Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 June 1998

7:00 p.m.



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


Members Present: Councilman Tom Vanover, Robert Seaman, William Syfert, Councilman Steve Galster, James Young and David Okum.

Members Absent: Robert Seaman and Richard Huddleston

(Mr. Seaman arrived at 7:45 and Mr. Huddleston arrived

at 7:05 p.m.)

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Wayne Shuler, City Engineer

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Anne McBride, City Planner


Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council

Mr. Galster stated Council has been looking at the Community Center expansion project, and I did bring some drawings if you want to look at them. We received the preliminary figures at this last meeting, and I anticipate at the next meeting we will get a much better feel for whether or not the dollars are feasible and what direction the project will take. Mr. Okum wondered when it would come t o Planning Commission, and Mr. Galster responded not until there is a real plan. If it moves forward, I would expect it to be within six months.

B. Planning Commissioners Journal #30 – Spring 1998

C. 5/7/98 Memo from Regional Planning Commission

D. BZA Minutes – 2/17 and 3/17



    1. Approval of Storefront Alteration at 11711 Princeton Pike, Princeton Plaza (former Linens Etc.) – PUD

Bob Gilhart of Princeton Plaza stated we are taking an existing store (Linens Etc.) and changing from one retailer to another. I understand that since we are changing the storefront itself, which is a significant structural change, the commissioners would like to take a look at the changes. I have two gentlemen here with me tonight. From FRCH Design Worldwide, representing Old Navy and GAP Inc. are Ed Aleson and Dave Curtsinger. I’ll address any questions you might have relative to the concept, and GAP Inc. will be handling the project from ground up both interior and exterior, so I will defer to them relative to questions in that regard.


9 JUNE 1998



Mr. McErlane reported the only comments I have are that it is in a PUD, which requires Planning Commission’s approval. Also, should the council members on Planning Commission determine that this is a major deviation, it can be referred back to Council. The current finishes on either side of the building are primarily split face block painted an off white beige with a bronze colored metal roofing material over the entrances. The proposed finishes are an EIFS finish, which is a drivitt. There are no changes to the site per se; there are only building elevation changes.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were any problems with signs, and Mr. McErlane answered it is proportionate to the Linens Etc., but the Old Navy sign does exceed 150 square feet which is a per sign maximum.

Mr. Galster asked if all the other rooflines were straight in the plaza. Mr. McErlane responded the sign areas on the adjacent stores are on a parapet that is built up, and the signs are on a parapet. Mr. Galster continued so this would be similar, but it will be the only one that does not have a straight cut to the top of it. Mr. McErlane said it has a rounded surface on the top of it.

Ms. McBride said in terms of signage, I didn’t have any problem with the size. I do have a question. Where is the Old Navy Kids sign? Mr. Aleson answered the little puck signs that hang inside the window. Ms. McBride continued my only comment would be we would require screening for the dumpster, which is to the rear of the building.

Mr. Okum wondered if the wall behind the Old Navy sign illuminated and Mr. Aleson responded there are lights behind the glazing system. Mr. Okum asked if it were in excess of the store lighting or at the same level, and Mr. Aleson answered it would be the same level as the lighting in the store. Mr. Okum asked the color of the frames, and Mr. Aleson answered

it is brushed aluminum finish.

Addressing Mr. Gilhart, Mr. Okum asked if he anticipated other changes in Princeton Plaza. Mr. Gilhart answered with the ongoing changes of retailers, it is never ending. Mr. Okum commented that Pier I had closed, and Mr. Gilhart reported that they had closed down for four weeks to remodel their interior which was completed. They also wanted to do some exterior changes that we looked at and architecturally and aesthetically declined, even though it was our expense. Mr. Okum commented that building probably affects the view of this building quite a bit. Mr. Gilhart answered not really; the elevation on Princeton Pike is pretty high and there is a lot of visibility for the anchors there.

Mr. Syfert asked if the drivitt intended to be used on the front were going to be the same color as what is there now? Mr. Aleson answered yes, there are gong to be areas of contrasting color on the lower half of the columns at four locations. Mr. Gilhart added there are other prototypes they are primarily a gray tone, and we asked them to take our off white for the drivitt material so it will be a definite match.

Mr. Galster said for clarification, where the Old Navy is mounted, those are windows lit from behind with the same illumination as if I were looking into the store. Mr. Gilhart stated it is not the same glazing as in World of Dinettes. Mr. Aleson added there is an opaqueness to it that you cannot see through which is lit by a strip along the bottom.

Mr. Okum said then the Old Navy Kids sign is not part of the consideration because it is not seen from the street. Mr. Aleson added it is an interior sign towards the back of the store. Mr. Okum continued so you are requesting 200 square feet, over the allowed 150 square feet.


9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Okum asked the color banding at the bottom of the columns and Mr. Aleson answered it is a darker shade of the off white. Mr. Gilhart added it will be more of a brown tone than a gray tone.

Mr. Gilhart said I have mixed emotions on the screening of the dumpsters. It is at the back of our center, and we have found in most of the areas around dumpsters if we put the screening up, it is a place for graffiti. We have had numerous cases of it and are constantly taking pictures of it and sending it to the police. If they put it on the dumpsters, chemical takes it off instantly. If they put it on split face block, it doesn’t come off. So from a practical standpoint it makes much more sense not to put the screening. But if you want screening, I’ll put it up.

Mr. Galster said my question was what type of screening were you going to provide around the dumpster, and Mr. Gilhart answered that is the problem. Most of the materials that you use are great for graffiti, wood product or split face block, I’ve seen it all. I know the City has, and they have arrested a few individuals, but it is still happening. So if we put it up, the graffiti will go on top of it, and I don’t know what product to put up.

Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride if she were looking for a wood or brick split face type, and Ms. McBride answered that would be the applicant’s choice and screened on three sides is required.

Mr. Okum commented there is a pretty major development going in next door to you, and there has been communications concerning cross easements and use of shared parking areas. Mr. Gilhart responded nine months or a year ago, nothing recently. Mr. Okum continued could you see any reason why it wouldn’t be a feasible solution now? Mr. Gilhart answered I don’t know what is being proposed.

Addressing Mr. Gilhart, Mr. Osborn said when Duke was in proposing their development about nine months ago, we tried to work out some amenable plan for cross connections between the two properties. At that same time, we were talking to you about other traffic issues which we would still like to discuss with you long term. Because Duke was under the gun, they had to get site plan approval, we got their commitment to a particular alignment that would provide for cross access between the two properties.

It was my indication to Planning Commission at that time that at such time as you came forward with a major redevelopment of the site, because I know you have some plans for some properties on the northeast corner, that we would sit down with you and try to reach a similar agreement. It would result in a cross easement that would line up with your internal roadway that runs behind Frisch’s north to south. That is approximately where it would make a cross connection. We have not reapproached you because at the time the City could not reach some agreement with you as to what you wanted or where it ought to be. Given the fact that you have some plans, at least the potential for some modifications to that quadrant of your site, we thought we would wait until you came back to us on that.

Mr. Gilhart responded the comments are appropriate. I had the conversation with Mr. Osborn and others as to some time in the future addressing that, when the time is right. I don’t think for a minute that subject should affect this project in any way shape or form, because the conversations are ongoing. Mr. Osborn responded I would agree. This wasn’t the type of project I had in mind when I suggested we deal with Princeton Plaza in the future. It was more along the lines of a little bigger effort.




9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Okum added this isn’t a matter of leverage with you Mr. Gilhart. It’s a matter of amicable working relationship that you have had with the City for a number of years. Obviously there is a difference of ownership there and I wanted to get your feelings about working together to bring that about, because there were very stern positions on both parts, your organization and the Swallens organization over a cross easement between the two sites for a number of years. Mr. Gilhart responded I don’t know that I am all that aware of that as far as way back when. Mr. Okum responded I understand, but there have been discussions a number of times regarding that issue.

Mr. Gilhart commented I am aware of a lot of the conversation; don’t think I am pleading ignorant on it, but for the record, we think a lot of the City of Springdale. We also think a lot of our neighbors, Duke Associates. When they first approached us it was very amicable. We could not find a logical solution at the time. Even now there are two different elevations in the front, and there is a lot of work to be done to come to some kind of conclusion on that. If there is something that makes sense for both parties from a practical standpoint, it’ll get done. I can’t say that it will, and I’m not going to arbitrarily say on a personal level that it won’t. It’s not that simple. We have brainstormed different cross easement considerations over the last couple of years. In the one case we would have to tear down Kentucky Fried Chicken. In another case, I would have to tell TCBY that they wouldn’t have any parking in front of their place and Skeffington’s wouldn’t have any parking in front of their place. If we open up an egress straight through there, there are all kinds of ramifications. Then we considered the back, but that doesn’t accomplish anything. The only thing we might start to address is where the semi trucks might go for deliveries for Target or Duke. We kept running into dead ends. It’s not an easy one. I’m sure there is other land available around there. I’m sure developers in the area will constantly try to come up with a scheme to develop all the land around there, maybe including a couple of sites behind the particular parcel you are talking about. It’s going to take some real ingenuity. We have water retention and the creek to consider, and it’s just not simple, but the attitude is good.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the modification to the PUD to allow the construction of Old Navy and the change to the façade, and incorporate the recommendations of the city planner to include a dumpster enclosure suitable and acceptable to city standards. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Galster, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Approval of Exterior Changes for Proposed MRI of Tri-County, 12037 Sheraton Lane (former Pizza Hut) – PUD

Denny Dellinger representing Vince and Mark Eysoldt said the plans you have and the memo I faxed to Bill this morning should answer most of the questions. Their intention is to do a facelift on the old Pizza Hut and make it not look like a Pizza Hut any more, redo the front landscaping and put a state of the art MRI scanning machine in the middle of the building. There are very few minor site modifications – to expand the curb a little bit on each side of the building because of the characteristics of the magnet. Most of the building will be used for the operation of the MRI scanner. I have a floor plan if you would like to see that. There is a small portion at the rear of the building to remain unused. Basically there will be four employees and a couple of patients at a time. I have some photographs of the site that illustrate some of the existing landscaping. There were some comments about that.



9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Dellinger stated basically we intend to maintain all of the screening landscaping at the sides and rear of the property, clean it up a little bit, and redo the front landscaping which has gotten overgrown and nasty looking. We will remove the earth berms and the entire greenhouse dining area in the front and build a smaller vestibule with a gable shaped roof. This honeywind color is what is indicated, and there will be an off white for the existing dark brown trim. The windows would be reconfigured as rectangular openings with fixed glass and aluminum framing and a dark brown sanidized color. The roof material will be a new shingle in this pewter color. There is some new signage proposed, building mounted and ground mounted but I believe they are within your requirements.

Ms. McBride reported that the information did not give us square footage on the building. Obviously the greenhouse will be removed and a vestibule added but we didn’t have an exact square footage. Because we didn’t have that and the number of employees, we couldn’t determine the number of parking spaces required. They have 61 spaces; I am sure their parking is adequate, but we couldn’t sign off on that without those calculations. Similarly they didn’t give us any calculations for either building coverage or open space, so we couldn’t sign off on those.

The dumpster was not located on their site plan, nor was there any detail of the screening, so we need to be provided with that.

There was information concerning proposed landscaping, but there was no indication of the existing landscaping in terms of size or quality of the plant material currently out there. We would want to see a landscape plan for the overall development, including both the existing landscaping that is to be maintained, and the proposed landscaping.

They didn’t give us any statement as to whether or not the existing light fixtures will remain. I understand they are, but we didn’t get a commitment to that.

We are seeing building colors here tonight. Signage is below what is actually permitted. They are talking about one ground mounted sign that would be 50 square feet and seven feet in height that would be internally illuminated. We still need to see building materials and colors as this is in Subarea A of our Corridor District. Thirty-seven and one-half feet of on building signage is proposed which is not to be illuminated. I don’t think any of what we are requesting will be an issue, but we do need to be supplied with that information.

Mr. Syfert commented Mr. Dellinger’s fax to Mr. McErlane does answer a number of these issues. Ms. McBride stated it does answer some, but it does not answer the questions on dumpster and screening and landscaping.

Mr. Galster said in looking at the brick and stone content of the building, does it meet the Corridor Study as it is proposed now? Ms. McBride indicated that it did. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said you are showing the painted drivitt across the new front to your building in the lower part. Would you be interested in putting stone in there to go along with the looks of the medical buildings? You have a lot of windows there, so you probably are talking a half wall there. Mr. Dellinger answered the landscaping we have would pretty much cover the building anyway. Mr. Galster said this would be down each side plus in the front of the building to windowsill height. Mr. Dellinger commented we are proposing to wrap the plants around that portion of the building. Mr. Galster suggested going up higher and putting stone between the window area?


9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Dellinger responded my personal preference is not to. I’m not sure how Vince feels about that. The character we are trying to recreate for this building is something cleaner and a little more high tech, more expressive of the scanning machinery inside. I would also point out that what we are proposing is much more consistent with The Grange building. Mr. Galster commented unfortunately that is probably the last building we would like you to try to emulate. We have very well done brick and stone faces on all those buildings, and we would like to try to retain that look.

Mr. Okum said looking at your color selections, the white is going to be very bright compared to the other color lines along there except for the Grange building. Mr. Dellinger responded the off white color we are proposing is for the dark brown trim at the eaves and gutters.

Mr. Eysoldt asked what he would like to see there, and Mr. Okum responded something in the grays. Mr. Eysoldt said that is one of the main buildings you see when you pull off the interstate, and it is such a horrible looking building. I think Mr. Galster’s idea to put stone in there is a good one. This is our business, and we would do anything possible to enhance the attractiveness of the building. We are open for suggestions. If white is too stark, we can change that. Mr. Okum said I agree with you and Mr. Galster. I think this will be a big improvement for that site. Your making improvements on this building can help that area. You have shown a willingness to do that. EFS and stone are fairly close in cost especially on a small project like this. Are you asking us this evening to give you a complete clear approval, because there are issues Ms. McBride brought up that typically we would approve under an amended plan to the PUD.

Mr. Eysoldt stated Ms. McBride brought up a lot of great issues, and I believe we have dealt with almost all of them. We probably won’t need a dumpster; with a patient an hour, there won’t be a lot of waste. We expect to have garbage cans in the back part of our building and have someone pick it up. If it is required to have a dumpster covering, we certainly will do that. I think our building might be a transitional building from the white building to the other buildings; that is a great point. It might combine the best of both to move from pure white to rock and gray drivitt material.

Mr. Eysoldt said we are trying to do whatever would make everyone happy. We are part of this community. To answer your question, we would like to get final approval this evening, based on our meeting Ms. McBride’s requirements, and we can get that to her tomorrow or the next day. Mr. Okum said you are in the process of renovating the facility currently. Mr. Dellinger added we want to stress a sense of urgency about this too. There have been commitments made to purchase this equipment with the anticipation of opening as soon as possible. If we have to come back some other time with a presentation of landscaping and colors, that is no big deal if we can at least receive a conditional approval to proceed with building permit application and construction.

Mr. Eysoldt added right now we are only doing some interior demolition which we received a permit on. Mr. Okum commented I agree that the use of the site is perfect so I would like to help encourage that. It is just that we have to fine tune some things, and if it means a partial approval contingent on final approval, we could do that.

Mr. McErlane stated it will be a minor amendment to the preliminary plan. With respect to minor modifications, you can approve their modification to the plan but it doesn’t require them to come back in for a final approval. Mr. Okum said unless we request it as part of the motion.


9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Okum continued that way they could have everything approved except the building finishes, landscaping and dumpster enclosure. Then they would have everything they need for their use, and we could see their plan. Mr. Eysoldt responded that is no problem. We are on some kind of time delivery schedule for this big piece of equipment that is coming.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, there is not a necessity for a dumpster to be on your site. There is a necessity for an enclosure if you decide to use a dumpster. Mr. Dellinger said we are talking about storing the garbage cans within the building with non offensive refuse.

Mr. Syfert said I personally like Mr. Galster’s and Mr. Okum’s suggestions, and it seems like the applicant is amenable to both of them.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if this would be the singular use of that building, with no secondary uses and if there would be any medical refuse connected with this? Mr. Eysoldt answered it is the only use for the building, and the refuse is strictly paper. It is a very large magnet that scans your body and is done over the telephone lines. There will be nothing but paper.

Mr. Huddleston asked if a floor plan submittal were required for this and Ms. McBride answered it is not, but we have asked for it previously. I don’t think it is a reason to delay the applicant.

Mr. Dellinger stated when I requested what information was required, that was not requested. We have simultaneously made application to Mr. McErlane for building permit review, and have submitted detail construction drawings for that. I have one here if you would like to look at it.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Open MRI of Tri-County modification to the preliminary plan with the following conditions: that the building finishes, landscaping and enclosure for trash containers if needed be submitted prior to the final approval for the construction finishes of the building. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Young, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Eysoldt asked the date of the next meeting, and Mr. Syfert indicated it would be the second Tuesday in July, and you will automatically be on the agenda.

C. Concept Discussion of Proposed Lowe’s Store, 505 East Kemper Road (former Levitz)

Addressing commission members, Mr. Syfert stated that it looks like there are many items that have not been addressed on the plan, but we wanted to bring it in and look at the concept to see whether you wanted to go PUD with this.

Doug Hynden, Partner of Anchor Associates said with me with Charlie Townsend one of my partners. We are here for a concept review. We are combining two parcels into one large parcel and are requesting a Planned Unit Development review on a concept basis today. Currently the property is zoned Retail Service (RS) which allows a home improvement use. We understand this site is a major one, and we want to make sure that streetscaping, access and other issues are addressed, so we would like to propose it as a PUD, rather than proceeding with the Lowe’s as an RS and treating the outlot separately.


9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Hynden stated that the building is approximately 114,000 square feet of store area and 33,000 square feet of garden area for an approximate total of 148,000 square feet. We are showing 574 parking spaces. Your existing code would require slightly over 680 spaces. However, Lowe’s has determined through their research that a 5 per thousand ratio for this type of use has been adequate for their other 450 stores.

The home improvements store has several features that I think are important to note. There is no outdoor lumber area. Lowe’s has an indoor lumber store which is part of the enclosed building. The garden area is separate from that, and has fencing around it and would face Tri-County Parkway. There is slightly under four acres on the out parcel and we would propose that use be retail or office. We would like to hold off on the review of that specific plan until we have a user identified.

We are showing four access points on Tri-County Parkway. In addition we are showing streetscaping along Tri-County Parkway as well as East Kemper Road. This is similar to our project up the street that contains Barnes & Noble and Best Buy. There is interior streetscaping shown within the Lowe’s parking lot and the Lowe’s building would be a split face block with drivitt, very similar to our other project.

There are several issues that were raised in the preliminary review by the staff which I would like to address. The use on the outlot would be retail or office. The building coverage would be less than the 25% maximum required. We are showing 20%; that does not include the garden center area but the final plan would be under 25%. The project will meet or exceed the 20% open space requirement.

There are four loading areas shown on this plan. In addition screening for the trash compactor will be provided.

We have shown a 25 foot right of way at the rear of the site. The Springdale Thoroughfare Plan shows a potential road there, so we have shown that in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. However, we are now sure of the status of that plan or its necessity.

There is a dotted area at the rear of the store that Mr. McErlane questioned, and it shows the truck turning radius to make sure it is met. Mr. McErlane said in front of the front lumber loading area there is a dashed parking area. The parking field showed 10 foot spaces and it was dashed in. Mr. Hynden responded we will be glad to address that as we review this with your office.

We do vary from the required parking lot setbacks on the east side of the parking lot. That is adjacent to the existing railroad line, and we are showing between 10 and 30 feet; it varies because it is an odd shaped lot. We would request a variance to allow that.

We plan to have box type lighting similar to our Tri-County project with downlights submitted with photometrics. At this point, we wanted to get the Commission’s initial impression of this project, and how they would like us to proceed to meet the needs of the City.

Mr. Galster asked if the curb cuts along Tri-County Parkway the existing curb cuts? Mr. Hynden answered no, and when we did this plan, we did not have a copy of the CAGIS from the engineer’s office. We do have that now and they will be incorporated in the next plan.





9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Hynden stated the existing first curb cut south of Kemper Road is actually quite a distance north of the curb cut we are showing. Upon talking to our engineer this afternoon and reviewing the CAGIS information, our proposal would be to move the one curb cut and make it align with the existing shopping center across the street. As part of our review, we would be more than happy to engage a traffic engineer to do a traffic study to make sure we are meeting those kinds of concerns.

Mr. Galster said staff has talked about merging the first two together and making that a common entrance onto the future outlot area as well. If there is no future outlot known at this point, what happens to that space in the meantime. Will blacktop be taken up and grass seed put down? Mr. Hynden said yes. Mr. Galster continued I know with these type stores, many times the loading of mulch and top soil ends up being a blockage to the drive system. I wonder if there is a way to allow delivery of that type bulk material out that back side parking lot to keep that loading zone out of the front of the building and stop up the traffic.

Mr. Shvegzda stated on the possible public improvements to the roadway system that was part of the Kemper Corridor Study, the first comment addresses the future improvements that would take place to both Kemper Road and Tri-County Parkway at the intersection. In order to do those improvements, additional right of way would be required. Comment two addresses what is shown on the drawings in terms of proposed future right of way for Tri-County Parkway. As you may know, there was an initial alignment which is attached there and it shows the alignment of Tri-County Parkway curving through the lower 10% of the property, going through the proposed building site. After this was presented, we reviewed optional alignments that curve to the south through the Oak Hill Cemetery property. If this alignment is utilized centered on the south property line, it puts that extension of Tri-County Parkway through the existing building by the Copaz property and through the next building that fronts on Century Circle North.

Based on that, it would be our recommendation that the right of way at the south property line not be pursued, and that the additional right of way for the improvements at Kemper and Tri-County Parkway be pursued.

Regarding what is shown as improvements at the south property line, this drawing shows accessways from the various loading areas at the rear of the building to a proposed roadway. It is unclear how that rear loading area will function if Tri-County Parkway or whatever roadway at that location is not constructed..

The location of Tri-County Parkway does not have width for a left turn lane, and there will be a substantial amount of traffic that will be turning left into the various driveways at this site.

A detailed traffic study has not been submitted at this point in time, but there is some concern for the queuing length, based on the preliminary analysis done as part of the Kemper Corridor Study regarding the drive that goes to the future outlot directly from Tri-County Parkway. The recommendation is that this drive be eliminated. There is a driveway that appears to be a joint access point for both the Lowe’s property and future outlot.

The rear portion of the property currently is undeveloped. There is no question that detention will have to be provided for 100% of what the required volume would be for that. The question is to what degree or percentage of detention will Planning Commission require for the portion of the property that is being redeveloped, the former Levitz site?


9 JUNE 1998



Compared to other developments that have been approved in the vicinity, Tri-County Mall was about 35% of what would have been required if the site had been undeveloped; Cassinelli was about 20% and Tri-County Marketplace about 50% of what would have been required.

Mr. McErlane reported that the current zoning is Retail Service, and at this point in time there are two parcels involved. I am not sure how they split out acreage wise, but the majority of the proposed building would be located on an undeveloped piece behind the existing Levitz Store. The Levitz Store is entirely contained on the front parcel. We would expect that should this be developed there would be at least a consolidation of the properties, maybe even a further subdivision depending on how you develop the outlot.

There are a number of items that will be necessary for a PUD plan, and I have those listed. We need to outline any things that we think are necessary to be in the Covenants, and one of those specifically would be outside storage and display of merchandise. This is only because some of the Lowe’s facilities in the immediate area take pretty much advantage of the paved surface that they have in the parking lot to display goods and materials. In some instances we have seen almost as much as 20% of the parking lot used, and I’m sure we wouldn’t want to see that in the Springdale facility.

Another item we want to look at is the fenced garden area and how that is treated, especially since it is facing the bend on Tri-County Parkway and could potentially at some point of time also front a street to the rear.

On parking, the 681 spaces we are looking at also includes the parking requirement for the garden area. The problem we have with our code is that it doesn’t address these type uses. We have expanded our parking requirements in our new zoning code and it does address specific uses a little better. I’ll let Ms. McBride address the amount of parking provided for the store as to whether or not it looks appropriate.

I already mentioned that the properties would need to be consolidated and possibly resplit. The PUD section of the Zoning Code requires 75 foot peripheral setbacks to the development. I think that is a carryover from overall PUD developments (the first was The Crossings which was a mix of different uses). The intent was to try to make that its own community in itself, and it doesn’t apply as well to a retail development. Right now the north setback is 30 feet and the setback from Tri-County Parkway to the garden area is 43 feet. Typically a 50 foot setback is required.

Ms. McBride said I want to make the Commission aware that I have previously represented Anchor Associates here in the city before I was working for the City, and I currently am representing them in other communities. We have tried to be fair, and when you see the pages of comments, I think you will think I’ve been fair.

We wondered about the user for the proposed outlots and the applicant has indicated here that it will either be retail or an office use, which is fine. We just wanted a general indication.

There are 114,731 square feet of the building area, and another 33,497 square feet of the garden area. With a maximum building coverage of 25%, the applicant has indicated they will not be exceeding that, but we will need to see that calculation with the two parts of the building added together.



9 JUNE 1998



Ms. McBride continued the proposed development exceeds our open space requirement. They are proposing 21% open space versus the 20% required.

Regarding parking, 681 spaces are required. There are a total of 574 spaces provided on this portion of the site. Our new code requirements will be below the 574 provided, and I feel very comfortable that 574 will be more than adequate. I don’t want to see them go to 681 with no landscaping. We weren’t sure how many loading spaces were being provided. The applicant has indicated four, which is required by our current code. In addition the applicant has indicated that we will be seeing an enclosure for the trash compactor.

They will need variances on the setbacks, but given the surrounding uses, the railroad track and so forth, we feel the site plan is adequate with the proposed setbacks.

We agree with Mr. McErlane’s comments concerning no outdoor storage or display beyond the enclosed garden area.

We did not see a formal landscape plan, but I am pleased to see the street trees on both Tri-County Parkway and Kemper. We had asked Target to do that and they did, and Anchor did it in the development up the street, so we like to see that continued to give a boulevard effect.

They are showing landscape islands within the parking lot and we will be looking at the type of material, quantity and quality.

We didn’t see any lighting information, but I assume they will be presenting that with their next submittal.

In term of building elevations, we didn’t see any specifics on that either. I would like to echo Mr. McErlane’s comments regarding the treatment on the garden space enclosure. We will be most interested, because that will be providing the façade for the building on Tri-County Parkway.

We haven’t seen signage details and we will want general details in term of number of signs, size square footage, illumination etc. both for on building and free standing signage.

Mr. Vanover commented this week there was a big article dealing with flooding potential and the Mill Creek. I would be very very interested in the capacity, because as we fill in spaces, that is becoming a big concern. That is an issue that I would like for us to look very hard at and stand very firm on.

Mr. Galster said I have looked at this parking lot for a long time, and to be honest with you I don’t know that you need 571 parking spaces. I’d like to see us to do something similar to what we did at Dave & Buster’s and Roberds, where we have a large island down the center of the parking area. If you come back and show us that you have no spaces left, we can talk about adding them back in. I know we don’t have a future outlot, but you put one building there, they won’t need all that parking either. There is a lot of space up front to have shared parking. I would like to see us put a big island in the middle of that parking field.

Mr. Hynden responded we would be happy to address that with our client Lowe’s. This probably will be the first time they have been asked if they could get by with less parking and more landscaping. If they feel it meets their requirements to operate an efficient retail store and there are no problems, I’m certain we can accommodate you in working with the staff. I would like to see you break up the parking; I don’t think it is needed, and if it is needed later on, we have the ability to add it.


9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Syfert commented this is concept discussion of the proposed rezoning, but I think those comments are very appropriate, and I would think it would echo the thoughts of the members of the Commission.

Mr. Okum said one suggestion would be to put trees against the buildings. This will be a large tall building, and some breakage on that front would be most important. We also have to consider the fact that this building will have three street elevations, visibility from Kemper Road, Tri-County Parkway and probably eventually will have an elevation on the rear of the site where Tri-County hopefully would carry across. With that in mind, we have to look at all four elevations of this building as very critical parts. That slope coming down off Tri-County Parkway will be critical to line of sight onto your site and will bring people into the view of your site at a higher elevation. Those lights at 35 feet probably will hit people straight in the eyes when they re coming down Tri-County Parkway into the rear of that site.

I would suggest some mounding on the western side along Tri-County Parkway would be nice instead of flat land. It is large enough to do that and mounding would work very nicely.

Regarding the access points, I agree with the common access point for a retail or office and the most northern portion if possible. Tying that to the other properties across Tri-County Parkway would be helpful.

I would be concerned about screening on the garden center. You answered the question about green space on the front, and I wonder what happens to the blacktop, because we’d love to get rid of some of it.. What about the Tri-County Parkway extension issue? It obviously impacts how your site sets, how it aligns and how it could potentially be a future roadway without going through the Kroger plant. What are your thoughts on this and your feelings on which way you would like to go?

Mr. Hynden responded we did look at that when we were made aware of the Tri-County Parkway extension. We looked at a large scale CAGIS plan of the entire area which would extend this street all the way over to the back of our existing project. I don’t think it is possible to say what the best alignment is, but I can say that in looking at it originally a couple of issues come up. One, our existing development would make an alignment that would be any further north of this virtually impossible because of the way it would have to tie into the back of our project and the cul de sac that exists off Century Boulevard. Secondly, the existing buildings and improvements, the Copaz and Kroger plants, make it difficult to tie that in today with any certainty. If it was going to tie in, it would have to tie in on either one side of the Copaz plant or south of the existilng warehouse plant. We have done some sketching and feel that if that were to be possible in the future, showing this 25 foot right of way along the south property line would accommodate virtually any of those possibilities. Beyond that we haven’t done any further traffic studies and from what I hear from Mr. Shvegzda, it sounded like he was suggesting that we give up additional right of way in front of our facility in lieu of this.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the particular alignment if you extend it along the south property line further to the east, you go through two structures that are there. Two other alignments were presented. The initial one shown in the Thoroughfare Plan was presented because it avoided the buildings that were on the other side of the railroad tracks. Not enough information has been developed to see what effect the later alignment to the south through Oak Hills Cemetery would have on the buildings, but it does run between the two buildings that front on Century Circle North and West.



9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Shvegzda continued at this stage it didn’t look like the extension of that right of way along the south property line would be of any benefit because of the impact on the other buildings. In more of a short term review of what would be done to the existing Kemper corridor, the right of way would be of more benefit out at Kemper Road.

Mr. Okum said if Tri-County Parkway extension were to become a project, the right of way on this portion as well as right of way along Kemper Road would be important. I know Kemper Road is more immediate, but long term, if we build the building on the roadway, it’ll never happen. You are saying 25 feet is adequate; I don’t know if it is or not.

We are looking at one site, but I would like to see how the adjacent properties configure. Mr. Shvegzda stated attached to the comments are the alignments that show its effect as the original alignment was developed. Mr. Okum said that’s what I want to look at to see how your site could fit on there. I would like to see your building placed within some type of usage of the Thoroughfare Plan so we can look at it more objectively. If 25 feet is sufficient, great. Mr. Hynden responded said the property to the south is vacant, and we wanted to accommodate the idea of the Thoroughfare Plan; we know it is out there. To extend Tri-County straight through this and say it is a non building area because it lines up like that would be a large hardship, especially considering the fact that this facility is under Chapter 11; it has been a difficult site to try to assemble with the Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Okum said I can understand that and I don’t want to put you in a position where you don’t have any use of the land, but I have to look at the Oak Hill Cemetery property, that little corner by 747 and Tri-County Parkway was a major undertaking for us to negotiate. We need to work together to try to resolve that and come up with some kind of alignment that works. I think Mr. Galster’s points are very valid. If you wanted to build that site with 450 parking spaces and leave the rest green until you needed it I’d have no problem at all with that.

Mr. Hynden said one of the concerns with this site is its configuration; it is narrow at the front and wider at the back. This prototype for Lowe’s is the smallest one they have. They originally approached us about doing a larger store on this site and have actually modified their garden center to try to fit it within the parameters we have been given here. I would be more than happy to come back with sketches concerning the issues dealing with the Thoroughfare Plan.

Regarding the future right of way on Kemper Road, if there is additional right of way necessary within reason, we are happy to do that. Our concern is that we don’t get penalized for being a good citizen. We are more than happy to work with Mr. Shvegzda on granting the additional right of way, but if it causes additional problems with parking lot setback, we would like to have some consideration as we come through for a PUD review on the front parcel. Obviously that takes square footage and acreage away from us.

On the south access road and how it functions, we were assuming that this might be paved at some point in time. Obviously we will rework that to show the staff that the trucks can work within the pavement we have shown.

On the north access point, we feel it is critical that it align with the drive across the way, and when we come back with our future plan we will show that and hopefully that will address that concern.



9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Hynden said we have some concern with combining curb cuts to serve the outlot. It is a little deceiving at this scale to see how deep that outlot is. Both the Target plan and our Tri-County Crossings project have the access points approximately 275 feet back from the Kemper Road right of way. At this point, it is over 400 feet back. These three curb cuts along Tri-County Parkway are about the same separation as the existlng ones, so we would like to at least try to keep that aligned with the drive across the way, and consistent with the other developments down the road. Who knows if 15 years from now there would be a common access drive that would extend across the railroad tracks, another parallel access point to allow access between Tri-County Crossings, the existing Copaz property and maybe even this property that would be beneficial to all concerned. I think that the recently completed study that Springdale did on Kemper Road does endorse the idea of a parallel road about 275 feet back from Kemper.

On storm water detention, we have preliminarily studied the site and believe we can satisfy Mr. Shvegzda within the detention area we have shown, providing 100% detention on all the currently unpaved areas and some percentage that is consistent with Springdale’s other projects.

Mr. Hynden said we do have two parcels, and this is an extremely complicated site. There is an investor from New York who owned the Levitz building and building site; Levitz leased that piece and then Levitz themselves own the rear parcel. We would do a consolidation of those lots similar to our Tri-County Crossings, and potentially subdivide the outlots in the future.

On the covenants, I believe we can address the concerns you have raised. The issue regarding outside storage does concern me. (He passed around a picture of the Lowe’s annual report showing outside storage). They have a covered canopy area in the front of their store, and they feel it is important, if possible, to display certain items within that area. I do know that Lowe’s, Frank’s, Wal-Mart and some other tenants do provide for outside storage on parking areas. We can commit that there will be no outdoor storage on any parking areas, but if there could be consideration given to the display of certain sales items within a covered canopy, it would be appreciated.

Concerning the treatment of the garden area, it is extremely visible coming down Tri-County Parkway, which is an excellent point. There are several alternative treatments which we may consider. One is an attractive wrought iron fencing in lieu of the standard chain link fence. That combined with a decorative block pylaster might be something much more attractive. I think Lowe’s would be amenable to increasing the landscape areas rather than having a single tree here and there. That is an excellent idea, and would be better for continued maintenance.

Mr. Vanover said what could become aesthetically critical are the rooftop treatments and proper screening, because from Kemper Road, that will be visible. You have a dock on the southwest corner in that shaded area. What is on the southeast corner? Mr. Hynden responded the southwest corner are the elevated dock areas. On the southeast corner there is another full rollup door for drive in deliveries. Mr. Vanover continued that southwest area looks like it will be awful tough. That is an extremely tight maneuver, and even in the southeast, that is running tight. The concern is for providing safety and mobility back there.




9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Young said I like the concept, but I have concerns about signage, which we have yet to see. On your picture, you have people walking through the loading dock, and I am concerned about the safety. That is part of the problem with HQ; there are items out there and people run through there with their vehicles.

Mr. Young said I agreed with Mr. Okum’s comments on the landscaping along Tri-County Parkway with the mounding center. I also agree that we definitely not want to see chain link around the garden center.

Mr. Galster asked about the canopy location and Mr. Hynden answered there is a canopy 200 feet on either side of the main entrance. Mr. Galster continued I have no problem with limited canopy outside storage of certain type items, but there is no walkway between the loading zone and the articles on display. There is no safe haven for anybody shopping for those items. I don’t necessarily agree that it should be across the whole front of the building but if you have tractors out there fine, but you have to have them where they are not in the middle of traffic. Mr. Hynden responded we would be happy to provide an area equivalent to a sidewalk in addition to the area that might be used for that.

Mr. Galster said when Mr. Young says not a chain link fence around the garden center, I think it needs to be something substantial structurally, like quite wide brick pilasters. I think you can do something with fencing, but in general you need to create a much more architecturally sound item. I think it needs to be pretty well screened.

Mr. Hynden answered we would agree with that, and would like to come up with nice architectural pilasters and wrought iron treatments. We will come back with details at the next meeting.

Mr. Okum said concerning your dumpster and containment areas, HQ had a pallet issue and came up with an enclosure for them. I think that would be necessary. I visited the new Wal-Mart and they have fencing around their landscaping area; it is not obtrusive and looks fairly nice. Mr. Hynden said we’ll take a look at that as an alternative. The new Lowe’s at Mason Montgomery Road has the type wrought iron fencing with larger pilasters or columns is also what I was thinking of as an alternative to the solid wall.

Mr. Okum added one of the things we have stressed in other developments is not to have materials stacked above the fenced wall system. Mr. Hynden responded I think that is reasonable to have in the covenants that the material would not be stacked higher than the fencing.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said this is a concept discussion. We have had a lot of good input your response to some of the staff comments were very good. Do you have any other questions of us? Mr. Hynden said I wanted to confirm that the Planning Commission prefers that we go forward with the PUD type proposal rather than the existing RS. I take it from the comments that it is acceptable. Mr. Syfert responded I don’t think anyone has any problem with what you are proposing.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they had considered turning that building longwise and putting your garden on this end? Mr. Hynden answered yes, we have looked at it in every different direction. With Tri County Parkway there, it works out pretty well this way, but initially we looked at it the other way, and the depth of the field of parking would be very inadequate for the type of use.




9 JUNE 1998


  1. Exterior Elevation Changes to Proposed Target Store, 900 East Kemper Road (PUD)

Bill Penk, Project Architect for Target Stores said with me is Art Harden a civil engineer who presented the project to you earlier. Today I met with Mr. McErlane, Mike Hoffman and David Winfough and presented the preliminary documents for the project and talked about the code interpretations that might be new, in an attempt to make my construction documents as through as possible and their review as quick and efficient as possible.

The Target design review committee has asked that you approve an upgrade to the exterior elevation. The color rendition is darkened a small amount, and we got rid of the red blue green striping on the building. I’d like to read from the letter I sent to Mr. McErlane because it summarizes the issue I have to deal with:

"The colored P 97 A8 exterior elevations are submitted for your review as an upgrade from the elevations which were presented and accepted by the City during the Planning Commission approvals. The two prints were created by the design review department, and are not specific to the Springdale site and its unique side stock and utility area, but they give the flavor of what I would like the approval to use. The exterior image has matured considerably with a contemporary earthtone color pallet, replacing the earlier design which featured the red green and blue striping. The parapet top cornice has also been added to complete the image, and will be applied to the side elevations to coordinate with the wall height design approved during the hearing process. The parapet heights of the original approval will be incorporated in the construction documents to provide the appropriate rooftop unit screening."

I offer this upgrade as an improvement in the hope that you will approve the color change and allow me to apply the solution to the construction documents, which I will try to finish by the end of July, and finish this up as a matter of administrative approval. Tonight I would like you to consider the coloration.

The site drawings civil drawings are complete, and construction and site work is about to begin. Nothing I am presenting tonight affects that. There is a masonry wainscot shown on that rendering that I will bring into the three screen walls to go in front of the carts as requested by your board.

I feel this upgrade is appropriate to the City of Springdale, but if there is anything that will delay this approval, I will withdraw the request and we will build what you have approved to date.

Mr. Galster commented I like the improvements; I like the color change and the elimination of the accent stripes and the cornice on the building. The only thing I am not quite sure about is the projected metal facia underneath the Target at the main entrance. Mr. Penk responded it is round and starts at the recess of the doors, bends out about a foot, and goes back at the other side. Mr. Galster said I am fine with a foot, as long as we are not creating a carport type thing. Mr. Penk added it is another way of announcing the entrance to the public.

Mr. Okum said I don’t particularly have a problem with the color; it is a little darker than what I would envision, but I do have a problem with changing the materials. We have a commitment to go to a split face masonry unit on all four side of the building, and they have changed over to painted masonry on three elevations. Mr. Penk said that was my mistake; they will be split face masonry on four sides.



9 JUNE 1998



Mr. Okum asked the width of the projected metal facia in the canopy and Mr. Penk answered 14-16 inches. The entry is recessed; it starts in the recess and comes out and goes back into the recess.

Mr. Okum asked more details on the cart enclosure area and Mr. Penk stated you have requested and we will accept putting in three cart screen walls. The character on the building will be pulled forward and applied to the face of those screen walls, so some horizontal striping will show up. Mr. Okum wondered if the cornicing would be on top of the short walls, and Mr. Penk answered it won’t be the same cornice but there will be a cap to shed the water.

Mr. Okum asked more details on the unit and Mr. Penk stated it is 8 inch square block becoming 10 inch becoming 12. Also the rounded corners of the original proposal on the front of the building are now squared.

Mr. Okum said we did approve signage for the original building, and Mr. Penk stated there is no change in the signage. Mr. Okum asked the purpose of the red dots along the building, and Mr. Penk answered they are squares of masonry, smooth block painted. Mr. Okum asked if the red stripe were a smooth face painted accent stripe and Mr. Penk answered yes, to give character and differentiation to the striping.

Mr. Okum said I want to understand the building materials. I was just told that we had split face on all four sides of the building. Mr. Penk responded 99% of the periphery of the outside will be split face block. The striping and cornice will be smooth. Mr. Okum said the masonry base that is five feet will have split face in dark brown, smooth face in beige, split face in dark brown and smooth in beige. So that band on the building is a smooth face block. Mr. Penk said those are 8 x 16’s. Mr. Okum asked if they would object to making those 8 x 8’s, and Mr. Penk answered I would like to leave it the way I am proposing it.

Mr. Okum commented this is obviously a change, and I can understand the transition between smooth and split face block and how it works. I’m not quite sure how it will look with this; I have seen some poor quality smooth face intertwined with split face; when you are changing the two medias, masons can be sloppy where they join the block. What standards will you set so this building has a good finish on the masonry? Mr. Penk asked if he had been at the other Target Stores in Cincinnati and how he had found the quality. Mr. Okum indicated that the quality was all right, and Mr. Penk reported that the same person is building Springdale that built Western Hills and Waterstone. Our standards of quality are very high; you will not be disappointed with that.

Mr. Okum said you indicated a door with a window on it on the front to the left of the main entrance. Mr. Penk stated that is the employee entrance.

Mr. Galster moved to accept the provisions shown here with the exception of retaining the split face block on all four sides (unlike this drawing), that the actual building materials will remain the same as originally proposed and the only change would be the colors as outlined. Mr. Syfert seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Syfert, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman and Mr. Huddleston. Mr. Vanover and Mr. Okum voted no and the changes were approved with five affirmative and two negative votes.






9 JUNE 1998




Mr. Okum said in the Planning Commissioners Journal, there were articles regarding Chattanooga Tennessee code sections regarding off premise signs along scenic corridors which are prohibited as well as other articles regarding signage and sign pollution. I recommend that the Commission take a look at it; I think there is valuable information there.

There also are some publications put out by Scenic America, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue regarding scenic roadways and model legislation. There is a section on urban signage and sign pollution and how they affect communities and how businesses are using overlighting to create impact on the signage.

There also is an article on the ten events that shaped the Twentieth Century American City which is very interesting.

Mr. Galster questioned if the Thoroughfare Plan had been adopted, and Mr. Shvegzda answered Planning approved it at an earlier meeting; we still need to get the revised small set out to you.

Mr. Galster said so what we got the proposed Tri-County extension on the Lowe’s property, is that the adopted new Thoroughfare Plan Extension? Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, but remember that what is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan is a pretty conceptual layout of what will happen.

Mr. Osborn reported there is still a lot of flexibility in how we design the road and how we negotiate this issue with Lowe’s. I raised this point with the Mayor, Wayne and the Anchor people, and we would work out an alignment on the road. This road is 20 years away from now. We could reach an agreement on the alignment that satisfies us and allows them to develop the site, and they would not be able to encumber that alignment with any physical improvements that we did not approve. There are ways to work it out.

I would rather see us emphasize getting the right of way on Kemper Road because we know we will be expanding Kemper Road; that is a more immediate need.

Mr. Vanover said I was reading that article about the Millcreek flooding and our responsibility as a city. Mr. Shvegzda said on redevelopments, we try to capture as much as is practical at the time of development. Mr. Vanover said what is coming off the property has not changed a lot, but it is the retention capacity that is the problem.

Mr. Osborn said when everybody else was doing the 50-year storm, we went to the 100 year storm. When we had the July 5, 1985 storm, we made that the standard for every major development. Duke had a certain channel capacity and we are telling them to calculate it on the July 5, 1985 storm level. We received the first award from Hamilton County for urban flood control. I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of in terms of how to react to storm water detention. We can do better in enforcement, but I do not think we as a city have to take any responsibility for any dramatic consequences downstream. We have set an example in this whole issue.

Mr. Vanover responded I think the City of Springdale has gone head and shoulders above the others, but the entities in this corridor have made mistakes.

Mr. Osborn said when we had sites that drain immediately and impact downstream (Glendale), we found their restrictions in the channel capacity downstream and that is what we told the developer to adhere to.




9 JUNE 1998


VII – DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Osborn said the same thing is true in Sharonville with the development along Chesterdale Road. We have looked hard at the consequences downstream because it is not a matter that the creek can’t handle it, but the fact that when you come to a culvert, it becomes a bottleneck. I think the article in the Enquirer while it is informative, fails to address all of the things that the jurisdictions have been doing to mitigate the problems. The other thing is that economically we cannot protect everybody from the maximum storm. There is a calculated maximum storm that could occur, and we could not design for that maximum. Mr. Shvegzda stated probably in this area that maximum storm would be for six hours and from 30 to 40 inches of rainfall.


    1. Cincinnati Bell – 11332 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign
    2. TEC Engineering – 161 Northland Blvd. – Wall Sign


Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would be absent at the next meeting, July 14th, and Mr. Shvegzda indicated he would not be present.

Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



__________________,1998 ___________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



_________________,1998 ____________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary