8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Pearson stated that the dental office is a proposed new building. the two existing structures on the property will be removed.  The proposed building consists of two suites for each dentist.  There will be six exam rooms, a staff of six and up to 10-12 clients, and three per hour for each practice.


The Pregnancy Care Center enters through a shared access drive with parking here and staff parking behind the building.


There is a proposed Phase II, a two-story addition that could be over the back porch, at which time the garage would be removed.


On the dentist’s site, parking would be across the front with the overflow on the side and staff parking would be in the back.


We received the review comments and we have been responding by providing additional information and documentation.  We feel we have demonstrated jour willingness to work with the requirements.


In general, we are agreeable to the conditions presented by staff review but there are a few areas where we were not able to respond to the letter of the request of the first review


We are in the process of putting together some additional documentation for water and sewer availability.


When we submitted our revised landscape plan, there were a number of comments made previously a request for more significant buffering, and we did a lot on that, but there are more comments that need to be addressed.


One of the recommendations was that access onto Hickory Street not be allowed.  However, if we did not have that connection, we would have a dead end condition, and we are concerned about that. 


There was some concern about pass through traffic, but it is so circuitous, we were not sure that is a valid concern.


If the concern is that they would exit through the neighborhood, there are not that many through that neighborhood.  So, we would like to maintain that access from Hickory Street.


We have heard there may be some concern about the parking in the front of the building.  It is not in the published comments, but we have tried to address that.  We have reduced the parking spaces to 48 spaces, but they need to project for growth.


Another issue was signage.  Normally we would be allowed 66 s.f. and the recommendation limited it to 40 s.f.  So we revised it to 40 s.f. for the Pregnancy Care and at least one for the dentist, but since there are two practices, we would like two signs.







8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Pearson added what we received in the latest comments was a single sign only 20 s.f.  It seems like the amount of signage is being reduced as we go.  Since we have these two separate practices, we need enough signage space for both of them.


On the question of the light pole height, we need 15 feet, and the recommendation is 10 feet.  Our point is we do have a lot of lighting to provide, and it will take 14 or 15 poles at 15 feet.  We are looking for a design more residential looking with low glare.  If it is limited to 10 feet, okay, but we are still hoping for 15 feet.


Mr. Galster said with all due respect, I do not agree that you meet the residential intention of the transitional district when you have the parking in the front.  I think it is extremely critical that the parking be moved to the rear to maintain the residential feel of the area.  I have a major issue with all this pavement in the front of the building and claiming it is residential.


Dr. Onady brought forward a photograph, saying this is the residence there doors down and the home is as far back as our property will be and the parking is in the front.  People come up and down the street and we need to be seen.  We have to have this in the front; it will kill us if we don’t.


Mr. Coleman said initially when this development was presented to us, I had serious concerns about it at that location. I am concerned about our maintaining a residential neighborhood in light of the school across the street, I am concerned about the flow of traffic.

With a parking lot in the front, it has lost its residential flare.


Dr. Onady said I have been committed to this since 1992 and we feel the structure we are presenting is a very well designed structure.  It does look like a house.  You have a nice roof line with good materials.  I have seen pictures of these offices in other communities and you would not realize that they are dental offices.  We feel that this building looks like a residential budding, and we have to have some parking in the front.  I am losing a handful of people every month because they cannot manage the steps any more, and I would really like to stay in Springdale.


Mr. Syfert said I do not think Mr. Galster objects to the appearance of the building.  His objection is to all the parking in the front.


Mr. Galster said what we are talking about here is a residential neighborhood and all this front parking does not lend itself to a residential neighborhood.


We think it is important for you to stay in Springdale, but that does not change the fact that  this has a retail complex feel to it.  Could the building be flipped around?

Dr. Onady responded the back end of the building would not be as attractive .  Also, the school will have parking all around it, and it is across the street from our property.




8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Galster said the parking for the school will be where the old school is now.  It will be behind the building.


Mr. Okum said usually I agree with Mr. Galster but I think the doctor has a valid point.  I would not that rear elevation facing Kemper Road.  It would be very hard for us to force them to put a different elevation on that Kemper Road site.  I agree that by putting parking on Kemper Road, it carries the appearance of commercial, but as I look at B-1 and B-2, I would prefer B-1 facing Kemper Road.  I would want that parcel to be included in that consideration so that property does not become an island on its own.


I can understand the doctor’s position that the good looking front of the building should face Kemper Road and it is the entrance to his business.  I do not want to see those steel doors and exits on the rear elevation facing Kemper Road.


Mr. Galster said I would not want the rear end of the building facing Kemper Road either, and if that requires two fronts to the building, that might be the case.


Ms. McBride reported that medical uses are permitted in this district .  The development contains 1.57 acres and a total building area of 7,300 s.f., which meets the required setbacks..  Required are 38 parking spaces and a total of 48 are provided.  The parking areas meet the required setbacks.  The shared access drive and portions of the parking adjacent to it do not meet the required 10-foot setback but since this is a unified development, Planning can modify the requirements.


The applicant is proposing the vacation of the north portion of East Alley by the City from West Kemper Road to the south property le of the site, which is appropriate.  The City also should consider vacation of the southern portion of East Alley to Cherry Street as well.


We have no information on the location or screening of mechanical equipment, and all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view with details submitted for approval.


The access to Hickory Street should be eliminated due to the visibility of the access drive and the potential for cut through traffic.


The complete landscape plan is not visible on the print provided for review.  It should be corrected to allow the full site plan to be reviewed.  A tree on the east side of the new building along the side parking lot will not survive a storm sewer proposed to be installed approximately 2’ from the trunk of the tree.  Therefore the tree should be included in the tree inventory for removal.  Another tree on the east side closest to the front parking area appears to have a large grade change and will not survive long term so this also should be included in the tree replacement list.  Landscape screening should be provided around the dumpster enclosure.





8 MARCH 2005





Ms. McBride reported that a note on the plan indicates lighting to be mounted at a maximum height of 10 to 15 feet.  Given the location of the parking areas near residential areas, staff feels the maximum height should be 10 feet.  Light levels at the property lines cannot exceed 0.5 foot-candles.


Mr. McErlane reported that the owner’s affidavit for the west parcels was noted submitted, nor was the material and color palette.


The City will need to vacate the East Alley right of way that separates the parcels to be developed.  The applicant will need to relocate the private sanitary sewer lateral that runs down this right of way to Kemper Road from the residence at 332 Cherry Street.  It has not yet been determined if the oration the alley adjacent to 332 Cherry will be abandoned by the City but if so, it has been determined that this abandoned right of way would be deeded to 332 Cherry Street.


Based on the tabulation, 491 caliper inches of Category I trees are to be removed, of which 115 inches are exempt from replanting.  A total of 188 caliper inches of trees are required to be replanted, and 14” of this total must be 3” minimum caliper to replace major trees. 


There are 25 trees shown on site “B”, but the planting schedule does not appear to coincide with the planting plan. 


On the covenants, language should be added requiring the owner to maintain the storm water detention system.  The maximum impervious surface ratio should be reduced to less than 0.55.  The maximum height should be restricted to 35’ and paragraph 3.1 indicates that there will be one ground sign, but the drawings show two.


Mr. Madl reported that an additional access point from Hickory Street is now shown, which would encourage cut-through traffic through the Baldwin subdivision so it should not be constructed at this time.


Storm sewer capacity calculations were not provided, and the detention calculations are based on “tributary area to the detention system” which is 1.16 acres.  They should be based on the entire site, 1.57 acres.   The developer is proposing 6,420 c.f. of underground detention.  With the redeveloped condition assumed to be totally undeveloped, the required volume would be approximately 10,000 c.f.


Existing utilities within the right of way need to be shown to confirm no conflicts exist with the proposed storm sewer, and the proposed storm sewer should be constructed outside of the existing Kemper Road pavement.


This parcel shall be consolidated as part of this redevelopment.  Existing and proposed utility easements, if any should be shown and labeled. 




8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Madl reported that provisions to provide sanitary service to any existing homes that will remain need to be included.  The plans need to be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.  The covenants note an access easement with the adjoining parcel, and the limits of this easement should be included.


The general contractor said I am curious to see how we got this far without any terminology that stated anything about the front parking.  If I had known that, I would never have allowed the doctors to design anything like that in the front.  The architect did all the design work and went a long way on this.  It is disappointing to work so long on this and hear this comment.


Mr. Galster said I think the parking for this location always has been an issue.  The residential feel always has been an issue.  Every opportunity I have had to make parking behind the building an issue, I have done so. 


Council was the last time you were before any board, and there was no discussion about the issue, but when this was originally proposed, there was conversation about parking behind the building, not in front of it.


The contractor responded I am saying that I am disappointed that it was not brought up in the staff reports.  If that reason had been brought up, we would never have designed it this way.  We could flip the building, but we have spent a lot of time and effort not to do that. 


Dr. Onady said economically, if we cannot have the front of the building and park in the front, I cannot do this project.  It will cost over  $1 million for this project, and I cannot do it without the visibility from the front.  I just cannot do it.


Dr. Miller added we have invested 13 years in Springdale and we are a small business.  It was our desire to have our dream office, and put in the highest quality material that could be put in.   You talk about keeping this a residential look, who is the residential look designed for?  The next door neighbor is the church, the Pregnancy Care Center, and across the street is the school.  There is one house in the back.  I don’t know why one row of parking makes a building look so terrible.  Right now there are two houses that look terrible, and you should be glad that somebody is coming along to get rid of them.  We are making a good faith effort to improve this area. 


Dr. Onady has looked for six to seven years.  We have done all we can do, and we have certain things that we need.  This committee is not conducive to that.  I do not see why a little bit of bending can’t take place.  We need parking in the front so that people can see that we are in business.  We need a sign that somebody can see and know that we are there.  Patients judge you by your facilities, your sign and the area you are in.  We are not asking for a lot, but if it is not important to you that dentists be in this area, that might be the way we take.



8 MARCH 2005





Dr. Miller added that the access to Hickory Street is important because at 5 p.m. the traffic backs up, and with the school across the street, there probably will be a couple of times a day when people will be bringing their children to school.  If our patients cannot come out of the parking lot, they will not come back.


We have six employees apiece and 38 parking spaces would take care of us right now, but we hope to grow.  We have calculated that we will have 10 employees, and we do not think that 48 spaces are excessive.  The problem with our current building is that they did not take into consideration people growing older and the stairs, and we are trying to plan ahead in that regard.  The facility will be handicap accessible.


The sign needs to be addressed.   Originally the sign was to be 66 s.f., then 40 s.f. and now it is 20 s.f., and I do not understand that.


Mr. Pearson said in terms of the front parking, it seems that a site like this should be able to fit a project like this in.   There are many things that support the idea of doing this.  When you start thinking about the particulars of the sign, and the concern about the parking in the front, it seems like we need to balance these concerns with the positives of the project.  We feel that we have tried to do the best that we can to respond to all these issues, and we think it is not an unreasonable proposal. 


Mr. Syfert commented that since the parking in the front seems to be a major issue, do the doctors need all those spaces?


Doctor Onady responded I think we can concede a few spaces.  We have elderly and handicapped people and when the weather is bad, it is good to have three or four spaces in front of each door.  We want to try to work with you, but we do need some parking in front.  If we have two to three patients an hour, three to four places n front of each door should work.  We even bought the one property hoping that this would work out.


Mr. Madl said if the Hickory Street access is removed, there would be room for additional parking that you might work in the front of the building. 


Mr. Okum said I am thinking about bringing down the front parking a couple of spaces.  Dr. Onady responded the front of my office will be on that side of the building.  If we cut the front down, where are the other ten people going to park?  Would you want to walk around the building to get in?  Mr. Okum said if there are two dentists, why the parking on Hickory Street?  Dr. Onady answered where would you want to park if you were coming to my offices on that side of the building?


Mr. Okum asked how many parking spaces are needed at the primary entrance, and Dr. Onady answered right now about five but with growth about 12.






8 MARCH 2005





Dr. Onady said you have to realize that we are not a big business.  I do not have big dollars to put into this.  We have already spent about $20,000 in what you are seeing tonight, and the question is, do I want to put $20,000 more on something I cannot know what will happen?


The contractor said what do we do about parking in the front?  We need a finite situation where you say no parking in the front or 12 spaces; we need to know.    Now that everything is on the table, I am asking you for a decision – you will allow us six or eight or 12 in the front.  Then we can sit down and decide if we can do it. 


Mr. Okum said I think you could have a little in the front, pushing as much to the side as you can.  The contractor asked where do we go from here, and Mr. Okum responded poll the members.


The contractor said so if we take that parking, cut it in half and get rid of the Hickory Street access, would that be allowed?  Mr. Syfert responded  I think we can get by with three in the front and go around to the side.


Mr. Butrum commented I could live with four parking spots for each dentist – two handicapped and two non-handicapped.  That would be the right balance of pavement and green.


Mr. Coleman said I would like a limited number of spaces in the front and more parking in the back.  I see nothing wrong with having two entrances so people can enter from the front or the rear. 


Dr. Miller said our offices are not designed to have entrance in the rear.  Our front desk is in the front, and patients do not come from in from the back.  We would have privacy concerns with people coming in from the back.  We are not physicians and we have a lot of equipment and only so much square footage. 


Mr. Okum said if they get four parking spaces each by the front doors and additional side parking, they are fine.   It sounds like somewhat of a consensus.  This is a point to start with.


Mr. Galster said I think if you have 11 parking spaces on the side in that landscape area, you would have no need for the handicap spaces in the front.


Dr. Onady answered the four parking spaces in front fits better.  We have already conceded all these other spaces.  Landscaping makes the building look better and you have a balance with the landscaping. It makes the building look better.


Mr. Okum said I have some concern about the parking spaces that aback out into the driveway aisle.  I don’t know what we can do about them, but we should look at it.  Mr. Madl agreed that it should be looked at.




8 MARCH 2005





Ms. McBride said we had a discussion about that, but the access drive is 24’ in width, and the fact that it is the employees parking to the rear, we considered the other options.  This is the best case scenario.  Mr. Madl added also it is a decent distance off the right of way. 


Mr. Okum said we also require a .05 foot candle at the property line, particularly at the residential line. 


Dr. Onady said the office we are in now is small with only two lights in the entire lot, and we have twice the parking area there.


Mr. Okum responded we are looking at controlled lighting, and we want 0-fall at the residential line.  If we would bring the poles down to 10 feet in height, could trucks hit them?  Ms. McBride answered they will have to be properly placed, but we will not have 15 foot poles. 


Dr. Onady asked if we can do this with fewer poles.  Mr. Okum said whatever works.  You need to have a balance of light without significant hot spots. 


Dr. Miller wondered where why we are making some big deal about parking in front.  There are no residences, except the Dick people in the back yard.


Mr. Syfert responded we are here to deal with what the City wants. It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to everyone in the City.


Mr. Galster said I am concerned if we have a retail establishment look here.  At some point you have to stop it if you want to keep the residential character of Kemper Road.  That is why I do not want front parking at all.


Dr. Onady answered the bottom line, the question is can we have three or four parking spaces in front of the door.   Mr. Syfert answered that is the consensus.


Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.  All present voted aye, and it was tabled to the April 12th meeting.


Ms. McBride said if the applicant has questions ion anything, we would be happy to meet with you.


F.     Preliminary Development Plan Approval of Proposed Pregnancy Care Center, 309 West Kemper Road


Ms. McBride reported that the proposed development is on 1.168 acres with a total building area on build out of 4,730 s.f.  The 4,730 s.f. of social service office would require a total of 224 parking spaces.  Eighteen are proposed with the first phase of the development, and a total of 26 are proposed for the final build out.





8 MARCH 2005





Ms. McBride said the shared access drive and portions of the parking adjacent to it do not meet the required 10 foot setback adjacent to non-residential uses, but Planning can modify the requirements if it chooses to.


The existing residence, Phase One is located 5 feet from the east side lot line.  Completion of the development at the end of Phase Two provides for a side yard setback of 12 feet to the east where 50 feet is required.  Screening will need to be provided to the single family residence to the east for both phases of the development.


         The existing and proposed heights of the structures have been

Indicated to be “approximately 35 feet”.  Waste will be handled using trash cans to be stored in the garage which is being converted to a meeting room.


No covenants were submitted for the development.  These must be provided and address issues such as use, intensity of development, signage, etc.


A 45.3 s.f. sign, 7 feet high is indicated on West Kemper Road, on a stone base with brick accents.  It is to be located 10 feet from the right of way and externally illuminated.  Given the residential transitional character of the area, Staff believes 20 s.f. of sign area is more appropriate with a maximum height of 5 feet. 


Upright evergreen trees should be used to buffer the residence to the east of the project and screen visibility from the center towards the residence.  With future construction, additional landscape plan material shall be installed in the footprint of where the structure was removed.  This plant material should be such that will increase the privacy of the adjacent residents, such as Leatherleaf Viburnum or White Pine.


When the Phase Two expansion of the parking lot is constructed, the landscaping shall be extended to the new east and south limits of the parking area.  This buffer shall include 2 ½ Skyline Honeylocust 25 feet on center, and a mix of Green Juniper or equals.  Plant material shall screen the vehicles from the adjacent properties and block the headlights of vehicles in the proposed parking lot.


The applicant has indicated that they intend to use lighting at a height of 15 feet.  Staff believes with the parking areas near residential areas that the a maximum mounting height should be 10 feet.  Light levels at the property lines cannot exceed 0.5 foot-candles, and a photometraic lighting plan will have to be submitted.


Ms. McBride reported that Phase II is showing the removal of the existing one-story structure and the construction of a two-story addition.








8 MARCH 2005





Mr. McErlane reported that the first phase of the project maintains the existing structures on the site (2 ½ story brick building, and 8900 s.f. garage to be converted to a meeting room and a sheds) and 18 parking spaces to be constructed.  The second phase removes the 800 s.f. garage and constructs a 2-story 2400 s.f. addition on the rear of the main structure, and adds 8 additional parking spaces for a total of 26.


The covenants, material and color palette for the addition and preliminary elevation drawing of the renovated garage or addition were not submitted.


A tree removal plan was submitted and based on the tabulation, a total of 35 caliper inches of Category I trees are to be removed, and4” of Category III.  A total of 17.5” of Category I trees and 2” of Category II trees must be replaced.    Only two Category I trees are proposed.  Ten evergreens are proposed but they are not of the minimum 10’ replanting height, and it is not likely that tree replanting will be satisfied. 


A single ground sign was indicated at 6’-8” high and a 5’-8” x 8’ sign face which will be externally illuminated.  The “Sign Notes” indicates it is 40 s.f. per side. 


No covenants were submitted, but should include restricting the use on the property as office, and prohibiting drive-throughs, maintenance of buffer yards, landscaping and storm water detention, one identification sign 7’ maximum height, 45 s.f. in area each side and constructed with brick finish supporting structure to match the main building, maximum impervious surface ratio of 0.35 and a maximum structure height limit of 35’.


Mr. Galster asked if this was the first time Planning had seen Phase II Susan Brown, Executive Director reported that Phase II will only occur if “Healthy Beginnings”, a prenatal care group, comes in.  If they do not, there will not be a Phase II.


Ms. Brown asked if the covenants should address the possibility of a tenant if Healthy Beginnings would join us, and Ms. McBride answered you could indicate a maximum amount of square footage that would be devoted to the medical office.   Mr. Syfert asked if they were working on the covenants, and Ms. Brown indicated that they were.


Mr. Madl reported that the curbing is shown graphically around the parking lot perimeter, drives and landsadaped islands but needs to be noted in a legend and detail provided.


The sidewalk elevation should be clarified as compared to the pavement in the new parking lot.  It is unclear if curb ramps will be provided or if pavement is to be flush with the sidewalk.  Grading needs to be detailed as water may be directed toward the sidewalk and then the building.




8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Madl added that the proposed sidewalk is not dimensioned and is shown beyond the subject property lines; we assume this is inaccurate.


The detention calculations are based on the “tributary area to the detention system” which is only 0.35 acres, and should be based on the entire site, 1.168 acres.    There also are some minor problems with the methods used in these calculations.  The developer is proposing 2205 c.f. of underground detention.  With the pre-developed condition assumed to be totally undeveloped, the required volume would be approximately 9,100 c.f.


There is a concern on the location to tie into the existing storm sewers along Kemper Road.  The plans indicate approximately 300’ of storm sewer to be constructed within the Kemper Road pavement.  This would tie into the existing storm sewer.  The current drainage patterns for the site will need to be detailed and the capacity of the existing storm sewer verified. 


Additionally, existing and proposed utility easements should be shown and labeled.  The plans need to b signed and sealed by a professional engineer.  Letters of availability for water and sanitary services need to be provided, and covenants need to be submitted.


Mr. Galster asked how critical the sign at the roadway was, suggesting an address placard rather than Pregnancy Care Center and your sign back on the building.


Ms. Brown stated that it is pretty critical to have our sign as close to the street as possible because we take walk in clients.  It is our primary way to let people know we are there.  We do not have a problem with the 20 s.f. sign; the bid for our sign is 24 s.f.


From the audience, the adjoining resident said the way Kemper Road angles, you have to remember how close and big the sign is.  The might block my view.


Mr. Galster asked how critical it would be to have this second phase approved at this point.  If we are putting in Phase II for a separate use, we do not have covenants defining that use.


Ms. Brown answered that the only thing Phase II would be used for is if Healthy Beginnings came in.  If they decided not to, we would not have a Phase II. 


Mr. Galster said suppose someone else decided to come in.  Ms. Brown reported that the covenants would stipulate so many square feet dedicated to a medical office and it would be an extension of the house.  It probably would not be noticeable because it would be straight back of the house.


Mr. Okum commented that without the covenants, this needs to be tabled until we have them.  I am not ready to vote without those items.





8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Coleman said I am not certain what we can do with the second phase tied to this.  I cannot see where we are going; it is a short in the dark and I prefer us to table this.


Mr. Pearson asked if it were an issue of not having enough information or a concern about the direction we are going in.


Mr. Coleman answered it is difficult to make a decision because of the lack of additional information.


Mr. Pearson asked if there were a fundamental problem with the medical services being provided.


Mr. Galster reported I have spent quite a bit of time talking with people in the area.  You said these were not medical offices but now I am looking at medical offices.  From a council standpoint, that is where I am having a problem.  I have had a lot of residents call me.


I thought I was ready with the Pregnancy Care Center, but that medical office changes it enough that I have to rethink a lot of things.  As a council member, I have to listen to the residents.


Ms. Brown said I was not aware that we ever removed this group from consideration.  We are non profit and offer services on a sliding scale.    We are probably naïve, but we understood that we had to include everything we wanted to do with the property.  We want to have the opportunity to bring them in (Healthy Beginnings) because it fits in with our mission.


Mr. Okum added we have to be very careful that it is not a surgical facility.  The covenants need to be specific on this.  I don’t believe a surgical facility would be appropriate next to a single family residence. 


Mr. Okum said I would like for this to be tabled and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.


Mr. Syfert said this plan gives concept approval, and we need to tie it down to make us feel more comfortable.


Mr. Pearson asked what they should do for the next meeting.  Do we need covenants allowing for prenatal care, but no other medical uses?  Mr. Galster responded the more restrictive you can be the better.


G.          Approval of Exterior Renovations to Value City Furniture Store, 94 West Kemper Road


Eric Elizondo, Director of Store Planning said the owner of this property is Schottenstein Stores; Value City is a tenant of Schottenstein.  e want to freshen up our store.  It is a good store and a profitable store.





8 MARCH 2005





Mr. Elizondo said the only other change is the furniture sign is white, which is hard to read, and we would like to have it red.  He passed around the materials board.  It is a simple design and we want to freshen it up.


Mr. Syfert asked why they didn’t change it like Value City Department Store did, with the arch. 


Mr. Elizondo answered part of that is economics.  It is between $65,000-$85,000 so this is driven more by economics.  We are trying to distinguish ourselves a little more, so we would rather do something that represents who we are, and not be exactly the same as the department store.


Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to apply an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) surface over the existing masonry façade, including EIFS cornice treatments at the top of walls.


The colors are to match the Department Store side.  The plan indicates a complete EIFS surface where the Department Store installed precast concrete panels up to a height of 6’-4”.


There are no changes in landscaping, and the only sign change shows that the “Furniture” letters will be changed to a red color and match the existing font and size.


Ms. McBride reported that the proposed entrance would not mirror the one approved for the Value City Department Store, but would incorporate some of the design elements.


The owner has not executed the Application Form or the Owner’s Affidavit.  Without the owner’s signature, it has been Planning Commission’s position to not act on an application.


The Site Plan reflects a “Garden Center”, which has been removed.


The east building elevation has been partially painted to match the new color scheme.  Planning should decide if that color should extend past the awning structure on the east side of the building.


Mr. Okum said I agree with staff comments that the painting needs to be carried back.  Also, the mechanical units were not screened or painted out and that needs to be done.


Mr. Galster said I would suggest that the Furniture on the sign be moved up with white below it.  Mr. Coleman agreed.  Mr. Elezondo responded almost all of our stores have furniture in red.  That is our standard.


Mr. Galster moved to grant approval and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.  All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.




8 MARCH 2005



I.                     DISCUSSION


II.                   CHAIRMAN’S REPORT


A.          Quik Tax – 11700 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign

B.          Ramada Plaza11911 Sheraton Lane – Sign Package



III.                  ADJOURNMENT


Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present on April 12th, and Mr. Hawkins reported that he would be out of town.


Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.  By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 12:55 a.m.


                                                            Respectfully submitted,




__________________,2005          __________________________

                                                            William G. Syfert, Chairman




_________________,2005                        __________________________

                                                            Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary