11 APRIL 1995

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Tim Sullivan, Barry Tiffany,

Councilman Bob Wilson and Chairman Bill Syfert.

Members Absent: Councilwoman Peggy Manis

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

Mr. Syfert reported that Ms. Manis called Mr. McErlane and stated she would

not be here tonight.


Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, adding

that he had some spelling errors which I will discuss with the recording

secretary. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were

adopted with six affirmative votes.


Mr. Tiffany moved for adoption and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative


Mr. Syfert said I would like to thank everyone for their attendance at both

meetings in March, especially the special meeting. We would like to have

100% attendance on those, which we did, and I thank you again.


A. Memo re Bikeway Plan from Cecil W. Osborn to Don Shvegzda

B. 4/7/95 Letter from Anne McBride to Bill McErlane re Temporary

Signage and Time Frame for Submissions

C. Memo from Bill McErlane to Members re PAS Report

D. Current Time Frame for Submissions to Planning Commission

Site Plan Review Requirements

Submittals Required for Final Plan Approval



A. Concept Discussion - Rick Joseph, Jo Mar Properties - Proposed Tuffy

Auto Service - 370 Northland Boulevard

Mr. Joseph stated I am here with a preliminary concept plan of what we would like to do at 370 Northland Boulevard. My reason for coming tonight was to get any possible concerns at this time so I can address them on a site plan and, hopefully bring that back next month and ask for a vote then after it has been advertised.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Two


Mr. Syfert stated for the benefit of the other members, we did not have the staff review on this. There really wasnít anything specific there for Anne or Don to be dealing with at this point. As Mr. Joseph said, this is more a concept discussion.

Mr. Wilson commented I am trying to look at this map; I am assuming this proposed location is next to the dry cleanerís? Mr. Joseph confirmed this, adding that it is between the Magic Touch Dry Cleaners and the Ď76 Gas Station.

Mr. Wilson continued my concern is you can only have traffic coming from one direction into this place. Have they looked at that? Mr. Joseph responded yes, and we have worked with Mr. Comer who we are purchasing the property from. He owns the adjoining property, and is going to grant us an easement to have access through the shopping center into this site, so anyone going past it that would want to come left into there, can go down to that first opening in the median and come through the shopping center.

Mr. Galster said on this drawing, it shows building all the way up against the far right property line. Do you have any idea how close it will be to the existing building?

Mr. Joseph answered think we are going to have that building approximately five feet away; I know on this plan it doesnít show that, but it is a preliminary plan. I have an engineer at this time laying out the actual site plan and doing the survey, and it looks like we will hold that building five feet off the line.

Mr. Galster commented are we trying to move it over as far as we can so we can another building on this piece of property? Mr. Joseph answered yes, if you look on the left side of that property, weíve shown some type of future development; we donít know what yet, but weíre hoping to fit another small type user in there. Of course we would still stay within the code regulations of square footage not to exceed 25% of land area. The Tuffy building is approximately 3600 square feet, and this site is a little over 20,000 square feet, so under the Springdale Building Code we should be allowed somewhere around 5,000 square feet total building area.

Mr. Tiffany stated you are proposing this to go right against the property line? Mr. Joseph said no, and Mr. Tiffany responded five feet off your property line. Mr. Joseph said yes, and Mr. Tiffany commented I wanted to clarify the distance between the two buildings at that point. Mr. Joseph stated it would be five feet at that point. I am having the survey done so I donít know yet, but I believe the existing building is setting on the property line, so if we move five feet away, there will be an area of five feet between the two. Mr. Tiffany asked what he proposes to put in that five feet, will it be paved? Mr. Joseph answered we can pave, gravel it or put grass in it. It would be difficult to cut grass, so I would think a one inch gravel would be the most likely type of thing to go in there. Weíd gladly blacktop between there if that would be better. I thought the gravel would give any water the chance to go down below the ground.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Three


Mr. Tiffany commented we canít be specific until we see the actual site plan, but the building is 40 x 90? Mr. Joseph responded 40í x 92í are the exact dimensions. Mr. Tiffany stated for your benefit, I will say I am concerned about the left rear corner, keeping the radius there for truck usage in and out. If we go five feet to the side of the existing building, we are eliminating an access, an egress for that building, so we want to be sure not to do away with that for them.

Mr. Joseph commented I am working on the new survey with Dan Comer. who also owns the Goodyear Tire Center. The old survey was a little deceiving; that 36 foot measurement that we have on the drawing today will increase at that back property line to somewhere between 55 and 60 feet because that is what is actually level there. In other words what is level there that we could use is not shown on this paper today but will be shown at the next meeting. Mr. Tiffany said so what is level presently is 36 feet or 50 feet? Mr. Joseph answered it is about 60 feet that is presently level, and the rest of the area has an elevation difference of probably about 10 feet. What he will transfer to me will be everything that is level at this time. Mr. Tiffany responded when you say transfer, subdivide? Mr. Joseph answered it already is a separate parcel, and he will sell that portion of it to me.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if he had checked the plot as this is shown against what our current records show. Mr. McErlane reported the only records we have relative to these properties is what the County Auditorís plat show, and those properties have been recut so many times they are hard to tell whatís what on it. I think Mr. Shvegzda has copies of the auditorís plat, but they involve former lots from the original Baldwin Subdivision. There are some lines that kind of define this. Mr. Syfert responded thatís the reason I brought it up; I figure it has been changed many many times. Mr. Tiffany asked if there were cross easements, and Mr. Syfert answered I would guess so, but I do not know that to be a fact or whether we have a record. Mr. McErlane added I would doubt that he wrote any cross easements to himself, but there could be cross easements written for it.

Mr. Wilson asked the zoning, and Mr. McErlane answered it is zoned GB, General Business, but it is in the Route 4 Corridor District. Actually the district boundaries look like they go beyond the next building on Mr. Comerís lot. It looks like they come down Hickory Street in the old Baldwin Subdivision straight down to Northland. Mr. Tiffany commented so they are cutting through the liquor store? Mr. McErlane responded probably on the east side of the liquor store.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Joseph if he were familiar with the Route 4 Corridor Study? Mr. Joseph responded not at all. Mr. McErlane reported to give you a general idea of what the corridor district is attempting to do is to set an architectural theme and parameters for both architectural landscaping and setback controls all along Route 4. The subarea this property falls in is Subarea C, and within the requirements of that subarea there are specific setbacks and specific architectural controls that apply to it such as 55% of two sides of the building have to be brick or stone, 70% of the roof area has to be a residential form.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Four


Mr. McErlane continued throughout the Route 4 Corridor you cannot use bright high chroma shades of predominant building colors; they need to be earth tones. In this particular area, the setback requirements are reduced because it is in the same area as most of Route 4 within the block between Kemper Road and Northland Boulevard, which are small lots such as this one. It does reduce the front yard setback to 15 feet, but it tries to promote that 15 feet to be a grassed area. The maximum building and parking coverage is 90% of the lot total, and parking in the rear is preferred. There are overlay standards, and Iíll give you a copy of those so you know what you are working with.

Mr. Wilson commented perhaps before you go too much further, you should get hold of that Route 4 Corridor Study and see how it conforms or does not conform with your wishes. We would not want you to go too much further with this and find out it does not comply. You need to look at that Route 4 Study and see if what is required conforms with what you want to do here.

Mr. Tiffany commented I would suggest the same; are there restrictions on usage? Mr. McErlane reported the general parameters of the Corridor Study, not within the district requirements per se, but the general land study that was done tried to promote pedestrian type oriented uses throughout the corridor, or at least this section of the corridor, but it is not a requirement of the Zoning Code. There is a use issue within the General Business District requirements because it does require a Conditional Use Permit under the GB for any automotive service establishments. That would be the next step in the process, to come in with a Conditional Use Permit request, hold a hearing and as part of that the Corridor Review District requirements require the information be submitted to evaluate how it complies with the Corridor requirements as well at that point.

Mr. Joseph said if I canít get it within these Corridor requirements, is that something this board can look at, or is it set in stone? The two concerns, a residential type roof and the color tones for this particular type of use, this is a national franchise and I donít think I will be able to get them to change their colors or the style of their roof.

Mr. Osborn responded I think it is workable. Keep in mind that the high chromatic color referred to the base or primary color. Your building is white with a yellow trim. The yellow trim would be fine. The one design element that we would be concerned about is the pitched roof. Donít take it that you must make the building a dull gray or something. You can have the white building with the yellow trim because that is a trim color and not the base color for the whole building. I think the roof issue would be critical with us. If that is the only issue you have to go back with them, it might be something you could work out.

Mr. Joseph commented that probably would be a lot easier to address than the color. I know Jiffy Lube went with the color of Promenade Center in Forest Park, and they are not happy with the results of that. It does blend in with the center, but it doesnít generate the same type of traffic it probably would if it were their national colors. They spend a lot of money on advertisement of the red and white Jiffy Lube, and there is a green and white one in Forest Park. I donít think it does the same amount of business that it would if it were the same color.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Five


Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if a mansard style on a parapet would work, if it were a shingled mansard? Mr. McErlane responded the Walgreens roof is basically a mansard type. The code specifically says 70% of the roof area. Judging from the other muffler shop that recently was permitted, there is not a whole lot of mechanical equipment involved in it. I believe they have one mechanical unit for the office and waiting area and have some unit heaters in the bays, so awe are not talking about having a whole lot of rooftop units. Mr. Tiffany commented basically it probably could go without rooftop units. I thought this could be an option. Is it an option? Mr. McErlane responded without getting a variance no, because it says 70% of the roof area.

Mr. Syfert stated we have had our discussion, and the ball is in your court now, Mr. Joseph.

Mr. Wilson said when you talk about future development on that site, any ideas as to what you will put there? Mr. Joseph answered not at this time. Something that might work would be a possible oil change, like the other development where you have a muffler shop and oil change together just because of the size of the building, but I donít have any proposal on the table at this time.


A. Temporary Signage

Mr. Galster stated in reading through this information, I think it is heading in the right direction. I think there are ways to get the desired effect we want, and I have come to the conclusion personally that we should work within the boundaries of the existing sign ordinance and try to clear up the area in reference to windows and try to limit the size of the coverage. I think we will find as long as we do not consider window signs as extra signage, a lot of it would be eliminated strictly because it is over what they are permitted.

Mr. Galster continued I agree that we shouldnít try to get too confusing and get too many restrictions. I think with the legal advisor we can modify our existing code and come up with a way of governing it a little better. Mr. Syfert asked if he anticipated any major changes, and Mr. Galster responded I donít think so. I think it is a matter of saying that windows can only be covered x-amount of percent providing they are within the square footage allowed for the building and enforce that.

Mr. McErlane asked if his suggestion were not to change the current code? Mr. Galster responded to change it, but not get too picky on it. In going through this material, a lot of people are saying let it be with the exception of the percentage of the window that is covered. I think the window signage part of the code, if we put in the fact that the window sign cannot take up more than say 25% and not more than so many square feet, and incorporate that into our overall sign package and enforce the total square footage of that, it is very possible we could live with our existing code.

Mr. McErlane stated what we would like to do is try to get ideas on parameters and draft something and bring it back next month for review and approval. Iíd like to get some agreement on a few things.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Six


Mr. McErlane continued one is if the board thinks we should eliminate the limitation on timed window signs that is currently in the code. I think the majority of the information submitted by Anne McBride led to that, and I think we need to get a consensus on that. Also, if we limit it by area, what that area will be, and it looks like there are at least three jurisdictions that limit it to 25%. The maximum square footage varies a little between various municipalities, but I think 200 square feet is a little bit too big. I think 30 square feet is probably a little more reasonable.

Mr. McErlane stated in looking at Culver Cityís ordinance, there are some definitions that are probably useful. There is one statement in there that talks about where the sign is located relative to the window so we could get around those issues if somebody is saying this isnít a window sign, it is 24 inches away from the window. They have clearly defined that, so we may borrow that. I would like for the board to give a consensus on square footage and percentages so we can draft something up.

Mr. Osborn commented we were not able to have a staff meeting, so we have not had a chance to discuss this, but I read the material through. Following Mr. Galsterís suggestion, I like the idea that less is better in terms of trying to create regulations on this issue and I like the idea of trying to make as few changes to our code and yet accomplish our goals. As Bill indicated, we wanted to create parameters to work off of to create a draft to bring back to you. Since then, I have had the opportunity to read this material, and I also focused on Culver City. Maybe what we can do is take the definitions and the sign limit in the Culver City as a starting point. I guess I would disagree with Bill a little bit until we exercise the calculations and see how they apply but if you take a store like Thriftway, Culver City is 25% of the window, 200 square feet or one square foot for every linear foot of window, whichever is less. That means that even if we say to Thriftway you can only have 25% of your window covered, that might be over 200 square feet, so it also would be limited to 200 square feet. Letís say they have 800 square feet of window. Even though we are talking about a 200 square foot allowance, it still would be proportionally accurate in terms of what we were allowing the other stores. Again, maybe we run numbers and find it wouldnít work, but I am suggesting we take Culver City, draft some of their language into ours and use that as a starting point next month to have this discussion with you.

Mr. Sullivan commented I understand and agree with the initial parameters. Has anyone addressed the police department or any of the safety people about the placement of signs so as officers pass by a location they can see inside.

Mr. Osborn responded we havenít had that dialogue, but I thought it was a very good justification for this. Blocking the windows is a security issue as well as an aesthetic issue. We can get some input from the police, but I think that will be situational depending on the building and how it is laid out internally, etc. Maybe we donít want signs on the door, but we can talk to them about that,

Mr. Sullivan commented different buildings would be different, but if we just said they were limited to a certain number of square feet and somehow we did not allow them to put a sign in a certain place because of the safety problem, they might have to cram up everything they have in a small area, so it is something that should be considered.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Galster said in talking about the total square footage, I imagine Thriftway or UDF with the nice clean glass, but I also see the Sweeney Chevrolet with the tall glass. If we allow them to put even 25% and 200 square feet on one big painting in the middle of that big window, I think we havenít quite eliminated the whole problem. I think we have to be careful with the square footage, keeping it at a low number so we donít end up with one big fluorescent stop sign in some of the car dealerships. Recker and Boerger as an example just put up some new painted windows and they have the advantage of having a big glass area. Those type places are the places that could end up abusing it.

Mr. Tiffany commented some of these businesses have what I would consider a wrap around in terms of windows. Pier One and Just for Feet have windows on two sides. The proposed building on Cassinelli outlot, is proposed to have windows on three sides. I think we have to look at that so we donít have a problem with thatís a separate side and those are separate windows. After our last meeting, there must have been somebody here from Kerry Ford because he got every automobile marked with neon colors. I think we need something for the neon colors too; if itís going to be a long term permanent signage, it needs to be a little more subdued.

Mr. McErlane reported one of the things I suggested last month was the possibility of prohibiting painted signs unless they are permanent window signs and are allocated towards their permanent signage. That is another thing for Planning Commission to discuss, whether or not it is the direction in which they want to go.

Mr. Tiffany asked Steve if he were suggesting we do away with the 200 square feet and stick to a percentage? I like the idea of having both options. Kerry Ford has three sides of glass on the building. If you consider it three sides, he is way in excess of 800 square feet of glass, so I like the fact that we would limit it to 200 square feet there.

Mr. McErlane commented I think it is worth looking at particular situations where we know we have an excessive amount of glass and see what they could possibly put on. One of the things that does limit it a little bit is one square foot of sign area per linear foot of glass. Mr. Tiffany commented thereís another option. Like he says itís the least of all of these. Mr. Syfert added especially when you are talking the big tall fronts.

Mr. Galster reported there is something in there now; Iím looking at the last page of Culver City (5) (c) "shall extend onto or over the perimeter window frames.." Mr. Galster commented I think we could accomplish the same thing. If we allowed painted window signs as an example, they canít continue this all into one big glob right in the middle of the window. Mr. Tiffany responded the way we eliminate that is as Bill said make it part of their permanent signage. Mr. Galster said I would agree with that.

Mr. Sullivan stated I went past Kerry Ford and Sweeney after Barryís comment about their being a sign on each car, and the same with the writing in the windows. The only question I have is when we get more specific, we not put, in this case, the automobile dealers in our area in any kind of competitive disadvantage with any other dealer in another area.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Tiffany commented there is not a whole lot of spur of the moment type buying in terms of cars. At the same time we donít want to create any disadvantage for any business in Springdale, we donít want to create an unfair advantage for any business either. It has to be all the way across the board in terms of all the businesses. Itís a tough call; I see your point.

Mr. Syfert commented I think Bill was looking for a guideline from us regarding time limitation and percentage of square footage. Weíve kicked around the percentage a little bit; are we all amenable to letting Bill and the Building Department work with Cecil on some sort of proposal and bring it back to us?

Mr. McErlane stated I think we can work on the percentage and square footage. Weíll take a look at what that 200 square feet would do. The only other issues are do you want to prohibit painted window signs unless they are counted towards their permanent signage and the time limitations on it.

Mr. Syfert commented a lot of the people here seem to like a lot of the meat of the Culver City report that we have in our possession. It seems like there is a lot of credence in the minds of a number of us here.

Mr. Sullivan stated there were some good points in the Culver City material, and I am sure we can find some things we can use and some we canít. Basically, one of the things Cecil touched upon that in my mind is probably the most important thing is the percentage. The whole idea that if it is percentage or lineal square feet or whatever it is, or the least of the three. Mr. .Tiffany and Mr. Galster both indicated that as one part they liked. If you are looking for a percentage from us, Iíd like you to take a look at what would be three or four of the largest possible scenarios in terms of signage and maybe a few of the smallest and see how it would affect them, the people on the extreme ends of it. I could live with anywhere from 20 to 30% probably if I knew it would be done safely and that it would be the least of three type things.

Mr. Tiffany said as far as to be seen from the outside, is there a distance specified? Am I standing at the window, am I 20 feet back, am I driving by? Mr. McErlane answered by definition in our Zoning Code a sign is defined as a sign if it is intended to be read from the right of way. Mr. Tiffany asked how we address that in Cassinelli Square? Mr. McErlane answered the majority of Cassinelli Square, we do not regulate because it would not be visible from the right of way. Some of what occurs in Princeton Plaza is the same way. If you are back far enough in that corner youíre not going to see it from the right of way. Mr. Tiffany responded but it still could be an eyesore. Do we exempt those people because they are not visible from the right of way, or do we enforce it across the board? I guess that is another issue we have to look at. If I have a business on Route 4 close enough to the street that can be read easily as we drive by, do we penalize him because he sets that close to the street and then Hit or Miss in Cassinelli Square can put anything they want on the front of the building? Mr. McErlane answered it depends on whether they are trying to attract people in off the street. Mr. Tiffany commented there is a traffic lane there; basically that is the street in front of their business to people coming through the plaza, and they are putting a sign up trying to get them to come in their store. What do we do there?



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Tiffany continued do we need to put something in as far as upkeep of these signs? If weíre not going to have a time frame, do we have something in terms of upkeep - we need some teeth there. Mr. McErlane commented they are not subject to weathering. Mr. Tiffany answered but they will be subject to fading because theyíll be right in the windows. Mr. McErlane commented I would hate to get it to the point where it is too cumbersome. Mr. Tiffany answered I agree, but especially the issue of the right of way versus in the plaza, I donít know if we need to look at that.

Mr. Osborn stated in terms of what constitutes a window sign, I think we ought to look at this as a different category than what constitutes a standard sign. Again, keep in mind the strongest justification we have here is public safety. And certainly aesthetics, but that is much harder to pin down; it is very subjective. In Culver Cityís code, they define window sign as being "..a sign of two square feet or more in area, and with characters more than two inches high is placed inside of a building within 30 inches of and facing a transparent window, the sign shall be considered a window sign." I think this is critical, because if this is a safety issue, how can we allow Princeton Plaza or the Springdale Mall to have unlimited window signs and at the same time say to the other businesses, weíre going to restrict your window signs and part of our justification is safety. Again, I think it is a real consideration that we should review and maybe even come up with a different definition for window sign that distinguishes recognition from the public right of way as not a factor.

Mr. Galster commented to continue on the definition in Culver City, their window sign is "A permanent or temporary sign that is displayed on the surface of any glass or glazed material, or that is displayed interior and close enough to a window to be reasonably visible from outside the window." I think that covers a lot of things, including Springdale Auto Parts. They have their rack with a yellow board; you canít see in that building. If the police were called to that location, they wouldnít have a clue. All they have is a big yellow board put up on the inside; itís not a sign. So I think if we use the definition that it is just reasonably visible from the outside, itís a window sign.

Mr. Sullivan stated I am not sure if I agree or disagree with Mr. Galster on that, but the question of do we consider areas not covered under the existing definitions in that they are visible from the right of way, I think the enforcement of any type of a sign, particularly when it comes to window signs, is awfully difficult in the first place. Iím sure thatís why a lot of this has been ignored basically in the past and why it is in a lot of other areas where they donít want to enforce it. If we start adding in other groups such as plazas where they are not visible from the right of way but they are visible if you are in that area, it seems to me you are going to be adding on an awful lot of additional enforcement and if the thing is going to have any teeth at all, weíll have to take a look at that later. Iím not sure that just the fact that something is in the window and is visible that it is a sign. If it is a yellow board, it is a yellow board. If it has on it Springdale Auto Parts and a lot of prices, Iíd say yeah, but if it is a safety issue with the police department, they should address that as a safety issue, not a sign issue.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Syfert commented weíve kicked this around pretty well this evening, and I believe in the best interests of all concerned, weíll wait for something to come in for discussion next month. It will be on the agenda. Mr. McErlane stated weíll come up with a draft. Mr. Tiffany said I know you probably donít have any idea when youíll get together with the administration, but if possible I would like to be present and help out if you could let me know. Mr. Syfert said Steve, youíd probably like to get in on that too, wouldnít you? Mr. Galster indicated that he would.

Mr. Blake said since our city administrator is here, I am concerned that each day when I come home, it looks so cruddy when you come ion off the expressway and get down by that little drainage area back of Perkins. They fixed the restaurant up and have it looking nice, and when you look down, it looks cruddy. I was wondering if we could use some of our community improvement flower money or something and buy some wildflowers that they have along the expressway and have some kind of growth that would go in that area to make it look a little better. Is that possible?

Mr. Osborn responded we can try to do something; the problem is the bank that you see is actually on Perkins property. They defoliated that with a very intense weed killer, and I would be reluctant to say what we could get to grow there. The other suggestion is that perhaps we can do something immediately within the right of way on the west side of the road, maybe a combination of small growing evergreens and some wildflowers to at least create a visual barrier where you can still see the restaurant but eliminate the bank. The other thing we can do is try to talk to Mr. Perkins to see if we can convince him that the effort he has put on his property is very good but somewhat tainted by the way he has left that trench. My main point is it is private not public property, and we might try to get some cooperation. If we try to do something, it will be closer to the street than the bank, but we will definitely follow up on that.

Mr. Tiffany said as I recall when the contractor came in from Perkins, they did make a commitment to us to improve that side of the building in terms of landscaping and do some upkeep on that ravine. Mr. McErlane stated I believe they talked about landscaping, and they did plant some shrubbery. Mr. Tiffany responded it seems like there was a discussion with them; maybe we could check.

Mr. Galster stated I think what we discussed was the planting along that side of the building which I think they did. I donít think they carried it down as far as we would have liked to have seen them carry it down into that trench.

Mr. Tiffany commented I know there was discussion that night as far as who owned the ditch. Mr. Wilson added there was some discussion, because we did talk about bushes and the ravine and how ugly it looked. He did indicate that they planned to do something there, and I think if we refer to those minutes, we can see to what extent they planned to do it. If it isnít as far down as we would like, we probably could go back to them and make the suggestion since they are still under construction to an extent. They might want to extend their landscaping down maybe to the water line, and then we could pick it up from the other end.

Mr. Syfert stated Mr. Osborn indicated they would follow up on that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Eleven

VII. B. Time Frame for Submissions to Planning Commission

Mr. Osborn said the only suggestion I would have is over time we have extended the deadline for submission to Planning Commission. That has evolved to what the code now reflects. The problem we still have is that applicants continue to revise their submissions after we submit their comments. For a while, we stopped giving them comments until we got to the meeting, and Planning Commission said thatís not fair; you should give them the comments. So weíve gone back to doing that but again they are bringing revisions that we have not looked at. One suggestion might be that the plan they submit, the plan we comment on, if we could say that they could bring in revisions, but we are going to work off whatever plans were available at the staff review following the first of the month. Weíll have had a staff review and do our comments and copy the applicant and they go in and change things, which is probably good, but we are not in a position to react to you the night of the meeting.

Mr. McErlane added I would be inclined to not fax comments to the applicant until the day of the meeting in order to allow them to review and be able to comment on them but not to revise plans. The problem we are having is we normally fax them to them on a Friday, they work on them over the weekend, revise plans and carry them into the meeting, and we have not had the opportunity to do an overall review of the plan, and they are pointing to things on the plan that we havenít even seen.

Mr. McErlane continued in Anne McBrideís letter she talked about Hamilton Countyís schedule, which is pretty stretched out from the standpoint of when you submit and when you come to Planning Commission. The initial submittal for just the site plan review is just a month in advance, and any revisions are required to be in about three weeks prior to the meeting. I donít know that would help that much.

Mr. Syfert commented I personally feel Hamilton County is stretched out a little longer than I think it should be. Probably one of our most recent projects we had was the biggest violator. We gave him comments and they came in with another set of plans, and we had so many sets of plans around here, no one knew what we were doing with them. I know Planning Commission wanted the comments in the hands of the applicants prior to the meeting, and I think thatís a good idea myself. Perhaps we have to lay it out that we still would only work off the plans that were reviewed by the staff and those are the plans that would come before the Planning Commission. They can address the items of concern, and we can take them under advisement and maybe we can give preliminary approval based on their comments at the meeting. As Bill says, they come in with a revised set of plans, and therein lies the big rub.

Mr. Tiffany stated with this last one in particular, he was continuously not ready, and I think that has to be a determination made during plan review. If you have a laundry list of seven pages, you have to tell him heís not ready. The big rub is to continue to waste everybodyís time during these meetings. Mr. Syfert commented we already had sent him back a couple of times. Mr. Tiffany responded I know; he continued to change and change and change, and it wasnít just a matter of cleaning up the laundry list. He cleaned that up and made changes to the plans that created a whole new laundry list.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Osborn commented I think that is a fair observation, and we have routinely pulled people off the agenda. I canít tell you why this one wasnít. There are a lot of things that donít make it to you the first month they are in because there are too many things that have to be addressed. Weíll be more rigorous at that evaluation at the staff review. Mr. Tiffany commented I think that is the easiest solution.

Mr. Osborn continued I would still encourage the Planning Commission to work off the plans that were reviewed by the staff. Between that and a more critical review at the staff meeting in terms of who is ready, I think would help everybody.

Mr. Tiffany commented at staff review, you are not ready and hereís your laundry list. Are you going to change these plans? If you are, change them now before you bring them in before the end of the month so we can review this again for the next meeting. If it is going to be a case of five or six cleanup items, cleans them up but donít change your plans. Bring them in as is; this is what we had worked off of.

Mr. Osborn responded typically it is not possible to allow them to do a revision, because we donít do the staff review meeting until after the first of the month, so we have all the submissions. I think we have to do one or the other; either say to an applicant if you are coming in this week, and we feel we are close enough that we can have a dialogue with you, bring in what has been reviewed. And if they have too long a list, tell them they will have to go on the next monthís agenda. We would not be in a position of saying to them go make revisions and come in as soon as possible, because we are already beyond the threshold at that point. Mr. Tiffany said no, I am saying in the case of this fellow, we would say if you are going to make changes, bring them all in next month so we can review it again. Mr. Osborn commented I think in his case he was looking for input for a site that has lain dormant for some time because of the restrictions on the shape and everything else. I think the dialogue we had tonight will really help. It helps us as well as the applicant to hear what your concerns are, so I donít think that was too far afield from a concept discussion. It didnít take that long and frankly a lot of times when we have concept discussions there is still a lot of speculation.

Mr. Wilson commented my thought was that what we actually see at Planning should not be all the revisions they have made to the laundry list, but whatever they submitted the last day of the month. They make their corrections right at the podium and if it is not acceptable we will table it to the next month. I agree that we should be a lot more strict in regulating what changes can be. The bottom line is that they canít come in with a revised plan that no one has seen. If they come in at that point, tell them they are not ready and come back next month and thatís it. Donít give them any break. Weíve set a precedent at this juncture where people can come in, make their changes based on staff recommendations, say weíre going to do it but itís not in writing. There was a guy that came in saying he was going to make all these changes at OíCharleyís, and the next month someone else came back and said he wasnít supposed to do that. He had no authority to make all these changes. Suppose we had voted on that based on his comments. My point is whatever we get as a final review on the last day of the month, whether we make changes or not, they canít come in with those revised changes. We have to enforce that; see you next month - no more special planning meetings, weíll see you next month and the word will get out and there will be compliance.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Thirteen


Mr. Syfert commented that is something we can stop in the staff review. Mr. Osborn added when Planning Commission grants approval with conditions, we have in the past brought the applicant back to Planning if, when they submit their final plan it is not consistent with what they promised Planning Commission. It hasnít happened recently, but we have done that with a number of different businesses over the years.

Mr. Blake stated I am trying to get clarity. What I am hearing is the staff review meeting is supposed to be like a filter, and if you feel there are too many discrepancies, it would not be put on the agenda to come before Planning. Mr. Syfert responded that is correct. Mr. Blake continued so it will not be necessary for us to get all this stuff because it will be taken care of at staff review. Mr. Syfert answered that in essence is the chairmanís discretion as to whether it should be here or not. What we are saying is if at staff review we find a few things that go on the laundry list, we advise them not to change the plans but be ready to address that at the next meeting. It may be a decision that it is not that major that it could be handled from the e podium. If there is a long laundry list like we had on this one summation, perhaps that should not have been here, and we will handle that from the staff standpoint.

Mr. Syfert commented am I reading that the bottom line is we will work within what we have right now, maybe police it a little more carefully between the staff and the chairman of Planning and that when something comes before us, we will be prepared to act on it that night or send him home, one way or the other. I think the discussion has been very sound; I donít know that we need a motion to take it off the agenda.

Weíll consider the issue closed.

Mr. Syfert reported Mr. Osborn has something he would like to say to the Planning Commission. Mr. Osborn reported since you last saw the general presentation by Mr. Steven King, the individual who is proposing to develop Pictoria Island, they have prepared a rather detailed scale model of the entire project. It takes up a significant area; it would fill up this whole area. It is at their offices 10 to 15 minutes away, and I have set up two dates for members of Council to go view this model and have a dialogue with the developer. In May he is going to Las Vegas for the annual major development retail convention. The dates Council members are going up are the 18th of April at 4:00 p.m. for Mr. Bradburn, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Manis, and on April 25th at 4:00 p.m. Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear will be going. The maximum I can take up is three so we donít have a quorum. I would like to extend that same invitation to Planning Commission to view this and give the developer input. He really wants to have this reflect what we want. Iíve never worked with a developer quite like this, and he is begging us to react to what they are doing. This is a fairly major investment, about $60 million in final investment. If members of Planning would like to go up either the 18th or 25th at 4:00 p.m., please see me after the meeting.

Mr. Tiffany commented over the three years I have been on Planning, we have had a representative of the law directorís office at all meetings, and more recently, we have not. Is there a reason? Mr. Osborn answered typically we have a representative at the meetings when we are doing something in a PUD or something in the transition zoned district when we have to have covenants. Outside of that, it has not been the practice to have him there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 April 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. Tiffany continued as far as the Novicki property is concerned across the street, I notice they have started doing a fire escape type thing for access to the second floor. Are their covenants in place? Mr. McErlane reported that they are not.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone will be present on May 9th and all indicated they would be. Mr. Tiffany moved for adjournment and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and PlanningCommission adjourned at 8:18 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1995 _________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,1995 __________________________

Steve Galster, Secretary