HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-15-19 still working on this. The Petitioner proposed two types,underneath the awnings,and the goose-neck lights over the
awnings. They proposed additional wall path lights will be installed to illuminate the drive thru. Brad: At Committee,
Ican you show where the lights will be at? Eric Gleissner: The lights will be mounted underneath and above the
awnings. The goose neck lights are accent and aesthetic lighting. They don't provide much illumination. It is important
to us to have the drive-thru illuminated well. We will continue to work on this with staff as we go forward to the
Committee.
Josh: What are the materials that will be used on the building? Is there something else that can be considered besides
the stone?I feel this stone material product is overplayed. Eric Gleissner: We won't have any issues to substitute this
with something else. The architect has been working with Staff on this. Josh: I would like to make a recommendation
to the Committee to look into other materials.
Sue: Is there any stacking limit on the drive thru? Rachel: The Michigan Road Overlay has certain stacking
requirements,and it's the only overlay that has the requirement of 10 spaces for restaurants with a drive thru.Eric
Gleissner: Our restaurant in Westfield has a similar layout. I rarely see it stacked past 10 spaces. If we were to be over
capacity,we have plenty of room to stack them. I don't think that will be an issue. Brad: At the BZA hearing,we were
told this restaurant does a higher rate of sit down dining then drive thru service. Sue: I just have a safety concern with
people parking their cars and backing up to the cars waiting in line.
Alan: Can you bring more detailed renderings to the Committee meeting? Bring more details of what it will look like as
you approach the menu order area at the drive thru. Are there one or two lanes? Eric Gleissner: There will be two lanes
that merge into one lane as they come to the side of the building. Alan: Can you bring a better drawing to better depict
this? Eric Gleissner: I can bring that to the Committee meeting.
Alan: Do the windows have glass block or cement block? Eric Gleissner: It's just a bricked-in(looking)window. It's
Ia building accent to simulate a window. It's a different brick to break up the facade.
Alan: Will you have answers to the Staff's outstanding items? Eric Gleissner: We will have comments to provide the
Staff. We will continue to work with Staff on the awning design, lighting details,vehicular and sidewalk connections to
the north,and regional waste approvals. The landscape plan will be finalized with the Urban Forester.
Brad: Will the roof top mechanics be screened or hidden on the roof? Eric Gleissner: Sheet A3 in the packet shows
the mechanical units. They will be completely screened in.
Brad: I'm concerned with the durability of the awning materials and it looking cheap. Are there other durable options
for materials to be used as the awning? Can you address that in Committee? Eric Gleissner: Yes
Nick: For the blocked in brick windows,maybe put in fake windows instead of brick. Eric Gleissner: I will work with
Staff and the Architect to see if that's possible.
A motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to send Docket Nos. 18100012 DP/ADLS& 18100013 SP to
Commercial Committee on February 5,2019,with final voting authority.
Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati
3. Docket No. 18110010 PP: Hampstead Garden Subdivision,Primary Plat(aka Camferdam)
4. Docket No. 18110012 SW: Hampstead Waiver-UDO 7.25.E.3: Connectivity: All developments shall
provide stub streets
The applicant seeks primary plat and design standard waiver approval for a 12 lot subdivision on 18 acres. The
site is located on the east side of Hoover Road,north of 116th Street.It is zoned S-1/Residential. Filed by Nelson
and Frankenberger,on behalf of Platinum Properties Management Company.
3
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19
Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Tim Walter,Jim Shinaver,and other members of our development team are here tonight
• Presented an aerial map, included in Tab 2 of the info packet
• Presented a site plan, showed the layout of subdivision
• We are proposing 12 residential lots ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 acres
• Access to the subdivision will be at Hoover Road
• 32%open space will be provided,the UDO requires minimum of 25%
• 60%of the woodlands will be preserved
• Storm water detention will be placed north and south of the lots
• The pipeline easement is 50' wide and runs through lots 6& 7
• Lot prices will $250-$300k,with homes in the$700k to$1 million plus price range
• We are requesting approval in not providing a stub street in connection to the adjoining parcel to the south
• Providing a stub street will result in the loss of trees and character in this area
• We think the preservation of the woodlands outweighs the need for a connection to an adjacent development
• We believe this will be respectful addition to this area
• We will continue to work with Staff in consideration of this waiver request
Public Comments:
Don Hayes, lives directly north of the subject property: What are the prices of the lots and houses? What will you do
around and with the creek? The creek goes through my property.
Dee Fox, lives in West Cannel: I would like to thank the land owners and the developer for this rare true S-1
development proposal. It actually fits the West Cannel Comprehensive Plan. It's not trying to build the minimum or
maximum lot capacities. It shows respect for wildlife,tree preservation,and its adjacent neighbors. I hope the Plan
Commission will work for maximizing the tree preservation. I would like to see the details of where the tree preservation
will take place and if more than 60%can be preserved. I hope the Plan Commission will grant the waiver of the
Petitioner's request to not have a stub street. This small subdivision is quite small and doesn't need a stub street.
Petitioner Rebuttal: Jon Dobosiewicz
• A dry retention area will be along Clay Creek
• Referring to site map,the yellow area includes the tree preservation
• There are more trees on lots 6 and 7 and will try to preserve as many as possible
• Lot prices are$200k-$350k,houses will start at 700k and go up from there
Brad: I would like to note the property values, lot or home prices are not a factor in our consideration as the Plan
Commission.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• They are proposing to create 12 single family lots on a cul-de-sac with 32%open space
• 1 lot per acre for maximum density is allowed and they are proposing a max of 0.65 lots per acre
• They meet all the UDO standards,min. lot size, front,rear,and side yard setbacks
• The connectivity requirement per UDO was not met
• There's already an approved primary plat,all new developments must connect to a stub street that is proposed for
a neighboring subdivision
• Its meets the land use and development goals of the Comprehensive Plan
• We asked for more trees to be placed around the detention areas
• They did not propose any entrance signage
• In the department report, Staff included the approved primary plat(from 2005)directly to the south and their
proposed stub street,where connectivity would be required.
• If that's not the ideal spot for the stub street because of the grading and existing trees,we could possibility move
the stub street to another area
• We recommend this goes to Residential Committee on February 5th for further review and discussion
4
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19
Committee Comments:
Josh: The rendering of the retention areas looks gorgeous,but I see residents of putting up tennis courts,basketball
Icourts,and storage sheds on this. We need to discuss in Committee how to preserve this area. We had to rectify this
problem with another development. Bring your ideas in how to preserve this area and prevent people for putting up
courts and sheds. Jon Dobosiewicz: These retention areas are in the common areas,and that's maintained by the HOA.
Josh: For example in Foster Estates,that was a common area,and people put up landscaping mounds, sheds,basketball
and tennis courts. Alexia: Will these retention areas be mowed or will this be natural vegetation? Jon Dobosiewicz:
I'll have an answer to that at Committee.
Laura: How will there be a house on Lot 7 with the pipeline going right through it? Jon Dobosiewicz: The house will
be set to the west of the easement. The site layout can be deceptive but these are 3 acre lots. There's more than enough
room to put a house on these lots adjacent to the pipeline. Nothing will be constructed on the eastside of lots 6& 7. This
will preserve the existing trees. We will bring some site layouts of the building pads to the Committee.
Sue: Where would a stub street be placed at to meet up with the proposed stub street to the south? Jon Dobosiewicz:
Referring to layout, if a street were constructed on our site in Lot 7,the trees would have to be cleared out all the way to
the creek line,because of the large differences in the grade. We think there's a greater sense to preserve this area. The
area directly south of this was plated in 2005. That primary plat was filed before the City passed an ordinance that
restricted development along 116th Street to a minimum of 3 acre per lot.The proposed lots are 1 acre in size,and that's
why they filed the plat before the ordinance was passed. I don't think much thought was put in the proposed location of
their stub street. Staff indicated there might be a better location for a stub street. We know the City can compel that
owner to provide a plan that is different than what was proposed and approved.
Brad: Will a multi-use path be provided in this subdivision? The pipeline easement provides an opportunity for such a
path. Jon Dobosiewicz: There are single residential estates to the north and east. We would construct a path in front of
Iour subdivision for future connectivity to 116th. We will also have 5' wide sidewalks in our subdivision. The biggest
benefit is the ability to get to Coxhall Gardens. Brad: You could construct a path along the east side in the common area
of the tree preservation area and run along the south property line. Jon Dobosiewicz: Lots 6& 7 are not in a common
area. The common area is along the south edge of the perimeter. We can look into additional opportunities for
pedestrian access. Brad: Even those would be enhancements.
Brad: Is there any multi-use path that will tie into the frontage of this subdivision? Jon Dobosiewicz: There is a path
that is north of our development,on the east side of Hoover Road,but that ends at the entrance of VOWC.There is no
path south of our development on the east side of Hoover Road. There is a path that goes along Hoover Road on the west
side of the road. Josh: It would be helpful to have a stretch of path on the frontage of Mr.Hayes' property. Brad: Was
a path required on the frontage for the two estate properties(Foyt&Irsay)northeast of Mr.Hayes property? Alexia: I'll
check and see what was required.
A motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to send Docket Nos. 18110010 PP& 18110012 SW to Residential
Committee on February 5,2019,with the full Plan Commission having final voting authority.
Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati
Old Business
1. Tabled Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone
with ISBG Capital,LLC.
5
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19