13 JUNE 2000

7:00 P.M.



  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William F. Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Donald Darby, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover, Dave Whitaker, Councilman Steve Galster and Chairman Syfert

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.


    Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. By voice vote all except Mr. Darby who abstained, voted aye and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council

Mr. Galster said you have a copy of Ordinance 39, adopting the Springdale Zoning Code. This was passed at the last Council meeting.

B. Zoning Bulletin - May 10, 2000

C. Zoning Bulletin Ė May 25, 2000

    1. Approval of Exterior Changes to Chi Chiís, 380 Glensprings Drive (tabled 5/9/00)

Jack Hancharick, Regional Manager of Chi Chiís said we need approval of our exterior paint remodel. Last month, we hoped that some of the members could get down to the Florence location and check it, and I have some digital pictures that would give a better idea of the hue than the elevations did. Mr. Syfert reported the way we left it was that the colors seemed to be the predominant issue. The members have seen the pictures or have visited the Florence site.






13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Okum said I went to Florence, and the blue is pretty strong, and I also think you will see some UV fade on the building fairly rapidly with those dark colors. I do feel the colors are pretty heavy and donít conform to the Route 4 Corridor Review District regulations.

I have some concern about the roofing material; is this corrugated material the same material that you can buy at Furrows? Mr. Hancharick answered it is a plastic corrugated material. By itself it looks like a piece of junk, but with the building looks quite southwestern and I think fits in well with the Corridor District and the different types of buildings I have noticed. It is an accent color that shows off the Mexican flair and is an integral part of what we are trying to represent. Mr. Okum responded I just question how long it will last, being a residential rather than commercial type material. Mr. Hancharick answered the ones we did two years ago are still holding strong, and if our building gets to the point where it is getting worn we will replace it. Mr. Okum said I donít have a problem with that accent on the canopy; I have more of a problem with the material, that you are putting something on the building that we know has a high failure rate.

Mr. Galster said I canít look at these colors as earth colors, they are just way too bright for that. I understand what you are trying to accomplish, the market place and trying to create the identity but at the same time, I think they need to be toned down quite a bit.

Mr. Huddleston said I have a mixed reaction. In terms of being a southwestern style restaurant it carries that theme quite well, but with respect to the Corridor District, it doesnít come off at all. I am inclined to say even though the façade does predate the Corridor District, we will have to tone it down a bit because we would set a precedent, which would not be a good one. I know other chains do that and still carry off their theme while meeting requirements in this and other areas.

Mr. Darby said I agree that the colors, especially the blue, need to be toned down, but I would like to hear some justification from the applicant in terms of the Corridor Study requirements.

Mr. Hancharick responded I understand the earthtone color as defined by the Route 4 Corridor Study. In running up and down that corridor, I see bright greens and bright yellows and bright purples accenting a lot of the buildings. The Howard Johnson sign is a brighter purple than the one we are proposing to accent our entrance with. The bright green and yellow around the Perkins building right next to us is going to be much brighter than any of our colors, except for possibly the red which will be one small awning. Based on those two recent additions to the corridor, our building, the building in between would blend in nicely with the Howard Johnsonís and the Perkins.





13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Galster said granted the Howard Johnsonís has a blue background with orange colors on their sign logo. I have no problem with the red of the Chi Chiís nor do I have a problem with brighter colors used as accents. The Howard Johnsonís has a cream colored building, its base color. Perkins redid and went a little darker, but the main color is an earthtone, which they have accented with brighter colors. I would have no problem allowing that to happen, but with this front entryway and these large walls painted those colors, I canít see that these are accent colors; these are the primary building colors to me.

Mr. Hancharick responded so the main issue is the red type and purple colors; if we took gray and toned it down, would it be okay? Mr. Galster answered I would have to see the colors. Mr. Hancharick added I have an alternative scheme to show you. He showed the alternative, adding that the tower is a more toned down color and we can tone down the base reddish color by adding gray. I think this would be a little more what you are looking for.

Mr. Huddleston asked about the red shutters. Mr. Hancharick answered that is an accent color, and if the red isnít good enough and we need to tone it down, we can. We are pretty flexible, but we want to keep the southwestern flair.

Mr. Galster commented I think these are much more in line with the earthtone colors. You have eliminated all the blue. I donít know that I agree that the bright blue and bright red on the shutters need to be bright, but this is heading in a much more positive direction.

Mr. Hancharick stated we are getting very close to the time when we need to start painting, and I would like to leave here with some sense of what we can do.

Mr. Huddleston commented I think the attempt you have made to tone down the palette is right on track with what we are looking for. You have made a significant attempt to come close to what we are looking for; even the brighter colors are more muted. If I could be sure that they are in fact muted colors, I would be more comfortable in trying to act on this in some manner.

Mr. Hancharick reported the color scheme is toned down a couple of shades from the original elevation, and I will make sure that is the case.

Mr. Huddleston suggested that they submit a color pallet representative of what was presented this evening to the staff for approval. Ms. McBride responded we are going to need to see the actual paint colors. If the Commission feels comfortable with the staff looking at that, we can do that. If we have a question, we will have to defer it and brlng it back to the Commission next month.

Mr. Okum said everything has been softened and there is no gloss, where the finishes on the Florence facility appeared to have more gloss. I would not feel comfortable with any semi-gloss or gloss finish. It would have to be between a flat and a satin. Mr. Hancharick responded I donít have a problem with that.


13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Okum asked if the applicant could do anything about the roof durability. I have a problem with a residential material installed in a commercial application. There are commercial lines of the same type of material that are durable.

Mr. Hancharick said we painted the building three years ago and then four years before that, so we have maintained the outside of the building. In the past if there had been something that might have been a hazard, we would insure that it was not. We are not going to do anything to endanger the community or our guests.

Mr. Hancharick said I would like to respectfully ask a question. Werenít the plans sent to the Planning Commission earlier? Why werenít we made aware of this at an earlier date? Mr. Okum responded Iím not asking you to redesign your system; I am asking you to reconsider the material used. There are a number of materials available. The material I saw in Florence was a residential corrugated Fiberglas patio cover material. Mr. Hancharick responded so we can get the same type of look with a different material. Mr. Okum said there are a number of corrugated Fiberglas systems used commercially. I just would like it moved from a residential into a commercial line; I think youíd get a better material.

Mr. Vanover said the red appears to be toned down to what we would associate with a clay tile roof for the southwestern look. I have had personal experience with that roofing material, and after a couple of seasons in the sun, it takes one quick breeze and the fastening system will pop right off. If we can attain colors close to this in a muted matte finish, I donít have a problem at all with it.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the color pallet as submitted this evening which will be the palette of record, subject to the applicant submitting accurate color swathes on each and all of the materials used for not only the main fascia but all of the accent materials. Those materials must be to the satisfaction of staff review. If they are not comfortable with what is submitted, this must come back before this board. All the colors must be very muted or matte finish, and the applicant must upgrade the translucent awning material to an adequate commercial grade with an appropriate fastening system. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. Hancharick asked the meaning of adequate when you talk about the material. Mr. Huddleston responded Iíll leave that up to the city planner and the building official, and if they canít be made comfortable with it, you will have to come back here.

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.









13 JUNE 2000


    1. John Morrell, 801 East Kemper Road requests approval of placement of training trailer on property
    2. Ken Aukerman, Project Engineer for John Morrell said with our limited space at the facility, this trailer would be used for training of new employees, orientation of new hires. training of safety items required through the facility and any large meetings.

      Mr. Syfert asked where they train now, and Mr. Aukerman answered that there is a small room that holds about 10 people. Trying to hold all these things in the same times have not allowed us to organize or time manage our facility very well. This is something we want for two to three years.

      Ms. McBride reported we did a prestaff meeting, sent comments back to the applicants and they could resubmit and address as many of the comments as possible. This applicant addressed all my comments. The use is permitted within the GI District. They are planning on skirting all the way around the trailer. If the Commission chooses to approve this, we should specify a time period that they would be allowed to remain, and that the existing vegetation, which is mainly honeysuckle to the north of the location, is to remain. The applicant has indicated that it is, but we want to specify that.

      Because of the grade change and the vegetation, I wasnít so concerned about it being in front of the building; I really donít think you ill be able to see it from Kemper Road, except from quite a distance and that would be a small feature.

      Mr. McErlane added because of the grade differential and the amount of brush on the hillside, it will not be very visible from Kemper Road.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported it has no effect on the site drainage or traffic circulation so I have no comments.

      Mr. Huddleston said the smaller site plan is incorrect in the fence location as well as the propane vaporizer. I donít know if there is a public safety concern about how close that can be to an occupied facility. Mr. McErlane reported there are standards, but typically the maximum setback is only 25 feet and they have adequate room to handle it.

      Mr. Huddleston added if the fence comes out to the northernmost drive thru area, and the propane assembly is further outside that fence also, I wonder if it would have an impact on the location of this training trailer. Other than that, I would have no problem with it, although I wouldnít want to see it there more than three years.

      Mr. Aukerman stated we donít want the trailer close to the vaporizer mixer, so we want to place it about 20 feet from it. It does not house propane, so the trailer could be right next to it.



      13 JUNE 2000

      PAGE SIX


      Mr. .Darby said you stated you now have an inadequate training facility in house and this is to relieve that problem. Do you have plans on developing something, or will you be coming back in for an extension after the three years.

      Mr. Aukerman answered there probably is, but I donít know specifically. The decision is made at the corporate level. Mr. Darby responded but you donít think that more time would be necessary than this three years we are talking about granting. Mr. Aukerman said no, because that would not be good business.

      Mr. Okum said since this is a use allowed in this district, if the applicant is willing to follow the conditions that the vegetation is to remain, that any lighting proposed must be approved by our Building Department, and not to be there over three years and stay behind the grade and not be visible from the public right of way, I have no problems with this at all. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

      Mr. Aukerman said you talk about the vegetation, and the only way that anything would be done is if the vegetation would be rubbing against the building.

      Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Galster said you mentioned that they agreed to skirting and landscaping, but we donít see those in our plans or in the comments to reference them. I assume you have some documentation that shows this.

      Ms. McBride reported that they have that in writing from the applicant. Mr. Galster wondered how the commission would address the things you fix prior to this meeting when we donít get those fixes in our packages. Ms. McBride responded you should have received that document; that is part of the application submitted so you are approving the application as it was submitted by the applicant.

      Mr. Galster said my concern is how we know what you have done to change the plan we see. Ms. McBride responded typically the plans you would get are the revised plans. You should see the final product.

      On the motion to approve, voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval granted for three years.

      B. Samís Club, 800 Kemper Commons Circle requests approval of their proposed expansion

      David Oakes, of CESO, an engineering firm from Dayton addressed the commission. We made an original submission to the city on May 12th, and received comments back and revised our

      submission and addressed all those concerns in our submittal of June 6th.




      13 JUNE 2000




      Mr. Oakes added this is for a 27,240 s.f. expansion, and maintains the 20% greenspace on the overall site, and the 5 per 1,000 parking ratio. There is to be no change to the building or freestanding signage. The color will change from the existing gray tones to the beige tones. We have modified the plans to avoid any work in the city right of way, which is nearby.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant indicated that he resubmitted June 6th. We did a prereview and sent out comments and asked for the revised plans to be in by June 2nd None of the comments you have before you tonight pertain to their late submittal that we received on June 7th. So, any of the comments that we have will pertain to the previous submittal.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if there were a particular problem why they couldnít make the June 2nd deadline. Mr. Oakes answered the reviews were 5/26, 5/26 and 5/22. Iím not exactly sure when we received them in our offices, but it usually takes us about a week to turn things around. We wanted to address everything thoroughly. I donít know if staff can indicate this evening whether or not they feel the comments have been addressed to t heir satisfaction.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported our May 22nd comments stated that the area that comes off Commons Drive should be leveled out so access could be gained into the parking lot area by the building expansion. The roadway in that vicinity was regraded, and that change in profile extended up into the public right of way. There were issues that we needed to look at if that was going to be the case, including the fact that there is a retaining wall between Kemper Commons and the lower drive, and we had to be assured that any regrading would maintain the depth of cover over the footing on the retaining wall.

      The pavement composition had to be reestablished on the public right of way and other standard public improvements that had to be included.

      On the storm water management, all the issues were dealt with the original PUD approval and are in place as the development exists now.

      Mr. Galster said because of this new process, I want to make sure I am understanding this. Basically we are reviewing a plan that is not the applicantís latest plan and we donít know if they have changed or made additions or deletions in their new plan submitted June 7th, is that correct? I have a hard time reviewing a plan that this applicant really isnít presenting. They have presented a new plan that supposedly addresses this or may raise further issues, we donít know. Granted they did not get it in on time, but I would much rather have the new plan be dealt with next month. I hope it wouldnít cause hardship. This is backwards to me.





      13 JUNE 2000



      Mr. Darby asked if we are dealing with the new process or a late submittal? Mr. McErlane responded what this might be equated to in our previous process was somebody walking in the door with a new plan that we havenít seen, and we canít address it. The difference was that it came in late without adequate time to address it, get the comments together and distribute them to you.

      Don had gone through his previous comments and if the applicant wants to address how they would be addressed or if he has already addressed them on his new plan that is fine, but we canít say we have done a detailed review on plans that we received that late.

      Mr. Darby said if the plan was submitted late, I would be in favor of tabling this presentation in line with established procedures so that staff can do its work, present us with the usual reports and we can act accordingly.

      Mr. McErlane responded that is Planning Commissionís prerogative. We werenít even aware that we were even going to get a resubmittal until the 7th. We assumed we would be reporting on the previous plans.

      Mr. Oaks said I apologize. I didnít realize that my late submittal would cause this. If someone had instructed me, I would have gone along with the tabling. Mr. Syfert responded you still could request that now, which probably would be the more intelligent thing to do. Mr. Oakes answered I did make the trip to answer any questions and present the project, I would like to know something. The plans have been back in your hands for close to a week; have they been looked at?

      Mr. McErlane responded we could go through our comments from the earlier submittal, and if the applicant wants to respond as to how those will be or have been addressed, that is fine. There are some issues Planning needs to give him some guidance on.

      Ms. McBride said we have modified our process so that hopefully we donít have three or four page staff reports any more and you donít feel like you are redesigning a project, and that is not fair to you. At the same time, it is not fair to staff to have to try and rearrange all of our schedules to accommodate late submittals.

      Maybe the Commission wants to look at giving some guidance to staff in terms of should these items even be included on your agenda, or do you want that to be your prerogative or do you table it or whatever. That is why we are giving them comments and the opportunity to come back and submit revised plans so that we can try to clean these things up and give everybody a fair time on it. When they come in this late, we canít do that.

      Mr. Huddleston said we all recognize that we are in the throes of a new process, and I think it would represent a dramatic improvement in the process of his commission.




      13 JUNE 2000



      Mr. Huddleston added that having said that, if we are causing hardship for applicants in this initial process, maybe we should look at a two-week interim meeting on a one or two time basis. Iím not anxious to do that, but if we put an applicant under hardship, we should respect that fact. If the applicant just didnít respond in a timely manner, then we should go on as we are.

      Mr. Oakes said Iíd leave it up to the board as to how quickly I would have to respond. I donít have a date as to when I actually received the comments in my office, but two of them are dated May 26th. I do need some time to address concerns so that they have been fully addressed.

      Mr. Whitaker said due to the agenda load we have, we need to make a decision as to whether or not this should be tabled, or treated as a concept or preliminary plan because this cannot be taken into consideration as a final approval. I feel we need to make a decision.

      Mr. Okum said the applicant was given the opportunity to get the reviews, and did know that there was a June 2nd deadline. If he couldnít meet that date, he could have requested that it be carried forward to the next meeting. On the other hand, this is a pretty significant project, and for us not to have any concept discussion would be to the disadvantage of the Commission and the City. I would encourage us not to just table it. I think Mr. Whitaker was exactly right; we should consider this a concept discussion and preliminary review, get the staff comments and concerns and comments from commission members so the applicant can have an opportunity to make the appropriate changes.

      Mr. Syfert said I agree, and would like to proceed along those lines if the members agree.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he had addressed all the concerns expressed by the staff in his new submittal and Mr. Oakes indicated that he had. Mr. Galster continued so what Mr. Okum is saying is that we are going to review all the things he has already addressed in his new submittal. If that is what this board wants to do, that is fine. I just want to make sure that we understand that the applicant is saying that he has pretty much already addressed them.

      Mr. Syfert responded it seems to me that if we have the staff report and he responds to the staff report, and we can decide what questions we might have and how we might want to address some of the issues that might come up that are not in the staff reports. That could send him back to the drawing board, and I believe that is the fair way to handle it.

      Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Oakes to respond to Mr. Shvegzdaís report.

      Mr. Oakes stated his initial comment concerned the fact that we had originally shown work being done on the right of way. We have modified the plan to stay out of the right of way, and all of the reconstruction is on our site.


      13 JUNE 2000

      PAGE TEN


      Mr. Oakes added that the revised plans now have a detail for the retaining wall indicating heights and materials to be used. Also, there was a change requested in the pavement section, which was made to the drawings.

      Mr. McErlane said to give you a history on the preliminary plan versus what they are proposing. There was a preliminary plan approved in 1992 that showed a 28,000 square foot addition to Samís. I believe Don has recognized the fact that they have included within their detention facilities those two expansions. The preliminary plan shows enough parking to accommodate those expansions. There is a little difference in configuration and the grades led to that difference, but the footprint is actually 24,240 square feet as opposed to the 32,000 square feet previously approved. Beyond that, there is a preliminary plan that is approved in 1992 for the expansion. The details for that have not been presented until this evening, so that is why this is being referred to as a final plan approval.

      Mr. McErlane added there is some extensive grading, particularly in the southeast corner of the parking lot which requires a 15 foot retaining wall in that corner. WE would like to know what kind of retaining wall that would be. The building elevations show it to be painted beige. The current elevations are gray

      We are asking for the details on the signs. After going out and taking pictures of the signs, my report is wrong. There are two signs on the front face of the building and one on the south side. There is one large one and a smaller one over the door on the west side of the building and a larger one on the south side.

      The new plan shows some fenced enclosures next to the relocated tire and battery installation area. WE are asking what those are intended to be and what type of fencing will be there.

      Mr. Oakes said the face of the building signage will change colors but they will be put back as they presently appear. . Although the wall moves out on the south side of the u building, the signage would be put back and painted the beige color.

      The fencing enclosure on the new footprint is for a tire and battery storage area, and it is proposed to be chain link. Details of the retaining wall have been added to the plans.

      Ms. McBride reported a number of my comments have been touched upon. We needed confirmation that 20% of the entire PUD was to remain open space given the increase in impervious surface area. The proposed building expansion does meet the setback requirements in the PUD district. We mentioned the fact that they have outdoor storage areas and we want to see what kind of enclosure there will be. The applicant has indicated that is chain link and we can discuss that further with them at a later time.

      We need details on the signage in terms of size and height and we also need landscaping details for either existing or proposed.



      13 JUNE 2000



      Ms. McBride added the applicant indicated the building is to be repainted to a beige color but we didnít have any colors for that beige. WE also needed clarification on the lighting, what is existing and what is proposed lighting conditions. There also was information missing off the checklist that we had requested.

      Mr. Oakes responded on the parking ratio, we verified that we have in excess of the 5 per thousand required (5.67 per M). The greenspace needed to be 20% and we are showing 22.7%. If you want to discuss the materials on the fencing, we certainly can do that. The new signage will mirror the existing signage. The area this is going in is grassy; there is no landscaping or trees. We donít show any landscaping to be added since there is none to be removed. However, if you want landscaping to be added, we can discuss that as well.

      The building elevations and a shell plan of the floor plan have been added to the revised plans with the correct colors. The lighting details also have been added; the lighting will be the same as the existing light fixtures in the parking lot.

      Mr. Okum said I was on the commission when this was submitted, and we questioned the garage doors facing Kemper Road. Now they are going to be closer. We also questioned the rooftop mechanical units. The applicant said they would be screened and on the automotive center, they are fully exposed. This truly is bringing a flat roof of that lower portion of their building closer to Kemper Road and closer to the access drive.

      I donít know how the Commission feels, but in my opinion this is the front of the building, and it is treated like the back door. We have had other developments in the community recently that have been sensitive to that and have relocated the garage doors so they are not on the front side of an exposure. I donít have a problem with the color change, but I would be a little more comfortable with the front of the building besides painting the block, considering that calcifieds are coming out of the block and line block detail is extremely exposed. A drivitt surface rather than a painted block would be appreciated and is needed.

      I have seen some Samís with extensions on the entryways to give it a little more dimension and a break from the flat face that the building now has. Except for the color, I am not excited about much of the plan at all. This is an opportunity for them to do something unique and special, instead of just sticking on an addition to the front side.

      Mr. Oakes responded I certainly would talk to the architect concerning the materials. I am wondering if landscaping at the top of the wall along the entry road would be something to help soften the look from Kemper Road. Mr. Syfert said it is possible; you might want to talk to the planners about that.





      13 JUNE 2000



      Mr. Huddleston commented we donít have a complete representation on the submittal and the colored elevations, but you are not showing much detail as to how the addition will go on. I assume you are going to tear down the existing low bay building to add the new high bay area, and then a façade would be put on to match the existing façade over the current entryway. Mr. Oakes confirmed this. Mr. Huddleston said that is not represented very well here. I agree with Mr. Okum; I think there are a lot of things that could be done to enhance that revised entryway. It is pretty blase as it exists and you are addling more density to it and reworking some of your circulation patterns to do that. You have added some mechanicals in the back and those are not screened by the ornamental fencing that exists on a portion of it.

      There is a condition that is a problem with all our big box retailers and that is they all seem to want to add outside vending to their establishments. You go by and see 26 vending machines lined up outside the building; I donít know if we can address that or not.

      The carts in any addition would need to be screened. I agree that you need to do something to either screen or relocate those service bay doors.

      Mr. Syfert said this will be tabled to the July meeting. You will be on the agenda.

      Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m.

    3. Sears The Great Indoors, 11925 Commons Drive requests preliminary plan approval of their proposed alterations

Lanie Wess of Woolpert said Scott Dever from Sears who was here last December was not able to make it tonight due to a flight cancellations in Chicago so Greg Davis from Taylor Scott Architects and I are here to present this to you. We are looking for preliminary approval so we can go to council next month and come back to you for final approval the following month.

Ms. Wess presented an article from the Shopping News of May 1999, which explains what the Great Indoors is. It is a unique upscale store, which consists of home furnishings for the kitchen, bath, bedroom and great room.

We submitted in May, received comments on May 26th and replied by June 2nd, so you should have the latest plans with our changes. However, we had four days to do it because of Memorial Day weekend, and there are a couple of changes we need to integrate into those plans. We are going to go over them tonight so you know.






13 JUNE 2000



Ms. Wess added we did actual traffic counts at their Denver store, which had 167,857 square feet. The store we are proposing is 122,933 square feet so we took a reduction of 26.67% of the traffic counts taken and showed that the weekday p.m. peak hour for the development was between 1:30 and 2:30 and consisted of 198 cars, 76 in and 122 out. The Saturday peak hour is from 3 to 4 with 605 cars.

The patrons of the Great Indoors will also be patronizing other Tri-County Commons stores, so that cuts down on traffic and is also somewhat of a replacement use because of the now out of business Roberds.

We responded to some of the comments made at the December meeting. She showed the site plan, adding that they made the north-south island as large as the other islands. We did a calculation for the required parking based on the new zoning code. We broke down the use within the building, which consists of general retail, appliances and home furnishings, warehouse, flooring office training assembly and café or restaurant, and figured out the required parking spaces, 515. We also recounted the spaces that exist from Dave & Busterís to Golf Galaxy and came up with 755 spaces, which is different from the previous submittal. There was a miscount; they probably didnít include the back employee parking area for Dave & Busterís.

We are eliminating 19 of the 755 spaces with the front bumpout of the Sears store and proposing 517 spaces for a total of 498 new spaces proposed. Today we found out that Sears wants to put in a drive in door towards the lower corner of the building, and that would eliminate four of those spaces , so actually we are proposing 494 spaces with 515 required.

There is a shared parking out here, and we submitted a table, which shows the parking use for Dave, & Busterís, Mars Music and Golf Galaxy. The peak was between 9 and 10 p.m. Because Dave & Busterís peaks so late at night, there are over 100 spaces available for The Great Indoors if needed.

Since our last submittal we took out one of the trash compactors and made it another truck dock door. We also added an eight-foot high masonry wall on the north side of that dock area to screen the parking from the dock area. The dock area is depressed four feet in the back, and we did not provide screening for the compactor because you have the grade fall and the landscaping. We revised these drives to make them perpendicular to the loop road for better traffic circulation.

Larry Bergman reported I try to prescreen tenants for you. I understand the concerns of the City and when I heard what Sears is trying to do, I thought this was a perfect opportunity. Their customer is a person ready to remodel their house. Although the inventory within the store will be limited, it requires a lot of showroom space. It will have floor coverings, carpeting, cabinetry, appliances Ė anything you need that relates to the home. It is not the Linens Etc type of use.


13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Bergman added we are dealing with a very large company that is financially very capable of taking care of their space. It is an opportunity for all of us to work with them and get them to adhere to what the City needs as far as the layout or exterior of the space.

Greg Davis of Taylor Scott Architect said one of the major design elements added is the vestibule space to mimic the home. Coming into the vestibule there is customer service and check out areas on the left. On the right there is a café. The inside seats 32 and the outside seats 32 with an iron rail and a gate to exit. They will serve coffee, coffee liqueurs and sandwiches. There is an 18,000 s.f. warehouse area which services four trucks and compactor.

Mr. Davis showed the colored elevations and materials board. There is a light ivory colored band along the top, EIFS material that comes out eight inches from the wall for accent and a light ivory accent across the front and side. The existing openings along the top wall will be filled in and we will have signage on the front and west, facing the malls.

The vestibule is a steel frame construction with EIFS exterior. The bottom color is a rust color and then we have a hunter green that will be applied to the vestibule area.

The signage is the smallest that Sears has as their prototype. They have 4í, 5í and 6í letters, and we are using the 4í. As we calculate them, we have recalculated them and the total of the two signs is742 s.f. Also there is an additional 14 s.f. for the Merchandise Pickup sign. We also have a proposed pylon sign that will go out along the road. There really is not much of a way to see this site unless you are on the highway or you are looking for it, so we are trying to get as much signage as we possibly can. We are showing a 213 s.f. pylon sign.

The rooftop units will be painted to match the rooftop. They are most visible from the highway. I donít think you can see them as you come up to the front of the building.

Ms. Wess added we do not have a plan to show you for the signage on Kemper Road, but they will want to be a part of the existing pylon sign.

Mr. McErlane reported the property is zoned Planned Unit Development as part of the original Tri-County Commons PUD. The original uses approved for this building were for warehouse and other general industrial uses. The uses within this building over time have been modified with covenant revisions to allow uses on a case by case basis based on traffic issues.

The applicant has submitted a covenant that spells out specific square footages based on the type of uses that are proposed for this store, and the covenants are consistent with what has been submitted previously.




13 JUNE 2000



Mr. McErlane added in my report I indicated that the ownerís affidavit had not been submitted, but we received them late yesterday evening, so we do have those and the owner has signed off on the applicantís request to make this modification. The color pallet was received tonight.

It was indicated that the two wall signs measured 742 s.f. each. We measure our signs based on the overall maximum height of the sign, and we were estimating them to be about nine feet. I think they are slightly over eight feet high. If they were nine feet it would make them about 571 square feet apiece for a total of 1143 square feet for the wall signs. If you add in the 50-foot high pole sign at 199 square feet, you come up with 1342 square feet. Total allowable sign area for this store is 702 square feet.

The required parking for this used based on the different types of uses in the building is 447 spaces, and they show additional parking at 498 spaces.

Mr. Davis wondered if there were the option for a variance on the signage and Mr. Syfert answered that Planning takes care of that under the PUD zoning.

Mr. Bergman said as one of the people involved with Springdale Kemper, I think we have to be flexible relating to the signage. Many of us have bad eyesight, and larger letters are important. Also this area is not exposed to Kemper Road, and Sears is putting a tremendous investment in there. They have to be able to market it. I am begging for everyone to be flexible to get them in here.

Mr. Galster said I do not have any problem with the building signage or the signage being added to the community sign at Kemper Road. My problem is going to be the pole sign. I donít think that location needs a pole sign.

Ms. McBride said the applicant provided a breakdown of the square footage of the proposed use which was helpful. We have asked on a number of occasions and we continue to ask for a parking breakdown of the entire center. What we mean by that is Mars Music, 500 square feet requires x number of parking spaces, Dave & Busterís 500 square feet requires x number and so forth. When in the future we look at another tenant and discover we are out of parking. We have asked throughout this process to have this breakdown, and I think the commission absolutely positively must see it before we go any further.

We asked for a second point of access on the rear parking spaces, and they provided that. They do show it going onto adjacent property, so the question is cross access easement and whether or not there are three additional parking spaces on the PUD to the south. In providing that second access point they are eliminating three parking spaces, and we have to make sure that there are three to eliminate.




13 JUNE 2000



Ms. McBride added they indicated where the compactor was to be located and that there would not be additional screening; we can review those at the next round of submittal.

Tonight we heard about the merchandise pickup area and the sliding glass doors. What we havenít heard is that the loading area for that boxes in four handicapped parking spaces. If we are going to have a merchandise pickup area which is a good thing to have, we need to have a designated one, not something painted loading that blocks somebodyís car in.

The café feature contains about 1,000 square feet, and there is the outdoor dining area. The commission needs to think about that outdoor dining area pretty carefully before we going to that kind of venture. If we are going to approve that, we will need to see details as to how it would be separated from the sidewalk, what is to keep small children from darting out into traffic, those kinds of things.

One of our larger comments addressed the width of that north/south planting aisle. They have reduced that to 12 feet and it is not consistent with what we have seen throughout the rest of the development. We donít know if there are parking problems because we donít know how many spaces are required for the whole development, but we hopefully will be able to evaluate that at a later date when we receive the information.

Ms.McBride added we have asked that shrubs be added to the north island to screen that merchandise pickup area. The applicant indicated tonight that they are adding a masonry wall. We will have to look at how that incorporates into the landscaping plan. That may or not be necessary depending on where they are proposing that wall. We had suggested a number of small revisions to the detailed landscaping plan for the front elevation of the building. The applicant decided those werenít necessary to make, and we would ask that those be made.

The lighting will be repetitive of what exists on the site. On signage, I donít have a problem with the size of the on building signage. However, the free standing sign could be a significant problem, remembering that we have told other applicants in this same development no.

We received the color sample board this evening. I believe it was the direction of the commission at the December 14th meeting that the rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened. The applicant has indicated that it will be painted, so the commission needs to decide whether or not that is adequate screening.

Ms. Wess on the merchandise pickup, this area has a lot of handicapped spaces and a 24 foot wide painted drive aisle. The idea is not to pull up and load your car; it is more to park in this area and there is a counter within the building to pick up your merchandise and attendants there to help you dolly it out to your car.



13 JUNE 2000



Ms. Wess added on the café area, we are proposing a decorative wrought iron fence around the seating area, which will be gated off. They could exit out the gate.

Mr. Okum wondered if that was part of the emergency exit area and Mr. Davis answered that it is so close to the entry that the entire front entry has the ability to exit out this area as well as this area. There are also doors along the back for emergency exits and there is exiting through here. Mr. Okum commented I have a problem with children being able to go out through a gated area. If the café is primary to the business, it should be isolated to the business. Iím also thinking about security and merchandise walking out through the café. Mr. Davis responded I would have to go back to them about the exact operations and how that outdoor café is used.

Ms. Wess added Ms. McBride said parking counts still hadnít been done for Dave & Busterís, Mars Music and Golf Galaxy. I think the reason for that was they were trying to limit that parking and it was considered a shared use among those three businesses. Now that Sears is going in, we are trying to keep it separate. That is why we did the parking analysis for Sears and were trying to keep that separate from what is there and what has already been approved. We can do the analysis. It seems to me that the parking requirement will be larger than what is provided because of the peak hour for Dave & Busterís., so I donít know if those numbers will mean anything, but we will provide it.

Ms. McBride said we have we have to look at the uses as they relate to our zoning code. This commission has to decide, based on the requirements of that code and the uses in that center, whether or not it meets the zoning code or if they would like to grant a variance from the parking requirements for the development. Without those numbers, the commission cannot determine whether or not they need to grant a variance or how far off it is and should they grant a variance. Ms. Wess asked if they granted a variance for Golf Galaxy and Mars Music. Ms. McBride responded I believe the number of spaces shown for the entire development covered all of those uses, but we need a table. Staff can do that and weíll put it in our next staff report. Ms. Wess answered we will provide it. Ms. McBride added thee is a differences between what the market is driving and what our code requires. We need to know what the code requires so that this commission can decide whether or not a variance is applicable if for example Dave & Busterís peak using hour is offset by the fact that Sears The Great Indoors is closed during that time. Ms. Wess said weĎll provide the numbers.

Mr. Huddleston added I donít know if the applicant needs to provide it or the developer needs to provide it, but somebody needs to come up with a consolidated parking analysis. Since the developer has a vested interest, he ought to come up with that.

Mr. Bergman said I agree. We have to meet the requirements set in the zoning, and I donít want to penalize the tenant Sears because certain things are missing. If it is possible to keep things moving with Sears and keep their interest up so we are not looking at warehouse trucks and trailers setting on that lot.


13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Bergman added also, right now we are in a predicament. We are actively marketing the Roberds space, and Sears is the catalyst to getting other quality tenants in there, and it is important to us.

You mentioned that we should provide that traffic study. If that is required, hopefully it will meet the guidelines, and if not you will decide if the variance should be granted.

Mr. Galster wondered how high the fence would be around the café and Mr. Davis said four feet, and Mr. Galster commented my five-year-old would be over it in a second. I donít think you can have access to parking through a gate in any place that serves liquor

( coffee liqueur) so I think you have multiple problems there.

I would like to see the continuation of the wider landscaped islands; I still would like to see the fourth landscaped island go back out to where it was

Mr. Vanover said on the café, what will you do with the tables that are out there? Will it be permanently attached, or wrapped up in the winter? Mr. Davis responded those would be taken out each morning and put up at night, and I am sure they will be stored during the winter.

Mr. Vanover continued Mr. Bergman is asking us not penalize Sears because of the traffic, and I am sure when the tenants for the Roberds space comes in he will ask the same thing. While we are here, letís get it done so we know exactly what we have and what has to be done. Itís not fair to Sears, but itís also not fair to the last person in. Also, camouflaging the mechanical on the roof with paint doesnít do it. Thatís just a painted box on the skyline.

Mr. Galster said there are a lot of rooftop units up there and you wonít be needing all of them; I assume there will be some removal of units, so whatever is left needs to be properly screened.

I was looking at the color pallet and this large building and noticed the comments to make it look residential and I like the look of it. In the home entryway, going to a brick in that brown area to break that whole surface up. Otherwise it will look like a long extension of the building. Using brick and stone in that area would really enhance it.

Mr. Davis responded that is part of what bringing the vestibule out does, but brick is definitely something I can go back and talk to them about. Mr. Galster added basically everything that is covered by a roof in that area.

Mr. Huddleston said this is a difficult site and I think the developer has been very creative in working with various tenants here and to some extent screening them. I have to speak favorably that we can work with this applicant to get this use in here which will make that area more attractive to other potential users for the vacant Roberds space. I think this is a very appropriate use and would fit very well.




13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Shvegzda reported that the initial submittal indicated the north south drive aisles to be continuing in that direction, intersecting the loop road so that you had extreme angles in terms of vehicle left turns. That has been revised to accommodate bringing those drive aisles into the loop road at a radial direction for a better turning movement and sight distance. The westernmost could use an additional radial drive aisle to intersect better with the loop road.

Before, the parking area was considerably closer to the loop road, which was a hindrance to sight distance because of the curvature of the road. Most of those have been taken care of. In the northernmost and westernmost parking spaces, the last space needs to be looked at in terms of sight distance. In all the rest of the parking aisles each has an intersection with the loop road. There is a curve at this location and we suggest the elimination of some of the intersections with the loop road by providing cross connections between the different parking bays.

Right now the storm sewer system is designed for the 25-year storm. It is indicated the differential is going to flow over land via the parking lot across the ring road into the detention basin. We need some additional information to determine if this will get to the basin. The loop road is very flat in that area, and the concern is that some of it may flow in an incorrect direction, possibly coming to the loading dock area which is four feet down.

We need to verify the depths in the different sag areas of the parking lot where the catch basins are.

Actual traffic counts were obtained from the Denver store. Those were factored down 26.8% because the proposed store is smaller. Additional information was submitted about the different areas of usage in the store so the peak hour number, 605 is acceptable.

On the actual overall PUD count we have been looking at, in 1999 an actual count was done for the site and that was 2,260. Adding in the one lot that is not currently developed, subtracting the peak hour that would have been for Champion, adding in Sofa Express, factoring out what is set aside for the warehouse area, and adding in Sears, we have a total of 2,834. The allowable peak hour from the PUD is 2,680, which is 154 over the allowable peak. We will look at some method to address that. What we looked at is to basically come up with the percentage of that 154 and use that to some of the improvements the City has planned for Kemper Road, factoring that to construction costs. From the 1999 counts, we had percentages of traffic that utilized the Wal-Mart drive, and Kemper Commons. With those, it was 49% of the peak hour traffic that utilized those two points. Factoring that to the allowable peak hour PUD (2,680), we came up with 1,314. Based on the actual distribution of traffic, that would have been the PUD allowable traffic to utilize those two access points on Kemper Road. Dividing that into the 154 overage, comes up with 12%, so they are 12% over what was permissible for those two access points.





13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Shvegzda continued factoring that 12% into the construction costs estimate for the Kemper Road improvements which is Phase 3, budgeted for 2005, not including the bridge widening which is about $600,000, the widening costs including the signal modifications was about $250,000 so that comes up to $30,000 that would be a way to deal with the overage in traffic. The City currently has ready to bid Phase 1 (area from 747 to Tri-County Parkway) budgeted at $1.5 million. Phase 2 (from Century to Chesterdale) is about $860,000 and Phase 3, which would include this area is about $1 million. We are requesting that $30,000 grant be applied to the City for this future project.

Mr. Okum said I totally agree with you regarding the cuts going into the radius. Also I mentioned last time that the narrowness at the ring road has to be considered into this. Mr. Shvegzda reported the roadway is the same. We are looking at different criteria that wold give us specific reasoning for additional width. We couldnít find anything per se. Part of the issue may be that it was designed 25 m.p.h. and that may lend itself to that feel, and maybe it justifies some type of speed bump.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if they had any suggestions regarding the cuts into that island. I find it difficult to make a sharp right turn there. Ms. Wess responded because there is a longer throat on the second and third drives, I donít see those as a problem for a car. People have the right to go down to the main road in the front of the buildings to make the turn. We could look at eliminating one, but what that does is reduce your parking count again.

Mr. Okum commented I know you have to meet the code, but I am willing to give relief if it comes to good design. We did the same with Dave & Busterís; we gave them what they said they needed. Ms. Wess responded Sears is exactly the same way. Mr. Okum continued for the type design you are looking for and the shared uses, I donít think you will ever fill up that field or come close to it. Your peaks are definitely different from Dave & Busterís.

I also agree that narrowing that island down to 12 feet is not acceptable so that will need to be brought back into symmetry for the development.

I have another problem with the merchandise pickup area being where those handicap spaces are on the side of the building. I find it difficult for a person parking in that front field, negotiating into that 24-foot wide corridor aisle with an offset of the islands back into that area to pick up the merchandise. They would have to cross over the primary accessway into a 24-foot wide aisle, and I donít see an alignment between the pickup area and the parking field. If they are picking up bulky merchandise, these aisles need to be widened. Also the parking stalls are 9í6", which may need to be opened to 10 feet so people can get that flatbed cart between two vehicles.



13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Okum stated I couldnít support in any way another pole sign on the site. There is a pole sign there now that is not even utilized.

The site should include no outdoor cart storage. There should be some indication as to how the landscaped areas should be irrigated or maintained. There should be fewer cuts in the radius, the rooftop units should be screened, and the café area should not have an exit into the parking area or into the walkways.

Mr. Okum asked if the truck dock area would be resurfaced and Ms. Wess indicated that it would be, concrete 60 feet out from the building where the trucks set and heavy duty asphalt beyond that.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if she concurred that the landscape space between the dumpster compactor area and the trucks should be mounded and landscaped to get the height assured over the top of the trucks.

Ms. McBride answered the area where they will be able to get the highest mound is back against the dock which will be to the rear of Wal-Mart. We had more concern about wanting to see shrubbing in some of those northern islands to provide more of a screen when you are looking in from the north. Mr. Okum responded I agree but I am looking at it on the diagonal and across, and if they mound and taper down towards that point and then do heavy vegetation on that corner, they could get a break. Ms. McBride commented given how that comes to a point, I do not know how high a mound they would be able to get in that area. Mr. McErlane added the grade also is dropping down from the drive area to the south down to the dock area. So it is tough to come up and then go back down that steeply. Mr. Okum said what about a wall; I am just saying we need something to hide the trucks. Target said they never had their trucks setting out, and I have not gone by there one day that there isnít a truck setting there, and I donít see anything different here.

Ms. McBride said maybe the applicant could come back with some suggestions, whether it is a berm or a wall. Mr. Okum responded just some type of break.

Mr. Davis said you want screening on both sides of the dock area. Mr. Okum responded coming in off Tri-County Commons. IL donít think Sears wants people to see the truck bay area first.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if the applicant tends to shed some of the parking lot water across the ring road. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed that, adding that the major storm is July 1, 1985 storm and the differential between that and the 25-year, which the storm sewers will convey, goes overland and in order to get to the detention basin, goes across the ring road. Remember the July 1, 1985 storm; there probably will be six inches of water on that ring road regardless of anything flowing over it. In reality you probably will have the same conditions; we want to make sure that it is directed to the detention basin and nowhere else. We will work out the information on that with the applicant.



13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Vanover said with that merchandise pickup area, since you are looking to create and isolate that area, why couldnít you close off that northern entrance? If they were going to walk out to the parking lot, get in their car and come around to the merchandise pickup area, access off the western entrances off the ring road, you would benefit because you would gain parking. Mr. Davis responded the main reason is to have a direct line to the merchandise pickup. Weíve tried to limit those openings; we have provided that one to come in for ease of the customers to get to that access point. If you have to go out and make a left turn and cross over that traffic and make another left turn and cross over traffic again to get back, it is discouraging to the customer. They can make a right turn and only cross one time.

Mr. Galster said I wonder how important the outdoor portion of the café is to this project. Mr. Davis answered my knowledge is limited, and I am planning to take up the entire issue of the outdoor café. I will ask if they need the outdoor café. I would like to verify the overall function of the outdoor café. Mr. Galster responded I would like to be on record that low fences, gate or no gate, would be a problem at final approval time. I don'í want to have it be a surprise when you return.

Mr. Vanover said if they are going to serve coffee liquers, there will have to be a liquor license, and the last one we had was a transfer in, and we are not pleased about that. This area is maxed and that is a concern.

Mr. Davis responded I know that the function of the café is not going to be a major part of this store. That is probably one of the smaller things riding on this project. We will be discussing these issues and be back with you.

Mr. Okum asked how they would maintain the landscaped areas. Mr. Davis answered that is a Sears question, and we will walk to them on how they plan on maintaining their landscaping.

Mr. Bergman answered currently the tenants have a common area maintenance charge. The overall development maintains all landscaping and bills the tenants accordingly.

Mr. Okum moved for approval based on the plans submitted and with the following conditions:

    1. Includes and incorporates the recommendations and comments from staff, city engineer, city planner and building official;
    2. No pole sign
    3. The large island to be changed to the average width of the development
    4. No outdoor cart storage

      13 JUNE 2000



    6. Irrigated or planned maintenance of the landscaped areas
    7. Fewer cuts in the angle area or reconfigure parking field for safety
    8. Rooftop units shall be screened
    9. Brick to be included in the roof covered area of the entrance
    10. No exit opportunities from the café area
    11. No outdoor display
    12. Necessary contribution to Phase III Kemper Road Project based on peak hour trip overage calculated based on final plans
    13. Prior to final plan approval, complete parking analysis for the entire site be provided.

Mr. .Vanover commented I think Mr. Galsterís idea of breaking the front up is good, but I donít want to tie them to brick. I would like to see some renditions and get some flexibility, because we very well may not like what we see. Mr. Galster said I would like to see some break; for them to know that the solid wall is a concern. Mr. Huddleston commented I donít disagree with the commentary to have a residential feel, but I have a concern with a possible hodge podge. Mr. Okum said Iíll eliminate Condition #8 from the motion. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

On the motion, voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert.

    1. Sofa Express, 11750 Commons Drive requests amendment to their approved plan

Kevin Blakener of Cole & Russell Architects said we want to make

a minor adjustment to the south elevation of the building only. We

have reduced the amount of glass area to better accommodate

the interior functions of the tenant space, leaving the canopy and

the curb element as was previously designed. We would reduce

the glass area by 50-60 feet. The area that will be solid will be the same EIFS material as on the west and south elevations.

Ms. McBride reported we have been working with the applicant, and it has gone through a number of revisions. Initially, the west elevation was sensitive in terms of appearance and how it would look in terms of breaking up the massing. One of the revisions had eliminated all of the flex glass and that is when it was determined that this needed to come back before the commission. Since then, it has been refined and that flex glass has been put back, but some of it has been removed from the south elevation, and we felt it still should come back before Planning.





13 JUNE 2000



Ms. McBride added that the landscaping plan has been revised. They have taken some of the features from the street trees and put those closer to the building on the west elevation to better break that up. They had shrubs and bushes in the previous submittal and what is being proposed now creates a lot more height and break on that west elevation. As I understand it the flex glass is as what was previously approved by the Commission. So, we feel comfortable that the west elevation will be something that the Commission would approve.

Mr. McErlane reported that Ms. McBride covered the comments I had relative to the changes. However, it does appear that the most recent submittal to the Planning Commission actually increases the amount of glass on the west side of the building.

Mr. Okum moved to approve and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

E. Springdale Church of the Nazarene, 11777 Springfield Pike requests approval of the proposed temporary building on their property.

Ralph McSwain, Buildings and Grounds of Springdale Nazarene Church said we are asking for the placement of a temporary building for as long as two years. There is a slight chance that the architect will be requesting the construction of a gym and the facilities to the southwest corner of us, but we are here trying to get the approval of the temporary building in case that doesnít happen.

We really need the room for teenagers, so if this drags out, we want to have a place for the kids.

Mr. Syfert asked about the trailer from the VA that was discussed at the last meeting, and Mr. McSwain reported that they could have it but it would cost us $57,000 to rent it, and they would give us the value in two years. So we would like to build a prefab. We have enough carpenters and contractors in our church so that we can build a building that looks nicer than that trailer for around $20,000, disassemble it and lose $10,000 in drywall and give it to the church camp so it would only cost us $10-$12,000 and we would still have a nicer facility for two years. It wouldnít be a trailer; it would be designed to meet the building code.

Mr. Galster asked about the setback wondered if it would be a problem to move it 50 feet from the property line. Mr. McSwain answered we donít know where the property line is. We are trying to buy 30í x 300í to the west of the property. Springdale is not sure that is the right property line. I am hoping that we own your soccer field rather than you own our sanctuary. The drawing shows that it is perfect, 92 feet from the back of our sanctuary to the property line, so we would say we are at least 50 feet from the soccer field.




13 JUNE 2000



Mr. McSwain said we had been planning on having a temporary structure, but now we are talking about building a bigger unit , a complete gymnasium with classrooms around it, which would be Phase I. If they do that, we wouldnít need the temporary structure. Mr. Galster wondered how Planning could approve the temporary building when we donít know where the property line is. Mr. Syfert responded the only reason we are trying to establish the line is the fact that the City is going to sell the property to the church.

Mr. Huddleston asked about the survey of the property, and Mr. Shvegzda reported that courthouse research was done last week and they were supposed to be out there today and tomorrow. The actual resolution could be as soon as next week. Mr. Galster said so it wouldnít go back any further than the existing buildings go, it wouldnít create any worse situation. Mr. McSwain confirmed this.

Mr. Huddleston said you are talking about a three phase new building program, which would eliminate the need for the temporary structure. So you have a barn and classroom building and both appear to be temporary buildings. Mr. McSwain responded the classroom building was built to code with proper setbacks. Mr. Huddleston commented we are seeing a proliferation of applications for temporary buildings around the city. I donít have any problem with granting this for two years. Mr. McSwain added if we do it, it wonít look like a shed; it will be a nice little building.

Mr. Okum said I have a slight problem with the bottom of the temporary building being totally open. I think it should be adequately screened or skirted along the bottom so that it doesnít look like an elevated building. Mr. McSwain said we would have greenery around also. Mr. Okum added children could get underneath it, and you could have a fire very easily.

Mr. McErlane reported the shed setback looks to be about 64 feet from the property line. Mr. McSwain added so we are 53 feet from the property line to the blacktop. I thought the church was inline with the parking lot and the parking lot goes further west. Mr. Galster suggested that it be either all the way back to the blacktop or no further than the existing building. Mr. McErlane stated with the condition that it is at least 50 feet from the property line, once the property line is determined, they can live with that. Mr. McSwain added we would be asking for at least 50 feet from the property line.

Ms. McBride said any approval should specify a length of time, and you have talked about that. It also should include screening or a base around the bottom of the building, that it would establish a setback, if there is to be any landscaping to be incorporated temporary or permanent, and temporary restriping of the parking area, depending on where the unit is located so there is proper flow through the parking field.

Mr. McSwain said if we come out too far we would be in a driveway, so we want to have it as far west as we can. Fifty feet will cut out more parking, which we can live with for two years.



13 JUNE 2000



Mr. Shvegzda said our only concern was the effect this would have on the loss of parking and modification of the parking to accommodate circulation. If it is planned to set on the existing parking lot, there is no effect on the detention issue.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve a temporary building for the period of two years from the date of certificate of occupancy, with a 50 foot setback and Board of Zoning Appeal approval of a variance if necessary, screening of the bottom as required and restriping of the parking lot to provide safe traffic flow. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

F. Tri-County Golf Center, 455 East Tri-County Parkway requests an amendment to their approved plan (extend the driving range)

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant called and asked to be removed from the agenda. They decided not to build the additional 55 feet. Mr. Galster moved that it is removed and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.

Mr. McErlane said the building was designed so that it didnít have the proper clearances for swinging the club. It actually has a lot fewer tees than what they originally considered putting in. They were going to extend another 55 feet to get two-thirds of what they originally planned.

    1. Buffer Lighting Zones

Ms. McBride said we have been through this twice; the only changes we made were those requested at the last meeting. Specifically we deleted non-cutoff light fixtures. That was the major change.

Addressing Mr. Huddleston, Mr. McErlane asked if a maximum height of 22 feet would be a hardship for most developers? Mr. Huddleston answered I am not a good person to answer that. In a 200-car parking lot whether that causes 20 more poles, I couldnít begin to tell you. Mr. McErlane continued I only ask the question because I think the majority of the larger parking lots have 35-foot standards.

Mr. Huddleston asked Ms. McBride if she had talked to any of the lighting suppliers or designers. Ms. McBride answered yes, and it goes to the type of retail and what we want to encourage. If we want to continue to see the big box, letís go with the higher light standard. The lower the light standard, the more they have to put in, which is more expensive for them but it also controls the lighting more for us.


13 JUNE 2000



Ms. McBride added that the other thing it does is bring down the whole character, makes it less regional. We can go back and look at that again and maybe suggest that it be 28 feet. I would hate to see us go into the 30ís as a maximum.

Mr. Huddleston said I would think somebody could tell you if you have a two-acre parking field what the differences in light standards would be between 24, 28, 35, whatever with the same foot-candle.

Ms. McBride suggested that the commission table this and we will do some comparisons on a 300 car parking field versus a 50 car parking field.

Mr. Huddleston commented I agree with bringing the scale down, but by the same token you are going to create a proliferation of poles.

Mr. Okum said you gave us this chart for recommended lighting levels. I donít know what dark surroundings and bright surroundings are. We have used .5 foot candles forever; is .5 sufficient?

Ms. McBride answered I think .5 foot candle is a good minimum. A lot of communities use it; I think it is a safe minimum.

Mr. Syfert wondered if there was a problem with trying to keep them low when the big guys will come in and tell us they need them higher to start with. Ms. McBride answered the reason they want to put them up is because it is cheaper. The item was tabled to July 11th.

    1. Chi Chiís, 380 Glensprings Drive Ė Monument Sign
    2. Chiropractic PhysiciansĖ11816 Springfield Pike (Wimbledons) Ė wall sign
    3. Professional Nails Ė 11806 Springfield Pike (Wimbledons) Ė wall sign
    4. Indian Motorcycles Ė 155 West Kemper Road Ė 3 wall signs

Mr. Syfert said the training session we had with the Board of Zoning Appeals was very well done; four of us made it, and we got a lot out of it.

Mr. Okum said we have a new time line, and one of the applicants tonight got their submission in on May 15th, we responded by May 26th, which I think is great, but for the applicant to make the recommended changes and have it back by June 2nd might have been a tight window. We could take the point of view that if they want it to happen, they get their material in on time. Was the 15th of May a late submission to start with?






13 JUNE 2000



Ms. McBride responded no, the schedules put together were patterned off ones that other communities have used that I have been a part of. The applicants were a little bit under the gun because of Memorial Day Weekend. At the same time, there have been times when staff, because of submittal dates and holiday weekends has had two or three days to review three or four cases. That happens. Speaking as a consultant, if your guys have to work late to get something done, thatís what they do. A lot of communities give you a week to make those revisions, understanding that you would hope with the information and pre application meeting that the number of revisions and the significance of the revisions are not major. You are talking about tweaking the landscaping, or signage calculations; you are not redesigning the detention basin.

The schedule is very clearly printed out on the front page of the packet they are given. If it continues to be a problem with a variety of applicants, maybe we should look at refining it. Mr. Syfert commented we saw the benefits of it this evening. Ms. McBride added this evening you saw a number of staff reports that were initially two and three pages that were down to one page this evening, and made it go a lot faster for everybody, including the applicants.

Mr. Huddleston commented I think it is an opportunity for a significant process improvement for the commission. I think the commission has done a great job over the years. I sometimes berate us for deliberating so long on these issues, but this is an opportunity for staff to do their job and us to be able to rely on them. I applaud the effort and agree with Anne; it is not going to work perfectly because of weekends and holidays, but if somebody wants it done, let them get it done.

Mr. McErlane said the June 2nd deadline was a Friday, and if the revisions had come in on Monday morning, we probably would have distributed them. I did not hear back from them at all, and the plan showed up on June 7th.


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. J By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planing Commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________, 2000 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



____________________,2000 _________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary