12 MARCH 1996

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Barry Tiffany, Richard Huddleston, Councilmen Robert

Wilson and Steve Galster, James Young and Chairman

William Syfert.

Members Absent: David Okum

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Wilson commented there was one typo which I discussed with the secretary. Mr. Young moved for adoption and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.


A. February 14, 1996 Letter from Bill Syfert to Regional Planning


B. Memo from Bill McErlane to Members with The Riggins Rules

C. Springdale Directory - January 1996



A. Roberds Grand, 11755 Commons Drive requests approval of pylon sign along I-275 (rejected by Planning at January meeting)

Mr. Syfert stated I believe the signs were omitted last month, and we

were to discuss this again tonight. For the benefit of everyone in the

audience, it takes five affirmative votes to pass on items.

Mr. Robert Wilson, Executive Vice President of Roberds stated that at the last meeting, the sign proposals were approved with the exception of the requested pylon sign along I-275. You asked that I go to the parties involved with the existing sign and see if there was a way for us to get on the sign already approved rather than have a separate sign. I have done that, and it did not go well. Everyone who has a claim to the sign wants to hold on to it, even though no one is interested in constructing it, and they made it clear that if I were to obtain any space, it would be at the bottom, and we would have to share it with a variety of other parties. Also, it is a sign designed to support Tri-County Commons with a top with Tri-County Commons and their colors. It is identical to their sign on Kemper Road, and we would be at the bottom of that sign, apparently a part of Tri-County Commons, when in fact we have a different separate project.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Two


Mr. Wilson continued we are here tonight to ask you reconsider the separate sign in a design compatible with our facility, and a square footage considerably less than what we had talked about last time. We are requesting 108 square feet for 314,000 square feet of store space. The entire Tri-County Commons is only 360,000 square feet, and they have 361 square feet approved for their sign. We are asking for proportionately less than what has been approved for Tri-County Commons. Our total signage is still less than what the Code permits.

Mr. Wilson added if we are forced onto that sign, we will be forced to build the entire sign for the whole of Tri-County Commons. No one has expressed an interest in funding it or coming on it with us. On the other hand, they are not interested in relinquishing their right to be on that sign; they want to save this for future use. This puts us in a difficult position, and we have come back to ask you to reconsider.

Mr. Galster asked if there were a drawing showing where you propose to put this sign, and Mr. Wilson answered it is roughly aligned to the front door of the facility, and showed it on the site plan.

Mr. Wilson (Planning) said for us to allow you to have your own separate sign opens the door for the other tenants to want the same thing. If you bore the cost of that sign and the other tenants chose to have some space on it, it would be up to you to charge them for it. I do not feel that because you have to bear the brunt of the sign cost that it will not be recouped at a later date.

Mr. Wilson (Roberds) responded there are two or three groups of tenants. The tenants in the Wal-Mart Center have only one sign, and it is not on their land. The only way they can get on a sign is with the Tri-County Commons sign on I-275; they cannot come over to our sign; we are out of that loop.

Mr. Wilson continued the ones with a claim to the space on a sign we are proposing would be the other tenants in the old Kroger facility, whoever they might be. You have approved a pylon for the other end of the property, and the landlord has indicated that they have no interest in constructing it at this time. The other tenants will be 1700 feet west down the road, so I donít think there will be a lot of pressure from them.

Mr. Wilson stated it is really us talking to you about a pylon sign for us alone. Springdale Kemper has other arrangements at the other end, and the Tri-County Commons people have the sign already approved and not built. Think of it in terms of two shopping centers, and we are asking for two signs for two shopping centers. That is the proposal.

Mr. Galster commented I want to ask Mr. McErlane whether or not a sign on the west side of the Kroger building has been approved. Mr. McErlane responded it always has been shown on the preliminary plan, but was never discussed other than early on there was a discussion about its feasibility.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Three


Addressing Mr. Wilson, Mr. Galster asked if that west pole sign is not approved, are you open to allowing additional tenants on your pole sign? Mr. Wilson responded it is a possibility, and we are open to it. Our original sign proposal had space for future tenants, and we pulled that space to reduce the square footage; we can go back to that concept. Mr. Galster asked if they could leave the sign as it is right now and be able to add another tenant on in the future, and Mr. Wilson indicated that they could; they would go back to the design submitted last month.

Mr. Tiffany commented as far as moving the sign further to the west, the land tends to rise. Mr. Wilson added the land itself is fairly flat, but you are coming up a hill on the interstate. Mr. Tiffany continued it probably would be okay from the westbound, but I do not know about coming east because of the trees. The PUD was originally not designed to have anything like your business, and we have changed that. Now we are asked for another change to the PUD. The big problem is that was all in place at the time of the purchase of the property, and now here we are. You are in a bad spot, and it is after the fact. I am not comfortable because we are not sure if the sign to the west is approved or not, and there is no way in the world I want three signs there; I donít like two signs.

Mr. Tiffany commented you have downsized it considerably; I do not see other tenants as being a good option for this design. What was the size of the last sign? Mr. Wilson reported it was about 30 square feet bigger for the bottom panels. It is essentially the same height but more square footage. It was the same sign with panels between the goal posts. Mr. Tiffany stated we do not know what is coming in to the west, and if they want signs, it will be as big and bold as you are asking for, and I donít blame you. We just keep changing this thing.

Mr. Syfert commented we did make a change to the PUD, but I think we probably should have anticipated with that substantial a change that perhaps they would come in with and be entitled to more recognition than we were trying to give them on the to be built pylon sign. I do not have a bit of a problem with this myself, but I donít make the motions.

Mr. Tiffany said if we could get rid of the one sign to have the other, I do not have a problem, but it doesnít sound like that is a possibility, and I have to anticipate again that whoever comes in to the west will want a sign.

Mr. Galster stated I do agree with you about three pole signs and wanting to keep it down to two. We do not have the west sign approved, so we will only have two out there if we approve this.

Mr. Galster moved to grant approval of the proposed sign with the following contingencies: (1) that we verify that the west most pylon sign has not been approved, and (2) that any additional tenants to the west of the property would have the ability to add on panels to this sign. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Mr. Tiffany said my concern is the third sign, and we do not have clarification right now if it is or is not approved. If it was on the plans and not addressed, it is approved whether or not it was discussed; that would be my understanding. I think your motion is appropriate that we have to verify that. Was there anything in the motion as to moving it to the west?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Four


Mr. Galster modified his motion that the sign should be moved to the west and Mr. Young seconded that modified motion.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Wilson of Roberds if he agreed with the motion with its contingencies and moving the sign to the west. Mr. Wilson answered moving it to the west is fine, and we will agree to share space; that is fine. I cannot respond to what is happening at the west end of the property.

On the motion, voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Syfert and Wilson. Mr. Huddleston abstained and the approval was granted with five affirmative votes.

Mr. Wilson (Roberds) stated that Planning had approved signs on the north and south face of the building, and as I understand it, your Code permits a maximum depth of the sign at 18 inches. These signs actually will be about 36 inches deep. The reason is that they are lighted by fluorescent and someone will have to climb into the sign and pull the lights out and replace them to keep the signs in good form as we have discussed. We wanted to draw to your attention that those signs will stand out three feet. Mr. McErlane did not have a problem with this, but he wanted to make sure that you were aware of it.

Mr. Tiffany commented it is twice as thick as the Code allows; do we need to make a motion? Mr. Wilson (Roberds) responded that Mr. McErlane did not think so. I wanted to make sure that everyone understood it.

From the audience, Ken Fletcher, the sign designer added that by virtue of the size of this building, it is very compatible. The signs are the one on the back wall of 200 square feet and the one on the front which is

16í x 24í. Those are the only two signs affected. Mr. Tiffany suggested planting a tree on each side and Mr. Fletcher agreed that this was a good idea.

B. Kerry Ford/Subaru requests approval of signage for addition at 155 West Kemper Road

Mr. Dale Beeler of ATA Architects stated Kerry Ford is operating under a variance on signage presently and we would like to put one additional sign on the building. Kerry is on the pylon on one face only, facing West Kemper and Northland Boulevard, and we would like to retain the Kerry Ford on the showroom, although there will be no light bar. That added 55 square feet to the total signage of the project. The total with the new word Kerry on the high pylon would be at 600 to 610 square feet.

Mr. Beeler continued our allowable is between 680 and 722 square feet, so we are well under the maximum for the site, and I would like to point out that there is nearly 1200 lineal feet at Kerry Ford. Pat Castro the owner is here as is his general manager to answer any questions you might have.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Five


Mr. Syfert asked if the only variance is for the setback of the pole sign at Northland Boulevard and Kemper Road, and Mr. McErlane indicated that there also was a variance issued in 1969 to allow Ford a pole sign on the corner, as well as additional pole signs there. In 1981 they added an additional pole sign and some other signage for the Subaru dealership. The variances were for the number of pole signs, not total number of square footage.

Mr. Tiffany commented when I see 722 square feet as total allowable square feet, that is based on the frontage of the building plus the number of pole and ground signs. I donít think we can look at this is and say we are well within what we should be; we have exceeded in terms of pole signs as it is. We cannot do anything about the signs that are there with the variances granted; they were for a reason. Now we are adding signage but not taking anything back in return. I am hesitatant to add signage and I wonder where we are going with this.

Mr. Galster said you are only showing signage on the one side of the canopy. I would ask if you would be open to having more signage on that canopy and eliminate some of the pole signs. You would have all directions covered. I would like to see us eliminate some of the pole signs and allow more signage on the building.

Mr. Castro reported that in 1981 with the Subaru sign, there was a question about my activating a separate parcel of land and at that time we were entitled to signage on the last parcel we developed. I made a decision to combine the parcels, and if I would have left them separate, I am not sure that the variance would have been needed.

Mr. Galster commented there are four pole signs. From the audience, the manager of Kerry Ford indicated that they have a parts and service sign that we plan on taking down. Mr. Galster continued that his contention is that this canopy is almost like a pole sign, so instead of decreasing the signs we are adding another one; it is a three-sided pole sign. Mr. Castro responded it is a delivery area. Mr. Galster answered look at Pictorial Island. That is an awfully expensive sign, and this is not far from that in my mind. If we would allow Kerry Ford around the three sides, would you be amicable to eliminating some of the existing pole signs, and if so, which ones? I would prefer the ones on Kemper Road. Mr. Castro responded the two Ford signs could never be taken down; they are part of the franchise and are owned by Ford (Signs G and C). Mr. Beeler stated those are givens. The used car and Ford service are advertising signs and could be replaced with lower directional signs or put on the building. Mr. Castro said it could be lowered and made into a monument sign. Mr. Galster said to be a directional sign it would have to be no more than six square feet, and Mr. Castro indicated that this was possible. Mr. Galster said so the service sign could be directional only; what about the used cars sign? Mr. Castro said that is necessary; it is a fairly small sign.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Six


Mr. Galster responded I understand, but it is a pole sign. As I come from Kemper Road, I go by four pole signs. With the height on the new addition, the pole sign will be around the same height. What if that one (Sign G) would come down and become a monument sign? From the audience, the manager indicated that this sign is Ford Motor Companyís, and we cannot change that. Mr. Beeler added that they lease the sign from the manufacturer. Mr. Castro stated that it is part of the signage requirement from Ford Motor Company. Mr. Galster said there must be different options, because not every Ford has this high of a sign.

Mr. Syfert said this is not a session where we have to work everything out; we are getting off track. I understand what we re saying, and I believe that probably everyone here has a problem with the corner pole sign. They say they cannot do anything with the corner pole sign.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Castro if making Kemper Used Cars a monument sign were a possibility, and Mr. Castro indicated that it was.

Mr. Wilson commented we agreed that this is a pole sign, and Mr. Galster has addressed a lot of my concerns about eliminating a pole sign or two to accommodate this pole sign. If we can agree to make Sign A monument sign, that would be helpful. Mr. Galster stated that Signs G and C are untouchable; they are Ford Motor signs. Mr. Wilson responded if they are untouchable, I would feel comfortable if we made Signs H And A monument signs, and then I would feel comfortable with having Kerry on their two times. We are trying to accommodate and work something out with you. I do have a concern about the number of pole signs.

Mr. Huddleston commented this addition was represented as an architectural feature, but it is becoming a signage element. I o not want to be negative, but I think there are more than adequate signs there. I suggest that the applicant consider doing some master signage plan and come back to us, rather than adjusting this tonight.

Mr. Beeler said it boils down to a call by the owner as to whether Signs A and H can be traded off for the building sign that we are asking for tonight. Mr. Castro stated that he agreed to turn those signs into monument signs.

Mr. Beeler continued we are under on the building signage square footage. If we put Kerry on two faces, does that address your concern? Mr. Wilson responded I do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Tiffany stated for clarification, we are making Sign A a monument sign, and Sign H a directional sign. I still have a problem with the Ford sign on the corner. You are spending dollars on this project, and the standards look like 1969 and the building itself is very updated and attractive. I would like to see a sign package and plan that updates these signs. I would like for you to approach Ford if possible to see if we could lower that standard and get it so it has a nice flow to the building.

Mr. Syfert said I would ask the applicant if, based on everything that has been said and the comments that the owner has made, do you want to come back as New Business next month?



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Seven


Mr. Castro responded I would like to end it tonight. There is nothing that can be done with the corner sign. That is the sign that we will live with as long as the franchise is there.

Mr. McErlane commented with respect to monument signs, they require different setbacks and they would need to be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals for those setbacks.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve the signage as proposed with the following contingencies:(1) that the existing Sign H (Service pole sign) be reduced to a monument directional sign and (2) existing Sign A, Kerry Used Car sign be reduced to a monument sign and get approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals if it is not within the required setback. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Huddleston. Messrs. Young, Tiffany and Syfert voted no, and the motion was defeated with three affirmative and three negative votes.

Mr. Beeler stated we will go ahead with building the tower and will leave the signage until we can get back to you.

C. Concept Approval of proposed hair care business at 11664 Springfield Pike (formerly The Oasis)

Steve Smith stated we used the parking lot as it exists and created a building there, understanding that it violates the setbacks, so we are here to discuss that issue.

Mr. McErlane reported the variances required are for the 50 foot front yard setback requirement which is shown as 32 feet, and a side yard setback on the side street which is 25 feet and 7 feet is shown. The rear yard is not an encroachment over what it currently is, and the minimum rear yard is 35 feet, so they are within that requirement. The setback along the south line is permitted to achieve access to the lot, so they are okay. The parking numbers meet the Zoning Code requirements, and land coverage also complies. Since this falls into Subarea B of the Corridor Study, it requires the building materials to be 40% brick or stone. This appears to be a brick building, and the roof design meets the corridor requirements. There are street tree planting requirements along the Main Street (Route 4). Because it is only 66 feet wide, the requirements would be one street tree planted along the rear to screen the headlights.

Concerning the Route 4 Corridor District, the study was done on the entire corridor, and the planner looked at a lot of small parcels we had that were possible for redevelopment. They expected the smaller parcels to be consolidated with the additional parcels.

Anne McBride reported that as stated earlier, there are problems with setbacks. They are under the 75% lot coverage which is permitted. They provided us a copy of the west elevation, but we need to see all four elevations and the building materials. The pitched residential style roof is in keeping with what we want to see in the Corridor area. The signage should be ground mounted or on the building, and lighting details were not provided as this is a concept discussion.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Eight


Ms. McBride continued that screening of the parking area is required, and the number of parking spaces meet the requirement. The proposed use and style is one that should be encouraged within the Corridor District, but we have concerns about the size of the parcel. If there is some way to consolidate several or even two parcels, it would be more appropriate. It is the use and style that we want to see, but on a bigger parcel.

Mr. Tiffany commented that it looks like we are going to lose some mature trees. Mr. Smith responded only those to the south. The trees in the front should be kept, and the ones near the parking lot. There is one tree that would be lost in the area moving towards the adjacent property. Mr. Tiffany commented we are in concept here, and I want to make sure that you are aware of the tree preservation ordinance.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. McErlane about the south property line and how the setback could be zero. Mr. McErlane reported that within the code it allows you to reduce the 12 foot setback to zero if you have alternative vehicular access to the rear of the lot. Mr. Huddleston commented when you have a situation here you are trying to do a redevelopment on an extremely small parcel, it would be beneficial if we could combine parcels and get the use of cross easements. I have a tough time accepting this on the space, even though it is a nice small placement.

Mr. Wilson stated I do not have a problem with the setbacks, given the other spaces allotted. I am not sure that this parcel of land would avail itself to any other than a business of this type. We are talking concept here, and you will have to come back with something solid. We have made exceptions before, one notable one being on the corner of Glensprings Drive and Route 4. I think it is a good use of the land there and would be a welcome addition to what is there now. If they can make the building smaller and more in compliance, that would be agreeable if possible.

Mr. Smith commented the building started out at 1800 square feet and already has been reduced; it gets difficult. Mr. Wilson responded I would have no problem going with the exceptions given the type of business there and the fact that we have made exceptions before.

Mr. Galster said we have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, the property owners. I was under the impression that those two properties were owned by the same people. Is that true? The Cunninghams in the audience indicated that they only owned the one parcel.

Mr. Syfert said I do not have a bit of trouble with what you are trying to put in there, but I have a little hang-up with trying to put too much on a smaller property. Consolidation of some of the properties would be better, but that is obviously not an option at this point. I might ask if you have any questions of this board.

Mr. Smith answered no, as I understand it, it is important that Planning agree with what we are proposing in concept, and then our next step would be the zoning variances. Mr. Syfert responded I think you understand that some of us here are having a little trouble with the proposal. We do not grant the variances.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Tiffany said as chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I would ask that if you are coming into BZA, you have something a little more solid in terms of plans. We are talking about something on Main Street, and variances go with the land. It is great to come in and say this is what we are going to do, but it could change and be something else in the future. I donít think we as a board will approve it on what you have proposed tonight; it needs to be concrete in terms of design. Mr. Smith responded that is not a problem; when the setback issue came up, we did not want to develop plans too far until we knew how this meeting would go.

Mr. Tiffany commented I donít know if it will go further than this tonight. Mr. Huddleston added I am concerned. This is an improvement to what exists there, and I would ask Bill what protection in terms of usage we would have if we would grant approval. What protection would the city have on occupancy?

Mr. McErlane stated the only real regulation relating to uses once it is developed has to do with parking numbers and if the use is allowable in the zoning district. If it would change to a retail establishment, parking numbers still would work, and the board would not have any input.

Mr. Syfert wondered if there were a way to make this use work better on the property than what is presented tonight. I do not want to mislead you on anything, because I am really not in favor of this, and that is why I am asking if there is a better way to make this work for you, the applicant.

To fully comply with the Zoning Code and meet their needs apparently would not be possible. Then it becomes a matter of where they would be most willing to work with us. We will look at any avenue possible to meet their needs and the wishes of the city. Mr. Wilson stated from a design standpoint, perhaps it could be a two-story, or utilize your basement and have a smaller building. This is a concern of the board in terms of setbacks.

Mr. Smith answered the only area in the beauty parlor that can be put on a different floors given ADA requirements would be the employee area, which is extremely small. All the other areas need to be on the same level. There is a tanning room, but to put it on a different level would cause a problem.

Mr. Young stated that is part of my concern; how do you know that you need 1,272 square feet for a hair salon? A couple of places in Springdale are nowhere near that size. Is there a plan of the kind of criteria that determines this? Mr. Smith stated it is worked from a number of shampoo stations and nail stations, restrooms, waiting area, reception area and tanning room . Mr. Young asked if they were currently running a business, and Mrs. Cunningham indicated that they were, in Forest Park.

Mr. Huddleston commented I do not necessarily have a problem with the density. I think that is a better solution. The concern is when you get this kind of development and another adjacent to it without cross easement parking, you can really wind up in a difficult situation. If the city were in a position to be more proactive to provide overflow parking, that would be one thing, but I am not sure what the solution is. My experience is when you start doing postage stamp parcels, you could see a proliferation of them. I can see real parking problems here.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Wilson commented in terms of parking, you make appointments and you are not scheduling more appointments than they can handle, so they would have to increase appointments to more than eight spaces at a given time. Short of their doubling the size of their building, parking should not be an issue. Looking at what is there now, what is around the residential homes, if those residential buildings were torn down and other businesses developed, they would be in the same situation as these applicants. That is assuming that those properties were sold and broken down into business use. I do not think parking would be a problem. I would like to think those parcels will be commercial, but I am not sure that will happen.

Mr. Galster commented when we were talking about two floors, is it possible to have a main entry level and a split from there? I can see drying styling and shampooing might be available in the original entry, abut additional stations could be there. Also what would rotating the building so there would be only one or two setback problems? If the building were reduced by two stories or a split, then maybe you could rotate it.

Mr. Wilson asked if you turned the building sideways and had parking around it, would that work? Mr. Smith answered possibly; I wasnít sure you would prefer that. Aesthetically this seems a way to do it, but that might work. I wouldíve to try it and see. Mr. Wilson asked if the city would have a problem with parking spaces around the building. Mr. McErlane reported I do not know if you could physically get aisles and parking spaces and still have space for the building. To get a 19 foot stall and 24 foot aisle could be taking two-thirds of the depth of the lot. We try to discourage parking spaces backing onto o the street.

Mr. Tiffany moved to give concept approval as submitted and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson voted aye. Messrs. Galster, Young, Tiffany, Huddleston and Syfert voted no, and the approval was not granted by five negative and one affirmative vote. Mr. Syfert addressed the applicant, stating that they can take our comments and rework your plan, and if you want to be on the agenda next month, you would be under Old Business.

D. LJB Engineers requests approval of modification to Tri-County Commons Sign on East Kemper Road (Boston Market layout error)

Mr. Syfert stated that the applicant has requested that this be withdrawn.

E. Dorothy Copenhaver requests conceptual approval of proposed deck to be constructed at Bingís Bar & Grill, 11649 Springfield Pike

Jim Estep stated we are here for approval of a deck to the south side of the existing building. The existing shed will be demolished along with t he house to create an area for parking expansion. The rear area is existing parking for the patrons to use in an overflow situation.

Mr. Syfert asked if he meant the shed to the south and the house and Ms. Copenhaver answered the shed the house and the other two sheds will be gone. Mr. Syfert asked if the gravel drive were part of this parcel and if she were going to pave all of it. Ms. Copenhaver answered that it was and she was not planning on paving all of it.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Tiffany pointed out the trailers in the back, and Ms. Copenhaver said there are two semis back there. I started cleaning all that stuff back there today, and I will be hauling it all off. I think I have somebody that wants to take the two semis. There is someone that lives in the one trailer. We were going to try to paint and fix it up to make it look a little better.

Mr. Tiffany stated we have been looking to get rid of these eyesores for a very long time. The trailer does not fit in with the neighborhood. I am looking to see everything gone; it does not fit. Is that something you can do? Ms. Copenhaver answer dyes, I can. You give me a date, and it will be gone. Mr. Tiffany responded it would have to be gone before the permits are issued for this deck. Ms. Copenhaver responded I can promise you that it will be gone and it. will be cleaned out within a month.

Ms. McBride this is in Subarea B of the Corridor Study, and there are setback requirements that neither the existing building, parking area or proposed structure meet. them. Concerning the requirement for 40% stone or brick building materials on at least two of the elevations, an open air structure such as this would not require this, but we wondered if there is some way to work in some natural materials. The proposed addition has a residential pitched roof which meets the requirement. Signage was not indicated; there is signage with the existing development, and if it is possible to rework that, it would be welcome. The lighting details were not provided for the addition or the existing development. With the residence behind the property and some of the residences on Smiley, this addition will be visible, so any lighting would have to be down -directional fixtures or fixtures with cut-off angles. The landscaping details were not provided as this is conceptual, but we would like to see street trees along Route 4 and also screening from the parking area. No calculations on parking were provided which will be needed, and Mr. Tiffany already has addressed the question of the trailers.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the only comment I have is regarding what will be required in terms of parking, and the fact that gravel is not an approved parking surface. We also wonder if there will be an access for the pedestrians from the parking area which is remote from the restaurant.

Mr. McErlane indicated that at least a 10 foot setback would be required from a building code standpoint, but a 50 foot setback is required. If a 10 foot setback is maintained, I am not sure the deck would be 22í x 35í.

With respect to parking, since we don do not have a seating plan for the deck or building, we cannot determine the additional parking requirements. He asked the current seating capacity, and Ms. Copenhaver indicated that it was 45. Mr. McErlane wondered how many parking spaces are out front and Ms. Copenhaver stated there were 15, and it goes around the whole circle. Mr. McErlane stated our concern is that we do not want to channel additional parking requirements on an unimproved surface. We also need to know the seating capacity on the deck. Ms. Copenhaver indicated about 30, and with the house knocked down, it would bring my parking up. There would be two ways to come in, on the side between the Blue Star Laundry and the house, and there is the driveway that goes into the back. After we get the house down, I want to see how Springdale wants me to set it up.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. McErlane reported if the seating will be 30 on the deck, it would require an additional 10 parking spaces. If you are paving from the area of the house, there will be more than 10 spaces. Ms. Copenhaver stated the house and two sheds by the house will be gone, and there are two trees about ready to fall which he will take down also.

Mr. Huddleston commented what I see on this gravel driveway is a cross easement with the adjoining property, is that correct? On the south end it is paved and turns to gravel. It is a common access point; is that the same ownership? Ms. Copenhaver said no, Dr. Fine owns this property. Mr. Huddleston wondered if that were a deed covenant and Mr. McErlane commented that there should be an easement existing, but I could not say that for certain. Mr. Huddleston wondered if after the house is gone she intended to pave off the end of the existing parking lot. Ms. Copenhaver answered whichever way I have to do it, that is the way I will. This is what I want, and I do not know how to go about it. Whatever way I am supposed to be doing it, I will do it.

Mr. Huddleston commented the existing condition is very unsafe and not workable. I am not sure you can get 15 cars in there, and if you can, there is backing onto and off Route 4.

Mr. Galster commented this is major improvement to this site. I do not know if we will get brick to work on the front, but I do not think that is insurmountable. I think it is a great improvement concept and I have no problem with it, providing you can perform all the things you said.

Mr. Syfert said they are asking for approval of this deck; is this as concept or final approval? Mr. Estep answered the setback is what brought us in here. We would like approval on the deck, but I donít think ink we are going to get it. I have us lined up with the existing structure. Mr. Syfert added you have to understand that we have an other proposal that abuts onto that, and I do not think we could allow them to go any closer than 10 feet. Mr. McErlane added once they maintain greater than 10 feet, they are not required to have fire rated separations.

Mr. McErlane stated the other issue we should look at is we have a development planned to the west of this property which involves residential buildings closer to the property line than currently. It may make sense to look at a solid screen on that side as well. Part of the concern is noise as well as the visual impact. I donít know if you can do much with plantings since you are elevated from the ground.

Mr. Estep suggested a heavy type lattice around the deck; it still would be open air, but visually blocked and somewhat secure.

Mr. Huddleston commented it seems a lot of the board members would like to upgrade the property. My question is do we need a civil plan to do this? Mr. McErlane reported when we get into the issues of parking lot expansion we will need civil drawings, grades and storm water management.

Mr. Estep reported I am a civil engineer myself. The owner might have had a drawing done that could be modified to show drainage topography and elevations. Would you require a stamped civil drawing? Mr. McErlane confirmed that they would.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Thirteen


Mr. Young commented I probably have more experience with this property than anyone on this board, and I think ink the concept is a good one. I can see the deck as a vast improvement. What has been discussed has to be done in terms of meting all requirements, and I think that is something that you can work out with Bill.

Mr. Galster said on the dumpsters, do they go down the back to the gravel drive? lf you would move those up to the regular parking area and screen them, we could eliminate the need for people to look into the dumpster from the residential area. . That is something to consider.

Mr. Tiffany said with the neighboring property proposed to the west, will there be music out on the deck? Ms. Copenhaver answered no. Mr. Tiffany continued I am looking for a commitment that there will not be. Ms. Copenhaver answered there will not be. Mr. Tiffany said as far as fencing is concerned, an offset staggered shadowbox is effective to allow air to move through and knock down noise. Mr. Estep commented that is more durable than lattice. You are interested primarily on the west side, but from Ms. Copenhaverís standpoint, we could do the lattice on the other three sides. Ms. Copenhaver commented we wonít put a juke box out there. Mr. Tiffany responded I am talking about speakers; I have a concern about the abutting residential neighborhood. Ms. Copenhaver said then no way will there be music.

Mr. Tiffany stated we are considering the deck but there are a lot of things to consider with the 15 additional parking spaces and we might make the motion contingent upon the parking situation. Mr. Syfert stated they are basically after a conceptual approval tonight knowing that there is more work to be done before they receive final approval al.

Mr. Wilson said on variances required for rear yard setback, 10 feet is shown and 50 feet is required. Mr. Tiffany commented that goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Syfert added we indicated that they should maintain the line the way they have it now and no closer than that.

Mr. Tiffany moved to grant concept approval to the deck and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr.Tiffany, Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert. Messrs. Wilson and Huddleston voted no, and concept approval was granted with four affirmative and two negative votes.


Mr. Syfert stated that Mr. Okum has asked that the letters on the awnings be reconsidered as signage for Boston Market. It is up to the board as to whether they want to reconsider it.

Mr. Tiffany reported Dave and I discussed this, and the proximity of the building to the street. As I drove by there, I think this signage that wasnít supposed to be read from the street will be easily read, and I think it is in our best interests to consider it silgnage. If we do not, we are setting one heck of a precedent. I am moving to reconsider it. Mr. Wilson seconded they motion. All present voted aye.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Fourteen

VII. - DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany asked about the gentleman from the signage company, and Mr. McErlane indicated that he would have to go back to the Boston Market people and get their position. I did run through the numbers on how much additional square footage this would represent. The rotisserie signs total 1.87 square feet each, and Meals to Go total 2.25 square feet each for a total additional of 18.375 square feet. You approved 11 square feet over what they are permitted, so lit would take them to 29.375 square feet over their permitted 198 square feet.

Mr. Syfert stated we are not going to take any final action tonight without the applicant present. Do you want to discuss it any further?

Mr. Tiffany stated I was hoping to catch it before they made the awnings. He was willing to not have it on there at the last meeting, and I was hoping he could be here and talk to us about it tonight.

Mr. Syfert suggested putting it on the agenda next month and notifying the applicant. The members concurred.

Mr. McErlane reported that Mr. Osborn asked me to relay to you that he has asked Anne McBride to look into the possibility of modifying Subarea C District requirements. Subareas B C and D do prohibit auto service establishments and we seem to have a problem going all the way back to a car wash. The Corridor Study recommended pedestrian oriented and local business type uses along the corridor. Once we get a new draft, it will be before you for review.


A. Dan Howardís Maternity 11402 Princeton Pike - 2 wall signs

B. BP Oil, 11775 Springfield Pike - wall sign

C. Key Bank, 11355 Princeton Pike - wall signs/pole sign/directional sign

D. AMOCO Station 12089 Princeton Pike - wall signs & canopy sign

Mr. Wilson asked about AMOCO and Mr. McErlane reported that Dawson bought it and there is a change to AMOCO. There were some additional signs around the store building, and we had to convince them to remove one to get within code.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they needed a motion on the Roberds Grand signage that we approved earlier this evening. Mr. Galster commented I would want to make sure; we do not know if everybody agrees that the 36 inch depth is okay, and he moved to allow the 36 inch deep wall signs on the front and rear providing they are properly screened with landscaping preferred. Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all members present, except Mr. Huddleston who abstained, voted aye.

Mr. Tiffany reported that after last monthís meeting, we had two additional companies come in wanting monopole antenna towers. Mr. McErlane added one of them did not identify themselves, and the other was AT&T. They indicated that they were not totally opposed to putting them on buildings, but they really needed a monopole in addition to the building placement. Mr. Tiffany commented we have to come up with something different. Mr. Wilson said how long can we continue to deny these without a law suit. Mr. Galster said we need to search out maybe 10 buildings to cover all Springdale and eliminate all monopoles. Mr. Tiffany suggested combining placement on the rooftop with disguising them to make it difficult to see them.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 March 1996

Page Fifteen


Mr. Galster suggested going to the state and using the highway lights. Mr. Tiffany commented I do not see the state allowing this, but that would be the ideal Mr. Huddleston wondered if there were any model legisaltion available, and Mr. McErlane reported that Anne McBride has furnished some, and Cecil has asked us to look into this and determine how other communities deal with this. We are researching this and will try to have something for the next meeting.

Mr. Galster reported that Rules and Laws Committee is trying to get the sign issue before Council. We have had many discussions about window signs and the people who are putting the neon strip lighting up and when there is a problem, it is flashing. Because of the fact that we will be looking at political and window signs, we might as well look at all signs. I wanted to know if Planning wished to have the neon lights be on a separate circuit. Mr. Huddleston asked if our current signage ordinance bars flashing lights and Mr. McErlane confirmed that it does. Mr. Galster continued what we will address is that any light, particularly neon, needs to be on a separate circuit so that if it becomes inoperable or flashing, it could be turned off. Planning concurred with this.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would be absent at the April 9th meeting and Mr. Huddleston indicated that he would be on vacation.


Mr. Tiffany moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Planning Commisison adjourned at 9:38 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________ 1996 _____________________

William G. .Syfert, Chairman



____________________ 1996 ________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary