13 JULY 2005
7:00 P.M.


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


Members Present:        Tom Vanover, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster,
Tony Butrum, David Okum and Chairman Syfert.   

Members Absent:        Lawrence Hawkins III (arrived at 7:08 p.m.)

Others Present:        Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator
                Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer
                Anne McBride, City Planner


Mr. Vanover moved to adopt the Minutes and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.


A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster reported that Ordinance 22-2005 which amended the Zoning Code regulating parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential districts was approved by Council.

B. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – April 19, 2005
C. Zoning Bulletin – May 10, 2005
D. Zoning Bulletin – May 25, 2005
E. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2005
F. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2005
G. Ordinance No. 22-2005 Amending Section153.480 of the Zoning Code Regulating Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment in Residential Districts
H. Planning Partnership Update – June, 2005



A. Canopy Addition and Exterior Façade Alterations – Kemper Square, 107-139 West Kemper Road

Joel Pence reported that this needs an update, and we are proposing extending the canopy. It is currently four feet, and we are adding another four feet for a total of eight. We are adding columns and tower elements.

There are a number of vacancies, and we are having difficulty filling them because of the visibility of the center and its somewhat dated appearance.
13 JULY 2005


Mr. Pence added we are trying to have a little bit more of a presence on Kemper Road and Northland Boulevard.

You can see that we are adding three towers, one on either end and one in the middle. There will be a center sign on either side, and each sign would be 35 square feet. As we sign the leases, the new tenants’ signs will be individual lettered signs rather than the box signs now on the building. Initially the current tenants’ signs will be moved forward.

I have a sample board showing primarily an EIFS façade with three colors and an awning which will be either navy blue or forest green. The awning will not be illuminated.

Another concern was the screening of the rooftop units. We are raising the parapets slightly to hide them.

There also was a concern about some plantings at the east side of the center. They are overgrown arbor vitae and we want to remove and replace them.

Mr. Pence handed out a landscape plan. One of the reasons for not being able to fill some of these spaces is lack of visibility. Currently we have trees along here that are overgrown and not providing quite the visibility we would like to have on Kemper and Northland. We are proposing to remove those trees and replace them with smaller trees and a lot more plantings to add color. Currently it is mostly grass in the front.

The sidewalk needs to be replaced and we are proposing to replace the sidewalk and add two inches to it. Now it is about two inches below the interior slab. The parking lot acts as retention, and this would only help that. We are not proposing to do anything to the parking itself; we are not adding square footage to he building. We are just providing a bigger canopy.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business (GB) and is used as a retail center with 31,000 square feet of leasable space in two buildings.

The applicant is proposing to construct a canopy addition. It varies a little bit in distance, but it is approximately eight feet from the ace of the building. There is a tower element that connects the two buildings together in the front. There are also two additional tower elements at each end of the building. The finish of the new canopy will be an EIFS with an EIFS band that will be constructed at the top of the brick at the east building wall.

There are two Kemper Square walls signs proposed on the center tower element. Each is 3-10” x 9 or 34 ½ square feet. That with the existing ground signs that are 50 square feet apiece totals to 169 square feet. The applicant indicates that the current tenant signs are approximately 557 square feet, so the total for the center would be 726 square feet, and the allowable is 862 square feet

13 JULY 2005


Mr. McErlane reported that the overall footprint for the resulting building will be approximately 35,300 square feet. However there is no increase in leasable area or impervious surface.

There was some discussion about removing some of the mature trees and planting additional trees. We haven’t had the opportunity to look at the planting plan or how it impacts the existing trees. A number of those trees are in the public right of way and we will need some indication of which trees they plan to remove. Removal of those trees would require some replanting. Some of the trees in the right of way are impacted by utility lines.

Mr. Pence said we want to improve the appearance of the center, but we want to be able to have some visibility to the center, which a lot of these trees are preventing.

Mr. Galster said I drive by probably 10 times a day, and I like the fact that it gets broken up by some trees. Are there any trees that are unhealthy and need to be taken out, or can they all be trimmed back a little bit?

Mr. McErlane said the pears could be limbed up a little bit. Mr. Galster commented I can see underneath most of the trees to see the tenants, but if I am coming down Kemper Road going west, I can’t see around the corner.

Mr. Okum said some years ago the original owner had removed all the Bradford pears from the front of the building, and Planning Commission directed them to replace them with Alberta spruce trees. The owners put in two-foot high spruces along the front for each of the 12 to 15 foot Bradford pears. Subsequently the owners had taken out the spruces and replaced them with concrete pads. Except for the city’s trees with low limbs, the trees on the berm or mounded area could be trimmed up a little bit. Actually through most of them you can see pretty well. There are two evergreens that obstruct the view of the building, and there is one Bradford pear on Northland Boulevard that looks in bad shape.

Without staff having the opportunity to review the landscape plan, it would be inappropriate for us to take any action on the landscape plan submitted this evening. I want staff to do that, but I also would like to comment that the one thing this site is missing is a screening of the front to complement the front of the building.

Mr. Coleman said this says the current property has 31,045 s.f. of leasable space in two buildings, and the proposed single building has approximately 35,296 s.f. There is no increase in leasable area but there is a difference of 4,250-odd square feet. Where is that space?

Mr. Pence answered the increase comes in the fact that we are adding another four feet along the whole length of it and increasing the canopy. But, there is no increase in leasable space.

13 JULY 2005


Ms. McBride said on the sample board you gave out, you have awning fabric #2 which is green, and that does not show up on the elevations you submitted. Mr. Pence answered we still are trying to decide which color to go with. I wanted to present both of them as options.

Ms. McBride said right now they have a mixture of signs, some box and some channel cut letter signs. He indicated that all the new tenants would use the channel cut letters and we would suggest Planning make that a part of any approval that they might be giving for continuity.

Staff had concerns about the visibility of the mechanical units, particularly when you are westbound on West Kemper; they are very visible. The applicant has indicated that with these improvements they will be screened so that is an improvement.

There is a line of mature arbor vitae along the east side of the building that forms a nice break to that blank wall. I understand with the improvements that they may need to be removed. We just received the landscape plan tonight and need to take a hard look at it but I don’t know that the plant material they are proposing along there will do the same kind of job so we may need to work with the applicant on that.

Under the site preparation, they indicate the removal of 15 trees and the grinding of 15 stumps. That would be all of the trees. The plan you submitted this evening doesn’t show where the right of way line is so we don’t know whose trees are ours and whose are yours and it doesn’t indicate the size of the existing trees. The plant material proposed doesn’t match the plant material on this plan, so we need additional information before we can proceed much further reviewing this. We would recommend that landscaping and tree removal be left off any approval this evening.

Mr. Galster said I think the face lift to the building is a tremendous improvement, but I would rather see those trees remain with maybe some additional signage, very low and out in the bermed area that could help improve your tenant visibility. There might be a row of hedges in front of the cars with maybe three-foot tall signage mounted into the berms to give you additional tenant identification. I would rather see more signage than lose the trees, because they offer a lot to the site as well.

Mr. Vanover said where that rental sign is setting on the right hand side would be a good location; you would pick up eastbound Kemper and Northland Boulevard.

I think your façade, tower element and color change will bring a lot of visibility to the center itself. But I would ask that before we take out trees we look at limbing some of them.

Mr. Butrum asked where the feedback comes from, prospective tenants? Mr. Pence answered it is from the prospective tenants and the leasing agents.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Butrum asked if there were a particular area of more concern than others. I drove down Kemper and didn’t see a problem. It seems like some of the trees get bushy on the Northland side. Mr. Pence answered it is the Northland end that is of concern. The way the building is currently configured, it has to wrap around Northland and you lose that presence on Kemper directly. Mr. Butrum added I like the improvements and think they will actually provide better contrast for even the current tenants in terms of signage.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that this is one of the few sites in the city that has on parking lot detention that was resurfaced. There are a number of issues which they took care of. By doing that they reduced the height of the sidewalk above the parking lot to as little as two inches in some locations, and the raising of the sidewalk by two inches will significantly help the situation.

Mr. Okum said on the roof section that will extend, will there be downlighting on it? Mr. Pence answered yes. Mr. Okum said one of the things that would help would be to give that enough light that you could see those storefronts, because it is fairly dark.

You said you would be replacing the box signs with individual letters, some of those boxes are as old as the center. Many times a sign company will not guarantee the replacement of the existing box. Would the owner buy a new sign box for the tenant or do individual lit letters and work a deal with the tenant to replace with the new lettering?

From the audience, Mark Rippe the owner said we try to get them to put up a new sign instead of replacing the box which is rusted out. Normally we work with the tenant to have a new channel lit sign put up, but we are not responsible for the tenant signage. It is our responsibility to move the sign but we have had that come up in another center where we had to work out something with the tenant because the sign box was deteriorated. Mr. Okum responded I’m pretty sure these are.

Mr. Okum said when you submit your final landscape plan, in my mind there are still some trees that have been removed from the site that were not replaced and I will be looking for replacement.

Are you changing any of the lighting, parking lot, field or any on the building? Mr. Pence answered we will have down lights on the building but we are not touching the parking lot lighting.

Mr. Okum asked if staff would be comfortable with a motion excluding trees and landscaping, and indicating that there would be no issuance of a building permit until the landscaping has been approved by Planning Commission?

Mr. McErlane responded if that is a condition you want to put on that is fine. Mr. Okum commented I think it ties together, especially since we are talking about tree removal. Mr. McErlane commented they wouldn’t be removing trees until they got an approval on it.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Rippe said that will put a constraint on us. I can’t live with that because we want to start on this now. I can’t wait until next month. I think we can work things out with the city on the landscaping. I think the hedges they show on that drawing do screen the parking lot more than what you are asking for.

I am hearing that the building is 30% vacant right now and we are having trouble leasing. The biggest complaint is the fact that the signage is poor, especially from Northland Boulevard. People are coming from outside the area and it is difficult corner I am dealing with and it is a concern. I am here to improve the visibility for the tenants in the building.

Mr. Galster said I don’t have any problem approving the modifications to the building as you have submitted them and leaving the landscaping as a separate issue. I understand your concern, and I think there are creative things that can be done. I think this is a major improvement and I think it will help tremendously separate from the landscaping issue.

Mr. Okum said if that is the position of Planning Commission, I will concur with that and I would like to move that the proposed Kemper Square renovation project be approved to include the specifications and designs contained in the exhibits presented. This would include all staff, city engineer and city planner’s recommendations, the mechanical units shall be screened from view from the public right of way, that there shall be no lit awnings on the new development and that the landscaping shall be reviewed and submitted to Planning Commission for consideration at a later time, along with tree preservation and any replacement of trees. All elevations shall fall under the color pallet that has been submitted and all new signage on the building shall be channel cut individual lit letters as presented by the applicant.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Butrum asked if the motion could be amended to say that the awning will be one of two colors. Mr. Okum answered it was part of the color pallet, so I figured it would tie it to one of those two colors.

Stan Ladrick of RSL Architecture said the proposed improvements are for three sides of the building. The rear of the building will remain as it is.

Mr. Okum said then I will change the motion to say all three building elevations, excluding the rear.

All voted aye and approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. Final Transition Plan – Proposed Dental office, 311 West Kemper Road

Jeff Pearson of Childress & Cunningham said we received staff comments of June 24th, responded to them and now have the July 8th comments.
13 JULY 2005


Mr. Pearson said there is still a question about the parking count. We clarified the size of the building and have 39 parking spaces, but if 40 is required, we do not have a problem with that. We would add one space on the west side.

On landscaping, there continues to be a question about mulch across the rear of the building, and we intend to put a grass apron across the back.

To screen the mechanical equipment, we will provide a hedge line to do that but it seems like the request is to do some kind of a screening structure, and we do need clarification on that.

On the tree removal, at one point we had the replacement caliper down to 140 inches, and there was concern about one tree just outside the building footprint on the west side and some concern about grading. We made adjustments and are up to 151 ½ and the landscape plan has been adjusted to provide that much replacement.

We were hoping to get some resolution on signage. There seemed to be a split opinion on doing two smaller sized signs versus one larger sign. It is our preference to do the two smaller signs and we have submitted that for approval. They are slightly irregularly shaped, so the actual area is 16 s.f. but you count from the outermost point and that totals 19.7 s.f.

There is a comment regarding mulch beds around the sign and we need clarification on this. There also was a question about the sidewalk. There had been a request to bring the pedestrian sidewalk from the sidewalk along Kemper down into the site. The suggestion was to bring it in more toward the middle and towards the center of the building. The comment now is that it might conflict with the berm strategy. We have a clump of existing trees here that we want to maintain, and the sidewalk would go between the berms. We thought it would work better there.

I spoke with the civil engineer, and I think we are working toward complying with all his requirements. There may be a couple of issues that would require a meeting, i.e. the entry apron and the detention volume.

There was a comment about sewer capacity, and I thought we had submitted that. There was a drainage map and calculations.

The consolidation requires vacating the north portion of the alley and as we understand it, it is Springdale’s initiative to do that and then we are prepared to do it.

We have a letter from MSD for the tap permit. The sewer relocation for the property on Cherry Street is in progress. There also was a comment about potential conflict between trees and the routing of the storm sewer, which I think we can accommodate.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. McErlane reported that City Council approved the preliminary development plan on 5/18/05. The applicant is proposing to construct a 7731 s.f. one-story medical office building on 1.57 acres. The preliminary plan showed 7400 s.f., and the new area is 7420 s.f. net, which is the difference between the thicknesses of the walls around the perimeter of the building. The plans now show a basement that was not indicated on previous plans.

They meet all the requirements for setbacks with the exception of the pavement to the east property line, which has a 0 setback. The pavement previously encroached over the property line, and it is our understanding that particular drive will be a shared drive between this development and the next one.

We compared things as we would in an OB District, and the maximum height in OB Districts is 48 feet. The drawings show 35’-6 ½ “to the top of the cupola on the building. The maximum impervious surface ratio is .7 and the impervious surface ratio is shown at .55. Forty parking spaces are required and 39 are shown with revision for six additional spaces in the future if necessary. Two handicap spaces are required and three are shown.

It would be staff’s recommendation that if 40 spaces are not required by the applicant, they build the 39 spaces and make the provision for additional spaces should they be necessary. We would rather not see a paved surface if it is not necessary.

The east alley right of way needs to be vacated by the City for this development, and the private sanitary sewer lateral for the property at 332 Cherry Street needs to be relocated.

Tree removal plans show a total of 503 caliper inches of Category I trees which are overstory hardwoods. Two hundred caliper inches of those are in the footprint of the building and are exempt from replanting, which leaves a required replanting balance of 151.5 inches of Category I trees.

The landscape plan shows a total of 151.5 inches of a mixture of Categories I II and III. In the past, Planning Commission has allowed that deviation, primarily because Category II trees are not that common in terms of natural trees around here (evergreens). Category III (ornamentals) typically aren’t there unless they have been planted there. So in the past Planning has allowed substitutions for those categories. There are some grading issues that need to be tweaked to lessen the impact on some of the existing trees that will remain.

There are two ground signs shown. At 4’7” in height, each sign is 19.4 s.f.

There are a few things in the covenants that need to be modified. They say 35 feet for a maximum height but it is 35-6” to the top of the cupola so it should be changed to 36 feet. There is a statement that the building elevations shall be subject to approval of the Springdale Building Department and that should be changed to the Springdale Planning Commission.
13 JULY 2005


Mr. McErlane stated that there is a paragraph about the signs that say that the two signs will be 16 square feet but in the same paragraph says that they will be 50 square feet per side, so that needs to be modified to match what is approved for signage.

Ms. McBride reported that the building is a little over what was initially approved, and the applicant has explained that this is the gross at 7,731 s.f. It is 10.8% of the building site, and they have an impervious surface area ratio of 55% which is under what is permitted.

There are 40 parking spaces required and they have 39. This commission can to vary that number, and if the applicant feels comfortable with the 39 we should leave it at that. They do have the six spaces they could add at a later date if they needed to.

A basement is being designated for 50% of that building footprint. It is accessible from an exterior stairway and an interior stairway. It will be utilized for storage only and we would ask that this be included in any approval.

They have two locations for mechanical equipment on the rear of the building. They indicate two holly bushes on the outer side of each of those units and I would leave that up to the commission if you think that is adequate screening. We thought there would be a fence or screen wall to go around those.

The grading plan does not show all the earthen berming indicated on the landscape plan. It does not indicate some of the earthen berming on the front of the property between the parking lot and West Kemper Road. It also does not indicate the two earthen berms in the southeast or the southwest corner of the site. The grading plan also does not adequately protect the existing trees that are to remain on the site.

They are showing two signs. Each would have 19 square feet per side. We don’t have any indication as to what the face of the sign will be made of. The signs are to be 4’-7” tall and will be located on brick and stone bases that are attractive. Both signs will be set back from the right of way of West Kemper 10 feet. The signs are not located in landscape beds as they had been on prior submittals. The covenants do call for the signs to be located in landscape beds, so we would ask that the landscape plan match the requirements of the covenants. We can work with the applicant on the issue of the mulch beds and the grass adjacent to the building and resolve that.

On the covenants, Section 2.2 indicates a maximum impervious surface area ratio of 60%. They are at 55% and staff feels that is a fair leeway. In Section 3.1, the signage amount needs to be clarified to be 19 square feet per side or whatever Planning decides to approve.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Okum asked if it would be appropriate to include the basement area for files and storage and not occupational use in the covenants. Ms. McBride answered you could. Mr. Okum added I think it would be, considering they have indicated what it is going to be used for and it ties it to the covenants. Ms. McBride added you could do that or state it in reverse and say that the development is limited to 7,731 s.f. of occupiable building area.

Mr. Okum asked if the code requires that an awning canopy be over that staircase to the basement. Mr. McErlane responded not necessarily, but that is what typically is the case. Mr. Okum said you are saying that the building code doesn’t call for it. Mr. McErlane reported that the Building Code calls for some method to prevent the accumulation of ice and snow on it. Mr. Okum said then the applicant would have some type of structure to cover the staircase.

Mark Mullen the general contractor reported we have never had to protect it in the past, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need to be protected. I can see where ice or snow or even wet leaves could be a problem. I’m sure whatever needs to be done is what we will do for safety.

Mr. Okum said that is by the rear entry to your building, so it will be visible to the public that parks in the back. Mr. Mullen reported that the parking lot is more to the east. They would be able to see that, and that is very critical too. Mr. Okum commented we don’t have anything for that, and I would like to see it because it will affect the architecture of the building even though it is in the rear.

Mr. Mullen said if the elevation allows, we could extend the out further and column on top of the foundation walls. Mr. Okum said that would be fine with me. Mr. Mullen continued it probably would be nicer and consistent with the rest of the roof line. Mr. Okum said I think we could include something like the cover over the rear staircase shall be similar to the roof structure on the building in the motion.

Mr. Vanover said at some point of time someone might remodel the interior, and if you tie the square footage down, you tie their hands, However, if we put the basement in the covenants as storage only that allows the freedom the doctors may need in the future..

Dr. Onady said being the owner and tenant of the building, I would rather leave that as storage only. That is why we are doing this project, to get away from steps. Mr. Vanover added if you are amenable to putting that in the covenants, to me that is the cleanest way.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the site is proposed to have a public sidewalk along the Kemper Road frontage of the project. Because we have an unusual situation where we really don’t have a roadside ditch there and the area where the sidewalk would be constructed is about one to two foot higher than edge of pavement, we need some sections to verify that we will not adversely affect the roadside drainage.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Shvegzda added concerning the driveway profile, now we have a peak at the top of the driveway where we have a 14% grade rank, and eight per cent is the maximum you want to see. That will have to be modified, and we will work with the consultant on that.

The berm proposed along Kemper Road is shown to be about one foot high on the east end and two foot high on the west end. On the connection of the sidewalk from the public sidewalk into the site the grading plan differs from the landscape plan because it shows that berm to continue through there. That was a concern because the sidewalk was going up and down the berm. If there is going to be a break in the berm in that area, that should work. We had suggested moving it toward Hickory Street, assuming that the berm would be continuous through that area.

There are some existing trees along Kemper Road in the vicinity of where the proposed storm sewer will be constructed, we need clarification as to exactly where these are going to be in reference to the proposed construction.

The storm sewer calculations weren’t in our package so that is something that will have to be submitted for review.

On the detention calculations, we are very close and need to get together with the consultant to iron out a few of the detailed calculations.

We have the major storm flow that has to get down into the detention basin. It is noted as running down and out to Kemper Road, and that is not acceptable so we need additional calculations to show physically how it will get into the basin. That might mean that some of the inlets will need to be a little bit bigger to be able to handle that.

There is 400 feet of storm sewer to be constructed from the site to the next nearest point where the existing storm sewer is in place. The storm sewer calcs for this along with the maps are needed as well.

At the east terminus of the proposed storm sewer, there is a catch basin going east-west and north to tie into the existing storm sewer. That catch basin is shown in the middle of the existing drive apron and we want to have that in a manhole and have that outside of the catch basin.

Concerning the replacement of the sanitary lateral to the property on Cherry, one of the things that we will need to see is written permission from the property owner to do the work around that house.

The covenants note that there is a common driveway agreement with the adjacent property owner. The plans note that on the adjacent property, the driveway is to be moved from Kemper Road to some point to the south, and then tie into the proposed driveway for this site.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Shvegzda added there also is the question of how we want to handle the matter of the applicant getting written permission because there will be a certain amount of grading work required on the adjacent property as well.

Dr. Onady said I have a written statement from the property owner agreeing to everything you have brought up.

Mr. Okum said item 2.3 in the covenants it says “excepting connection with the construction and improvements of the property, no outside storage shall be permitted. The foregoing ..shall not prohibit dumpsters for the storage of garbage, refuse generated in the ordinary course of business located on the property.” Does that exclude them, or do they still need to have the dumpster enclosure and all garbage kept in the enclosure? It doesn’t say that in the covenants, but it does say that in our code.

Ms. McBride responded it says it in our code, and they have provided us with a dumpster enclosure detail and the location of the dumpster enclosure. It is a three-sided solid brick veneer on the outside with solid wood steel reinforced gates.

Mr. Okum said on the sign issue, I know the covenants said 50 s.f. per side. The applicant has presented 19 s.f. per side with a height of 4’-7”. Is that on top of the berm; where do the signs hit? I am more interested in where the sign level is compared to the sidewalk.

Mr. Pearson responded the signs are in front of the eastern berm. Mr. Okum said so it would be even with the sidewalk, that height above the level of the sidewalk.

Mr. Syfert wondered if the covenants didn’t require them to be in mulched beds. Mr. Okum said yes, but the covenants also say that the signs shall not exceed 50 s.f. and that would need to be changed if Planning agrees that the 19 s.f. per face is acceptable.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum commented there is a discrepancy between you and the architect on what constitutes an improved enclosure around the mechanical units. In my motion, I will include “mechanical units shall be screened in staff and Planning Commission’s approved enclosure and screening” and leave it for you to give the final approval. That way you can resolve the bush versus fence issue, or perhaps both.

Dr. Onady commented I think a fence around it would be ugly. I would rather have plantings around it, do it naturally. On the other side of the sidewalk, there are four or five bushes and a raised elevation. No neighbor will be able to see that the way we have it at this point.

On the signs, Mr. Galster said I am happy that the height has come down to a reasonable number. We need to find out what material the sign faces will be made of. I have no problem with that, and I also would like to thank the applicant for the patio look in the middle of the building.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Syfert asked if he were happy with two signs and where they are and Mr. Galster indicated that he was.

Mr. Hawkins asked if the signs would be illuminated and Mr. Pearson answered that there will be ground mounted lights illuminating the faces.

Mr. Okum said my concern is if the ground mounted signs would be a glaring issue. If I made the motion, I probably would indicate that they should conform to non glare standards so as not to affect the neighbors or those in the public right of way.

Mr. Vanover said I like the placement and size of the signs. There is enough leeway and space ahead of them that he can position the spots to shine back on them so it is not angled out toward the street.

Mr. Okum moved to approval the final development plan with the following conditions:

1. To include all staff city engineer & city planner recommendations

2. That the mechanical units shall be screened from view from adjoining properties and public right of way

3. The mechanical units shall also be in staff and Planning Commission approved enclosures and screening

4. That the parking areas be conditioned to allow for 39 parking spaces, with six future spaces in Phase II to be added at a later date

5. That all four building elevations shall be as presented, the exterior color pallet per the samples submitted.

6. The signage conditions shall also include lighting which shall conform to non-glare standards so as not to affect neighbors or those in the public right of way.

7. There shall be two ground-mounted signs and shall not exceed 19 s.f. each and 4’-7” tall.

8. The rear entry stair cover shall be covered with constructed materials consistent with the roof and trim systems on the building

9. Basement area shall be addressed by covenant and shall be limited to storage, a non-occupied space

10. Covenants shall be modified as referenced in staff reports.

Mr. Galster said you said the mechanicals should be in an enclosure, and I think they should be in enclosures and/or screening to meet staff’s approval. Mr. Okum responded I will so modify my motion to say that.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

All members voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.

C.    Exterior Façade Alterations – Carpet Outlet (formerly Bings), 11649 Springfield Pike

There was no one present to represent the applicant. Mr. Vanover moved to table the item and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to August 9, 2005.

D.    Zone Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan – Springdale Town Center, 11560 Springfield Pike

Cecil W. Osborn said 10 years ago when Doyle Webster was elected mayor we sat down and talked about priorities and his goals as mayor. The highest priority was for the city to become and involved in the redevelopment of the Springfield Pike Corridor.

Over the past 10 years we have launched a lot of studies regarding the revitalization of the corridor. We have developed concept plans about specific sites, including this one. We have assembled property to bring some of those projects about and we have undertaken environmental reclamation of those properties that we have acquired. We also have made a major investment in the streetscape.

The study that is the basis for this project is the 1997 study PK&G on the Springfield Pike Corridor and a critical planning assessment of that corridor. In that study, we looked back at the 1990 corridor plan and assessed where we had been successful and where we still needed to do work.

The critical areas were the northeast quadrant of the Route 4-Kemper intersection, the southeast quadrant and the area down to the south of the city on the west side of Springfield Pike across from Mapleknoll.

We acquired the former Burns property and brought about the redevelopment with UDF. We acquired the property across from Mapleknoll and have executed a sale of that property to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority and their proposed development should be kicking off at any time. They did get financial authorization last month so we are hoping to see that start yet this year.

This Town Center site is something we have been working on for quite a number of years. Specifically, in 2001 we had McBride Dale Clarion undertake an Old Town Springdale Land Use Study which laid out a concept plan for this site, pretty much the geographic area you see in this plan tonight.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Osborn reported one of the principal elements of that plan was that we were going to put the development up front and the parking in the rear and on the sides. Mayor Webster and I spent two years trying to find a developer who would agree with us to do that. We could not find a developer who would come in and undertake a project where they had to put the parking in the rear.

As a result we decided to select a preferred developer for this property. We set down certain parameters about the sale of the property to the developer and the interest the city had in terms of the quality of the development. In January of 2004 we selected and executed a preferred developer agreement with Myers White Cooper and the Bergman Group operating as Springdale Town Center LLC.

This was an easy decision. We had known Mr. Bergman for some time and he is honest and reliable and we always have been able to depend on him as a developer in this town.

We also took this opportunity to become familiar with Randy Cooper with Myers White Cooper. We went around to quite a number of his sites, I interviewed quite a number of city managers where he had done developments and got a very favorable response in terms of his reliability honesty and trustworthiness. As a result we entered into this agreement without hesitation.

That was 18 months ago, and a lot of effort has gone into the development of this site. This corridor historically is the center and life blood of our community. We want a project that will be a benchmark for every other development that we do along this corridor. We saw a sample of that with UDF. It was a site where we acquired the property and sold it to the developer, but I think we will surpass UDF with this project.

Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director of Springdale said it is good to be back promoting growth in the City of Springdale after 17 years.

One of the things I have found since last fall is an increasing reference to this project within the city and people related to the city as “our project” and this has resulted in a very strong team effort in bringing the project where it is today.

Most of what we will be talking about tonight is contained in the booklets you received. We are pleased to be working with the Cooper-Bergman group in a team effort which this has been.

It is unusual to have your own community speaking before you, but we are significant investors in the project and feel that there is a partnership going forward. There will be a switch off to the Springdale Town Center LLC at some point in the future when the property is actually sold to them and they will take over the development, but at this point it is a team effort and a partnership.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Tulloch reported I’m going to address two areas, the status of the land acquisition and the related matters. Any urban redevelopment project is infinitely more complicated than the Greenfield kind of development that most developers are used to dealing with.

Very often in a Greenfield development you are dealing with one owner; in this case we are dealing with 17 different owners. Also a Greenfield development is not dealing with environmental issues of any substance and in urban renewal projects you are, and we certainly are.

You deal with things like existing tenancies that you have to work through to obtain control of those properties, utility issues etc. etc. There are inherently more complicated.

The good news is at this point with respect to the Town Center project, all properties have been purchased or are under contract. A total of 17 properties have been acquired. The most recent closing was on the Shipps property. The only remaining property is the Schwab property which is under contract and we expect to close that in July.

Springdale Cleaners has been acquired, demolished and is undergoing remediation. There was an environmental issue there, and it could be three to six months before it is remediated.

We will be closing on the Schwab property at the end of this month tentatively. We have two tenants in that building and have agreements to move those tenants (Domino’s and Tri-City Cleaners) into the project. Fogel will be upgrading the laundry and will be moving into the center as well. There will be parameters placed upon him in terms of the nature of that operation.

There are four tenants on the Shipps property. One tenant is Gary Howard of State Farm who has acquired the property on West Kemper (Todd Property). Angilo’s is planning on moving into the project on Northland Boulevard (former Beans & Bubbles). Her concern is that she can’t afford to do two moves and in this case she probably would have to do that.

We have been very sensitive to tenant needs. I just received notice that the pet grooming place is leaving and Joyce and Millard Morgan hope to be able to stay in that building and move to the center. So it is conceivable that one of the Shipps buildings may stay and we would demolish the other. The Fogel building will stay until completion and they will move into the center and we will come back and demolish that front building. (indicated on the aerial photo).

Mr. Tulloch reported that CDS has secured utility availability for the project. When we transfer the properties to the LLC, we will want to do that by consolidation of the plats so that when we transfer it to them it will be the entirety of the property with the street vacations, etc.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Tulloch said that the City will be doing a modification to the streetscape to be consistent with the plan. The majority of the outflow of the storm water will go along Peach Street so we anticipate that we will need to expand the Peach Street storm sewer.

There were considerable negotiations in the final stages of dealing with some of these owners and tenants, and we have been successful in pulling it all together.

What we are requesting tonight is that the Planning Commission recommend to Council the rezoning of the property from its current General Business, GB and Residential Single Household – High Density RSH-H to PUD and the approval of the development plan associated with the PUD.

There are a number of areas (Section 3 in the booklet) which deviate from the code that we request be approved under the PUD.

The code suggests that the parking be in the rear and the buildings in the front. I know Cecil met with six or more developers who said that it was practically infeasible to attract tenants to that kind of situation in this environment. So we are asking that this requirement be waived.

Secondly, the maximum permitted impervious surface area is 85%. We are somewhere between 84.1 and 86.5%. The number does not take into consideration that this portion of the property (indicated on drawing) will be reserved to the City but is part of the project. We would ask that you waive that requirement; it is a fairly nominal amount with a mitigating circumstance.

Item 3.13 refers to a “minimum of 20% of the gross area of the development be common space”. My understanding is that really pertained more to residential projects or common areas in the center of the project and may not be as applicable to a commercial project. As such we request the waiver of that requirement.

Item 3.14 distances between curb cuts – despite the fact that we are as little as 120 feet versus the requisite 200 feet, in one case it is a right in right out only on Kemper, and Peach is a marginally traveled street and should not create any adverse traffic conditions.

The tower is 36 feet, and the maximum building height is not to exceed 35 feet. I think that is a nominal difference and we would request a waiver for that.

3.1.6 refers to 60% of all sides of the buildings must be brick or stone. In fact, the rear of the building is going to be a split face architectural concrete. This is because there is a screen wall along the rear of the project which is between five and six feet high. If you consider a site line from Walnut Street up to the building, given the height of the screen wall plus the plantings, you really are not going to see much of that rear wall. It boils down to a cost issue and we would request a waiver of that requirement.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Tulloch stated that on the dumpster enclosure there is an issue that they be fully screened from public view and be at least five feet from the property line. Because of the tightness of the site, the dumpsters end up being right at the property line, but it is the only place we can really practically put them. On the closure doors, four of the five dumpster locations are in areas where they would not be visible to the public. There is one down at the far north end of the project that would be visible and would receive the screen door, but our preference is not to do the screen doors on the other four and we request this waiver.

Item 3.1.8 permits two monument signs with faces of not more than 200 feet and Randy is requesting that they have the ability to do three signs with face areas of 62 feet, so that would be 186 square feet, under the total allowable but one more than permitted. One would be at the main entry off Springfield Pike, one at Peach Street and one located at the right in right out only at West Kemper. So we would need a waiver to that.

We looked at parking in two different ways, the code requirements for shopping centers and on a per use basis. We came up with a need for 254 parking spaces which produces a ratio of about 5.6 spaces per 1,000 s. f. of building area. This seems to fall well within industry standards, although the city code requires 263 spaces, so we are slightly under the requirement. We ask for a waiver to that.

Finally with respect to these exceptions, the Tree Preservation Ordinance requires that trees that are removed from the site be replaced at one caliper inch for each caliper inch removed, except those in the footprint of the building.

The proposed project will result in the loss of 431 caliper inches. The landscape plan produces 280 caliper inches or a 151 caliper inch difference. We think it is a good landscape plan; we worked with Ms. McBride’s consultant to come up with the plan. We would propose to make some contribution to the Urban Tree Fund and perhaps giving us some recognition of the screening that would result from the brick wall in the back.

In the Building Department comments, we either agree with or have complied with them. On the engineering comments, we either agree with or have complied with those comments, although there was some communication problem between the TGA, the engineer for the project and CDS, and TGA will comply with the determinations of CDS with respect to calculation of storm water runoff.

On the planning comments, we agree with or have complied with Anne’s comments with the exception of a number of issues, and I don’t need to go through these in detail. We do not view these as crucial issues. There are variations in perspective, and we are certainly open for discussion of those.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Galster said in your 3.1.2 on the impervious surface ratio, do your calculations include the future building in the southwest corner? Mr. Tulloch said that was taken into consideration.

Randy Cooper of Myers Y. Cooper Company said I would like to talk about some of the reasoning behind the way this project has developed to give you some background.

It is a 5.35 acre site and there are four buildings that remain on the property as of this date. We are going to try to maintain a couple of them through construction so that the businesses can continue to operate until the new structures are completed. We then would move those tenants into the new buildings and demolish the old buildings.

The sites along Springfield Pike are zoned General Business (GB)
and the back is residential. There are 16 ways to get in and out of this property, and we have reduced that to one entrance on Springfield Pike, another on Peach Street and two on West Kemper. The reason there are two on Kemper is because this is intended for vehicular traffic for the customers, but we need to get the service vehicles in and out as well. The engineer recommended that this be right in and right out because of its proximity to the intersection.
During this process it was determined that maybe Walnut Street should be stopped so it will no longer be a through street.

We position our properties to the back for a number of reasons. For customers coming up and down Springfield Pike, we want them to see that there are parking spaces near the business that they want to visit. The most important concern is security, because in the evening times if we are outside the general traffic and hidden from view there is that concern. The other reason for having the parking in front is because it keeps the vehicles, pedestrians and traffic noise away from the residences.

Forty-five thousand square feet is what fits on the site trying to balance the parking needs of the property and trying to make something that is economically feasible. There are no big box users here. We only have 65 to 70-foot depths and it is designed for independent entrepreneurs, retailers and service oriented businesses.

There is a position for an outlet, potentially a restaurant or a financial institution. It could also be a bank or a day care or something like that.

We are not going to go head to head with Tri-County. We figure that the people of Springdale in the immediate two to three mile radius are our customers.

We have tried to create a pedestrian friendly site. In one of my other centers, we have a main entrance off a busy street and we have created a boulevard, a deep entrance which will be landscaped on both sides for a welcoming appearance and a nice walk in from Springfield Pike.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Cooper said in another center that my family developed in Montgomery, there was a large subdivision behind it, and we created a walkway from that subdivision into the shopping center. We started off with a six-foot walkway and it is now 20 feet, so we can sit down and relax in that area. It does create the opportunity for people to walk to that center.

Originally we were going to use the whole parcel as our shopping center site and create easements and agreements so that the City could accomplish what they wanted in this corner. Ultimately it was decided to grant that to the City, so it is part of the site, but it is not part of the site. It is about 5,000 square feet, whether or not you include it in the calculations for the impervious surface ratio.

We also have a nice planting area at Peach Street, about 3600 feet and there is 7,000 feet back here. Each corner brackets this site with landscaping opportunities. Also it was decided to bury all the detention and create more of a buffer.

I started in property management, and we learned that if the dumpster is full, people tend to throw garbage next to it. Also if you start gating them, they might not even open them. They’re just going to throw the garbage in there, which is a nightmare.

With the exception of Krogers and CVS, our company does not allow our tenants to have their own dumpster contracts. In some shopping centers, if you have 20 tenants, you have 20 dumpsters of different sizes and pickups; it is a mess. We have one dumpster contractor, and it is actually cheaper for the businesses because it is one contractor and it is organized. We think the plan we have presented will create a cleaner and healthier environment for Springdale.

There is a wall that runs the length of the back and screens the back of the center from view of the homes on Walnut which is extensively landscaped

We created a model to give you some sense of the scale of the project and what we were trying to accomplish. It is all residential in appearance with the pitched roofs and a tower. This is the Springdale Town Center, and we think it should have a tower. They are all pitched roofs with the exception of the area around the tower. That is the area that we anticipate will be a restaurant and restaurants need to have exhaust hoods etc. That is best accomplished with flat roofs, so we have a flat roof with a screen wall along the back so the equipment will be hidden from view.

Usually with commercial buildings you have rooftop mounted heating and air conditioning equipment. With those pitched roofs, we can’t really put the equipment up there and you would lose your residential appearance if you put these cantilever platforms up to hold the equipment. So we will go with residential type equipment, a split system. You will have furnaces inside the spaces and condensers outside. The site plans identify the locations of those condensers. There is only about a 75-foot limit on the supply lines for the condensers, so we have had to juggle where those go.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Cooper reported there is a cluster of condensers at the south end and another set in the pedestrian walkway from Walnut and another group at the north end of the large building. In the small free-standing building, there are two units on each side. The package shows how those are screened and I think we have come up with a solution to the architectural problem that we created for ourselves.

I think we have enough parking. I am a little nervous about having dedicated all of my main driveway in front of the entrance to the restaurant, but that will create a great walkway along the front for people to shop the other stores going to and from the restaurant.

Because of our potential limitations in parking, Ms. McBride recommended that we exclude the medical use from our tenancies. I would like to be able to have some amount of medical use. It is very common in shopping centers to have some urgent care practices or pediatric practices in the project, and I would consider that limitation a hardship.

The site lighting was designed by the city engineer. We are going to continue to use the type of light fixture and post that is in the city streetscape program right now. The backs and sides of the building will have wall packs with house side shields that will block its view from the residences.

Each tenant will have channel letters on a raceway. I don’t want to have individual letters secured directly to the building. If you have a long tenant name, you will have 20 or 30 holes in the building, so we will have a raceway that is secured to the building with individual letters mounted on that.

We do have three signs; it is a long development, and we don’t want you to pass the development before you know that we are the Springdale Town Center

Generally the materials are all residential. The stone is only in the area of the restaurant. This is the split face tinted (passed it around) that would go on the back of the building. The brick will wrap around the ends.

Mr. Okum said you are showing the Carolina Hanson brick there and have Newport on our exhibit. Have you changed it? Mr. Cooper said we are using the Newport. Mr. Okum commented that he liked the Hanson better.

Mr. Osborn said we believe that these colors go together better than the original ones. Most of these changes in architectural material are at our request. For example, this roofing material will look familiar to you very shortly, because we are putting the same material on this building. We have to replace this roof and chose this shingle because it is also on UDF and CVS. We want to set a thematic trend in terms of roof material for the corridor, and while this original proposal was fairly close, we chose to use this.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Osborn added that the original brick didn’t quite match up as well with the stone. It also was a little more glazed and had a less textured finish so we asked the developer to come up with a more compatible brick. Mr. Cooper added the photograph is correct but the label Newport is not. Mr. Okum said so it is the brown tones. He asked if the awnings were green and Mr. Cooper said yes, along with the metal roof.

Mr. Butrum asked the percentage of the building that would be split face. Mr. Galster said the rest of the building would meet the 60% requirement; the back wall will only have split face. Mr. Butrum said the way it reads it sounds like we should deny that the 60% exists. Mr. Galster responded the request is that the requirement only be applied to the three sides that are visible from the right of way, not that it be a reduction of the 60%. If you look at what you see from the public right of way, you will see the landscaped wall which is made of the same brick. What you see as a pedestrian on the other side of that wall is the same brick that is on the other three sides of the building. The request is for three sides instead of four sides, not a reduction in the percentage.

Mr. Vanover commented I like the idea of taking the retention below ground. I personally love a pond, but they bring another aspect you would have to deal with in a retail center. I think this is a very good solution to the problem of the geese and gives you a nice green area to dress up that corner.

Mr. McErlane said they are asking for a portion of the property currently zoned General Business, and another portion that is currently zoned Residential Single Household – High Density to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and also requesting approval of the preliminary plan and referral to Council for rezoning and approval.

The property is also located in the Springfield Pike Route 4 Corridor Review District Subarea C. When we reviewed the requirements under the underlying zoning, we were looking at the Corridor Subarea C requirements. What is awkward about looking at those is they were intentionally written to develop 130 foot deep lots. That is why they only require 15 foot setbacks to buildings instead of 50 feet as we would for a larger lot. They only require five-foot setbacks for parking as opposed to 10 feet as we would require for other lots. They also permit an impervious surface ratio of .85 instead of .75 as we would on a GB lot.

This development actually meets both Subarea C requirements and the GB requirements for setbacks. With the exception of the future right of way along Kemper Road, it also meets requirements relative to setback for the parking.

On the impervious surface ratio, they show .841 and Ms. McBride pointed out that if you look at the area that will be dedicated to the City and take it out of the equation, it is a bit higher. As I pointed out. Subarea C requirements are .85 and GB would be .75.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. McErlane reported that the maximum building height for the Corridor District requirements is 35 feet. This development has a 36 foot high tower so there is a slight discrepancy there. Seventy per cent of the roof area has to be residential roof form, and although we don’t have calculations, it appears that requirement has been met.

At least 60% of all sides of the buildings have to be brick or stone. We have already discussed that the back of the building is intended to be split face block for the majority of it. If you look at the elevations at the end buildings where the wall discontinues, behind it those have been wrapped around for a certain distance in brick.
A section of the Corridor District requirements also calls for grassy front yard spaces and pedestrian furniture to be encouraged.

The mechanical equipment is to be integrated in the building design and screened from view. Most of the mechanical units are shown to be ground-mounted. At the larger building in the center of the site there is a section of flat roof that will have roof mounted equipment. The ground-mounted equipment is shown with screen fencing around it.

There are three ground signs shown and the Zoning Code permits only two ground signs. Those ground signs are limited to 100 s.f. each and seven feet in height. The applicant is showing three ground signs at 6’-11” and approximately 58 s.f. in area. The ground sign on Springfield Pike is closer than 10 feet to the right of way line and the wall signs are indicated to be individual letters.

There is a statement in the Corridor District that requires parking to be located in the side or rear yard unless the applicant can provide evidence that doing so would create an unnecessary hardship.

Based on the office being a non-medical office, the required parking spaces would be 263 spaces and 254 are shown. Seven handicap spaces are required and 10 are shown on the site. One of those needs to be a van accessible space.

Dumpster enclosure is required to be a minimum of five feet from the property lines. Although there are no dimensions, the drawings show 0 to one foot from the right of way line in the back.

If you look at the detail for the screen wall in the back of the building, we are recommending that the piers be at least another course of brick higher than what is shown to give it a little more dimension.

Concerning the trees on the site, the majority of them of any size are actually on the city park property. Some of them are in the city parking lot property at the south end of the site. There is one pretty sizeable tree that was on the Beezee Bikes property and a cluster of them behind the Springdale Cleaner site. The rest of them are kind of sparse.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. McErlane added in terms of what is being removed, for tree replacement we looked at sites that were existing commercial or previously commercial uses and considered those as redevelopment sites for the purpose of determining replacement requirements. We looked at those sites currently zoned residential as development sites. Replacement for development sites is one caliper for every two inches removed, and for redevelopment it is one caliper inch for every inch removed.

The total number of caliper inches required to be replaced on the site are 430½ caliper inches. There is one 30-inch tree that would require at least 15 inches of the trees to be 3½ inch caliper. The proposed landscape plan shows a total of 280 caliper inches so there is a shortfall of 150½ caliper inches. The planting plan does not indicate any 3½ inch caliper trees, so it would be our recommendation that at least five of those be bumped to 3½.

One of the things that the planting plan does not indicate is any ornamental variety trees, so there are no Category II’s indicated on the plan.

The Fire Department has asked for a private hydrant in the area of the main entry drive closest to the building on either one side or the other. I think the public hydrants are on the west side of Route 4, so access to those and access to the building from those is a pretty good distance.

There was a drafted covenants submitted. Paragraph 3.3 talks about allowed uses and prohibited uses and it is our recommendation that the outside storage or display be prohibited with the exception of sidewalk sales as permitted in our Zoning Code.

Paragraph 4.1 says that 60% of the side rear, which we thought meant side and rear, but there is another statement that says excluding the rear, so that language needs to be cleared up.

The last line in Paragraph 4.2 mentions the right of ways, Kemper and Hickory. Hickory Street should be Peach Street, Springfield Pike and Kemper Road. I think that relates to signs.

Paragraph 4.3 refers to each owner, and we raised this question before as to whether or not there will be multiple owners on this property, and we are not sure of that.

Mr. Okum asked the distance of the wall from the right of way line. Mr. McErlane reported that it is at the right of way line, and a big percentage of that right of way line. Mr. Okum said so it is pretty much on city property. Mr. McErlane answered it is pretty close. Mr. Okum asked how far the right of way line was from the paved surface.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Osborn answered it is approximately 10 to 15 feet, but it varies. The wall is there to give us maximum screening capacity. Frankly the wall was a substantial concession on the part of the developer. There is no requirement that there has to be a brick wall back there. The brick wall in terms of its size, complexity and distance from the right of way is not an issue for us. In fact, a lot of that landscaping that you see on the eastern side of the wall will be in the public right of way, and that is something we planned on from the beginning of the project.

Mr. Okum asked who would put the landscaping in, and Mr. Osborn answered the developer, and it will be the developer’s responsibility to maintain it. The only exception would be in the right of way we will block off Walnut at the north end. That has been part of this concept to control traffic for a couple of years. We will retain ownership of that right of way and as we get further into this, we will work out with the developer how we will maintain what landscaping we put in there. We have utilities in there as well.

Mr. Okum asked if there would be sprinklers and irrigation in any of that system. Mr. Osborn said we haven’t worked out the details, but keep in mind that we are at a preliminary plan level. We are trying to keep this process moving forward. There are a lot of answers we can give this evening, and there are a lot of answers that we won’t be able to give because we are not at that level of detail. It would be our hope that we could receive approval from you all this evening, take this issue to City Council for preliminary plan approval by them and come back in September with the detailed development plan.

Mr. Okum said I am asking if Planning Commission as a majority would like to see irrigation applied to the project…Mr. Osborn responded say that out loud, and we will make our best effort to incorporate it into the project. There may be some things that we won’t be able to say that to, but I think that is a viable and reasonable thing to look at.

I want you to be aware of this, and I think it doesn’t make a difference in terms of what we add or don’t add, but if you take the City out of this equation, this project is not economically viable. We are going to end up not getting our money back on this project in terms of what we’ve invested in land, what we’ve invested in environmental cleanup, and what we’ll invest in public infrastructure support to the site. We know that and have known that from the very beginning.

What we will do is negotiate the purchase price with the developer based on what we know to be the revenue flow that is possible off this site. We will establish a cap break for profit margin. We will factor in all his costs for the site development, and whatever we have left over is pretty much what we will be able to ask for the property. If we were to make this a totally commercial development, it wouldn’t be happening. So, things that we add to the site like sprinkler systems will be effectively reducing the amount of money we will receive from this project.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Osborn added I want you to be aware of that. I don’t think it should be a factor in what you ask us to look at. I would only ask that there be an appreciation for what we have already asked of the developer. We pretty well dictated to him the architectural style, the fact that there was no detailed relief in terms of articulating the building. We went to a couple of his sites and said we would like that and we don’t like that, etc.

That is also true of the finish material and the incorporation of the lighting. This site lighting is going to be double or triple the expense of a typical site lighting, because we are proposing the same fixtures that we are using out on the street on this site. We have already imposed a lot of things on this developer that he has agreed to, so it is not a matter of not being flexible. We are going to try to be flexible through the remainder of this process. There might be something unforeseeable that we can’t agree to, but our intention is to try to work out all the details as we move forward.

Mr. McErlane said I want to correct a statement I made. The majority of the wall is actually 5+ feet from the right of way line, at 0 feet is where it jogs in and around the dumpster enclosure.    Mr. Okum commented it is a little hard to tell on this drawing.

On the one big tree on the Beezee Bike land, is there any way it can be preserved and brought into the site?

Mr. Osborn answered we have tried to plot around it. Given its location, it would dramatically disrupt the internal flow of that site in terms of parking field layout. I would very much like to see that tree stay in place, but we cannot physically keep that tree. That site is very narrow front to back, and if you look at that parking field in front of the building, it is not that deep. So, if you carve out an area to protect that tree, you don’t have circulation. There is just not enough room left to create a parking field with circulation, so we had to abandon that. That was a topic that we tried to hold on to but it just didn’t work out.

Mr. Vanover said concerning the wall and the point about bringing the bricks one course, you could accomplish some additional height, save the brick and give some architectural points by going with the pyramid caps. That would give you a breakup rather than just a flat cap.

On the sprinkler system, I have seen some moves back to the old cistern, where you drop some of your storm water into that and use a reservoir to prime your landscape water. Essentially it is the same thing golf courses do, only they use ponds. In the articles I read they are bringing it back into residential. Like Mr. Okum, I would like to see the landscape sprinklered but I understand that it also is taking money out of my pocket.

The lighting on the back of the building is a concern. The wall would cut some of that off, but maybe you could move the light packs off the back wall of the building onto that brick wall, the wall itself.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Vanover added that way you would send the light back at the building and have less spillage. You might even be able to get away from wall packs and go to a spot type to light it. I don’t think we will have a big problem back there because of the wall, but it might be a more efficient lighting use. Lighting is one of our big concerns.

Looking at the picture, it puts in perspective the uniqueness and challenge of that site. It is a long narrow site, and I am impressed with what I have seen.

Mr. Galster said the ground mounted signs are shown at a height of 6’-11” and I would like to see it at 5’-11” instead. Seven feet seems so high to me.

On the wall, I think two layers of brick would be good, just to give it a little depth, not a half thickness of a brick, but a full brick or brick and a half to give it some substance.

I look at the aerial photo and think about the overall scope of the project. The quality is tremendous compared to what was there, and you should be commended for putting that all together.

Ms. McBride said on the impervious surface area, it has been stated that it ranges from 84.1% to 86.5%. I want to make sure that the commission understands that the difference is that the 84.1% includes the 10 feet of right of way along West Kemper that will be dedicated to the City that we would not consider as open space on any other development. There is the area at the northwest corner that is a little bit more gray that is actually property that is going to be deeded back to the City and will not be developed or planted other than what is there today. That is a bit of clarification on that issue.

On the dumpster locations, we have pointed out a number of inconsistencies, (the applicant said modifications) and these are items that the commission needs to acknowledge and take action on. We are not saying that they shouldn’t be approved, but that they should be at least recognized, because if you don’t do it on this development, you are going to be setting yourself up for problems with future developments.

That has to do with the five dumpsters to the rear of the building. It is a tight site, and they have tucked them into the screening wall which is fine but that has located them approximately one foot off the right of way. We do have a five-foot requirement that they be set back off a property line, so you will have to modify that.

We have a recently added requirement in our code that says all of these dumpsters have to be enclosed in a three-sided solid enclosure with solid wood gates which shall remain closed except when they are being serviced.


13 JULY 2005


Ms. McBride stated they have asked for relief on four of the five dumpsters. The covenants do provide for those gates on all five units, so there is a little bit of inconsistency on what they are asking for. Again, you need to take into account what kind of precedent you might be setting for other developments.

We did ask that they provide us with some hours of service, not only for the dumpsters but also for servicing deliveries and so forth to the center. They have done that, limiting it to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. which we think is appropriate.

On the privacy wall, it is still a little bit vague as to the height. It appears to range from five to eight feet in height, but we would like a little more clarification.

Right now the interior of the wall is proposed to be painted smooth block. We have a requirement in the code, and I think it is appropriate at this location because of the proximity of service vehicles and the opportunity for that wall to be hit or scraped, that the interior of the wall be constructed of the same material as the rear of that building and that it be tinted. I think that is an appropriate request.

We also have requirements in the code that the maximum height of a wall is six feet, so you’ll need to provide modification for that if in fact the wall is to exceed six feet in height, and I believe that it is.

We also have a requirement in our code that the minimum setback for a wall from a public right of way is three feet and as we have discussed there are areas where that wall is approximately one foot off the public right of way. So, you’ll need to provide a modification for that as well

At the southeast corner of the site the wall stops just about in line with the southern edge of the building. They have some planting in that area, but the commission ought to give some consideration to either adding some additional evergreens or extending that wall because we do have a single family residence there.

One of the things we talked about when we did the Old Town Plan was providing assurances to those folks that they weren’t going to be looking at the back end of retail buildings. I think that is a commitment that we need to follow through on.

The applicant has included most of the pedestrian walkways that staff has requested. We asked for linkages to Springfield Pike to Walnut Street to West Kemper. We also have asked for one for Peach Street, and that has not been included, so we ask the Commission to give consideration to that. Those are to be constructed of similar materials to what the City has put in on Springfield Pike, the tumbled stone, the brick, the concrete mixture with pattern and so forth. We will see more detail on that on the final development plan.


13 JULY 2005


Ms. McBride said they have two striped crosswalks right now in the parking field, one on either side of that main entryway and we would ask the commission to give consideration that instead of striping those, they also be given some kind of texture or designation, rather than just being painted.

We talked about parking ratios. The development itself does not meet the definition of what we consider a shopping center, so we can’t count it under those parking requirements. Both Mr. McErlane and I come up with a requirement of 263 parking spaces. That is based on general professional office. I have some concerns if a significant portion of the center were to go to medical office or a clinic or a vet facility, you could very easily see the parking spaces being gobbled up on the site, particularly at lunch time. I think the commission needs to give some consideration to that.

Right now they are below the parking required and would require a modification on the number of parking spaces they have today, notwithstanding the additional nine spaces that would be needed if the existing office were to go medical.

We have talked about the parking being located in the front yard rather than the side and rear yards, and that would require a modification for the commission from that particular section as would a modification from the requirement of a minimum 200 foot distance between curb cuts and intersections. That applies to both Peach Street and West Kemper. We are not opposed to these, but we need to point these out to you because of the precedence that would be set on other developments.

The proposed walk in front of the center is five feet in width and that is from the edge of the building to the edge of the sidewalk. As shown on the plans, the doors open out; there are canopies and awnings and so forth, and there will be handicap ramps that come up to that walk. Staff has some concern that five feet in width is truly wide enough. The applicant has a lot of experience in the retail industry and we respect that, but I would ask the commission to consider whether or not you feel that five feet is adequate for that.

The distance between the southern and middle building originally was five to 10 feet and they increased that to 20 feet at staff’s request. We were trying to create a pedestrian pathway that would link the residential community to the east and Old Town area to create a place where there might be benches and pots and those kinds of things. We haven’t seen any of those things, and we are hoping that they turn up on the final development plan.

There is a large concentration of mechanical equipment in that area. The building elevations say that it will be screened by a painted wood fence but that is not what is shown on the model. What is shown on the model has some brick columns and those kinds of things and is certainly much more acceptable. We will need to see additional details as to how that ground mounted equipment will be treated and screened.


13 JULY 2005


We asked that bumper blocks be added to all parking spaces that head into the building, walkways or landscaped areas. It is a very standard comment for developments within the city because of the ability of cars to overhang into the landscape material and damage it or block pedestrian ways or hit the building. They have added it to 29 of the 134 spaces, and they need to add those additional bumper blocks.

We have not seen any drive through windows on the plan. We are not precluding that, just saying that if there are going to be drive through windows, they would need to come back to the Planning Commission to make sure we are not compromising either the on site circulation and that there is adequate stacking for those windows.

We will be looking for foundation plantings and landscape containers on the final development plan submittal.

The applicant took staff’s suggestions to use the fixtures that we’ve just put on Springfield Pike, which we think is great. The only concern I had was those 18 wall packs on the back of the building, and I think the Commission has voiced their concerns about that as well.

They are requesting three ground-mounted signs and are allowed two. I think it starts to make a lot of sense because they have intersections at both ends plus their main entryway. If you don’t hit the red light at Kemper, you are going at a pretty good clip there, the building is set back and we are requesting some landscaping, so I don’t have any problem with that.

In the discussion we have heard that maybe the height of the sign should be reduced. The one thing that is definitely sticking with me is we have asked that they put those signs on stone bases. I think that is very important, since we have just put a lot of money into the stone walls on Springfield Pike, and we have required that other applicants at this intersection but their signs on stone bases. So these signs need to be on stone bases, not the brick they are proposing.

The sign on Springfield Pike is not located 10 feet back off the right of way. That is a requirement for safety reasons, and so that sign needs to be pushed back.

There hasn’t been any indication if the signs are going to be illuminated. We are assuming they are, but that is a detail that also needs to be provided.

We have seen the different building materials and the building height. The rear building elevations do not contain the 60% brick and stone that is required by the code, and Planning Commission should modify that. We would suggest that be given to the middle and south buildings only. The north building is visible from the public right of way and they are proposing full finish on it.


13 JULY 2005


Ms. McBride said that the other building that we have not talked about and have to provide for is the out lot building, because it will be visible on all four sides. So the 60% requirement would pertain only to the southern building and the building, and the same thing would go with the blank facades on the rear of the building that is part of our Subdistrict C Corridor. We would ask that they be given relief on that for the south and middle buildings, because the out lot building and that north building are both visible on that rear elevation.

Section 3.1 of the covenants deals with uses that are specifically prohibited. We had suggested some changes and they had incorporated some of the changes. One of them was automotive sales, rental lease but we didn’t get incorporated into that motorcycle recreational vehicle or truck rental sales or leases and we would like to add that.

We would ask that the commission consider whether or not you think it is appropriate to mix in medical office and veterinarian hospitals. It is not so much the use at this location that concern staff, but the number of parking spaces that are available on the site.

The other items we have asked to be included in the list of prohibited uses would be automotive filling stations and automotive repair facilities. That’s been a concern on the corridor about how the doors would be oriented etc. so we would ask that those be included in Section 3.1

Section 3.3 needs to be modified to permit “only sidewalk sales in accordance with the Zoning Code” and Section 4.2 would be to revise the signage, that they would be mounted on stone bases and not brick bases and that they would be set back 10 feet from Springfield Pike. Right now it provides 10-foot setback only from West Kemper and from Peach.

It looks like a long laundry list, but we would be in error if we didn’t point all these things out to you for your consideration.

Mr. Galster asked how far the CVS right in and right out that is southbound just before you get to Kemper Road is from that from the intersection.

Mr. Shvegzda answered that is actually only an entrance. Mr. Galster commented that is probably under 100 feet, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed that. Mr. Galster added I was going to say that based on the location of this right in and right out, I don’t have a problem with it. I think it will help move traffic better.

I think we have to determine if there are some major issues or if these are just cosmetic things that we need to address. Does anybody have any major issues?


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Okum responded I don’t have major issues. The points that Ms. McBride has brought up are very valid. We have been provided a reference here that has a number of items that the developer is asking for relief and/or changes to the code. If we make reference to Ms. McBride’s recommendations, I want to make sure that there are no conflicts between 3.1 through 3.3. Ms. McBride has made some recommendations, and staff has provided exceptions to the code that they are requesting and I want to make sure there is no oversight so that we do treat this fairly and evenly.

Mr. Osborn said I think you have to keep in mind that this has been a moving target for both of us, for staff to review and us to revise. Virtually everything that she mentioned regarding limitation on uses, we thought we had or at least we intended to cover under some of the language we used about automotive uses and so on. But if they need to be more narrowly defined and expressed, we will be glad to do that. The only one we disagreed on was the medical use.

Mr. Okum said maybe setting a percentage of the development under that medical use, so that you don’t end up with an entire building or wing that is all medical.

Mr. Osborn responded I’d like to discuss it with the developer. Mr. Okum said I understand and I am not saying now, but I am saying that somehow come up with something that would balance your load on the site by a percentage of the building space, gross leasable area or whatever.

Mr. Bergman commented this is a town center for your community. Your city and you have put an infrastructure, sidewalks and considerable improvements to have pedestrian traffic come to the site. In a large strip center you are sensitive to the number of parking spaces within the center. But, aren’t we trying to attract the pedestrians to get the community back together? We need as developers to be able to bring doctors and to have people to be able to come in through the center and be able to get the rents up so that we can pay a higher price on this land. We too are sensitive to the bind on parking, because if the parking is not there, the tenants will not come. We also see the ability to make this similar to what Montgomery is today. There is very limited parking there, but there sure is a lot of pedestrian traffic. We’d like people to get out of their houses and walk.

Mr. Okum responded on the contrary, I don’t want to see what I see at Springwood down the street. When it is fully occupied by medical tenants there is not a place in there for anybody to park, and that is a negative for the development. We have to hit a happy medium. I don’t totally agree with restricting all medical. I am saying that somehow there has to be a balance, and I’m not saying what that number is.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Bergman said I absolutely agree with you. There has to be a balance, and I think our tenants will dictate that balance. All we need is the ability to work together. We see there is a problem with the parking requirements, but we also see that it is not so black and white and we have to work together. Our tenants will dictate it. If we show a space and can’t show where the parking will be, we’re not going to get that tenant.

Mr. Osborn added to the list of items that have been mentioned and Anne has added or are contained in her comments, I think we will be able to handle a great majority of them in the final development plan. I don’t know about sprinklers; we will have to talk to the developer more about that. We had already discussed putting the cap on top of the pillars in the wall. It is a triangle shaped concrete cap; we want to do something like that. Mr. Okum commented that protects the masonry so it doesn’t deteriorate and is a logical thing for the developer to want to do.

Mr. Okum said the dumpster enclosure issue is in conflict with the covenants and we will amend the covenants to be consistent with the proposed plan.

We will look at changing the painted block to tinted block on the west side of the wall. We certainly will take a look at extending the wall or any landscaping to better protect the southeast corner of the site; that is something we need to be sensitive to and hopefully we will have an answer for you with the detailed plan.

The striped area in the parking lot should be given more definition, and we will take a look at that. Right now the sidewalk is a five-foot minimum and we will review that issue. I don’t know that we will change it, and the same thing is true for the bumper blocks.

The sign should be a stone base rather than a brick base and we will take a look at that as well. I think that is a detail that we can come back to you with on the final development plan.

I don’t see any of the comments that Anne had as insurmountable. We may disagree with one or two and we will say that, like we did about doctors as tenants, and we will be glad to sit down with the developer and discuss Mr. Okum’s suggestion to have some sort of compromise there and see if we can reach some understanding. If we can’t we’ll come back to you and tell you about it.

Mr. Coleman said having heard all the comments, at this point of time I am questioning whether there is a need for a medical facility in such a type of commercial proposed area. This is primarily because we sat here earlier and listened to the dentist group discussing putting in a brand new facility adjacent to this area. Also, I wonder about the idea of an urgent care type facility coming into this development when we have an urgent care half a block down the street. Both of these things make me wonder whether or not there is a need for that type of pedestrian traffic in this type of facility. Certainly a lot of work has gone into putting together this particular proposal and I am appreciative of all of the hard work that has gone into this.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Coleman added I would be the first to say that it is time for the City of Springdale to do something of this magnitude for the residents and to help us stand out in this corridor, but I would say we have to be particularly careful about how we continue to move forward and what it is going to take to make this the dream that we would like to see come to fruition.

Mr. Galster added there are a couple of spots where the sides of the buildings are visible to the public and we have fake windows that are basically recessed brick layer. I would suggest that we make those faux windows so that they look they are windows rather than just another hard surface. We have done that in the past in a couple of developments, and it looks pretty nice.

In terms of uses, I fall back on the history we have had with Mr. Bergman and the other development that he has with Dave & Buster’s. I think he has always been extremely aware of traffic counts and parking. In that facility originally we required x-amount of parking, and we ended up putting 30-foot wide grass berms down the middle of it, because we wanted to get rid of the parking that we thought we were going to need. I think we need to leave it to the developers. I think the market will drive it by itself. If you put a doctor’s office in there and they use 257 spaces, you won’t have a lot of restaurant tenants. It will drive itself and will only support what it can support. I think we have to leave it to the people who do that for a living to make that decision.

Mr. Vanover said I kind of echo that. I would like to see a compromise, because I don’t want to say no. I am hoping that this will spur development. On down the corridor we have a couple of medical office buildings that are showing their age and hopefully this will spur involvement like the dentist. I wouldn’t want it to become doctor or hospital row, and neither would you but I think some sensitivity to that would be good. I don’t see anything here that is insurmountable. It may appear long, but l think they are more obtainable and negotiable than some of the other developments that we’ve seen. I definitely like and feel good about what we have in front of us.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that in terms of storm water management, there are two underground basins. One is at the southeastern corner, 125 feet of 72 inch pipe or 3500 cubic feet. The other one is northeast of the site, 260 feet of 72 inch pipe or 7300 cubic feet. As we were looking at this, the target goal was to have detention for the increased impervious areas, to maintain the status quo.

In the calculations there was a misinterpretation of the means to do that. The consultant came up with a lesser number and we recognized how that could be rectified and they have indicated they will do that. That means about 240 feet additional of the 72 inch pipe. We have existing storm sewers there and the capacity that can be emptied into those particular storm sewers

There will be nothing additional on Cherry. On Plum there is 5 cfs, and on Peach we have additional capacity available to add in 7 cfs. So there is a total of approximately 15 cfs additional required.

13 JULY 2005


Mr. Shvegzda commented when you have a detention basin you look for some type of path for an emergency spillway. In manly instances that route is actually the public right of way. Normally when that occurs it is in a street that has curbs. Peach Street doesn’t have curbs, so that is one of the reasons why the City has looked at the solution to that as upsizing a portion of the storm sewer down Peach Street to both size it for the release and act as the emergency overflow point for the detention system.

A portion of the brick screen wall to the south of Cherry acts as a retaining wall so we have some fill occurring in there to eliminate the grading that would take place closer to the right of way line that could have been as much as three to one in terms of the slope.

After everything is laid out, there may be things we will need to look at in terms of catch basins to take care of some of the drainage issues, but that is minor.

In terms of access, we have looked at Peach Street, with the signalized intersection to State Route 4. Your unsignalized driveway on State Route 4 is located 400 feet from Kemper Road and 460 feet from Peach Street, so it is pretty well centered. We looked at the queuing length for northbound traffic turning left onto Kemper. It gives you about 75 feet from the end of that queue to this driveway, so with some minor modifications to the pavement markings, that will work.

We talked about the right in right out only at Kemper, and we’ll need some additional details on the geometrics of that island to accomplish that.

We talked about the driveway that is entering onto Walnut from Kemper and then into the site. We mentioned the fact that on the north end where that gap will be (where the landscaping will be in the middle) will need to include a little t turn around section because we will have the parked cars from the church pulling out and backing up into the t and heading northbound.

We talked about the Thoroughfare Plan requirements where we had the 200-foot distance from the driveway to the major intersection. In both of those intersections where that occurs, Peach Street has a low volume and Kemper Road is right in and right out, so that shouldn’t be a problem.

The drive entering from Kemper to Walnut into the site is primarily for the service vehicle which would come to the back of the site and exit via Peach Street. They have moved on the south side to accommodate most of that and we need to have the turning radius analysis provided for.

On the traffic, we have the a.m. predeveloped and postdeveloped noted. There are a number of driveways and public right of way access points on State Route 4 that are being consolidated into one so by itself that will mitigate the additional traffic that is taking place.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Shvegzda added they provided for the additional right of way on Kemper at the corner of State Route 4, and on Kemper Road between Elm Alley and Walnut Street. The one section where we have the elimination of the pavements on Walnut accomplishes the role of preventing commercial traffic from entering the subdivision. It has to remain right of way because we do have many utilities that run through that area, but it will be landscaped to act as an attractive prohibitive measure to keep traffic from coming through.

We have received sewer and water availability, and as far as any of the engineering aspects of the covenants, we have no comments.

Mr. Okum said I know you are still working with them on all this, but would you put this in context with the 100-year storm? Would it handle a 100-year storm on the site without having significant downstream impact?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that based on the difference in runoff from the existing site versus the proposed site, it is designed for that increased amount of runoff for the 100-year storm.

Mr. Okum said I have a question about the lighting at the rear access way and the residential neighborhood through that 20-foot wide new café area. Mr. Okum suggested lighting designed to carry those residences up through there, cosmetic lights that would tie into the development, sort of like walkway lights. You might consider lanterns on the sides of the building to give it a pathway look. Mr. Cooper answered if it is possible. It is a balance between trying to keep your lighting down from the residences. Mr. Okum said I am just worrying about safety in that area. I don’t want big halogen lights shining down there and lighting that corridor, but something soft that can create a pathway for that access point from the subdivision.

Mr. Okum said we have staff comments here, and typically I make a motion to include all staff’s comments and those recommendations. Mr. Osborn has indicated that they are going to work toward those objectives. I want to make sure that the motion is really understanding that is okay, that this Planning Commission agrees with staff’s recommendations, Mr. Shvegzda’s Ms. McBride’s and Mr. McErlane’s evaluations of the issues. Is that correct?

The other question I had was concerning the future out lot building. Is it going to be green space? If I were to include in the motion that the future out lot building shall remain until reviewed by Planning Commission, approved and developed, would that be okay with you? The applicant indicated that it would.

I want to make sure about my understanding of the exterior color issues and bricks,, “all building elevations shall conform to the existing code with the exclusion of the southern and middle building, where the rear elevation areas do not necessarily have to be maintained as brick or stone and shall be permitted to use the tinted masonry split face block where it’s not visible from the public right of way.


13 JULY 2005


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I saw you nod, but I want to make sure because I would hate to make a motion, have somebody nod as part of it. Is the six-foot maximum height for the three monument signs okay with you? The applicant indicated that it was.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said I don’t agree with you totally. I do not believe that the stone on this building must be the same stone that we used on the plantings and other stone elements along the corridor. I think some variety might help, give it some difference. Ms. McBride responded it was the signs that should be on stone bases. Mr. Okum added the color pallet submitted is fine with me. That stone does have a brown to it and we are using a brown cast which ties pretty closely.

Mr. Okum said I think I have everything; if you have something else for me to add to it, please give it to me now.

Mr. Coleman said I would like to ask about the maximum building height not to exceed 35 feet, and they are asking for 36 feet. If the code is 35 feet, why not have it conform to the code?

Mr. Okum responded the height goes to the point of the finial on the top, and with the tall finial it would be over 35 feet. Mr. Osborn added frankly, no one sitting on this dais or in this audience would be able to tell the difference between a 35 and 36-foot tower. I think it gives it more scale to have it as designed by the architect. I wouldn’t want to cut the foot off just to meet the code. Mr. Okum commented it does make architects redo a lot of different things when you change one element. Mr. Coleman responded l am okay with that; I just wanted to bring that out.

Mr. Galster said usually when we are sitting here and considering a zoning map amendment and then approve the preliminary plan and make recommendations to Council, we are dealing with an owner who is someone other than the City. I anticipate a motion that will be full of I don’t know how many clarifications and it seems to me that the City will not sell the land until the final plan is done.

Everybody in this room is familiar with what we have talked about and rather than going through and trying to recap all that documentation, and because of the fact that it is City-owned land and is not going to be developed until there is a final plan that gets approved, I don’t know that we need to go through all the details. I think the applicants all know and the City knows what the board would like to see. I think the board knows what it would like to see from the applicant.

Therefore, I would make a motion to recommend to City Council that the zoning map amendment be approved and the preliminary PUD plan as submitted and discussed today be recommended for approval to City Council.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Coleman said I thought Mr. Okum was getting ready to make the motion. Like everybody else in this room, I very much want to see this move forward; I don’t want to see it delayed in any manner whatsoever. At the same time, I don’t want us as members of the commission to appear arrogant from the standpoint of other developers coming before us, a case of do as I say and not as I do.

I am simply saying let’s be sensitive to this. I think it’s a great plan, and I certainly will support it, but I’m going to be on record as saying when we start bending the rules and bending the rules and bending the rules, when do we stop bending the rules.

Mr. Syfert responded this is a PUD that they are applying for, and we do have the prerogative to do what we feel is right. Mr. Osborn added I don’t think it is unusual in a Planned Unit Development for there to be deviations from the strict application of the Zoning Code. I don’t think there is a Planned Unit Development in this City that didn’t have a list of those, so I don’t think what we are proposing is exceptional.

Addressing Mr. Coleman, Mr. Okum said I think I understand what you are saying. I think what you are saying is you don’t want it to be construed or appear that we treat this project any differently than we would treat any other development within the community for any other reason than it is based on the merits of what is presented to us, and it is based on all the information given to us and presented to us this evening.

I think Mr. Galster was trying to simplify things by saying that the motion is based on the discussions this evening. His motion is inclusive of all discussion. From going to enough planning conferences, I will tell you that the law director would say you never make a motion that way. The law director would also say if the discussion was clear, and all the participants involved expressed their opinions clearly as they pertain to the motion, then it would be stronger than us all sitting here not saying a word, not questioning the presentation and not deliberating and making a recommendation.

I appreciate your comments, and I understand what you are saying. There is a lot of information and this is preliminary and will evolve prior to the final plan. I think Mr. Galster is trying to simplify things but on the other hand I think it is important that all of us state our positions and our feelings. That is the reason I asked the question regarding Ms. McBride’s considerations. I wanted to make sure that all of us are on the same level of thinking for this development, and hopefully it will go forward.

My position is I love the development. I am very very pleased to see it come forward. There are the things with mechanical units being screened and things about the passageway and access ways and lighting and parking and green space and all the typical things that we see.


13 JULY 2005


Mr. Okum added that staff has done a phenomenal job of identifying them and been very candid with their deliberations and recommendations. I have to compliment them, because it is very difficult to be in that position. They could have rubber stamped this but they did not and I admire them for that. Hopefully the comments we have made and they have made will be heard, and based on the fact that this is a preliminary plan, I will support the motion.

Mr. Vanover added our staff is professional and the board is very professional. Council will have a shot at this and will look at all the staff comments and they will be hashed point by point, and it will come back to us. This is the preliminary plan.

On the motion to approve all voted aye and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.



A. Ramada Plaza – 11911 Sheraton Lane – Wall Signs
B. C.A.R.S. – 11452 Springfield Pike – Window Sign

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be able to make the August 9th meeting. Mr. Butrum answered that he might be out of town, but he wouldn’t know for two weeks.


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

                    Respectfully submitted,

___________________,2005    ____________________________
                    William Syfert, Chairman

___________________,2005    _____________________________
                    Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary