be no changing to the lighting or landscaping on the site. They indicated they will be painting the trash enclosure that exists on the northeast corner of the site, and make repairs to the existing gates.

The landscaping is in good condition and adequate. The only suggestion we would have is for them to add an additional screening hedge to the northeast portion of the parking lot for screening of the parking area. There is a section there where there are six parking spaces that pull up almost at grade to the access road.

They are proposing the same signage package on the south (front) elevation and on the east (side) elevation, and that would include Donatoís Pizza logo and another Donatoís Pizza. Each one would be 36 and 15.9 square feet respectively. The west and north elevations are to have no signage. The total on building signage proposed is 103.8 square feet and they are permitted 151 square feet.


10 OCTOBER 2000



Ms. McBride added the only free standing sign on the site is a directional sign for the drive through pickup window. It is four square feet in area with a height of three feet, which meets our requirements for directional signage.

We received elevations for all four sides of the building and got a floor plan. However the floor plan was for the West Chester store and didnít match the site plan or building elevations, so we need an updated floor plan for the Springdale site.

The applicant is proposing to add a tower element to the southeast corner of the building that would be 23 feet, below the maximum permitted in this district. We wondered if the proposed tower element would screen the existing mechanical equipment on the southern portion of the roof.

They submitted a color pallet with paint chips and materials. They are proposing to paint the existing EIFS and block a gray rust and beige color with a slate gray standing seam metal roof on the tower. The sample trim and accent colors are correctly identified on the color pallet and the elevations, but the numbers for the main color of the building (rustic red) donít match, so we need clarification. Is it the number that is identified on the color pallet or is the number identified on the building elevations, and if so, we need the color patch for that.

They are proposing red and black striped lighted awnings on the west south and east elevations of the building. They also are proposing to add additional glass area to the south elevation and a door to the east elevation. We also would require them to paint the trash enclosure and repair the gates.

Mr. Metcalf said I have the building elevations for Springdale tonight and Iíll turn them over to you. The floor plans are virtually the same; the color will match up with the elevations to the pallet.

In terms of the additional shrub, I agree that it needs to be done,

especially when you are up on the hill and we want that too. On the trash corral, the gate repairs need to be done and if there is any other repairs, it will be painted according to the color scheme of the building. The new tower will cover a lot of the mechanical equipment because of the size of the tower. If not, we would put screening on the roof; it is unsightly to us.

I would only ask that if approved tonight, it would be contingent upon our getting the proper documentation to you in terms of ownerís affidavit.

Mr. Okum asked if the height of the cornice across the top were going to increase or stay at that level. Mr. Metcalf answered just the corner; the tower roof would be setting right on top of that parapet, no higher than that. It projects out about 18 inches so we have changed the entrance so the doors would be in the tower. It is a signature tower.



10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Okum added I would insist on the mechanical units being screened. Mr. Metcalf commented I think we can screen it within the roof area, using an EIFS color system to match the building.

We donít want to see an HVAC unit any more than you do.

Mr. Okum commented I know our parking requirements call for 50 spaces, and there are shared spaces. I did a count on your tables inside and thinking one table per vehicle, I came up with 22 seating areas. Even if two people drove for every table, that would be 44 parking spaces. Also there is a huge field by Wal-Mart that never gets parked in.

Mr. Metcalf added the menu board and speaker post will be pulled out; we donít use them.

Mr. Okum moved to grant approval of the Donatoís Pizza conversion of 810 Kemper Commons Drive to include the recommendations and comments of our staff, the inclusion of all items stated by Ms. McBride, that the mechanical units shall be screened with screening appropriate to blend in with the rest of the architecture of the building, and subject to confirmation of ownership and transfer of rights of ownership. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Chairman Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.


Mr. McErlane stated in March of 1999 Planning Commission acted on a conditional use permit for a day care center on Route 4. I believe the majority of the members were on the commission at that time. The day care has been there for 18 or 19 months, and we have received complaints recently, including a petition from adjacent property owners about the noise on the property.

Subsequent to that, I looked at the plan and the commission comments and conditions of the approval. The plan approved by Planning included a retaining wall up to four feet around the play area and fencing and some shrubberies. Planning Commission in their conditions for approval required some 10-foot evergreens to be planted between that play area and their property line.

The wall was offered by the applicant initially to accommodate being able to grade out their play area and make it drain properly. Unfortunately I donít think the consultant who was working on it had a good handle on how the grades were worked out in the back of the building and subsequent to the Planning Commission approval, found that he could work out the grades without the wall. It was reviewed by the city engineer and approved that way, and I considered it to be an engineering issue and we approved the permits that way. Now the adjacent residents are questioning whether or not that wall was a condition of the conditional use permit.



10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. McErlane reported what I am considering doing is sending a notice to the operator of the day care that Planning Commission needs to rereview their conditional use permit and try to find some way to mitigate the noise problem. We considered trying to do it between the complaining parties and the applicant, but weíre not sure it would satisfy everybody. I think if we get something of a consensus among Planning Commission, the complaining parties and the applicant, we hopefully can put it to rest.

Mr. Galster said hours of operation seem to have come up . Was there anything in our approval that restricted their hours, whether or not it was allowed on the weekend or how late in the evening?

Mr. McErlane reported that hours of operation is a consideration for Planning Commission to review and make an approval to a conditional use permit, but it wasnít discussed in the minutes. It turns out that the lady that operates the business also is working with a church and has small children there on Sunday mornings for Sunday School classes. I have talked to her about when the kids are outside playing, and she has delayed that until later in the day. (I think there were some concerns that they were out there early).

Mr. Galster asked how long they are open on weekdays, and Mr. McErlane responded when we discussed pickup times, they indicated 6 p.m. was their closing time, so the largest number of people coming to the site were 7 to 9 in the morning and 5 to 6 in the evening.

Mr. Galster said at the last Council meeting, Mr. Sharkey was present. In talking to him after the meeting, he was saying imagine 20 screaming kids from 8 in the morning to 6 at night Monday through Monday. Saturdays and Sundays were just as bad and he said the volume is phenomenal even with windows closed.

Mr. McErlane responded I have talked to the operator of the day care, and they do not have children there on Saturday. Apparently they are either coming over from The Colony or the marketing operation next door is sending kids out to the playground to play, but they are not coming from the day care.

Mr. McErlane added I was at the day care center at twenty till eight in the morning and I didnít find any kids outside, so they are not there early in the morning. I donít know when they send them out, but that was one of the things we wanted to clarify with them, how often and when they are outside.

Mr. Galster wondered if we set any time limits when we approved it, and Mr. McErlane responded that we did not. There are some limitations on what we can do from that standpoint, because they are under state licensing requirements for outdoor play.







10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Galster asked if we are trying to say that the conditional use permit was granted based on the wall and screening which hasnít been provided so that is the only reason we can get them back in here. Mr. McErlane responded that and maybe some allusion to the fact that we didnít understand that the noise was going to be the problem that it currently is.

Mr. Galster said if the noise by itself is an issue is that enough to revoke a conditional use permit? Mr. McErlane responded I am not sure that I can unilaterally revoke a conditional use permit granted by Planning Commission. Mr. Galster asked if Planning Commission could, and Mr. McErlane answered I would think they could, but they would have to make sureÖMr. Huddleston added if they substantially violated legally the provisions and conditions. Mr. Galster commented but they havenít changed the condition. They have a day care facility, and they havenít changed that. I am saying if it is more volume than we anticipated, is volume an issue that can cause the conditional use permit to be revoked? They presented a day care facility, and that is what they have.

Mr. Syfert commented I think we looked at a possible noise barrier, which is not there. In my mind, that would be enough to bring them back in, because we have the complaints. Had it been there, maybe we wouldnít have had these complaints.

Mr. Galster said if that is the case and they build the barriers and put up what we approved them to and they still have the noise complaint, do we have the ability to revoke a conditional use permit?

Mr. Syfert commented Iíd say that would be a little touchy then. Mr. Huddleston wondered if the day care provider is amicable to negotiating this. Mr. McErlane responded faced with the alternative of building a wall, I am sure they would be amicable to some kind of resolution other than building a wall. Personally, I donít think building a wall would work from an engineering standpoint, because you canít dig down and get the drainage you need. It was found to be not necessary for that reason, so at this point to excavate and put a wall in will make the drainage not work.

Mr. Darby wondered if some efforts at mediation had occurred. Mr. McErlane reported that they had not. Since there are about seven property owners that signed a petition, to try to do it between one property owner and the operator of the business and get something we think will work between those two and find out that it is not satisfactory for somebody else, I would rather see this as a joint effort and get everybodyís input and Planning Commissionís approval on it.

Mr. Darby commented having evaluated the situation, at this point do you have any recommendation? Mr. McErlane reported we talked about a natural screen which would be difficult to do because you canít get the plant material that large to do it effectively. The other alternative would be a fence that is designed so that it absorbs the sound a little better.


10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Okum said maybe we use the buffer yard standards on this too., like mounding or something of that nature to break the sound.

Ms. McBride reported we looked at some of those things, but there is some existing vegetation on the site, and we didnít want to dislodge that in favor of putting up a mounding and four-foot high evergreens or whatever. There are different types of fencing that are sound attenuating that they could consider, so there are different alternatives that if we get it back before Planning Commission, we could have some suggestions.

Mr. Syfert commented I think that is what we need, some alternatives to suggest. Mr. Okum added we also would need to have some sound level readings taken . I think it is critical, because we have a situation here that something didnít happen that we anticipated would happen and it is a Conditional Use Permit. I do recall that the gentleman mentioned here earlier was one of the persons who spoke at that public meeting about that development in its previous use. So I think we have an obligation to hear the issues. If we donít have people coming forward with ideas, I donít want to be the improvisational group to come up with the answers. I want this brought before us with proposed solutions.

Mr. Vanover said I would also like to have some sound readings. It may be legitimate, but it also could be that it was a t horn when it went in and it will continue to be a thorn. We have to be fair to the day care center as well as the residents. Is that play area not fenced at all? Mr. McErlane reported it has a four-foot chain link fence. Mr. Vanover said if we have kids coming from the neighborhood, maybe a lock on there would help.

Mr. Okum said I noticed the day care facility on Chester Road, and their play area is surrounded by a cedar fence, maybe six feet high. Possibly we as members could drives by and look at how that facility was treated with an enclosure around the play area.

Mr. Vanover added that building is u shaped and the play area is in a courtyard like situation. I think it is an eight-foot section of privacy fence.

Mr. Huddleston said I think this highlights a condition that may not need to be addressed in the code documents, but I think you will see this more and more over time, seven day care centers and maybe even multi-shift day care centers. It certainly behooves us to stay attuned to us in the future and maybe address it in the code.

Mr. Darby commented as I look down the road on this, I think we will have to tread lightly, because what would any agency of the city do if surrounding residents complained about the noises level coming from the elementary school during recess for example. Institutionally, you are talking about the same kind of organization that is chartered by the state, and they have certain kinds of practices that are part of the program. This is one in which I certainly think there should be no rush to judgment. If it can be mediated prior to coming to this commission, I really think that would be advisable


10 OCTOBER 2000



Mr. Vanover added we might need legal interpretation on what constitutes the pulling of a conditional use. I would rather see some resolution negotiated between the two parties, but I think we need to have that additional information at our fingertips, some input anyway.

Mr. McErlane said to expand on Mr. Darbyís comments, we looked at the conditions that are to be considered by the Planning Commission in a Conditional Use Permit, and noise is one of the things to consider. One of our previous conditional uses was an auto repair place. If you are changing mufflers next to a residential neighborhood, you want to offset the noise. We never considered the sound of children playing in a residential neighborhood as a detrimental effect.

Mr. Shvegzda said as we were discussing the naming of roadways, for your information there are two streets in the city that have no name. One of them is the street formerly known as Commons Drive and the connector road that runs to the north of the former Boston Markets. I bring that up because I had a comment from Police Chief Laage who indicated that his officers asked when filing accident reports what to refer those as.

Mr. Parham said on the street name, Commons Way was not a street at that time, but on the plans it was always seen to be the connection to Century Boulevard. That issue has always been addressed at City Council. I canít ever recall it ever being addressed with this body. We have always assumed that it was an issue for City Council and would have to be handled by elected officials. The name change was pretty much blessed by City Council to become Commons Drive and not Century Boulevard. We took it to the elected officials and indicated that there were a number of businesses on this drive and that is why we made the change.

The issue you handled tonight was a part of the process ongoing there. As Mr. McErlane indicated, that will go back to City Council for their approval.

Mr. Darby said I recall during my first s tint on Planning Commission when Duke made street name recommendations to us for their development, we did not accept the names that they proposed.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present in November, and they indicated they would be.

Mr. Okum said Board of Zoning Appeals referred one item back to the City Planner. It was a non-conforming use and mix or property. My feeling was that it really belonged to Planning and our Building Official felt it belonged with the BZA. Our City Planner will make a recommendation as to which way it should go.





10 OCTOBER 2000


Mr. Okum said you brought up the item of schools and how they impact on a residential area. Home schooling has become very popular. I donít know if we tied that into our new code. Can you imagine this same situation with 20 kids in the middle of a neighborhood? We may have those type issues occurring in the future.

Mr. Okum added someone commented to me concerning prohibition on power braking. This is where communities are outlawing power braking in their communities. Eighteen wheelers that use a device on their trucks to assist their stopping distance with power brakes. It is used consistently on the exit by Glensprings and Route 4 and the echo of that goes all the way into Springdale Lake Drive and The Knolls Development. I donít know if there are limitations on that, but I have heard that other communities are limiting where it can and canít be used.

Mr. McErlane commented it probably is a traffic issue rather than a zoning issue. Mr. Galster added it would be the police enforcement of sound; there are sound ordinances. Mr. Syfert added that the driver retards the exhaust, which slows the truck down without using brakes. If they are on a state highway, I donít think there is a thing you can do about it, even if it is in your city limits.

Mr. Vanover asked if there were anything the city could do about the pitiful excuse for landscaping at Loweís. There are weeds bigger than their bushes and the trees are dying off. Mr. Huddleston commented I am disappointed in the way they operate that. They constantly violate that outdoor storage regulation with something.


A. Ampac Ė 12025 Tricon Road Ė Ground Sign

    1. Lakeside Products Ė 11540 Century Boulevard Ė Wall Sign



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,2000 _______________________

William Syfert, Chairman



______________________,2000 _________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary