14 AUGUST 2001

7:00 P.M.


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

  4. Members Present: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster,

    David Okum, David Whitaker and Chairman


    Members Absent: Councilman Tom Vanover

    Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Huddleston moved to approve and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. By voice vote, Messrs. Huddleston, Darby Galster and Syfert voted aye. Mr. Okum and Mr. Whitaker abstained, and the Minutes were approved with four affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council Ė no report
    2. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė June 19, 2001
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė July 10, 2001
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė July 25, 2001
    5. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Summer 2001

Mr. Syfert said I would like to defer item A until legal counsel arrives.

B. Tire Plus, 11700 Princeton Pike requests approval of changed roof color Ė tabled July 10, 2001

Greg Malis said we would like your approval to change the color of the roof to the Rustic Red color. I believe you have a rendering of the areas that we propose to paint, the roof area as well as the bay doors. He passed out the paint samples. I think youíll see that it tones it down from the red that is there now, which I believe is your objective.

Mr. Syfert said so you intend to paint the panels on the doors a rustic red, but the framework itself would still be the brighter red. Mr. Malis confirmed this, adding that the framing is anodized and we think it would present a problem for durability if we painted the frames.

Mr. Okum said the aluminum-anodized finish is painted currently; the garage doors are painted. What is the difference in applying another coat of paint?



14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Malis reported that they already are starting to come apart. Mr. Okum commented then they probably should have not been painted. Whatís it going to look like in six months or a year from now? Mr. Malis responded that is a concern, especially with another coat of paint on there.

What if you have to repaint it six months or a year from now; you will have to repaint it; are you going to repaint it red? You have to maintain it. What is your resolution to that?

Mr. Malis responded I guess you are suggesting that we replace the doors? Mr. Okum answered I didnít suggest it in the first place. Obviously there are accent colors and accent colors. You went as far as you could for your company image, but I think if you put these two reds next to each other, it may look a little strange.

Mr. Malis asked if he had a preference, and Mr. Okum answered I think the deep ruby in a flat finish. I think the rustic red would bring out too much of the red in your red logo because it already has a high red to it. Everybody sees color differently, but I do have a problem when you blend the deep ruby or umber or cinnabar into those red extrusions. If you are losing the paint now, I think you would be repainting them anyway. You have a durability or finish issue that you will have to deal with.

Mr. Huddleston asked if the door panel paint was delaminating, and Mr. Malis answered that it is the framing. I donít think it is a real issue right now, but with some weather on it, it could be. There are some areas where we could have some trouble.

Mr. Huddleston moved that the roof be painted rustic red and the emullions on the doors and windows remain as they are, the brighter red. Mr. Darby seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum suggested an amendment to the motion to include flat finish or semi gloss finish Ė no gloss finish on the panels. Also I would like to include that if the building is to be repainted due to weathering or deterioration of the panels, that they match the roof system and door panel colors. So if it is repainted, it all goes to one color.

Mr. Huddleston said it is my understanding that you have not done anything with the storefront window glazing, but you completely repainted the doors. Mr. Malis responded that they have not. Mr. Huddleston wondered if they were existing doors, and Mr. Malis confirmed that they were; they were shipped that way. We received them painted. They are brand new doors.

Addressing Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston asked him to restate the proposed amendment to the motion.

Mr. Okum responded my suggestion is that the motion include that if the business repaints the doors and extrusions, that they are painted the same color as the roof panels that we are approving, and that the roof panels be in a flat or semi-gloss finish, no gloss.


14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Huddleston said I will incorporate that in my motion, and Mr. Darby seconded the amended motion.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if he had any problem with the flat paint. Mr. Malis responded I would prefer to not have a flat paint, so I guess I would answer yes.

Mr. Huddleston commented if I understood Mr. Okum correctly, he said a semi-gloss which would give you some latitude to work with. Mr. Malis answered I could work with that.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Okum if he were having a problem with the two tone on the door right now. We are making a motion that is conditioned upon whether or not it weathers enough to be repainted, and if it has to be repainted, it must be one color. They are going through the expense of repainting it right now and it seems to me that if your issue is not liking the two tone on the door, letís address it and say either it needs to be repainted or it doesnít. Get rid of the two colors on it. We are going to repaint the building right now. If we are going to say wait until it deteriorates before they repaint it, letís say it needs to be repainted.

Mr. Malis said you would rather see the deep ruby color because you feel it clashes less with the red sills. Mr. Okum said that is my opinion. Mr. Malis responded it is a little deeper than what we would prefer. Mr. Okum added my feeling is when you put the red next to the umber or brown, it will look strange. On the other hand if you are indicating that the panels are already losing their finish, and you are interested in your business looking good, this would be an alternative.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he had any problem taking the red off the doors. Mr. Malis responded I really do. There is an expense issue. We are faced with an unanticipated expense right now in painting the roof when we were told it was okay to do that, and itís quite expensive. This is a start up business and we are not doing as robust in revenue as we would like to. There are some wears, but we can touch them up.

Mr. Galster said we are telling the applicant that if he needs to repaint, and we want him to repaint the same color as he will paint the panels. He can go back and touch up to keep it the original red, or do we wait until it deteriorates so badly that he has to repaint the whole thing. I think we are being extremely vague in terms of when it needs to be repainted, and we could be asking for an unsightly maintenance issue. If it is okay now to keep it the color that it is, let him keep painting it red if that is his choice. If it is not okay, then repaint it the new color we are talking about.

Mr. Malis said pick the color you want. I would prefer the trim to be red as we originally were talking at the first meeting. If you prefer the deep ruby, no problem.






14 AUGUST 2001



Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston said I believe it is your intention to leave the store front in the anodized red. As long as the panels match the roof, I donít think it makes a whole lot of difference whether those mullions on the door match. I am not discounting what the other members are saying, but I do think we need to move on this. I think this gentleman and the company have been caught a little bit in the crossfire. It is not our preference; it certainly isnít their preferences, and it wasnít anything that was intentional. I think we need to give them permission and move on and hopefully it is a compromise that will work for all parties.

Mr. Okum said my concern is not only with this applicant but with a change in tenancy that could occur. Hopefully you thrive and remain there, but this is in a PUD, and I am concerned with what happens in the future. I think you need uniformity on the building, and this does allow flexibility for anybody. If the board wants to leave the red where it is; the roof is the biggest item in my opinion. The appearance of the building is this applicantís responsibility and not ours, but on the other hand the roof is the banner that brought this subject to the floor.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. McErlane if he felt that the motion was manageable or enforceable. The motion was reread: Mr. Huddleston moved that the roof be painted the rustic red and that the mullions on the doors and windows remain as they are, the brighter red. Then if the mullions need to be repainted in the future, they should be painted the same color as the roof.

Mr. Galster commented I wonder if it would create a problem to police when it needs to be repainted; does this cloud the issue or not?

Mr. McErlane asked if they were talking about the mullions or the roof, and Mr. Huddleston answered I was referring to the mullions on the garage door. The panels of the basement door would be painted to match the roof. Mr. McErlane said so the motion is that at the point when it becomes necessary to paint the mullions, they would be painted the rustic red to match the roof. I donít know how easy it would be to determine when it becomes necessary to paint. Mr. Galster said that is my point; let them keep it the way it is or make them paint it now and be done.

Mr. Huddleston wondered what would happen if they opt to touch up what they have, which is certainly an option open to them. What happens if in five years they want to repaint the building? Mr. Galster said if it is okay for it to be the bright red right now then let it stay bright red. My problem is that we are telling him that if he needs to paint it, he has to paint it to match the roof, and there always would be a question as to when it needs to be repainted. If the bright red on the mullions of the door are okay now, and they may not need to be repainted for five years, they still would be okay, so let him paint it however he wants to paint it in either the bright red or matching the roof. I think we are creating a very tough thing to try to enforce.



14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Okum said my concern is not that this applicant wouldnít maintain his building, but letís say another tenant is in there that wants to leave the panels brown and put purple, chartreuse or some outlandish color on those rails, and we did not position ourselves that there should be some balance of color on the building. If you look at their site, they have yellow and red and black signs and now we have a roof that is brown and rails that are red. If it werenít for the hardship and your being caught in the crossfire, I would say that the whole thing should be painted one color, and it should be a color in the tones you submitted. I have to agree with Mr. Galster; if it is okay now, it probably should stay red if you want to leave it red. I am trying to be fair in allowing you the opportunity to leave it red for now but if you do go through a repainting process on your facility, you match everything up and have one color accent on the building.

Mr. Malis responded I understand your point about a new tenant, but wouldnít your PUD cover that? Mr. Syfert said exactly. I donít think we should try to penalize this gentleman for what might happen five years down the road. Letís deal with this and get it off the table.

Mr. Malis asked the color preference. Mr. Okum responded Mr. Huddleston made the motion for rustic red, and if he and the other commission members feel comfortable with that, that is fine. Mr. Malis said letís say they put a swatch on there and paint a couple of panels and we donít like the look of it. Do we have the option to go to the deep ruby? Mr. Okum responded in my opinion, any one of these three colors is fine. Mr. Malis asked that when the vote is taken that he be given the latitude to go to any of the three.

Mr. Whitaker commented that he did not have a problem with the way Dick has made the motion; I donít think the addendum is needed.

Mr. Darby said I am somewhat confused as to the motion and addendum, but I think it is a position of compromise to require that the roof be repainted at this time. That saves the applicant the expenses of repainting the rails. However, the best scenario would be that it be painted the same, and if that was the addendum, I am in support of it. But we have a financial consideration here and I think it is common sense that we require the roof at this time and put up with that red until such time that it is repainted and then it would all be the same. Mr. Syfert said so the addendum would be okay with you.

Mr. Galster said the addendum only included the garage doors. Mr. Okum said the addendum was for the rails. It was to include all the rails, windows and doors. It is to give them latitude because of the situation that they are in.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if the commission was saying in effect that if the applicant wishes to they can leave it as is. If they repaint, they can repaint the mullions to match the roof. Mr. Okum added that if they repaint them they have to match the roof.


14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Galster moved to amend the amended motion to allow any of the three colors that the applicant has submitted. Mr. Okum seconded the amend.

On the second amendment, (to allow any of the three colors), all present voted aye.

On the addendum which gives the applicant the latitude if he wishes to paint all the mullions and the entire frame, or keep it the oriignal red and just paint the panels and doors with a semi gloss paint. All present voted aye.

On the motion to approve, which was that the roof be painted any of the three colors presented this evening, and that the mullions on the doors and windows remain as they are, the brighter red. All present voted aye, and the motion as granted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Public Hearing to Reconsider Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center at 11285 Springfield Pike Ė continued July 10, 2001

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing, asking anyone present who cared to speak for or against the Conditional Use Permit. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Rob Schenk, attorney representing the owner, GRC, and Tammy Barnett, director and owner of the day care center came forward.

Mr. Schenk stated that at the last meeting, we had a hearing about how to address the noise issues behind the child care center. Some but not all of the Planning Commission requirements had been completed at that time. Since that time and in accordance with Planningís order, all of the landscaping has been done. More specifically I have been on site and Mr. and Mrs. Barnett have planted between 40 and 50 trees behind and contiguous with the playground area outside the child care center. There already was a six-foot wood fence that was ordered by the Planning Commission to be installed that has been installed.

It may have taken longer than the Planning Commission wanted, but Mr. and Mrs. Barnett did a very good job of doing the landscaping and erecting the fence that the Planning Commission wanted to have installed to address the noise problem.

We also have been working with Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane and today I received a copy of Ms. McBrideís report to the Planning Commission. According to the report there still were some noise levels that exceeded the 65-decibel level. When you look at the report, some of those decibel levels do exceed the 65-decibel level because it is within 60 feet of the playground area.





14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Schenk added that when you go out to 120 feet from the playground, every single number with the exception of one is underneath the 65-decibel level. When you get out to 240 feet from the playground area, most but not all of the levels are under the 65 decibel level.

I talked to Mr. and Mrs. Barnett before this hearing, and they have spent approximately $7,000 to do what the Planning Commission wanted them to do. They constructed the six foot fence for about $2,300, they spent approximately $3,000 in landscaping for the 40 to 50 trees and bushes behind the day care center, and when you include labor and mulch, it totals about $7,000.

The reason why I say all that is that the recommendation in this report to the Planning Commission is that another fence be constructed closer to the playground area, an eight foot metal fence that would be five feet from the playground area. This would be in the same location where there is already a wood fence. As you consider this problem, I would urge you to leave well enough alone. They have spent $7,000 to try to do what Planning wanted them to do. I donít know how close the residences we are talking about are to the playground area, but I donít think they are within 240 feet of the playground, and almost every single reading at 240 feet is under the 65-decibel level. My understanding of the guidelines in Springdale and the federal guidelines is that only above 75 decibels is unacceptable. There are no readings above 75. I would urge you to consider all this and approve the Conditional Use Permit so Mr. and Mrs. Barnett can continue to operate the day care center at this location.

Ms. McBride reported that Planning Commission indicated that the day care center could have the children out in the play area from 9 in the morning until noon and then from 2 until 4:30 in the afternoon. They usually are out in groups of 20 at a time with one or two supervisors.

Planning also directed that the City should take simultaneous readings at three locations, at least two in the morning and two in the afternoon. Also, the readings needed to produce a rate of 95% compliance under the 65 decibel level.

I agree that the Barnetts put in everything we suggested with regards to the shadow box wood fence at six feet in height, and the plantings. They were unable to get the eight foot arbor vitaes so we authorized the planting of the six foot but at a closer distance (3 feet on center). They have put the mulch out, and it looks very nice out there.

We retained a noise expert, a professor from Ohio State and he came down on Monday August 6th. We wanted to make sure the weather was so that the kids would be out. We wanted to stay away from holidays and we tried to stay away from the very hot days. We selected the three locations that had been used for the October 25, 2000 noise study. One is directly behind the play area, behind the fence, the second is north of the edge of the building, and the third is north of the detention basin.


14 AUGUST 2001



Ms. McBride stated that we were out in the morning from 11:24 to 11:35. In the afternoon we were in place at 2, but the kids didnít come out until 2:40 p.m. and we gave up at 4:10 because the dogs in the adjacent properties were barking for so long a period of time that we couldnít get any readings at all.

The meters were set so they would pick up anything over the 65 decibel level. One of the meters had an automatic printout on it. Based on that information, there are instances where there are shrieks or yells and exceeded the 65 decibel levels. In all there were 39 of those events, seven in the morning and 32 in the afternoon. Planning Commission had looked at a 95% compliance factor, and it wasnít clear from the motion if that was the number of instances or the duration. If you look at this in terms of the duration of the noise, there was a total of 3,951 seconds of observation. Of the 3,951, 129 seconds were childrenís noises exceeding 65 decibel levels, and that is 96.7%, which exceeds the 95% required by Planing.

The recommendation that our expert made was that if something further was to be done, the only suggestion that he could make is that basically a solid wall structure, something similar to the type of thing you see on the interstate, be installed. That would be something like treated sheet metal which would go down an inch in the ground, it would be eight feet in height and extend the entire length of the back of that chain link fence and 30 feet coming off at an angle to the north. That was his recommendation if Planning Commission wanted additional mediation; that is all that would make any other difference over and above what the applicant already has done.

Based on the one day we were out there, and I know in the morning they were not aware that we were there. In the afternoon, until about the middle of the readings, they were not aware that we were there. All three meters were synchronized as were the watches.

Mr. Syfert asked if they had been able to get the size of evergreens we had recommended, would that have made a big difference. Ms. McBride answered no. Mr. Syfert wondered how long it would take for them to grow another two feet. Ms. McBride answered they are fast growing and that is one of the reasons why they were selected.. The only real noise that affects is when children stand on top of the Jungle Jim.

Mr. Syfert asked if a decorative 18 inch lattice would help on top of that fence, and Ms. McBride reported that it would have no impact. Mr. Syfert commented that he would hate to see a solid metal fence there; I canít believe that is what we would want to do.

Ms. McBride said it really is a very pleasant environment out there now with the plants and the fencing. Planning Commission had directed that there be a 95% compliance, and based on our visit out there for one day and selected time periods there was a 96.7% compliance rate.



14 AUGUST 2001



Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if they had an outside P.A. system. Mrs. Barnett indicated that she did, saying the teachers will buzz the intercom and ask the front desk to unlock the back door. Mr. Galster said that is an intercom going into the building; do you have any amplified voices coming out of the building toward the backyard? Mrs. Barnett answered no.

Mr. Galster said I think you have done a pretty good job and I appreciate the efforts, but I think it is important to understand that we have one day information and it has shown good progress. I think it is important to realize that the effort and continuing to stay on top of it will need to happen in order to make sure that it doesnít peak right back up again. The only other thing I can think to do is if there is additional monitoring that would need to be required if there would be a peak in activity or noise. I think that is more in the education of your staff in trying to keep on top of that so we donít end up having to put something else back there or taking the other steps to bring the noise level down. I do appreciate your efforts.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if there were any reason why the children were playing in the north side parking lot at 3:15 today. Mrs. Barnett answered that was because of the size of the playground and the numbers of children we can have out at that time. We do have summer camp during June July and August and the outdoor time for them was shut down due to the stipulation of 12 to 2. That is the area they go into; they are too big for the playground equipment so they take balls or whatever and go out there. Mr. Okum responded you do understand that is not a designated play area. Do you have any remedies for that? Mrs. Barnett answered if we had the 12 to 2 period again, we could use that fenced in area where they could have some outdoor activity. Mr. Okum said your feeling is that the playground apparatus is too small for the age of the children. Mrs. Barnett answered yes; these children are 11, and the apparatus is designed for younger children. There is enough area on the playground for them to be active. Mr. Okum said so they were out of the designated play area because of the ages of the children. Mrs. Barnett answered the ages and the times we can let them out.

Mr. Okum commented all the mitigation efforts that you went through with trees and fences are basically set aside when you relocate your children outside that containment area. That is what was occurring today. Obviously summer camp is soon to end but that is not fair to the residents, nor is it fair to your efforts to try to limit the noise levels. It causes residents to be aggravated and feel a lack of confidence in the enforcement of the regulations of the Conditional Use Permit. There is a situation of trust here that by those children playing outside that play area is impacting your relationship with the neighborhood and the city. How much stronger can we make it? First it was no Sundays, and there were kids there on Sundays. Today, the day of the public hearing, we are breaching that confidence, and that makes it very difficult for me to be fair and unbiased when I personally observed a breach of that confidence.




14 AUGUST 2001



Mrs. Barnett said when the teachers asked if the children could go outside, I guess I should have made it clear that they werenít allowed to play. From time to time the summer camp teachers have some activity outside, so they are allowed to go out on the side of the building, take their game boys or a puzzle, sit on the side of the building and quietly interact with one another.

Mr. Okum commented I couldnít say what the children were doing. They observed me sitting there or the period ended, but they all went inside. I think we need to consider this, because we canít be a watchdog over this facility. Frankly, I donít think it is fair to the residents to have to be watchdogs either.

I heard the same dogs barking from Naylor Court, and I was six houses up the street. That can be a disturbance too. Are the children generating noise to make the dogs bark? I donít know. Dogs will bark for almost any reason. But when the children are playing in the side parking lot, I would tend to feel maybe the noise levels from the children might be generating the dogs barking. I donít know what we are going to do. I have to commend you for your efforts, but as soon as you take two steps forward, you take two backward. I donít want to be the watchdog, and I donít think the councilmen want to continue to get phone calls from residents about your operations. I saw the improvements today and said they are really making an effort and then I saw the kids out in the parking lot and think are they really trying as hard as they should be.

Mr. Huddleston said I would echo Mr. Okumís comments. I intentionally have tried to be very supportive of what I feel you do in serving a very valuable public purpose in terms of the children you nurture. I mean that sincerely, but I do have a serious serious problem with your either not understanding or complying with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. They are pretty clearly stated. While I think we recognize that we donít want to run your business plan, if you are planning a summer camp that is different from the day care, then that is a different condition, and you have not asked us to address that. I donít want to sit here and lecture, but you must understand the conditions of the permit. Your staff must understand the conditions of the permit, and they must be complied with. I apologize for taking that approach, but I think the commission is having a very difficult time understanding why these things have to be rehashed. The other thing is, depending on the outcome of this vote tonight, you must recognize that you are still at risk in maintaining those sound barriers. If half the trees die, they will have to go back up. I do sincerely appreciate the purpose you serve, but if you are going to continue to exist there, it will have to exist in accordance with the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Darby asked if there were a permit for the summer camp, with the increased numbers and older kids. Mrs. Barnett answered that those numbers are included in the capacity. We are licensed for 164 students, and that includes up to 12 years of age.




14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Darby said if it appears that your play areas is not sufficient to support that number of kids, because they have to go to the parking lot, and the parking lot is not a designated play area for you. I donít see how that would be an issue for us because it is not something we had approved.

Mr. Huddleston commented that it was a state issue. Mr. McErlane reported that there is a state licensing authority. They may have different parameters for older children than they do for the younger ones. The younger ones have to play within a fenced area. The children in the parking lot were older.

Mr. Darby said clearly it is just not right. Parking lots fill up. There is one thing I would like to have cleared up. What is the regulation on decibel levels? Is it 65 or is it 75? We identified 65; was that just a local option?

Ms. McBride responded according to the HUD standards, normally unacceptable is anything above 65 decibels. Sixty-five is uncomfortable and not something you would want in your home. Seventy-five is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Syfert commented that whether it is 65 or 75 decibels, they complied with what we had imposed on them as our standard.

Mr. Syfert said this will be a final action, and will take five affirmative votes. Mr. McErlane reported that the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit and modified it in December of last year. The reason the applicant was in here is for non-compliance with the December conditions. If there is an action taken tonight, it would be to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. You are not really approving anything; you are gauging the compliance of what was done by this board in December. Mr. Syfert said you are saying that no action is required. Mr. Schneider confirmed this, adding that if you wanted to reject the Conditional Use Permit, a motion to reject would have to be made and five votes would be needed. If no action is taken, they would continue to have their permit and the day care operation continues.

Mr. Okum said at this point I am not in a position to make a motion for revocation of the permit, so I will not be bringing a motion forward. On the other hand, if there are other issues that continue to come from this site, I will be requesting that they be brought forward onto the floor and the applicant be brought in for potential revocation.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone wished to make a motion to revoke the permit. No one did, and Mr. Syfert stated I consider the issue concluded at this point. Addressing the applicant, he said continue to operate, but work within the guidelines as Mr. Huddleston so aptly put. It really does look nice down there.






14 AUGUST 2001



C. Alexander Patterson Group, 12075 Northwest Boulevard requests approval to place a trailer on the property from July 13-August 17, 2001 Ė tabled July 10, 2001

There was no one present representing Alexander Patterson and Mr. Okum moved to withdraw the application and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. Huddleston who abstained, and this was dropped from the agenda.

    1. Globe Furniture 11745 Commons Drive requests approval of exterior elevations and signage

Steve Adler of The Bergman Group said we manage the complex for the owners, and we also are construction managers for Globe Furniture.

This is the southeast corner of the former Roberds Grand facility. Currently there is a brown and yellow neon band across the entire top of the building. We propose to take it down and put a red stripe, (Pantane Red 185 to match their logo) across the entire top of the Globe space. Where their space ends on the east and south side, we bring the red down to define their space from the rest of the Roberds Grand space. The colors will be a dark taupe and a light taupe, which are Globeís colors. The lower part would be the dark taupe and higher up would be the light taupe, tying in with the red stripe at the top.

We cannot take down the neon on the portico because the ban is built into the portico. The plan is to wrap that with metal and paint it the same color so the red band continues around the portico. So, on the block we will take down the neon and the brown band, and weíll wrap it on the portico. That is our plan for the exterior, to give it its own individual look and be within the Globe colors. I did provide swatches, because the color copies are pretty true but not as true as the color swatches.

As you come down the hill, on the right is Sofa Express and you look into the dock doors of the former Roberds Grand, which is the southeast corner of Globe. In the left island there is a directional sign now, which we are proposing to take out and put a new free standing pylon sign in. It will be backlit with our logo and down below Furniture Rental Showroom and Clearance Center. We would landscape around it, to create a sense that it is not just thrown out in the middle of the island.

We also want signage on the building and there are two proposed signs. There currently is a sign over the door under the portico for Roberds Grand, which is Shipping and Receiving. That would be changed to say Globe Furniture Clearance Center and Rentals. On the side of the building we want to put our name and Furniture Clearance and Showroom.




14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Adler added that if the original submittal we had the wall sign that said Globe Furniture Rentals and Showroom Clearance Center all bunched up together. The concern was as you come down the hill if you are going too fast you would never see the sign. Now we are proposing to spread it out a little bit. I have superimposed on the building how it will look (passed around a drawing). We are allowed 640 feet and if we stretch it out we would be using 332 feet.

Mr. Syfert asked how many square feet Globe would be using of the Roberds Grand, and Mr. Adler answered 57,600 feet.

Mr. Galster asked about the location of the sign over the main doors and then another sign a couple of windows down. Mr. Adler responded the reason we want a sign over the portico is so the people know where they should go in. It is confusing; we have added a lot of windows to enhance the view from inside and outside.

Mr. Syfert said you have another door going into the office, but you donít have any sign over that. Mr. Adler confirmed this, adding that there would be a canopy, which would be recovered to match the taupe. We are trying to draw the attention closer to the portico and the entrance where they want the people to go in and shop.

Mr. Galster said originally that was their pickup and service area. Is there adequate parking for this stand alone store? Mr. Adler answered that there is a whole parking lot just north of all that. There are 96 spaces. I understand it is not a high traffic business. There will be more sales and administrative people than customers at any one time.

Mr. McErlane reported that this portion of the building is part of the overall Tri-County Commons PUD that includes the Tri-County Commons Shopping Center and the Sofa Express building as well as this building.

If you were here when the Roberds Grand came in, there were specific limitations on square footage and usage put in the covenants, including what could be used for retail sale of furniture and appliances, how much of that floor area could be used for office, and how much for warehouse, specifically to take a look at restricting traffic numbers in and out of the place. All along we have been looking at traffic numbers throughout the development of this building.

If it is a furniture sales and rental space, it fits within the same kind of usages that were permitted within the Roberds Grand facility, including the warehouse and office. All of the numbers for those three uses fit within those allowable uses that we assigned to Roberds Grand, so there is no need to change covenants for that section of the building.

Our report on signage will have to pertain to what was delivered to us previously, and it looks as though the wall signs have changed to a great degree.


14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. McErlane said that the only thing we need to look at specifically with respect to compliance with the zoning code would be the freestanding sign. Because of it being 10 feet high, I donít know that you can call it a ground sign; you might need to call it a pylon sign. Our ground sign limitations are 7 feet in height and this sign is 10í-2" high. Planning needs to consider that and whether or not that is acceptable.

Without seeing what is being proposed for the wall sign, there may be another issue with respect to the maximum square footage of a particular wall sign, which is limited to 150 s.f. in the code.

I was trying to point out to the Planning Commission what is happening in terms of the building elevations. There is a kind of stopping point on the south elevation, where the old Roberds colors will continue to remain, and then the Globe Furniture colors will take off and go around the corner on the east side of the building and then stop again at some point on the east side of the building.

My only recommendation as far as signs go is I think tonight Planning could approves the sign package if it complies with the square footage as permitted by code even though we havenít looked at what is being proposed, with consideration of what happens with the ground/pylon sign, and what happens with the sign that may be oversized on the building.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. McErlane how they would get merchandise into the building; would they have to build new dock doors Mr. McErlane responded that the Globe Furniture space doesnít take the entire old warehouse space; I think there are potential plans to put in additional receiving area. Mr. Adler added that there are five doors now and the plan is to put dock doors on the west side (the Wal Mart side) when there is a need.

Mr. Galster said it looks a little odd to have Globe Furniture with their dock doors next to their front entrance and mixing the truck traffic with the automobile traffic. With all that space still left, if we have taken away the dock doors that were feeding that whole space, I can see where we wold be looking at dock doors in the front of the building. Thatís a lot of space to try to use.

Mr. Adler said the owners will have to address that as each tenant comes in and meets with the commission to discuss each one individually.

Mr. Okum said I think if they are repainting that elevation, I personally would like to see the field color extended down that south elevation and the black and yellow channel system be removed or painted out to the point where it becomes opaque.

He asked Ms. McBride her opinion, and Ms. McBride responded that we donít know when the next tenant is coming in or what they may want to do as well. I donít think that is an unrealistic requirement, to at least consider painting that to match at this point.




14 AUGUST 2001



Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said if you add a potential user that would use the balance of that south section of the building, would that be a stand-alone tenant using that or would it be the shipping area for someone else in the building? Mr. Adler answered we would hope that it would be the shipping area for someone else that would help utilize the front portico that is there.

Mr. McErlane responded if that is the case, they will not need their own identity on that section of the building anyway. So it probably makes sense to try to blend it with what is happening right now.

Ms. McBride reported that my comments on the signage are very similar to Mr. McErlaneís in that we do permit a seven foot high ground mounted sign and they are proposing one that is 10í-2" tall and would contain 46 square feet. They are showing that sign three feet off the right of way of Commons Drive and we require a 10-foot setback. The applicant did indicate that a directional sign is being removed, and that is not the same type or size as the sign being proposed.

We havenít seen information on the landscaping or how the base of the sign would be treated, so staff would have comments about that.

Staff is concerned if we put another free standing sign up for this user, and they are 57,600 s.f. of the 332,000 s.f. of the Roberds space, what about the next guy and the next guy? Planning needs to think about that in terms of addling additional signage on the site.

We have not had a chance to look at the information submitted to Planning tonight, but share the same concern. We have a 150 s.f. maximum for any one sign, and the applicant indicated one of the signs would now be 247 s.f. It would appear that they have a total of 342 s.f. of sign area and they are allowed a total 640 s.f.

In terms of parking, 39 spaces are required for the furniture showroom, 16 for the warehouse and 41 for the office space for a total of 96 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that there are 99 spaces available for this space.

We have asked for and havenít been provided the information as to how waste will be removed, if there is an internal compactor, or a dumpster.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant about that, and Mr. Adler answered that they would have a dumpster outside. Mr. Syfert asked how it would be enclosed, and Mr. Adler answered that it would be at one of the dock doors. There was a trash compactor there that is being removed, and we will put the dumpster in that area. It can be enclosed in a gated fenced area if that would be more attractive. Mr. Syfert said that is what is normally required.





14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Okum asked how far the parking spaces are from that entry, adding that the parking field doesnít even go in front of their occupancy. How far is that? Mr. Adler answered about 100 feet to the first spot.

Mr. Okum said I have a problem with the parking field, and I tend to have the same feelings about the monument sign. Obviously they want to get their name out there, and we have quantity issues on signage as it is. I would like to get more detail on your signage proposals. I am not excited about the taupe; it is orange.

I know you are squeezing in 50-some thousand feet of that over 300,000 square feet, and the question is how to handle the balance of the site. I hope we are not going to have four other 50,000 s.f. developments squeezed in there and we end up with multiple tenants and multiple uses, something different from what the PUD was designed for. Fifty thousand is right on the edge in my opinion.

Mr. Adler responded that from a landlordís standpoint we want to find one or two large users to use the north end of the building as their front entrance, hopefully one to use the existing portico and one to the west of that most likely. They would have storefronts similar to a Dave & Busterís and Golf Galaxy and Mars Music, where they would have their own identification on the building. Because of the way you comes down the hill and see the Globe space with the porticos sticking out, there is nowhere to put their name on the building south of that portico because you would be right over the dock doors. That is the reason we would like the free standing monument sign. We want the 10-foot height because as you come down the hill, we are afraid if it were too low it would be awfully hard to see.

Mr. Okum asked if it were a make or break deal that they have the extra signage between the columns. Mr. Adler responded I understand that they need all that on there. I asked the same question because I felt it was an awful lot of information to throw people in a short amount of time, but they felt it was important that people know that they have a showroom and clearance center at the same location.

Mr. Okum added that the same information is on the sign under the canopy. In my opinion it should be one or the other. I can understand your feeling about the height of the sign. I question whether 10 feet is the right height; maybe 12 would be the right height or maybe seven. I am just saying that we donít know that because we donít have any point of reference. If I were to go that route, I would want some reassurances as to why it needed to be 10 feet high.

Mr. Galster asked how much of the east elevation the tenant would take. Mr. Adler responded close to 60%. Mr. Galster wondered if there would be an other tenant with an east side entrance, and Mr. Adler answered no. I personally think that everyone would want to have a north side exposure to be seen from the highway.




14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Galster said in terms of the monument sign, I think you could keep it Globe and drop it down and move it closer to I-275 from the existing one. It is flattened out and could easily be seen.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if Roberds had signage on Kemper Road and the I-275 frontage and if Globe was planning on utilizing any or all of that. Mr. Adler said right now the Roberds on the north side of the building is painted black. There still is a freestanding pylon next to the ring road and a box on the building that is not being used at this time. Mr. Huddleston said I assume that this applicant would want a band on the Kemper Road sign. I know the City has been working with the owners to resolve the sign issue. Mr. Adler responded I donít know if they want a band on the sign at the corner of Kemper and Commons. I would guess so, but it has not come up yet. Mr. Huddleston said so at this point you canít state on behalf of the applicant what they want beyond what we have in this package. Mr. Adler responded if they wanted anything, I would guess they would want a piece on the pylon sign by Kemper and Commons Drive. They have asked for nothing on I-275.

Mr. Okum said I would assume the case on the building now would be painted. Mr. Adler answered we are going to take the band down and paint the same area with the red, but on the portico we canít because it is built in the portico. So that is why we would wrap the metal around it and paint it the same red as the stripe going around the building.

Mr. Okum said thatís a lot of red, and asked if that was a flat finish or a gloss finish. Mr. Adler responded I am open for comments. Mr. Okum said Iíll tell you right now that it is going to be a low luster finish if anything. That is a lot of color. If you think of al the discussion that occurred about Roberds stripe and the fact that the yellow would be a gold that emanated with florescent lights behind it that would stay lit forever. I remember the discussion about putting a yellow band on the building, and now we are putting a big four foot red band on the building. I think it should be toned down some; thatís a lot of band. Itís a lot of building, but this is only a 50,000 s.f. tenant on a 350,000 s.f. part of the development. Thatís a lot of frontage; is it 300 feet across? Mr. Adler answered on the east side I think it is, maybe more.

Mr. Okum asked how many feet of red are here, and Mr. Adler guessed 500 feet on the east and south sides. Mr. Okum said 500 feet by 4 feet of red is a lot of red. Mr. Galster commented that there was a lot of black and yellow before. Mr. Okum answered black is sort of a neutral, and yellow was pushing the envelope.

That color will be very dominant on that building. I donít know.

Mr. Syfert asked if he would go for three feet. Mr. Okum responded I can understand why they want to have that width so it will match the remaining yellow and black and they want to stay consistent with the line. That is why I think on the back side the yellow and black should go completely, painted out to one color.



14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Syfert said it would look worse if you made it narrower. Mr. Okum agreed, adding that he didnít know if it needs to be one solid mass of that red. That is 2,000 s.f. of red plus the vertical runs.

Mr. Galster said the only reason that the four feet would look bad is because it is coming up to the black and yellow, so if we got rid of the black and yellow on the south and east sides, we would not be tied to that four foot dimension on the red and we could drop it down to maybe two feet. Mr. Okum said I wouldnít have a problem with two feet. Mr. Galster continued eventually that will be painted out anyway. Mr. Syfert commented that we donít know that to be a fact. Mr. Galster said if we continue to keep that four feet, the next tenant will want to use that same four feet with possibly another color. Why not eliminate it now so it isnít something that has to compete against for the next tenant. I agree that the four feet would be a pretty good size stripe up there.

Mr. Syfert asked Ms. McBride if the four foot stripe was unusual on a building this size and this distance from the right of way. Weíre doing an awfully lot of fidgeting around here, and Iím not sure we are gaining anything. We either accept it or donít accept it. Ms. McBride answered I donít know how to answer that. Rather than the Commission redesigning it, they might ask if the applicant would like to go back and consult with Globe and their design people. I donít know their time line, but you certainly could approve everything but the stripe, of if Commission feels comfortable with their working with staff or whatever.

Mr. Adler said Globe is trying to open September 5th, so we were hoping to get approval tonight or some guidance tonight so we could start painting and get them in by the week after Labor Day.

Mr. Huddleston said I have always complimented the Bergman Group on their creativity with this property. That having been said, I think there is a significant lack of detail on what we are attempting to deal with here tonight. We have a very small-scale plan, not very well defined, and the signage requirement has changed significantly. I donít really see how we can act successfully based on what we have in front of us here this evening. I am as anxious as anybody to keep moving forward and get some activity on the building that is beneficial to the landlord and the City, but I donít see that you have anything substantive enough here to be effective with.

Mr. Adler asked if there could be an agreement on the stripe and the pylon sign, and table the wall sign until next month, at least get something moving to assist Globe in getting in there.

Mr. Okum asked how he felt about removal of the stripe as Mr. Galster suggested. That is extra effort on lour part. Mr. Adler responded we always want to work with the City, and we need to know what you need from us so we can work together. I would love to have that band off the whole building if money were no object, but the owners are giving me a charge to lease it, fill it and fix it up as we go.


14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Adler said that it is a nightmare in that the yellow is breaking and constantly falling off, and we are constantly picking up pieces. That is what I would like to do, and if we need to do those two sides, Iíll go to the owners tomorrow morning and say that is what we have to do to get this deal done and paint the rest of the south side and the east side the field color to tone that down. The only thing is I donít know what you would do with the east and north corner. You would be breaking it some place; it is a matter of where you are breaking it. If that is what it takes, that is what we want to do. Itís just a little more paint and labor to get the channel down.

Mr. Okum said if the stripe were narrowed down to a two foot stripe, I could deal with it. I donít think I would feel as comfortable to have that same stripe along I-275, two foot all the way across, that is another project. I wouldnít have a problem with going to a monument sign not to exceed seven feet in height. The sign quantities must meet zoning and the staffís final review of that. That way staff could take care of the signage limitations under the existing site.

Ms. McBride said someone on the commission had suggested that the monument sign be limited to Globe and the applicant has the Globe, the Furniture Rentals, the Showroom and the Clearance Center, so we will need very clear direction from the commission as to exactly how much of that verbiage you want. If it is as presented except for the fact that they reduced it from 10í-2" to seven feet and then comply with our setbacks and required landscaping around the base that is fine. If you want to restrict the verbiage, that is fine. We need good direction in terms of exactly how you want it to appear.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else had a problem with the verbiage on the monument sign. I think Steve expressed some concern about it. Mr. Galster said I think it would look like a stubby pylon with all that and I would like to see it look more like a monument sign.

Mr. Okum said so we have landscaping review by our city planner. Ms. McBride said setbacks should be as required by code. Removal of the lower panel is what Mr. Galster has recommended and I concur with that.

Mr. Adler asked if they would be allowed to say Furniture Rentals and stop at that point? Mr. Okum said if it was included on the upper portion of the field. If it is in the Globe part, I donít have a problem with it. It is counted with the square footage that you are allowed.

Mr. Adler said Globe Furniture Rental is seven feet high and we would incorporate that with landscaping. Mr. Okum said an architectural design of the base and Type A color on the south and east elevations and the accent band is to be no more than two feet wide.





14 AUGUST 2001



Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you understand that where the yellow and black light channel system is on the south and east area, the continuation, will just be field color. Beyond the red vertical stripe is field color, which is Type A. They will paint the whole wall and the light band will be removed on the south and east side. This excludes the canopy, which canít be removed, but will be capped.

Mr. Adler asked if the cap could be red, or does it have to be two feet of red and a foot and a half of the other color? How do you want that to look? Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride for any suggestions and Ms. McBride said she would let that part of it go at four feet.

Mr. Galster suggested one foot of taupe, two feet of red and one foot of taupe.

Mr. McErlane said you currently have a white band across the top above the red? There is a coping showing white. You could do that with the canopy as well. There is a white stripe below the red on the rest of the building as well. .Mr. Galster said you would have to use the canopy to set the location of your red line. Mr. Okum said so the accent band is to be no more than two foot throughout the site.

Ms. McBride said I think they may have a one sided screening wall

for their existing dumpster, and we would want to see details in compliance with the zoning code which requires screening on three sides since this is a front yard situation.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the signage package and building elevation changes with the following conditions:

    1. That Color Type A as indicated on the applicantís submission be applied to the entire south and east elevation;
    2. That the pole sign requested shall be a sign more in monument form, not to exceed seven feet in height and shall contain the Globe identity and may say "Furniture Rentals";
    3. This shall be based on final review by city planner and staff;
    4. The quantity of space for the amount of signage shall be limited by our Code requirements;
    5. Landscaping for the base of the monument sign shall be reviewed and approved by our City Planner;
    6. Dumpster location shall be at the existing dock door where it previously existed. Screening shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner;
    7. The red accent band shall not exceed 2 feet in height and shall only be in the areas as indicated on the submission;
    8. The light band on the existing south and east elevations shall be removed, except for the canopy area where it will be covered with a metal panel.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.



14 AUGUST 2001



Ms. McBride asked if the signage approved includes the on-building sign. Mr. Okum responded yes, as long as it meets code and staff review.

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

    1. Approval of Revised Plat for Lot 4 Ė Proposed Pappadeaux Restaurant Pictoria Island

Lanie Wess, representing the owner of Pictoria Island said I am going to ask for your approval contingent on staff approval because we know that the staff has some concerns with how the plat is split.

Lot 4 consists of Lots 10 11 12 and 13. It is split out to define the Pappadeaux lot (Lot 11). Lot 12 is the lake and the owner wanted to keep the lake on its own parcel.

The issues with setbacks and the open space were part of the comments from staff. Last week we got a phone call pretty much saying that it wouldnít be approved this way. The owner and two restaurants (Pappadeaux and Pappacitas) have worked out splitting that lake with an easement on either or both parcels. We are working out the issue there with where they would like that line and we would come back in to the staff and present it to them. We would maintain correct building setbacks and open space requirements for both restaurants.

The only other thing we would like Planning Commission to consider is that the area for all the restaurants, including Pappadeaux, Lot 10, Lot 11, Lot 13 and the lake be considered on a whole when looking at open space. We submitted some calculations for Lot 11, Pappadeaux, and the open space was 13.1%. The entire restaurant area is at 27.1%, which satisfies the zoning code requirement of maintaining 20% open space.

Mr. Syfert said staff looked at one thing and now you are bringing us something else. You put us in a tough spot here asking us to approve something and let staff approve it when we doní t even know what we are looking at. We tried to tell you it wasnít going to go the other way.

Ms. Wess responded we thought there was a way to get this approved with a variance on the building setbacks. On the lake issue, we have an actual person who will be in charge of that lake. The association will have a contact person to call. We did understand staffís concerns and we thought they were hurdles that we overcame, but we got a phone call stating that it wouldnít be approved the way it was submitted and we have been diligently trying to contact owners, both for Pappadeaux and Pappacitas to try to get that worked out. It has been, so basically the approval will be for splitting Lot 4 into three lots, with the two lots basically taking the remainder of Lot 12 and satisfying the setback requirements. Lot 10 is pretty much defined by the north property line of Pappadeaux.




14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Syfert asked Ms. McBride if she had any problem with what they are talking about.

Ms. McBride answered I donít know; I havenít seen it. We had a lot of concerns about setbacks and creating a lot that didnít have frontage on an accessible public street, and the open space.

Regarding looking at that area as one open space, I donít have a problem with that as long as we set a minimum that each lot has to maintain, whether it is 10% or something like that. You donít want to end up with a site that has .05% open space and all the rest of the open space on one site. We would want to maintain some minimum, but we can look at the overall area for the 25% requirement.

On the reconfiguration of the lots without seeing it, that is kind of hard to comment on, and I am sure Mr. Shvegzda would have additional thoughts on that.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that our comments were about having the detention basin on a separate lot and a concern for future responsibilitly for maintenance and the viability of the association. Is there any general idea where the new configuration of the lots will be? Is there anything we can look at?

Ms. Wess responded to maintain the 20% open space for Lot 11 it would be an additional .3 acres. Mostly likely what would happen is if you see the patio area overhang the lake, it would be at least 10 feet off that line, which would provide more than the .3 acres required for open space. It is a matter of dividing this line out to satisfy code requirements.

Ms. Wess said with Bahama Breeze, the replat was submitted before you saw the site plan. Mr. McErlane said no, the replat was reconfigured to match up with the access drive that comes down vertically after the site plan was developed. That is why it has a jog in it; it never had a jog in it previously. There was an original lot line there from years ago because there was already an approved site plan for it. It was reconfigured after the Bahama Breeze site plan was developed.

Mr. Okum said it appears that Bahama Breeze doesnít have any connection to the lake at all. They are an island on their own. It would make some sense that everybody should have a piece of that pie, so they all can have some responsibility for it. You are not going to try to separate the lake from Pappadeaux, or will part of the lake be on their site? Ms. Wess said yes, with an easement. Why doesnít Lot 12 become a part of Lot 11 and 13 then? You would get rid of Lot 12. Ms. Wess answered that is the idea. Mr. Okum commented it would be nice to tie Lot 9 into it (the office building) because that is the real investment of the whole development. It doesnít have any responsibilities to the lake except covenants.



14 AUGUST 2001



Dave Tipton of Tipton Industries responded those are real responsibilities. There are a lot of items that the association will take care of. Everybody will be assessed for the care of the lake mowing of the right of way and maintenance of the brick pavements. That is why we have the association. I have been talking to the general counsel of Pappadeaux and Pappacitas. It is a big issue because of the liability issues. The last call from the general counsel said that he thinks by the next meeting they probably will take the whole lake. Then the other issue would be the easement issue for TIF so it is a very complicated situation.

Mr. Okum said I recall that Bahama Breeze was requesting more parking for their employees and that got put aside. We havenít resolved that at all. Mr. Tipton responded when the garage is opened, in about October, all the employees will park in the garage.

Mr. Okum said so you are saying that Bahama Breeze is an island to itself but the other two, Lots 13 and 11 will take on and absorb Lot 12 into it. I donít have a problem with that at all.

Mr. Syfert said does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Mr. Galster said they want approval to take Lot 12 and put part of it into Lot 11 and part of it into Lot 13 without telling us exactly what they are going to do. You want approval based on staff approval.

Ms. Wess said we are in for final approval of Pappadeaux next month, and we need to get this off the back burner so we can move ahead.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if what they are requesting would satisfy his concerns. Mr. McErlane answered that it would. Our concern all along was that the lake be tied with property that has a development on it. Even though there are covenants that relate to the maintenance, it takes a step out of the enforcement provisions for maintenance from the standpoint that we can go to the property owner and they can take care of whoever it is that is going to fund taking care of the property. IF it is in an associationís name, you have to track down who the association is and find the correct people and try to get it resolved. I realize we have a lot of faith in Mr. Tipton and his development, but we are talking about an item that will go on indefinitely and who knows 20 years from now what will happen.

Mr. Galster asked if it would be preferable to be tied to one site rather than two? Mr. McErlane answered although the Pappas family potentially will open both pieces of property, for future purposes, Iím sure they would like to spread the liability around if they were to sell one of those properties. That leaves that open for that.

Mr. Galster asked if there would be a need to tie it into the offices building at all via panhandling it around? Mr. McErlane responded it would be pretty awkward at that point, because it isnít even close to being contiguous to it.


14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. McErlane added I donít know that there is any more benefit to that. Our concern is making sure that it is tied to a developable lot, and it looks like itís going to be tied to two.

Mr. Galster said so we make a motion sight unseen on how we are going to divide Lot 12 into Lots 11 and 13, contingent upon final approval by staff. Mr. Darby seconded the motion. All present voted aye and approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Approval of Pylon Sign Ė Pictoria Island.

Gene Maier with Maier Signs passed out the highlighted digitals of the sign. It is the same photo as the top right of the drawing the members received.

Mr. McErlane reported that this is a 50-foot high pylon sign with four 100 square foot blank panels, potentially for the restaurant users. The top section, 6 x 17-10" are routed out letters in an aluminum face that says Pictoria. On January 12, 1999 as part of the preliminary plan, Planning Commission approved a 50-foot high pylon sign with 100 s.f. panels for each of the restaurant sites, plus a project identification logo. I think the digital image you received may not show that exactly in the right place. The spillway that is there is for the dry retention pond, and this sign should be almost to the edge of the wet pond. I think it is shown a little bit too far east.

If you look at the site plans that were distributed to you, this should be Sign A. Sign B is close to the dry retention pond.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if the sign were shown properly on the site plan. Mr. Maier answered that Sign A is on the site plan that was submitted. R. Tipton added that it would be located precisely where it was shown on the plan. We already have been out and surveyed it.

Ms. McBride reported that the sign was approved in January of 1999, and at the time staff reviewed this, there were three restaurants so staff recommended that the size and height be reduced to reflect the three restaurants. This evening we received correspondence indicating that there will be four restaurants, so we will stay with the four panels.

We didnít receive any information on how the base of the sign would be treated in terms of landscaping and finish and didnít get information regarding materials and colors that would be used for the structure.

Mr. Maier reported that the brick base will be similar to that base (passed around a drawing) and there will be landscaping around it. Mr. Okum asked the width of the brick base. Mr. Maier answered the bottom base pole covers are 5í-6" in width. Mr. Okum said if you are going to get any plantings in there at all with any vertical element, you would need a lot more space than 5í-6". You probably would need 15 feet. Arenít they going to need some space there to plant something Ms. McBride?



14 AUGUST 2001



Ms. McBride answered typically staff would recommend that the landscaping go on the outside of the base and Iím sure we could work with the applicant to comes up with an acceptable landscape plan to go around the perimeter of that base.

Mr. Okum asked about the material of the framework around the sign faces wondering if it were the same as on the office building. Mr. Maier said it is a painted finish, a semi-gloss, and the same quality as car paint. Itíll last 20 years. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Tipton why they went to that instead of the same material that you are using on your building. Mr. Tipton answered that they are using a precast cut and the design was difficult to get and very expensive. Mr. Okum asked what the cornice work is made out of, and Mr. Maier answered all aluminum. Mr. Okum asked if Pictoria would be illuminated, and Mr. Maier answered that it would be black during the day and white at night. I have a sample of that material too. (He passed around the sample). Mr. Tipton added that our concern was that if it were white all the time in the day, it would not be visible, so it will be black during the day and white at night.

Mr. Okum said on the right side it shows trim detail to be aluminum rectangular tubes with Type 1 PVC pipe cut in half and mechanically fastened to the aluminum with concealed fasteners. What is that? R. Maier answered we are taking a piece of 12-inch PVC pipe and cutting it directly in half. That will form one-half of that radius. That will be mechanically fastened to that aluminum square tube and is painted with a flex paint that is grip flex and grip guard. The grip guard is used for specific materials, aluminum and PVCs. The grip flex is used for faces that are made out of flex material.

Mr. Okum said if you had four 100 s.f. Individual identity signs here, one green one blue, one red, will we discuss color constraints?

Ms. McBride if the concern was that we are not going to have a purple next to an orange, for example, the sign is part of the PUD and aesthetics is one thing we can look at. I donít know if the applicant wants to put any kind of parameters on those or leave it up to staffís discretion. I donít know if Mr. Tipton has any idea as to what colors those panels might be. I understand your concern.

Mr. Okum said if the sign panel has color conformity that might help. Ms. McBride commented either conformity or complement.

Thatís a bigger sign than I had envisioned, and I am not overly comfortable with those four huge blocks of signage, but the planner says you need 400 square feet.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the pylon sign with the following conditions:

    1. That the sign is landscaped and that the landscaping is to be reviewed and approved by the city planner and staff;
    2. That individual signage will be reviewed for color and blending of colors and conformity.


14 AUGUST 2001



Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster asked if we are assuming that when the sign goes up you will have the four sign faces ready to be made up? Mr. Tipton responded I think we will ask Bahama Breeze probably next week. Mr. Galster wondered how long it would be before the sign goes up, and Mr. Maier answered 10 to 12 weeks. Mr. Galster said so if there is not a restaurant or a panel done, will it remain white? Mr. Maier indicated that it would. Mr. Tipton added that they probably would have all four ready when the sign goes up.

On the motion for approval, all present voted aye and approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

  2. Mr. Huddleston appreciated Ms. McBrideís report on the Commercial District Revitalization. Ms. McBride stated that Jonathan Wocher attended and it was interesting because he also had done some work in some other sections of the corridor. We probably will be drawing on some of these ideas in future discussions with the City on that area. Mr. Huddleston asked if he felt it was worthwhile, and Ms. McBride indicated that he had. He put together the items that were more applicable to Springdale, and said it was very well attended.

    1. Elite Skin & Body Works Ė 1818 Springfield Pike Ė Wall Sign
    2. Hong Kong Fun Ė 123 Boggs Lane Ė Wall Sign
    3. Benís Ė 90 West Kemper Road Ė Wall Sign
    4. Mattress Warehouse Ė 125 East Kemper Road Ė Wall Sign

Mr. Darby moved to adjourn and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________, 2001 ________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,2001 ________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary