11 JULY 1995

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Planning Commission

Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Councilwoman Peggy Manis,

Tim Sullivan, Councilman Robert Wilson and Chairman

William G. Syfert.

Members Absent: Barry Tiffany

Others Present: Ron Pitman, Mayor

Derrick Parham, Assistant City Administrator

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

Mr. Syfert stated that Mr. Tiffany will not be here; he is on vacation.


Ms. Manis moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice

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



A. 6/15 Letter to Randy Danbury, President of City Council from Steve

Galster re Planning Commission recommended zoning change of the property at 11675 & 11685 Springfield Pike from R-1-B to R-1-B-T.

B. Copy of Discussion re sign approval, Planning Commission Meting Minutes, February 14, 1984

Ms. Manis stated for the Commissionís information, the recommended zoning change was set for Public Hearing on September 6th.

Mr. Syfert stated in the interests of furthering the education of some of the important people, I am going to move down to Item B under New Business.


B. North American Properties requests four one-week center-wide sidewalk

sales (Tri-County Commons Shopping Center) Section 153.160(4)(b) directs that "duration and frequency..shall in no event exceed two such sales during any calendar year."

Mr. Syfert reported we have a letter dated June 29, 1995 to Bill McErlane:

"Re: Tri-County Commons Shopping Center

Springdale Ohio

This letter is written pursuant to our conversation of yesterday afternoon.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Two


6/29 Letter to Bill McErlane - continued

Currently the City of Springdale permits each retailer in the shopping center to hold two (2) sidewalk sales for a continuous period of two weeks throughout the year. This could ultimately result in a year long sidewalk sale. In an attempt to prevent this, Crossroads Limited Partnership, the Landlord for the Tri-County Commons, requests that the Shopping Center be permitted to hold four (4) one week center-wide sidewalk sales throughout the course of the year. This would allow for the Landlord to appropriately plan, oversee and control sidewalk sale activities for all of the retailers at the shopping center, with the exception of Samís Club and Wal-Mart, whose leases do not allow for Landlord direction in regards to promotional activities.

If possible, the Tri-County Commons would like to sponsor their first sidewalk sale beginning on June 30, 1995, continuing through the Fourth of July holiday.

Please call me if you have any questions.


Brian J. Neltner

Commercial Leasing"



Mr. Brian Neltner of North American Properties stated right now, the shopping center by the regulation allows all the tenants in the shopping center to each have a two week sidewalk sale, limited to two a year. As a landlord, we donít particularly like that, because it leaves junk on the sidewalk continuously through the year. What we are hoping to do is control the tenants so that we as a shopping center can put on a Fourth of July Sidewalk Sale where all of the tenants that we control would be permitted to put stuff out, not for two weeks, but for one week or over the weekend type sale, and maybe break it up so we can have four sidewalk sales for the year of shorter duration and have it as a center wide sidewalk sale. This would be more cohesive for the shopping center, and it would look better from the street. It would cut down the actual amount of time there are things on the sidewalk.

Mr. Galster asked how many tenants would this include, and Mr. Neltner answered the shopping center has about 15 tenants (including Samís and Wal-Mart), so we would have 13 of them that we would control.

Mr. Wilson said so I understand what you are proposing, you are proposing four times a year for up to one week duration? Mr. Neltner confirmed this, adding that this would be a total of four weeks per year. Right now you have two events for two weeks each. It is basically the same length of time; it is just broken up more. Mr. Wilson continued and that would be it; there would be no exceptions to that guideline? Mr. Neltner responded, as far as the tenants I control; I cannot speak for Wal-Mart or Samís; they presently have their own rights in our leases to have sidewalk sales whenever they want. As far as the other tenants are concern, I can regulate when they are allowed to put stuff on the sidewalk.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Three


Mr. Wilson commented thatís fine for the time frame, but are you going to regulate your temporary signage to that time frame only as well, or is signage a separate issue with you on this? Mr. Neltner answered I donít know of any temporary signage that the shopping center does. We do have a for lease sign on one of the outparcels, but we typically do not do banners. If there are banners being put up, they probably are being done by the tenants, and we also regulate that. We generally donít let tenants put banners out; we try to keep a clean looking shopping center as much as possible.

Mr. Syfert reported this is here because it is a PUD, and we control this situation. I personally feel it is probably a good attempt on the part of the manager of North American Properties; it seems like it makes some sense.

Mr. Sullivan stated sidewalk sales that are held sporadically and with 13 tenants that could have two twice a year, you could theoretically tie up the center. It would seem a lot less cluttered; pedestrian traffic would be a lot better and I would imagine even the vehicle traffic might be better.; it seems to me a good idea. Have you talked to the tenants about it?

Mr. Neltner responded they have and they seem to favor it. We are trying to put together a merchants association so we could have meetings and they could help vote on when we would have the sidewalk sales. Mr. Sullivan commented to me it seems like a reasonable attempt to regulate the vendors there; I think itís a good idea.

Mr. Syfert said is that a motion you just made? Mr. Sullivan said sure, I move that we go with four one-week center wide sidewalk sales throughout the course of the year. Mr. Blake seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Motion approved with six affirmative votes.

Ms. Manis asked if the year would start today, go from July to July? Mr. Syfert responded I would think so. Mr. Neltner commented that is fine; basically we would only have two left this summer and two starting next summer, so that would work out fine. Mr. Syfert suggested making that a part of the motion; the Commission agreed.


Richard E. Dooley, President, R.E.D. Construction Requests Final Approval of Proposed 2326 Square Foot Building Addition to Micro 1, 155 Northland Boulevard - (tabled 6/13/95)

Mr. Syfert read the letter dated June 30, 1995 to Mr. McErlane.

"We are herewith submitting for your consideration at the next City Planning Commission Meeting:

1) Retention basin for Micro 1 at Boggs Lane and Northland Blvd.

a) Copy of Dave Rayburn P.E. letter dated June 20, 1995.

b) Copy of CDS Engineers calculations dated June 6, 1995.

We would like at this time to request approval from the Planning Commission for our required water retention of approximately 400 cubic feet.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Four


June 30, 1995 Letter to Mr. McErlane - continued

"Itís our understanding the next CPC Meeting is July 11, 1995; Tuesday at 7:00 P.M. and we do plan to be there to answer any questions you may have.



Richard E. Dooley, President"

Mr. Syfert added we have another letter from Mr. Shvegzda; each member of Planning also has a copy of this letter.

David Rayburn and Stanley Kline approached the Commission. Mr. Rayburn stated what we are doing is adding a 2300 square foot addition, and putting it on a blacktop parking lot that is more or less existing. When I run through the calculations on a 25 year rain, it comes up we have to retain 91 cubic feet 35 minutes, which is a very minor amount of water. When I run it on a 10 to 25 year basis, what you consider a Phase 3 in part of your retention basin rules, it comes up to 271 cubic feet. We have been back and forth with the engineer, and the best we can hold back there is 800 cubic feet, because that is all the water that drains there.

Mr. Rayburn continued so our first request is we would prefer not to put a detention basin in, since there is a minor amount of water. There is a little bit of interpretation on what exactly the rules are. In this letter from Mr. Shvegzda, it appears we came to an agreement on something. We would like to agree on this and go on with the project and get it built.

Mr. Kline added he basically agrees with our calculations of the 0.14 acres which would be utilized to return the minimum amount of detention volume, and then he goes back to the 810 cubic feet and says that will be adequate, which is all we can get in there. What we are saying is we are going to have less than 400 cubic feet of water to contend with the way we calculate it, and if you use the figure he says is adequate here, but then he also says the 810 is adequate. Our question is do we have to put 810 or can we go by what our calculations show, which are less than 400 cubic feet? Mr. Rayburn added itís really a minor type thing; it is more important to get the job going.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Shvegzda reported in the initial review, there was some misunderstanding as to what the actual disturbed area on the redevelopment would be. David clarified that and we agree on the area now. In going through the calculations, normally in this situation we would look at redevelopment as being totally new. Based on all that, we had come up and agreed with Daveís figure of 810 cubic feet for the disturbed area, the footprint of the new expansion.

Mr. Syfert commented so there is no disagreement, then. Mr. Shvegzda responded as far as the 810 figure there is not.

Mr. Rayburn added it really doesnít make a whole lot of difference. When you talk about 810 feet, it is only 20 x 22 foot deep. I am sure if we get the blessing of the Planning Commission and work out the details, it is a matter of configuring and making it work. I see no problem with working something out and making it work


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Five


Mr. Blake said I guess I am a little confused; I keep hearing these ambiguities come in. My question is do you all agree that the basin is to be 400 cubic feet, or 810? Which is it supposed to be?

Mr. Shvegzda reported based on our review and the assumptions we normally make in a redevelopment of an existing site, 810 is the volume. Mr. Blake asked if that were agreeable with the applicant, and Mr. Rayburn answered that it is not a problem.

Mr. Wilson said you have one other item that needs to be clarified on your report, Don. The routing of the existing storm sewer conduit from the existing catch basin and trench basin; this needs to be shown on the plans. In other words, do you feel comfortable enough to pass this on a contingent basis? I am leery of contingencies; we have a little red flag here that says this needs to be shown on the plans.

Mr. Shvegzda answered that is fine; it is more of a clarification as to where those areas go, plus it might tie into how the proposed detention volume is handled as far as where it is outletted to and that kind of thing. I am sure at least in the development of the proposed detention system, that would have to be addressed anyway.

Mr. Wilson asked the applicants if they would be agreeable to a contingency, assuming that this is taken care of, if the vote is to go forward, it would go forward with this contingency? Mr. Rayburn answered yes.

Ms. Manis asked if there is already a detention basin there, and Mr. Shvegzda answered no. Ms. Manis commented we talked earlier; was there one in the front? Mr. Shvegzda answered the only thing we mentioned was that this was an open area that might possibly be a site for a pond.

Mr. Wilson moved to approve this plan with the contingency that the routing of the existing storm sewer conduit from the existing catch basin and trench drain be clarified prior to moving on, that the 810 cubic feet be incorporated with this site as well. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.

Ms. Manis stated regarding the other items from Mr. McErlane; we did not discuss the dumpster screening.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicants to address those items. Mr. Rayburn stated the dumpster is screened right now. Ms. Manis said it wonít be moved? Mr. Rayburn added the dumpster in the back is screened on two sides, along the two property lines.

Mr. Syfert checked that they did go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and get the variance on the rear yard. Mr. Rayburn confirmed that they have the variance.

Mr. Rayburn reported we did show landscaping there. What is Planning Commission looking for in landscaping? Mr. Kline added there is a berm and landscaping along Boggs Lane, and we would intend to carry that same effect across the front. We would match what is existing on the front elevation.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Six


Mr. Syfert said there donít seem to be new signs; Mr. Kline confirmed that there are no signs, other than what is already there. There is no other signage involved.

Mr. Wilson asked about lighting. Will there be outside lighting for the building and the parking area? Mr. Kline responded there will not be any additional lighting. Mr. Rayburn added the owner was handling the lighting; they probably will put a battery pack on the side of it. Mr. Wilson responded so you are not making any lighting changes. Mr. Kline answered not to my knowledge; there are no lighting changes involved. Mr. Rayburn stated Mr. Dooley was handling that, and I understood that he was going to put some packs on the side. Ms. Manis commented I guess we would be concerned if you were adding additional building with parking. Mr. Rayburn reported there is no additional parking; we will add a little grading to the existing parking lot. Everything else on the list appears to be no problem.

Mr. Sullivan said concerning Point 7, there are 47 parking spaces required and 47 spaces shown, two handicap spaces required and one must be van accessible. Is that presently the case? Mr. Kline confirmed that this is the case now.

Mr. Blake commented the only concern I have is with regards to the lighting. I hear one gentleman say no lighting change, and I hear another one say maybe there will be some battery packs.

Mr. Rayburn reported the owner will handle that directly with another contractor. I talked to Mr. Dooley, and he indicated where we would put lighting on the side of the building, security type lighting that hangs on the side of the building for exterior lighting.

Mr. Blake stated the problem I have is I would want to know what they were, what the foot candles would be. Being that it comes right on the side of Boggs Lane whether that would reflect out into the traffic. I would be a little concerned about that.

Mr. Kline reported it wonít be facing Boggs Lane; it will be on the side facing the adjacent parking lot, the Delhi side. Mr. Rayburn showed where it would be on the plan, adding it would be security lighting. This far away the lighting would not reflect onto Boggs Lane.

The motion was read back. Mr. Wilson moved that final approval be granted with the contingency that the routing of existing storm sewer conduit from the existing catch basin and trench drain be clarified, and that 810 cubic feet be incorporated in the site plan. Mr. Galster asked to add to the motion that the landscaping be continued as existing, because thatís not shown anywhere else. The code also requires the screening be three sides of the dumpster; can that also be included in the motion? Commission agreed.

On the motion for final approval, voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with six affirmative votes.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Seven



A. Payless Shoes Requests a 22" x 24" Wall Sign at 80 West Kemper Road. Total signage Allowed is 160 Square Feet; 191.76 Square Feet is Requested (Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "..Maximum gross area of signs.."

Melody Wilson of Lackner Sign Company reported we would be installing the sign for Payless.

Mr. Syfert stated we have a letter dated June 29, 1995 addressed to Mr. McErlane:

"Please let this letter serve as our request for a variance to the City of Springdale Ordinance for the above location. (80 West Kemper Road) We are requesting permission to install a 44 square foot wall sign on the west wall of the building.

This sign consists of individual channel letters 22" in height installed on a raceway. The installation of this signage would cause the location to be 33.26 square feet over the maximum signage allowed.

It is my understanding that the meeting will be held on July, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the City Building. Lackner Sign Company will be present for this meeting.

If there are any questions or you need additional information, please feel free to contact me.



Melody Wilson

Project Coordinator"

Mr. Syfert continued Mr. McErlane sent you a fax dealing with the difference. His comment was sent 5/22/95. "Our records show Payless Signs to be larger than what you indicated. The permit issued in December 1994 shows 147.76 square feet existing. If this is correct, your proposed sign will bring the total to 191.76 square feet, 33.26 square feet over the allowable (see attached). Please call me after you have had time to review."

Mr. Syfert continued, why should we grant a bigger sign?

Ms. Wilson responded Payless is requesting the additional sign, mainly for visibility traveling east on Kemper Road. I have photographs showing motorist visibility and also the existing signage on the site. I have numbered the photographs to correspond with the site plan.

Ms. Wilson continued Payless does have signage on their front wall, and they have a pole sign. The pole sign ultimately would give visibility to eastward travelers, but it is obstructed and is not visible until you are almost on top of it, which could cause a traffic problem. It is not that they are asking for a bigger sign; this brings the signage over the maximum allowed for the entire site. They are just trying to get the visibility coming off Northland Boulevard and coming east onto Kemper. They scaled it down to 22 inch letters, which they feel will give them the visibility to Northland Boulevard, so people can see where their building is in time to get in the correct lane.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Wilson commented you want them to see the sign two blocks away; thatís 300 yards or more. Ms. Wilson responded with traffic the way it is getting in that area, if they are coming off Northland into the right lane, they have to get into the left lane to get into Payless and with Value City and Franks there, they want the motorist to see it in time to get into the correct lane. They feel if they to past with all the congestion, they are not going to turn around and come back; theyíll go on to the next store. That is basically their reasoning.

Mr. Syfert commented in order for it to be effective, it would have to be as big as Value City. Mr. Wilson responded thatís what I was thinking; it would have to be awful big for them to see it at that distance.

Ms. Wilson indicated on the pictures, that one is from the center of Northland and you are right, you are not going to see it from there. But if you move up a little bit, you can see the wall of the building and that is where the sign would be. At this point, showing another photograph, you are right about in the middle here, and it still gives you plenty of room to get over. You donít see their pole sign; it is right behind the bowling alley sign, but you would see this on the wall, and that is why they are asking for it there.

Mr. Syfert asked if there would be a more efficient place for that pole sign. Ms. Wilson responded I guess you could move the pole sign down to right in front of the wall, but then you would lose that exposure coming west on Kemper, because you do see that really well from the intersection.

Ms. Manis asked if Ms. Wilson has the authority to change the size of the sign tonight if we would say we wanted it to be 30 square feet? Ms. Wilson answered I think I do. We are not manufacturing the sign; Payless has a national sign manufacturer and all we do is install for them all around the city. Of course I would have to speak to them, but I think they would be receptive to that, because they realize Payless wants the visibility. Ms. Manis commented we always wonder why we have sign people coming in to make decisions for the owners. Mr. Syfert added itís so important, but itís not important enough for them to be here. Ms. Manis continued it happens all the time, and I wondered if you had authority. Ms. Wilson said I think this was more a situation of them being out of town and vacation schedules; I couldnít really answer that 100%.

Ms. Manis asked if a ground sign would work better than a pole sign in that situation. If the trees are in bloom and the bowling alley sign is blocking it, something on the ground might work better.

Mr. Wilson commented there are three ways to get into that area. The first is the same alleyway going back toward the bowling alley. There is a little cut that some people use to come out and head west, and the third is the main one going into the mall itself. The eastbound driver has three ways of getting in there, although the one in the middle is not too cool. They have two good ways of getting in.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Wilson continued I have a problem with the overage in terms of the letters. At this point, Iím not comfortable with signs of that size because theyíll want to move the existing signs on the walls up to that white border as well. Iíd feel more comfortable if we could do something with the pole sign or reduce the lettering on that sign. We really are looking at seeing the sign a lot closer anyhow, and I would think that would give them adequate time to come over into the left lane and make one of two turns, either at the bowling alley or at the entrance to Princeton Plaza. I have a concern about the signs being that big; I donít think I can support that overage. I would rather see us do something with the pole sign if the ordinance would allow it. Either back it up further or do something to give it visibility, because it appears that the bowling alley sign is blocking it. Maybe what they could do is hook up with the bowling alley and put both signs together if that is allowable; I donít know. Maybe we need to investigate that from the city and if the owner would accept that.

Ms. Wilson reported I have not known the City of Springdale to allow a sign of that nature, where both businesses can retain the same size that they have right now. Mr. Wilson responded I understand; my comment was maybe we could do something with the pole sign to solve the problem. Ms. Wilson stated if it hasnít changed in the last year or so, it was 72 square feet and 30 feet overall height for a pole sign, and that was a single tenant pole sign. I donít know what the individual regulations are for multi-tenant signs.

Mr. Blake commented I too am very hesitant with regards to a sign this large. One of my reasons is a lot of people in this area are familiar with a discount shoe store being there, so in my mind I cannot see the need for having a sign that size. I think if it were reduced it would work fine, but I think this is a little overkill.

Mr. Sullivan stated I think the number of entrances is pretty much a moot point if they donít see the sign. At any number of times on Kemper Road it does become very difficult to switch lanes going either east or west. As far as putting that sign on the bowling alley marquee, with the height of the lowest elevation of their sign, if you would put anything below that, you wouldnít be able to see it coming off Kemper Road anyway. I wouldnít say I am violently opposed to it, but that does seem like an awfully large sign. Is there any type of compromise, maybe going to 20 inch letters instead of 22 inch?

Ms. Wilson responded that is possible, and I am sure that Payless will probably go with whatever the board would recommend. A 22 inch letter is only going to take you from 44 square feet to 35 square feet. When you figure the square footage, you draw the box outside, so you have air space in there and you are going from the top of the P to the bottom of the Y when you figure square footage. So when you reduce this by an inch or two inches, it doesnít really reduce that square footage a considerable amount. Mr. Syfert commented the big name adds something to the requirements.

Mr. Galster said if in fact this pole sign isnít visible from the eastbound sign, and I know it is visible westbound, how visible is the front side from westbound traffic? If we eliminate the pole sign, and maybe have the two building signs, maybe that gets you the visibility from both sides that you are looking for.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page Ten


Ms. Wilson stated the building sign becomes visible when you are almost right up to the property. You see the pole sign from the intersection of S.R. 747 and Kemper; you donít see the wall signs or the front building sign; you have to be fairly close to the building to see that.

Mr. Syfert asked Ms. Wilson if it would make any sense for the chair to entertain your request to table this for 30 days, and you go back to the owners and tell them our concerns? Maybe thereís a better way to build a mousetrap. Ms. Wilson answered I think that is probably our best bet right now. Obviously, I canít answer for them. Iíll be honest and tell you that I doubt theyíll want to get rid of their pole sign because there is a pretty big expense in a pole sign. You have the concrete in the ground and everything, and even to move it would be about as much as a whole new pole sign, to dig a new foundation and set new steel and everything like that.

Ms. Wilson said as far as smaller letters on the side of the building, what would you suggest, 30 square feet or a 20 inch letter?

Mr. Syfert answered what would happen if you just used Payless, or Payless Shoe Source, and take off the Payless Kids? What happens when you do that? Ms. Wilson said you mean take the kids off the front of the building? Mr. Syfert said thatís on the front, and weíre okay on the front. I guess what I am saying is maybe we should look at some alternatives.

Ms. Wilson asked if we could do that and come back to the next meeting in August? Mr. Syfert confirmed this, adding she would be under Old Business on the agenda.

Ms. Manis commented I can see the need definitely and it looks like the perfect place to put a sign on that wall, but then we would be concerned about that big wall there with Borders putting their name on the back, because they have no exposure from Kemper Road, and so on down the line there. There is a lot of space for Borders to put their name on that building. I can understand your point. Ms. Wilson responded at the same time they have that big pole sign right at the intersection too. Ms. Manis commented that doesnít give you time to turn in there either.

Mr. Sullivan added she made the point earlier and it is very valid, that once you pass the Payless, within a mile and a half you have about two or three other discount shoe stores, so if you miss that, you will probably not be inclined to turn around; you would head down to one of the other ones.

Mr. Syfert said to Ms. Wilson that he would entertain her request to table this to next month, which would be August 8th.

Ms. Wilson asked if she should communicate with Payless and if they come to a decision submit drawings to Bill so he can get you copies of it before the meeting? Mr. Syfert said definitely, the sooner you can communicate with Bill, the better off we are.


Mr. Syfert stated in your packet you have a copy of the 14 February 1984 Planning Commission minutes whereby we extended to the chairman the authority to handle these signs on his own.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 July 1995

Page 11


Mr. Syfert continued it seems to me that we should have something a little more current than 1984 shown on the form. Does everyone understand with what goes on, or does anyone have any problems with what the chairman does in reviewing the signs with Bill McErlane and giving the approval without bringing them here? Does anyone have a problem with that?

Mr. Wilson responded I do not have a problem. As long as they conform and are in compliance and everything is in order, it is not necessary to bring them to us.

Mr. Syfert reported we look at if they meet the code and are not objectionable colors, we pass off on them. If there are any objections, they would be brought before this commission.

Ms. Manis moved to update the form to say July 1995 and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the motion was passed with six affirmative votes.


A. Dickís Clothing & Sporting Goods-975 E. Kemper Rd. - wall sign

B. D & P Shoe Repair Outlet - 11628 Springfield Pike - wall sign


Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would be absent at the August meeting on August 8th? Mr. Galster reported he will be on vacation and Mr. Syfert added he also would be on vacation.

Mr. Blake moved for adjournment and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,


____________________,1995 _________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



____________________,1995 __________________________

Steve Galster, Secretary