MARCH 10, 2009
7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Tony Butrum.


Members Present: Richard Bauer, Tony Butrum, David Okum, Carolyn Ghantous, Lawrence Hawkins III, Steve Galster and Tom Vanover

Others Present: Don Shvegzda, City Engineer; Jonathon Wocher representing
Anne McBride, City Planner; William McErlane, Building Official; Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director for the City of Springdale; Mayor Doyle Webster


Mr. Vanover moved to adopt the February 10, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Mr. Galster seconded the motion and with a unanimous vote the minutes were approved.


Mr. Galster: Council has set a public hearing for our item 8-A, assuming that it is forwarded on.


Chairman Butrum: We have Hooter’s Restaurant, 12185 Springfield Pike – Exterior Alterations; this was tabled from December 8, 2008.

Mr. Mike Gregory and Mr. Rodney Kistner representing Hooters and Terry Marty owner of the building at 12185 Springfield Pike came forward.
Mr. Gregory: We lease the building from Terry Marty and we are working together to get this issue resolved. Last time we were here we discussed where we were and you asked us to come back and bring some solutions. We had one additional informal meeting and we would like to update; we have identified two potential solutions that we want to put on the table tonight; one of the things was an intermediary step, we had an engineer’s report that I think Mr. McErlane has reviewed and without performing extensive testing and in the engineer’s opinion, that he put in writing, is that the fašade that has been repaired is secure. As far as safety is concerned, we feel we have the engineer’s report to back that up. Economically to remove that fašade and put it back, we actually had a bid for doing that and we could do it with any number of rock or brick veneers similar to what is up there and the cost of that ranges anywhere from $55,000 to $70,000. That is a lot of money in anybody’s pocket right now. We had wind damage and tried to leverage the insurance company to take part in that and the problem is I now have the engineer’s opinion that says it is fine as it is. Also, we were able to find through the painter that painted the building a process to actually remove the paint from the brick that is already there now, so that is an option; we could put it back as it was originally.

Mr. McErlane: The engineer basically did a visual test to check to see if there was any apparent cracking. He pulled on some samples of it to see if it was loose on the surface and nothing from a visual inspection and from that limited review of it looked like there was any danger of it falling off the building.

Mr. Galster: What kind of expenses did you incur in just painting the building originally?

Mr. Rodney Kistner: Approximately $25,000 for everything; $17,700 was for the painting alone.

Mr. Galster: And what is the ballpark figure if they remove the paint?

Mr. Rodney Kistner: $27,000.

Mr. Galster: I assume over a period of time it will start deteriorating and will need a new fresh coat of paint or whatever; I guess my position at this point is I don’t have a desire to make you spend $70,000 to fix this, however in order to get back into compliance my proposal would be at the time of the next scheduled maintenance or repair or painting that we look at the removal of the paint at that time to bring it back to the brick. Once that paint is off I don’t know if that is going to cosmetically repair the damaged areas.

Mr. Okum: Typically, a finish like that you will get a minimum of eight to ten years out of it. We have corridor review district and we have standards that are set, although I don’t want to put the hardship on this applicant the difficulty is that the problem is still there. I think pushing the burden to a ten year time frame is too long. I am concerned about the stability of the code but on the other hand I am sympathetic to the business at this time. I think we need to come up with some solution that represents the community’s interest as well as maintains and helps businesses thrive in the community.

Mr. Vanover: To remove the paint do they apply a chemical or do they sandblast?

Mr. Rodney Kistner: They use a chemical.

Mr. Mike Gregory: And they said it could take up to two weeks to complete the process; but it doesn’t damage the color, integrity of the mortar, and it is environmentally friendly; it is a Sherwin Williams product.

Mr. Galster: Would the applicant be opposed or willing to come up with a shorter time frame to correct this, maybe two or three years from now to return to its original brick facing?

Mr. Terry Marty: I would say yes, personally.

Mr. Galster: Is there a time frame you are comfortable with?

Mr. Mike Gregory: Reading Rock talked about leaving some of the brick painted as is and coming back in with a partial stone; like door height. At this point we may be working with Mr. McErlane to get a feel for what fits and what the Commission wants to see.

Mr. Okum: I think a three year period is a reasonable length of time. Corridor review district has been in place for a number of years but some of those buildings were built prior to the corridor review district standards. They are more rigid than the PUD; you happen to be in part of the PUD as well as the corridor review district.

Mr. Galster: If it comes out being the three year stipulation we need to be careful that we understand if the building is sold that there is some covenant to that effect; if the tenant would change and the remodel of the fašade is going to happen anyway to make sure that we have clauses in place that facilitate the project happening as desired.
How long is your present lease?

Mr. Mike Gregory: Until 2013. The fix would have to occur before the expiration, as far as the lease is concerned for Hooters.

Mr. Terry Marty: I do appreciate the Commission listening to us and helping us in our present situation. I can’t say enough about Hooters, they are great folks; they are quality people and are great folks to deal with.

Mr. Galster: They are also good corporate citizens here as well; when we have projects whether it be SOS, trying to raise money for this or that, Hooters has stepped up to the plate in those regards. We appreciate their commitment not only to their restaurant but also to the community.

Mr. Vanover: For a fašade change or use change doesn’t this have to come back to Planning Commission?

Mr. McErlane: Yes.

Mr. Mike Gregory: I think what you are looking at, you have a building that is not compliant right now and there needs to be a record of that. We have a time period to bring it into compliance. If something intervenes in the meantime and we are not in the mix, whoever comes in next or it could be Mr. Marty, they will have to bring it into compliance; either in that time period or if it is a new operation they are going to be responsible to do that.

Mr. Okum: I just wanted to ask Staff, is there anything that you need, something like a letter that the Law Director reviews from Mr. Marty? I thought I would add “All legal conditions necessary for execution of this deadline agreement should be reviewed by Staff and our City’s Law Director”.

Mr. McErlane: I think at this point it is important to have it documented. It would be no different than if Planning Commission put conditions on an approval and then we documented that; it would just have a time limitation applied to it. We have started to generate zoning certificates with conditions attached to them that we could certainly issue for this.
I do have a question with regard what you intend to see happen, are you setting that for another time to come back in?

Mr. Galster: Yes. I think we should also have a general understanding of what it is we anticipate or we expect to have happen within that three year window.

Mr. Okum: I make a motion for Hooter’s Restaurant at 12185 Springfield Pike on the requirement to correct painted bricks; it shall be returned to its unpainted building finish before a period of three years from June 1, 2009; this work shall commence or be completed in this time frame. Final changes shall be reviewed by Planning Commission prior to work beginning. All legal conditions necessary for execution of this deadline and agreement shall be reviewed and executed by Staff and our City’s Law Director.
Mr. Galster seconded the motion and with a unanimous vote approval was granted for the exterior changes to be made within a three year time frame at 12185 Springfield Pike.


Chairman Butrum: There are no items under new business.


Chairman Butrum: There is one item for discussion concerning the zoning code for special event banners. I know City and Staff have worked through the proposed language.

Mr. Wocher: You have received a memorandum from Anne McBride; this is a proposed text amendment to Section 153.533 to allow changes to the business advertising special promotion sales / event banners. Currently our code allows special event signs to be displayed for a period of two consecutive weeks then the banner or the special sign must be removed for a period of one month and the code currently also allows a total of four occasions during a calendar year to have that special signage. The amendment would allow the special event signs to remain in place for one month and then also allow monthly extensions up to eleven times or until April 17, 2010 whichever occurs first, which is basically for a year. The amendment also requires that an extension be filed with the City and that the Building Official will review the sign and determine that it is still properly attached to the building in good repair and not exhibiting any signs of wear. The amendment also talks about limitations on the number of banners that a single tenant building would be allowed one sign; multi-tenant building would be allowed two signs at a time and there is also provision in there to try and control if multiple tenants want to have signage during the same time period. This amendment has been reviewed and approved by legal counsel, as Mr. Galster said there has been a public hearing set by City Council and the last comment I have is the intent would be to have this regulation reviewed in a year from now so in February or March to determine whether to change it, continue it or revoke it and we will go from there.

Mr. Galster: Paragraph A (3)(B) on the multi tenant buildings, as my understanding the way it reads, on day one if we get two applicants and they put up temporary banners for 30 days initially and then a third applicant comes in on day number two and we tell them they can’t do that until the other banner expires?

Mr. Wocher: The extension would be filed when the thirty days are up and if the third tenant puts in a request it would be a pending request.

Mr. McErlane: And we have on the application form to not allow the tenant to file for an extension prior to ten days of the expiration date.

Mayor Webster: We could send a letter out to the major property owners of the strip centers and I am sure it will be in the papers and so forth.

Mr. McErlane: We do intend to notify the multi-tenants.

Mr. Okum: I would like to recommend to City Council the following changes to Section 153.533 to our zoning code for special event banners and balloons.
Mr. Galster seconded the motion and with a unanimous vote the request was approved.

Mr. Galster: Have we heard anything about the sign at Cassinelli Square.

Mr. McErlane: I have had two calls this week, they are proposing to remove the column covers and replace the sign panels and boxes.


Chairman Butrum: I had one new sign that I approved at 11544 Springfield Pike.


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion and the Planning Commission adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2009 ___________________________________
            Chairman Tony Butrum

________________________,2009 ___________________________________
            Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary