12 MARCH 2002

7:00 P.M.


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

  4. Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Robert Sherry,

    Councilman Tom Vanover, David Whitaker

    And Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote all except Mr. Syfert who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council - no report
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė February 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė February 25, 2002
    4. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė December 18, 2001
    1. Building Elevation Change Ė Globe Furniture Ė 11745 Commons Drive
    2. Larry Bergman of The Bergman Group said I would like to introduce to you Peter Levick of Globe Furniture Galleries and Tom Schroeder with FRCH Architects. I have been working with Peter to move the retail concept store to the Springdale site as well as his corporate headquarters and warehousing facility.

      As we all have worked together to develop the Beltway Center, it has been a very cooperative effort, and I feel this is an ideal use. It is sensitive to the traffic issues that you all have had. We also have adopted a policy to work with the City in a cooperative effort to meet the needs, so if there are concerns, we want to address them in the plan and take care of it. We also want to stress that signage is important and you should take that into consideration.

      Mr. Sherry said my wife did work for Peter 10 years ago and I used to work for Peterís father in law. I donít think I have a conflict but I wanted to bring that to everybodyís attention.




      12 MARCH 2002

      PAGE TWO


      Peter Levick the owner of Globe Furniture Galleries said I have been the owner for a year and a half. We have a store downtown next to Findlay Market where the traffic has been declining, and I have decided to relocate it and would like to put it in Beltway Center. In addition the warehouse in Oakley has a lease that expires in just over a year, and it would make sense to move the two locations together so I can have a warehouse and a store in the same place.

      We are working with The Bergman Group and have hired FRCH who is a very well respected design firm. . We want to put in a first class store in Springdale. We want to cooperate with the city and be here for a long time.

      We plan on eventually having over 60 employees in this location. That would include about 30-35 in the retail center and about 20-25 in the warehouse. That should happen within two to three years.

      Mr. Levick introduced Tom Schroeder of FRCH. Mr. Schroeder stated it is a matter of completing some of the information that Anne and Bill and I have had conversations about in writing or on the phone.

      We should look at the elevations first with a lot of the concerns about the materials, addressing existing conditions adjacencies and signage areas. We can certainly field any other questions you might have in terms of planning and use of the site.

      We have the elevations montaged with the existing buildings and I also have a couple of photographs of the existing conditions that I will pass around and you can use as references as we talk. He passed them around the members.

      This is the façade of the existing Roberds store that we will be taking over as part of our building. We will start at this point with the remainder of the old Roberds entrance on the north elevation. Around the corner to the east elevation is where the Globe Rental Facility comes in. We will be affecting with new materials and new fenestration with the existing building, signage and so forth.

      We are not going to change the rear of the building. We will upgrade the paint and finish of the rear only, to a beige tone.

      We have redone the entrance so that our signage plays a reduced role in the total width of the entrance and foundation of the area of this sign and the sign to the east. We do fall within the 457 s.f. allotted to the area. We didnít have the right calculations the first time around and we have updated that and feel we fall within those parameters.

      It will be a painted masonry in beige tones that coincide with what is out there for most of the facades along that elevation. There will be a royal cranberry red which is part of the logo form that will be a combination of the assembly of new panel systems of red and clear metal behind the signage to help accent that.


      12 MARCH 2002



      Mr. Schroeder added that we are opening up the corner to allow for lifestyle images in photography and graphics. It is not intended to be a Globe Furniture sign of any sort. It is trying to jazz up the corner and give it a lantern like quality. Mr. Bergman asked if it would be similar to the Sofa Express lantern and Mr. Schroeder answered that it would be similar, but we would have clear glass here and we are trying to present life style photography to help display some of the product interior in a graphic way. We would be redoing the 8-inch parapet capping with a white metal finish that would turn down in a dimensional pier element.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the property is part of the Planned Unit Development that is part of the Tri-County Commons PUD and is part of the space that was formerly occupied by Roberds Grand. Until tonight we had only received one copy of colored elevations, one copy of elevations in total and none of the rear elevations were submitted. No revised covenants were submitted and youíll see the reasons for revisions to the covenants in my report.

      The plan shows 43,960 s.f. of showroom, 7,440 s.f. of office and 74,160 s.f. of warehouse for a total of 125,560 s.f. The former Roberds Grand PUD approval had covenants that specifically spelled out square footages for different types of uses. The purpose behind that was to control traffic into and out of the site. We were looking at retail users that generated less traffic than the typical retail use. To accomplish that within the covenants, we specifically spelled out the square footage of the uses. For the Roberds PUD it was spelled out 23,500 s.f. of consumer electronics, 22,500 s.f. of appliances, 193,275 s.f. of furniture and bedding, and 72,500 s.f. of warehouse. There was additional wording that talked about miscellaneous office support in public areas that would be included in those square footages.

      Based on this proposed plan and the Globe Furniture Rental that is currently in place, we end up with a total of 76,000 s.f. of office and furniture sales, and 106,160 s.f. of warehouse. The point of putting those totals together is that the warehouse actually seeds what is permitted in the covenants. Because the original purpose was to limit traffic flow, an increase in warehouse space will not impact vehicular traffic flow, but because it is worded that way in the covenants, there needs to be a modification. Our suggestion would be that the change in the covenants be worded such that retail space could be exchanged for warehouse space. At this point we really donít know what will happen with the balance of the space and there is not a detriment to going to more warehouse space.

      The parking requirements are 110 spaces for the furniture sales, 37 for the office, and 37 for the warehouse for 184 spaces. The parking required for the existing Globe Furniture Rentals is 102. The plan indicates 137 parking spaces in the rear for employees. Because of the way the chart was made up it was misconstrued that was the Globe Furniture Rental employees, but it is meant to be employees. Iím not sure that you have that many employees to use 137 parking spaces.



      12 MARCH 2002



      Mr. McErlane added that Mr. Bergman might be able to shed some light on potential for other users that might be able to use that. I know there was some talk about warehousing out the back as well.

      Up until tonight we had only received two elevations. One of the elevations shows dock doors that donít exist today, and the site layout doesnít really reflect how dock doors would work on that plan. Mr. Schroeder reported that those are the cooling towers. Mr. McErlane responded so there are no dock doors, and I donít know how you accommodate your stock, but I assume at some point in time youíll end up with something. Mr. Bergman said that is what we are addressing now and also access for employees parking in the back of the building.

      Mr. McErlane stated that the elevation drawings indicate a canopy over entrances on both the north side and the east side. There is nothing reflected on the plan to show the depth of the canopies. Can you expand on that?

      Mr. Schroeder reported that they have updated the plans to reflect that. On the north elevation they project 4-5 feet and on the east elevation it is just a couple of feet, except where we want to pop out for protection over the stairs. Mr. McErlane asked if they were rectangular, and Mr. Schroeder answered that they were and made of panelized metal similar to the storefront materials.

      Mr. McErlane reported that there were two permanent wall signs shown. The one on the plan submitted to us was 11í-9" x 46í-4" or 544 s.f. The other one didnít have any dimensions to it, so we couldnít determine what that was. The total allowable sign area for the store is 457 s.f.

      You mentioned panelizing on the exterior face. How would you accomplish that? Mr. Schroeder answered it is a metal panel system; it is a one inch sandwich system that is supported by metal studs which would be tied back to the existing masonry wall. Mr. McErlane asked if it would cover the entire surface of the masonry wall, and Mr. Schroeder answered that it would cover only the red and white metal. The rest would be painted masonry.

      Mr. McErlane asked about the neutral pier construction, and Mr. Schroeder answered that it would be the same metal panel system as the white metal within the sign.

      On your elevations where you showed it tied together with the existing, relative to the color on Roberds and the Globe Furniture Rentals, is that beige? Mr. Schroeder answered that it is similar to the Roberds color right now. Globe Furniture Rental is a white color and they transition with a painted red band on that side.

      Mr. Syfert commented that the applicant did address some of your concerns, but they would have to be finalized. Mr. McErlane added that we donít have the details to determine what some of those things are.



      12 MARCH 2002



      Ms. McBride reported that there is ample parking for the proposed use, and parking left over for the balance of the Roberds space.

      We only received one copy of the 8 Ĺ x 14 building elevations for the north and the east sides so we didnít get to see the south and west sides until this evening. The north elevation that you are showing tonight is different from what was submitted to staff. The raspberry truffle area is bigger on the elevations that the commission is seeing this evening than what staff has reviewed. So we couldnít make any evaluations on the south and west side.

      They are entitled to 457 s.f. of sign area, and the one sign we got dimensions on was at 544 s.f. You indicated now that all the signage equals 544 s.f. What is the new dimension on the sign on the north elevation?

      Mr. Schroeder answered on the east side we are at 5í x 19í and the other sign was 9 Ĺí x 37í. Ms. McBride commented that it looks like the sign on the north elevation is exactly the same size as we have. Mr. Schroeder responded it isnít because on the previous elevation the sign went the full width. We reduced the amount of storefront glazing and the sign itself, instead of being symmetrically located across the entire span has been shifted over with a stronger band of the vertical red which accounts for that additional vertical red dimension as what the sign used to be. We are at 37í now and we were at 46í-4" before. We were at 11í-9" before and now we are at 9í-6". Ms. McBride said this goes to the fact that staff hasnít seen the signage so it is difficult for us to evaluate that.

      They did not submit any landscape plan. There is existing landscaping in the north elevation, and they are showing that all to be removed based on their elevations and site plan. Staff is not in favor of that. There is no information provided about how the waste removal will be handled. All of the requirements of our PUD checklist were not met.

      Staff would recommend that if Planning Commission wants to move forward with this and let them get going on the interior, that would be fine, but until we have the opportunity to look at the revised building elevations and the revised signage and until the applicant can submit the landscaping plan, those things should not be approved this evening.

      Mr. Bergman said yesterday I received the comments that Anne and Bill had on the original submittal, and I was very concerned about coming here and seeing the comments. Tom tried to address numerous of these comments to get this before Planning. Timing is of essence to Peter, and he wants us to work within the City guidelines, so if we can have approval to at least get started, and all of the things that need to be answered be approved by the City, we would like that very much.

      Mr. Huddleston said I apologize to the Commission and the applicants here tonight, but for personal reasons I do have to leave very shortly.



      12 MARCH 2002

      PAGE SIX


      Mr. Huddleston said I want to speak on this issue. I think The Bergman Group continues to be creative in tenanting this space in accordance with Springdaleís requirements for low traffic generation. In that regard, hopefully we would be in a position to give the developer reasonable latitude in trying to backfill this Roberds space in exchange for a tenant mix that continues to meet our requirements.

      Logically, I think it will ultimately end up with a PUD covenant revision that would permit us to continue to trade off retail for warehousing space in conjunction with the retail operations there that will backfill that space.

      On the submission, I think FRCH is an internationally recognized retail design firm and hopefully if the commission chooses to move forward on this, I am certain they can meet Globeís requirements while satisfying both staff and the commissionís requirements. I am basically in favor of this use. It is very compatible with what exists there and what we continue to hope will fill that space. With that I will excuse myself. Mr. Huddleston left the meeting.

      Mr. Shvegzda stated all my comments have been addressed. One clarification Ė in fact none of the parking fields are going to be modified in anyway, is that correct? Mr. Bergman answered I donít know that is correct concerning the back of the property with adding dock. It probably will be modified. Mr. Shvegzda continued the original drawing indicated that it would be modified without any clarification. That note has been removed in the most recently set of plans. Mr. Schroeder said the reason we took that note off was a division of labor. That is something that Larry will be handling. To answer your other question, none of the other parking areas will be disturbed.

      Mr. Bergman added that our engineers are addressing the back. I havenít discussed it; Steve Adler from our office is handling the dock areas, and I donít know the answer. Mr. Shvegzda continued that is something that would be forthcoming. Mr. Bergman confirmed this.

      Mr. Sherry said it seems to me that at the entrance there will be a significant change in the parking. The plan indicated that all of your existing handicap spaces come nearly down to the entrance. Those probably would be going away and relocated somewhere else. I think you probably would have a sidewalk there with the canopy. I think those stalls you have in the front wonít be there any more.

      Mr. Levick said that was what I was trying to mention to Tom when he said nothing would change. We are going to have to shift some of the front parking and probably have some sort of corridor in front of the front door, a couple of spaces to make it pedestrian friendly. Then we may have to move the handicap spaces to split them up on either side of the door to make it more convenient. We will put all that on the plan and make it an official request. Mr. Bergman added that all of this will be contingent on your approval.


      12 MARCH 2002



      Mr. Okum said if some other blend of business ties into the development ultimately, I think the current entrance left there for the Roberds facility answers exactly what I was thinking when you put the new business on the front corner. Was there any consideration to moving your entrances to the corner corner of that front, away from the Roberds? That elevation on the north side will look very strange. If you look at the parking islands and configuration, that entrance is offset to the center of a potential business. Color makes a lot of difference; I think a dramatic difference in color between the Roberds face and this face will stand out, whether we put a raspberry band or a stainless band or an aluminum band at that point of departure. It will look pretty dramatic, and we still will have an offset entry to that future space.

      Mr. Bergman responded when we were looking at breaking up that space, they have their entrance that is dividing it pretty symmetrically. Weíre not even sure that the grand entry will exist for the next user. That façade may change; it is an awfully big entry for a very small user.

      Mr. Okum said it concerns me that the retail mix keeps increasing, itís going to be hard. If you have more retail users versus one large retail user your trip generators change the number of trips. Mr. Shvegzda responded that depends on the particular use. Sometimes if you have smaller units they tend to be common as far as vehicles going to one also will shop at another adjoining use.

      Mr. Okum said my question would be had you considered pushing it to that corner. Iím not happy how the two blend.

      Mr. Levick responded I did think that the corner would be the ideal entrance and I challenged FRCH to figure it out so that we could come in that corner and make it work. They tried it several different ways, and we ended up with such a long diagonal through that spaces, it wouldnít work. We ended up not getting enough usable space. The way the building is constructed with 40-foot columns, to try to come in on the diagonal would mess up everything inside. That is why we ended up with the door on the north side.

      Mr. Okum said so if we are going to use that rear area for parking for the employees which I think is a great idea, I would like to see the extra trucks not used for your office back there as well. I think it looks cluttered on the other part of the office/retail area.

      Mr. Levick answered we would have all of our trucks in the back and our warehouse parking in the back area. Mr. Okum asked if that included the Globe Office Rentals and Mr. Levick answered we have nothing to do with Globe Furniture Rentals. It is a totally separate company.

      Mr. Okum asked Mr. Bergman if he was working on an access point for this project to get from the rear parking lot. Mr. Bergman indicated that he was, adding that it was one of the concerns from Anne and Bill. Our group is working on the engineering of the back portion to satisfy both the tenant and the City.


      12 MARCH 2002



      Mr. Okum said I do have some real concerns about the break between the businesses. Yes, the Roberds entrance is huge and massive and overwhelming. I think it is a feature element of the property, but if it were taken off, it wouldnít impact the separation. I think working with staff and coming up with some way of having those two elevations separating dynamically would really help. Iím certainly not prepared to make any decisions on the exterior, but the use at this time and the blend is a good balance, and I will be supporting that.

      Mr. Galster said I like the use; I think it fits the center. I have pretty much the same concern that Dave Okum and Dick Huddleston have with the separating out this building from the rest of it. I donít like just the red stripe there. I would like to see something more architectural there. It might be tying into what you have on the corner of your building, maybe something a little more dramatic to separate the rental place from yours and maybe wrapping that whole corner. Maybe you could use something across the top. To me it is still an awfully long wall. Something could be done to the ends of the building or the top of the building to try to separate your business out from the other two and to make a transition a little easier to handle whether it be from color or texture or whatever. I donít have a real good idea, but I would like to see on the drawing that we get that shows the elevations the colors for the furniture rental and also what is left of Roberds in terms of color matches. Iím a little afraid of having a one-foot or two-foot piece of white metal saying okay this is where this ends and this is where this starts. Golf Galaxy has rock and brick to help separate it; it is a dramatic change, and I think this could use a little bit of that at both of those ends, and even something across the top. Iím almost willing to say put an other picture window in here to help set that apart. I want to make sure we do this part of it right and weíll deal with the balance of it when it comes back in.

      Mr. Levick said we were thinking to keep it simple, not knowing who that next tenant would be. Mr. Schroeder added that we can look at it and come up with some more ideas.

      Mr. Sherry asked if they wanted more signage at I-275 and Mr. Bergman answered that we are not going in for any more pylons along 275. Mr. Sherry asked if they would be using part of the old Roberds sign Mr. Levick answered we have not talked about it.

      Mr. Sherry commented I am also concerned about the old Roberds entry; it is so massive. It dwarfs what you are trying to do, and I donít know how to get around it. I want it to be successful, but being next to that might hurt that a little bit. I donít know how to solve it other than as suggested long term take it down.

      Mr. Bergman said I think that hopefully the next tenant that I find will address it. I would hate to tear it down, it would be costly and wasteful for us. We hope the City will work with us and accept what it is for now and for the next tenant approach it. Mr. Sherry added I do like what you done; it looks very nice. I am just concerned about that because it is so big.



      12 MARCH 2002



      Mr. Sherry said it is a focal point, but Iím not sure it is a focal point we would want to continue, but I donít have an alternative for you.

      Mr. Vanover said the warehouse relocation is about a year away? Mr. Levick answered that the current lease is up in June of 2003, and I am anticipating moving into the new space in the fall or winter, the end of this year. Mr. Vanover said my concern is the semi traffic. How do your shipments move in and out in terms of the resupply of the warehouse? Mr. Levick responded that there are semi tractors that come in three four or five a week. There could be one or two a day, partial truckloads as well. Mr. Vanover asked if normally they come in early morning or late in the evening? Mr. Levick answered usually it is early morning. It wouldnít be late in the evening, since our warehouse hours are from 7 to 4. There would be nothing on the weekend; we do deliveries on Saturday, so there would be our own trucks, but no incoming semis. There wouldnít be overnight storage of trailers.

      Mr. Vanover commented I wasnít worried so much about that as the negotiation of semi tractors. Originally this was light warehouse, and we have gone pretty much retail on it. Tractor-trailers take up much more road space than passenger vehicles and have to negotiate the internal infrastructure differently. If they are coming in off-hours, and especially with nothing on the weekends, that will help.

      Mr. Galster said this old Roberds band concerns me. We keep taking away a little bit of it, and when the furniture rental place came in we had them take it out to the corner. I donít know what this will look like; I canít picture it in my mind. It looks to me like the new part of the building is almost coming up to the beginning of the canopy where it starts coming out for the old entrance, is that correct? I wonder about taking this band off here and maybe only keeping it on this entrance. I know that is an expense for you.

      Mr. Bergman responded I think we need to look at it. The City had called and asked us to have these lights turned off because of maintenance and also the look of having the partial band on. I donít have a problem with removing that band.

      Mr. Galster said if that band is removed, not only in that little section but maybe from that other end of the canopy down, maybe that entrance wouldnít look so odd. Mr. Bergman said that isnít a problem; we could do that, but until we have the other tenant, it doesnít really look terrible. Maybe we should address it after this tenant is in. Of course we will oblige whatever the City wants regarding it. If it requires removing it, weíll remove it.

      Mr. Galster commented that is part of the reason that I would like to make sure we get it on the drawing so we can see what that will look like. Mr. Okum said additionally on the east side, the separation between the Globe white building and your new Globe office, there has to be some type of separation significant enough. He has the orange thing going up there, and Iím not sure about that next to raspberry.


      12 MARCH 2002

      PAGE TEN


      Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Galster is correct; a feature element on the north side to the west would certainly be appealing. Since they are clear glass panels, I would be a little concerned that we donít have an overlighting issue; low level lighting would be appropriate, but anything that becomes a beacon or a lighthouse type lighting for those corners would not be.

      You will have to have some light pack issues that you will need to deal with on the building. We typically say downlit non-glare lighting, so there is no impact to adjacent property owners.

      When Mr. Shvegzda is looking at your final site plan, I would like him to look at that entry area that goes back to that parking field. I know it is supposed to be a street, but it is confusing. There is a fire hydrant and some poles setting in the middle, and there is really no designated driving lane back in that area. There are no lane definitions for that area. Itís like driving in an open parking field.

      When the submission comes in, I would like to see how it ties the residue of property into this building, both on the north and east sides. Obviously, we would be concerned about how the employees would get in and out of all the space. I think it is a good plan and is making progress.

      Do you need some type of formal action by the Commission this evening to get things moving forward? I havenít heard any negative comments from any of the members, but I donít think any of the members are prepared to do anything on the exterior at this point.

      Mr. Bergman responded we are looking for is approval of their use for the site, with the contingency of having Planning Commission approve all the plans. The issues we are dealing with now is the change of a PUD that the warehousing and retail use would coincide with the original PUD for Roberds. That is the first issue, and the second is to approve their use with the contingency of approving their plans.

      Mr. Okum said we couldnít approve the change of the covenants; that is up to the participants. Mr. Bergman responded we would change the covenants to get this tenant in.

      Mr. Syfert commented that I believe you are looking for approval of the use of it, because there are quite a few other items. In 30 days you could have the plans pretty well firmed up and into us I would think.

      Mr. Galster said I donít consider anything a major change in terms of having to go back to Council.

      Mr. Bergman said so we really have to address the plans. We are asking for a change in covenants to allow this tenant mix. Mr. Galster responded I personally donít have any problem with the change because of the way it is changing. We would have to have the legal people look at it once you give us the proposal.




      12 MARCH 2002



      Mr. Sherry said I am looking at your site plan. We do a lot of site layout, and parking at the front door appears to be inconvenient. It is nearly impossible for them to get there. What you have laid out here makes it difficult in terms of where the curb cuts are located. You might want to look at that. Mr. Levick said we have not addressed that yet. Weíll look at that on the next set of plans, to create a pedestrian friendly environment.

      Mr. Galster said I have no problem with making a motion that says that the use is okay and the interior square footages are okay. It will be the applicant who is taking the risk based on parking, signage, building elevations, colors and architectural features. What are we really approving?

      Mr. Bergman responded we understand that. Mr. Levick added I am happy with what I have heard.

      Mr. Galster said we have it right now as a final plan approval, but we need a final plan. Maybe we are better off tabling it and letting you make the changes as opposed to giving you an approval that doesnít tell you anything.

      Mr. Levick responded I donít think that we are going to be able to break ground in the next 30 days anyway. Mr. Syfert asked him if he would be comfortable with tabling it. Mr. Bergman said at the next meting we want to be completely prepared to get final approval. Mr. Galster said and you have about two weeks to get those drawings in and you should be okay.

      Mr. McErlane said if Planning Commission feels they are satisfied enough to give a preliminary approval, at least you walk away with some kind of approval. Mr. Galster commented that even a preliminary one would be absent this and absent that. I think we are better off not having all those conditions. It would take us a half hour to spell all those conditions out.

      Mr. Okum commented that one thing they have to do is make sure they get all the submissions in that are required under our code on or before the date that it is required, so there is ample time for staff to get comments back to them. Otherwise it makes the process more difficult.

      Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye and it was tabled to April 9, 2002.

    3. Dedication Plat Ė Right of Way Ė S.E. Corner of West Kemper Road and Springfield Pike

Mr. Shvegzda reported that this is the section of the property currently owned by the city. The right of way was never dedicated along Kemper Road, due to the fact that it was not a pressing issue since the City did own the property there.




12 MARCH 2002



Mr. Shvegzda reported that with things occurring here recently, we thought it would be wise to take care of the issue of dedicating that right of way to provide for a landscaped easement area on that property.

Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the dedication plat was approved unanimously.

    1. Discussion of Section 153.496(A) of the Springdale Zoning Code, which allows "No more than 2 dogs, 2 cats or 1 dog and 1 cat" in a single-family residence.

Ms. McBride reported I handed you a six-page memo before the meeting, and I donít expect you to act on it tonight, but I wanted to talk and think about these things and perhaps take some action next month.

There are two different issues that have come before the City in the last three or four months. One is the number of dogs and/or cats or combination thereof that people are allowed to keep within a residential unit. The other is a non-domesticated pet, such as goats and are they permitted and how are they regulated within the city code.

On the dogs and cats, right now we allow two dogs, two cats or one dog and one cat. We also say that kenneling is prohibited in residential districts and we set a specific time that you are allowed to have puppies or kittens for a maximum of 120 days.

I also provided you with the applicable definitions. We define household domesticated pet, which are dogs, cats, parrots, turtles, anything your kid could bring home exclusively for personal use and enjoyment of the person who has it. We define that a household domesticated pet shall not be exotic or wild animals, etc.

We also further provided a definition for kenneling, which is not permitted in a residential district, as anything that is used to confine or house more than two dogs or more than two cats.

We looked at a lot of the communities that surround Springdale and Hamilton County to see how other communities are handling this. The vast majority are not addressing this at all, indicating to us that maybe it isnít a big problem in other communities.

There are two basic ways we can do this. We can either limit the number of dogs and/or cats in a house, or we can provide a little tighter and more definite definition as to what constitutes a kennel. Some other jurisdictions specify the intent of the kennel being for profit.




12 MARCH 2002



Ms. McBride reported that Fairfieldís has been up to the courts and back, and it was upheld. They have the two dog or cat rule over four months of age, which is identical to what we have. That is what is permitted within the residential districts.

Covington doesnít specify a number, but they say that a kennel is anything that is for profit and it is not permitted within the residential districts.

Hamilton County doesnít specify a number of pets, but they go into the definitions and say that a kennel for profit is for financial compensation. A kennel private is a hobby breeder and they define a hobby breeder as one who breeds for recreation and the purposes of improving the breed. They also define a household pet, and that definition is very similar to ours. They say that the keeping of household pets is permitted within any agricultural district, which would go through all their residential districts.

The City of Cincinnati is in the process of adopting a new Zoning Code. Their old code defined kennel as anything with five or more dogs over four months of age that are kept for compensation. Their new code no longer defines kennel, so staff was going to make changes to that. They do define animal services as boarding small animals for not more than 30 days. In the proposed code, they donít deal with it either.

A Springdale resident, (you have a copy of her letter before you) has two dogs and would like to bring a third dog in temporarily. She has asked that this matter be looked into, and that is what we are doing.

We would suggest eliminating our current definition of kennel and adopting the definition that we have put forth on page 4. We think it needs to be kennel/cattery, because there are catteries. Mr. Okum asked about aviary and Ms. McBride said I donít know about aviary; weíll talk about it. We would suggest that it be four or more dogs or cats over the age of four months, that a kennel would be anything with four or more for profit, for gain or for enjoyment. That captures everyone. That wold allow a little more flexibility.

The other thing we are suggesting is that we add a definition for animal hospital/veterinarian office, because when they do board, they are boarding in regards for treatment. They are not boarding because the owners are on vacation. It is possible that somebody could be an animal hospital or a veterinary office and a kennel, but we want to make that distinction, specifically that offices are permitted within our OB district provided there are no outdoor runs. If the animal were sick they would walk them, but itís not the same thing as kenneling the dog for a week when he has to have an outdoor run, so I think it is important that we maintain the two distinct definitions.

We would add the kennel category as a principal permitted use within the GB District, that is that offices are permitted without the requirement about the enclosed runs.


12 MARCH 2002



Mr. McErlane suggested it be in Support Services District. Ms. McBride responded I didnít think it went toward the purpose and intent of that district, but the commission should look at it and we can discuss it next month.

Mr. Galster asked how many dogs and cats a resident can have and Ms. McBride answered up to four over four months of age.

Mr. Okum said on indoor versus outdoor keeping of animals, if I had four Rottweilers and they were kept outdoors in a residential zoning district, I think I might have a problem with my next door neighbor. I think we need to look at that, because there are a lot of different types of keeping of animals. If we do permit four to be kept on a residential site, I would be opposed to outdoor kenneling. Then it does become the appearance of a kennel. Indoors is a different situation. On the other hand, if you have a house that is undersized and overdogged, that can be too much for a property, and that is a health issue that can be handled by the Health Department. We have to consider that there are 3,000 s.f. homes and 700 s.f. homes in Springdale.

Ms. McBride responded that in our research that is something that was clearly pointed out, that these animals are regulated for a variety of reasons. Is it because of noise or because they are outside. The City of Springdale, like many communities has ordinances concerning noise from barking dogs, that the dogs must be properly licensed, and vaccinated, that they have to be kept on leashes, etc. Some of those could be extended to cats as well. Iím not saying we shouldnít look at the issue of outdoor animals, but there are other regulations on how these animals are handled.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any way to introduce into this some protection to the common owners adjacent to the people who do have pets outdoors? If we are permitting four cats and dogs, and they are allowed to keep them outdoors, then it becomes an issue, versus someone who keeps four dogs in their house. I think it would be a nightmare to our residents, and they donít need that. How do we address that?

Ms. McBride answered if we do address it, we will be the very first to do so. I am not discounting that there would be a problem if there were four large dogs in a kennel. We do have laws concerning noise and litter and those kinds of things. I am a little bit leery of going into some of that uncharted territory based on some of the literature we got from the American Kennel Club and some of these other places who are very interested in these types of laws when they go a step further. Maybe we can check with the law director between now and the next meeting. Mr. Okum said just run it by the law directorís office.

Ms. McBride continued the other thing I want to caution the Commission on too is from an enforcement standpoint that could be a huge nightmare for the City.




12 MARCH 2002



Mr. Galster said maybe they should have a permit to have more than two dogs. Another thing that came up when we originally discussed this was safety personnel coming to the house with four or five or six dogs inside the house.

Ms. McBride said two vicious dogs would be worse than four big friendly dogs. Not discounting any of these thoughts, and looking at what other communities have done, some of them do nothing. With the limit of two right now, we are at the most restrictive end. I will talk to the law directorís office about this and see if they have any problems with this. I know that insurance carriers are restrictive on the types of pets they will cover under the

Mr. Vanover said I know what Anne is saying and I agree with her. We have other realms, we have sound, the vicious dog ordinance that we can control the problems.

Ms. McBride said two vicious dogs would be worse than four big friendly dogs. Not discounting any of these thoughts, and looking at what other communities have done, some of them do nothing. With the limit of two right now, we are at the most restrictive end. I will talk to the law directorís office about this and see if they have any problems with this. I know that insurance carriers are restrictive on the types of pets they will cover under the homeowners coverage.

Mr. Vanover said the other thing you may want to check concerns cats, because according to ORC they are not technically considered to be a domesticated animal and therefore are not required to be licensed. The big concerns are legal and the enforceability. We donít want to create a nightmare that we cannot realistically and simply enforce.

The other question I had concerns the animal hospital/veterinarian office. I have a neighbor who is a licensed rehabber for wildlife. That doesnít create any problems for me, but there could be situations where it might be a problem.

Mr. Okum said doesnít it make sense that if we consider kenneling in office districts, and they must be in an indoor area, you are moving in that same direction. Ms. McBride said if it is a kennel, itís going to be five or more and we are saying you canít keep them outside because they will bark and disturb the office tenants. Four would be at a single family home and theyíll disturb the guy next door, but we do have laws concerning the noise. Letís talk to the law director office and see how comfortable he feels with us going into that.

Mr. Galster said so how many dogs would be allowed in a single-family residence, three or four? Ms. McBride said it would be three dogs or cats in a single-family residence.

Mr. Vanover said I understand the neighbor, but I believe there are not a lot of bad dogs; there are a lot of bad owners, and we canít legislate who are allowed to keep pets and who are not.


12 MARCH 2002



Mr. Okum said in addition to what we are talking about, could we include in the legislation that the animal must be insured under the homeownerís insurance policy at all times? Mr. McErlane commented that would be fun to enforce. Ms. McBride responded you could probably do almost anything. When they come in to get their dog license, you could ask for proof of insurance.

Ms. McBride reported that right now our definition of household domesticated pets excludes the goats and horses etc., but we currently do not have any provision for keeping of these animals. The former Zoning Code made provisions for the keeping of a reasonable of domesticated farm animals. Except for specific requirements regarding acreage, and the distance from structures, in that section was the piece about no more than two dogs, two cats or one dog and one cat and kenneling was lumped in one section of the old code.

What we found when we started researching was that if a community does regulate goats etc. and most communities do, they do with an acreage figure and a number on the animal and a distance to the residential structure, whether it is the owner of the goat or the adjacent property.

What triggered this was someone came in wanting to keep a goat on their premises because they had a need for the goat milk. They were referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals because our code doesnít specifically address this issue.

We would suggest that the Commission look at a couple of different things. One is to create a definition for non-domestic household animals, and we have a suggested definition here. The second would be to add back in the language that we took out of the old code. This would be added with some modifications to the RSH-E, Residential Single Household Estate Density District under Permitted Accessory Uses. That would cover these type animals.

I donít know the size of the lot that was proposed for the goat. I would assume that the issue would still go to the Board of Zoning Appeals as a variance request on the lot requirement, and as your planner, I think that is an okay thing. That would allow the BZA to put on some conditions.

Some of the conditions that we saw written into some of the different codes, which we would rather see the BZA adopt, would be limiting the number and sex of the goats. Only females give milk, and apparently the males are noisy and vicious. Mr. Okum added that you need two goats to keep the one from crying. Ms. McBride said so you limit it to two females, and you add the condition that the applicant would have to provide a statement from a licensed physician saying that there is a need within the household for goatís milk for medical purposes, and provisions for appropriate enclosures and screening materials etc.






12 MARCH 2002



We are not asking the commission to take any action tonight, but you can start thinking and talking about this. The law director has seen none of this until we got some direction from you. At this point we will begin to work with his office.

Mr. Vanover said we want to be fair. We donít want to be overburdening to any one party. We specifically mentioned a household domesticated pet does not include and the list gets down to a piranha. Iím sure we have piranha in the City. We donít want to get too deep in the residentsí pockets and create headaches. This seems to be going in the right direction. Ms. McBride reported that the definition right now goes to the tarantulas and piranhas.

Mr. Okum said what about the aviaries? Ms. McBride responded I have not seen that in any of the research, but we will look at it. Those are the kinds of things we want to hear from the commission tonight, the kinds of things we need to bring back to you for final consideration.

Mr. McErlane said you will recall The Great Indoors sign, the changeout of the panels. I received a submittal this week, and Iím not sure it necessarily addresses what the Commission had made in their motion.

I will read the motion. "Mr. Galster said I will move that we take the 24í-9" sign that is 22í1/2" wide and divide it into two separate signs with a 12-inch separator that would either be open air and/or finished out to match the frame of the cabinet. The Great Indoors would be utilizing one of those sections of that modified sign as submitted as long as it is lit so as to not create a hazard to the motoring public or a nuisance to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Okum said you mentioned all lit or not lit and that the two panels would be controlled separately."

Mr. McErlane reported that they found that they had to do some modifications to control it separately, but their solution to the separation is putting a baffle in to separate the lights, so that when you control them separately you donít have light bleed from one panel to the other. However, their solution to the break was to put a blue graphic band across the middle of it. I didnít think that met the Commissionís requirement, but I wanted to bring it up to you.

Mr. Okum said from what I heard, the motion says to match the existing frame. Mr. McErlane said it is in your Minutes. It is on Page 8 in the middle of the page. The other option to open air was "shall be a 12 inch separator that shall be either open air and/or finished out to match the frame of the cabinet".

Mr. McErlane stated I thought he was going to come back with some type of break form metal piece that would go across there and break it up. Or, split the sign panel itself and putting a break form metal piece in there and attaching them separately.




12 MARCH 2002



Mr. Okum said they are going to use that flex face and if they had put the break form in they would have had two stretch faces and nothing to pull rigid to.

Mr. McErlane responded they could attach it to a break form metal piece that spans the distance. However, that is 22 feet so it would have to be substantial enough structurally to handle it.

Mr. Sherry read the discussion from the February minutes. "Mr. Welch asked if it had to be 12 inches of air. Mr. Galster answered it doesnít have to be air; I donít know that you can, but I would prefer to have space. But because of the limitations of modifying the panel, if they canít do that, I would settle to have it painted out to look like the material on the pole." Mr. Sherry said this is what they have done.

Mr. Okum said I think they have accomplished it. I would question the baffling. I seem to recall those tubes running vertical. Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding that there are actually three sets of tubes and they would have to split the middle section up into two new sets of smaller tubes in order to control them separately, and wire them so they can be controlled separately.

Mr. Okum said the top part was supposed to be blanked out. Are we considering this yellow blanked out? Mr. McErlane asked what he wanted it to be, and Mr. Okum answered non-lit. Mr. Galster said I donít think they should be able to paint and block these things out with black or blue or lead paint like they did at Cassinelli square either.

Mr. Okum said this is what we are going to have setting there. Mr. McErlane asked him his alternative. Mr. Okum said Iím just asking; itís going to be that yellow, and I still canít understand why they want to use that yellow, but weíre not to judge color.

Mr. McErlane said I got the impression that the consensus was that it met the specific requirements. Mr. Okum said yes, but we didnít talk about that big yellow panel there. Donít we have a restriction that if a sign case is not being used it is supposed to be blanked out? Mr. McErlane said it is blanked out in yellow. It doesnít have any copy on it.

Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Galster is right, that it would create a lot of problem for anybody else what wants to redo that sign. Mr. Galster added but they have met the intent of the motion.

Mr. McErlane said when we come back in with the cats and dogs thing, there may be an additional revision that we need to make to the PUD section relate to sexually oriented businesses. The law director is going through and making some changes based on some new case law that came through. There is a target of 5% of the land area that has been established by case law.




12 MARCH 2002


Mr. McErlane reported that after we looked at the map and what our ordinances say, there is nothing that prohibits it in a PUD area. If you think about all the PUDs we have, that is a pretty good size land area. We probably will come in with wording that prohibits it in a PUD as well.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be in attendance on April 9th and everyone indicated they would be.


    1. Eunique, 326 Northland Boulevard Ė Wall Sign

B. Taqueria Azteca, 322 Northland Boulevard Ė Wall Sign

(reissued Ė former Tres Amigos)


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,2002 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



___________________,2002 _________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary