7:00 P.M.


  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.

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

    Richard Huddleston, David Okum, David

    Whitaker and Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: Councilman Tom Vanover (arrived at 7:17 PM)

    Others Present Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    William McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shevegzda, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

    Mr. Syfert said before we start the meeting, I would like to pause briefly to say a silent prayer for all the problems that this country is having.

  6. Mr. Okum moved for approval and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. Mr. Huddleston said he was not included in the list of those present. The corrected minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council

Mr. Galster reported that Mr. Sharkey was present at the council meeting, and was not pleased with the Planning Commission. If you want more information, read the minutes.

B. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – August 21, 2001

    1. Site Development Plan Approval of Proposed Addition, Service Parts Supply Corporation, 11345 Century Circle West
    2. Mr. Syfert said I believe that they requested to be tabled. Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. The item will be considered on October 9th.

    3. Site Development Plan Approval of Proposed Addition to Sunoco Station, 12089 Princeton Pike

Marcia Sherry, Architect and representative of the owner said they wish to put in a small addition to increase the sales area. The truckers would like to have some convenience food type items and add a handicapped restroom.







Ms. Sherry added that they want to keep the same look and extend the blue fascia around and keep the gray block walls and diagonal siding. You had asked for a landscape plan to be submitted, and they submitted a letter requesting that it be delayed due to the construction of the underpass. They would be happy to do the landscaping after the construction is completed. They would be happy to plant the annuals.

They are still researching whether the existing HVAC system is adequate or not and it will be screened adequately. The metal storage shed is already gone, and they don’t plan to put in any additional site lighting.

Mr. McErlane stated that the property is zoned Motor Service; it is the only Motor Services parcel along 747 in that area. It is currently occupied as an automotive filing station with a convenience store. The applicant is requesting approval of a 411 s.f. addition to an existing 880 s.f. convenience store. The required parking is 18 spaces + employees. What is being shown on the drawing are 9 striped spaces and 11 pump locations, which we are including as parking spaces.

Ms. McBride said with regards to the landscape plan, what we had asked is that they supply us with what they are proposing to do in two years so that we have it on file and have some ability to come back and ask them to plant that. If we don’t have something to hold them to, it would be a little difficult in two years. Other than the annuals, we are not asking them to plant it now, but we need a plan of what they are proposing to plant when the construction is completed.

They are not proposing to screen the new HVAC equipment. Planning has photos to see that there is existing HVAC equipment there that is not screened or particularly attractive. We can’t make them go back and screen the existing, but we can ask them to screen the proposed HVAC equipment.

Any approval that Planning might want to give, we would ask that you put a condition in there that there would be no change to the site lighting, either in the canopy on the building or free standing lighting.

Mr. Shvegzda said the construction schedule for 747-grade separation is proposed for 2003 and 2004. Looking at the last detention basin inspection report for that basin on the back corner of the property, it does need to be cleaned out.

Mr. Okum said there was a comment regarding parking lot striping; has that been added to the plan? Ms. Sherry answered that it had and they will do it as soon as possible if you want them to. It is not a problem to meet any of these conditions.

Mr. Okum asked if she had any problem with the changes in existing lighting on the site, and Ms. Sherry answered that she did not.





Mr. Okum wondered if they intended to replace the storage shed, and Ms. Sherry answered that they did not. With the expansion, there would be no need for it. Mr. Okum asked about their submitting a landscaping plan that would be reviewed and approved but delayed. Ms. Sherry answered we can provide that; we just need a time frame to have that in by.

Mr. Huddleston asked if she were familiar with the lighting requirements within the city, where for example you cannot change out lenses to protruding lenses. Ms. Sherry answered I am not familiar with it, but they do not plan to do that. Mr. Huddleston responded I would ask that you make yourself familiar with that and if there are any replacements that you comply with the requirements. There is some confusion there, and we have had some bad cases. Are you contemplating any color scheme changes? Ms. Sherry answered no.

Mr. Okum moved that the request for changes as submitted be approved with the following conditions:

    1. That the existing lighting on the site shall remain as is;
    2. That the storage shed not be replaced;
    3. That any new HVAC units be screened appropriately and reviewed and approved by staff;
    4. That a landscaping plan be submitted and reviewed by staff prior to the 747 project being done;
    5. That the detention basin items be included;
    6. That the parking lot and striping shall be accommodated on the site.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Ms. Sherry asked if the landscape planned to be in prior to submitting for the building permit and Mr. Okum answered it would be prior to your getting your Certificate of Occupancy.

All except Mr. Vanover who abstained voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Final Plan Approval of Karlo’s Bistro Italia – Pictoria Island

Jim Cox, President of The Bistro Group, Scott Moody, Director of Operations, Bill Robinson, Director of Construction, Kathleen Conway Bell, Vice President of Finance and Development, of The Bistro Group. Our advisory team is Jim Smith, Architect and Art Harden our engineer.

Mr. Cox said The Bistro Group is a 12-year-old privately held business (Conway Family of Cincinnati) and we have the TGI Friday’s franchise. We are seeking to become a multi-concept restaurant company and our second concept is the Karlo’s Bistro Italia. We have been in Florence KY for five years and we want a premier site in the southern Ohio area.







Mr. Cox added that they have looked at the Springdale area because of the demographics, and Pictoria Corporate Center appealed to us because of the concentration of entertainment and our friendly competition, Bahama Breeze, Pappadeaux and Pappacitas.

Ms. McBride reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a 7,243 s.f. restaurant. The site plan indicates there will be 299 seats in the restaurant, and the floor plan indicates 286, so we need a clarification on that, and if that number includes the outdoor seating capacity.

Based on the code, that would require 115 parking spaces, and they are proposing 96 spaces. As the commission knows, a number of the restaurants in there are below our parking requirement. The theory is that the overflow parking will use the Pictoria Island parking garage.

The proposed parking lot is located 10 feet from Northwest Boulevard. However, it is only located four feet from Pictoria Drive and we do require a 10-foot setback from public right of ways.

Similarly the parking lot is located four feet from the south property line and 10 feet from the west property line, and we require 10-foot setback as well. Staff has some concern about the ability of some of the spaces to back out into the access point.

Our PUD ordinance requires 20% open space, but it is for the entire PUD. However the PUD is also subject to the covenants conditions and restrictions of the Northwest Business Center. Specifically in their Exhibit C site development and architectural standards requires that a maximum of 80% of the site be impervious surface area, or 20% be open space. This site is proposing 19.48% open space so they will have to raise that to 20% or amend the covenants.

The proposed rear outdoor patio area is 17 feet from the south property line and 30 feet is required. The building is oriented so that it will be difficult for customers that are using the parking garage to get to the only entrances into the restaurant. Staff has concerns about the accessibility to the dumpster location; we need to have that demonstrated.

On the parking, we will need a commitment from the applicant that their employees will be using the parking garage, since they are short on parking.

On the landscape plan, the mulch beds need to be defined and we need to have parking blocks installed wherever the spaces were heading into sidewalks or planting beds. The landscape screening along the southwest and southeast corners of the parking field need to be increased. The landscape architect that reviewed the plan felt it was very basic. She had a comment regarding the shrub plant material; the installation size of 10 inches is unacceptable.






Ms. McBride added that we also have some concerns about the pedestrian access onto the site, particularly as it relates to the Pictoria Island parking garage.

The photometric lighting plan was done using a high-pressure sodium fixture, which is what the commission has required for Pictoria Island. However, Sheet DP2-1 indicates that alighting is to be metal halite fixture so we need clarification on that.

In terms of the building elevations and floor plans, they have oriented their building with the rear service entrance toward Northwest Drive and the elevation has little landscaping. The service gates are facing out onto the public street and staff doesn’t feel that elevation is acceptable.

Similarly, the north elevation is very stark. It has a lot of their service facilities and will be oriented toward Pictoria Drive. It has no landscaping in that portion, and it is not up to the standards that Bahama Breeze and some of the other people have put in. There has been a lot more architectural detail and landscaping even in some instances where they have been at the back or rear of the building and they have made them look like they are not necessarily the back or rear of the building.

On signage, they are proposing two signs on the building, one on the west and one on the north that will say Karlo’s. Each one contains 21.75 s.f. and that is all the signage they are proposing, a total of 43.5 s.f. I am assuming that is in addition to the 100 s.f. that they are entitled to on the Pictoria Island pylon. They are below the signage permitted.

Art Harden of Calibre Engineering said on the lighting plan, we intended to change the lighting to high-pressure sodium and we will do that.

There is a 1-½ acre requirement in terms of lot size, and they are undergoing a modification to the covenants to allow something less than the 1.5-acre lot size. We would end up with a 1.4-acre lot

On the overall parking, we will utilize the parking garage for the patrons and for our employees, who will be required to park in the garage.

In terms of the 20% greenspace ratio, with the extension of the sidewalks along the west side of the project we have lost some of our greenspace. We feel that we are so close to the 20% that we could modify some of the sidewalk areas and work with staff to come up with a solution to this.

On circulation in this area and cars backing out into the traffic coming in, we took a look at the location and proximity to the existing parking facility and how our drive would line up with that. That dictated how we set the drive in there. We do not anticipate that this will be a major thoroughfare and we do not anticipate a problem.





Mr. Harden said on the landscaping materials, between ourselves and staff we can develop something that will be acceptable. We looked at the comments and came up with something that would exceed the tree caliper size that we presented the first time. We added plantings and tried to get plantings on the north side of the building to screen it. We have some along the west side in terms of the service court area to screen some there.

Mr. Smith, the architect showed the initial design for the concept. On the north elevation, this long area that is the kitchen and services court area will contain some high trees to break it up. There were some concerns about the elevation, and I would like to know what you would propose for this elevation. We would have up to the window line a faux soap large block and from there up the EIFS material (showed the board). All the awnings will be green, possibly green and white. We will have multi-colored ceramic tile within the EIFS.

Originally we had the dumpster on the Pictoria Drive side, and we felt that elevation was much more important than the Northwest elevation. We thought facing the parking garage would be the best position for the service court doors. The dumpsters will be rolled out We have to have the service doors, and we are extending them all the way over at great expense.

The south elevation facing Pappadeaux, there will be nice wrought iron gates coming across there and landscaping will be added.

Mr. Harden added on the parking blocks, we have curb and gutter around all the parking areas and the sidewalk areas around the building itself are 6 inch step down to the pavement, so we feel that parking blocks would not be needed. Most of the cars today have a shroud on the front of them that can’t get over a six-inch curb.

On the dimensioning of the parking, we have shown the dimensions of the parking at a clear distances from the face of curb. There may be some cars that the edges of tire would be in the gutter, but that would be seldom used, so we feel our dimensions should b adequate.

On the storm calculations, we will work with staff on that. We are at the top of the drainage basin so our pipe sizing will be minimal.

There were public improvements referenced regarding placing the left turn lane and striping on Northwest Boulevard. We would like to defer that to the developer of the overall project since that is something that would be part of the initial development and not a public improvement for an outlot.

On the question of pedestrian access to the parking garage, the entrance to the building is on the west side and we are providing sidewalks throughout so we have attempted to address that.








Ms. McBride said that the full size elevations do not match the elevations in the booklet or the elevation you just showed the commission. That is a smaller building. It would be helpful if we could see this building done in an elevation like that.

Secondly, the landscaping they showed you on that elevation does not exist. There is no landscaping past the outdoor patio area, and those are small shrubs, and that is not acceptable.

The third item is that on the elevations submitted, it would be very difficult to tell you what materials are where because they are not identified either by material or color. The landscaping on both the east and north elevations doesn’t do anything to accent your building. Staff would be happy to sit down and work with you as we did with Bahama breeze, but we are not going to sit here tonight and redesign the elevation of your building.,

On the parking blocks, I understand small cars, but I drive a SUV and it will go right up to the top of that and into that landscaping, and that is why we are going to have those parking blocks.

On the access from the parking garage over, I think what we have asked people to do is provide some kind of paver system through the parking area. People will come right across your parking lot and you have people backing out and people coming in and the pavers give some kind of indication to the driver that you should be looking for people coming over from the garage, and that is what we want to see. Mr. Harden said so you are looking for a delineated walkway.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that we need a delineation of where the sidewalks with the integral curbs are gong to be installed around the building, versus the ones that are flush. We assume that the ones that are flush will be in the areas of the handicapped parking spaces.

On the parking in the vicinity of the drive from Northwest boulevard, there is a concern about cars backing out and coming in.

On the number of vehicles that will access that drive, please remember that for traffic coming to this development from the north, their access point will be via Crescentville to Northwest Boulevard so they mostly likely will access that location.

On the dimensions on the parking lot and the curb situation, there is a detail on the plan that indicates Type 6 curb but we were confused as to whether we had Type 6 curb or curb and gutter, which is graphically indicated on the site plan.

Mr. Harden responded that generally they will use curb and gutter along the ring road and straight curb on the interior islands for landscaping, depending on what we need for storm water flow.








Mr. Shvegzda said our concern was regarding the entrance to this area where people are used to traveling on public roads which have edge of pavement delineated by the gutter plate. That is a primary concern.

Also you need to look at situations where you are delineating the parking to with .the curb and gutter section. The concern is that generally those act as a conveyance of storm water. If we have a situation where people are stepping out into a depth of two inches of water, that is a concern.

On storm water management, the retention basin to the south is designed for this, but we need the cumulative impervious area verified that the basin was designed for.

We need storm sewer design calculations, both as to the capacity of the storm sewer and the catch basin grates. Both grates are in sag areas.

The major storm routing will pass over land through the Pappadeaux site. That point where it passes over the landscaped area needs to be designed so that it can pass without ponding up and heading out the parking lot.

We would need some permanent record, by easement or covenant that the particular area is provided for on the Pappadeaux site for the major storm routing of this site.

There are several signs that are noted. One is shown indicates that additional parking is provided for in the garage area, but there are several other signs, which are not noted on the site plan so clarification is needed.

On the modification of the pavement markings, particularly on Pictoria Drive is important. What was initially placed was the center line, and as the drives were constructed to the new sites it was determined where the two way left turn would be restriped. Bahama Breeze made the revisions to their portion of Pictoria Island, and we assume that this would take place the same way here. If the overall developer wants to take over that responsibility, that is fine, but we want to make sure that it takes place.

Mr. Okum said I go to Karlo’s in Florence and enjoy it, but I am having trouble with what we have here. I’m not overly enthusiastic about our east and north exposures. I think it is a disservice to the site. The setback is an issue.

It seems like we are parceling this development, and looking at postage stamp development here. I see Pappadeaux or the future site to the south without common access to the parking fields. I think we could eliminate the situation where cars are coming in off Northwest Boulevard by having a common driveway for Pappadeaux and your restaurant that would share access at common point on that back corner.






Mr. Okum added I see a lot of things left undone and I would hate to act on it this evening. It is not up to this board to redesign your building.

I am not confident that your lighting scheme is anything more than street lights. Because of the placement of the lights to accommodate your site, you have major light fixtures dropping out onto the roadway. Unless you come up with some type of shielding that will give you zero fall, those lights will go in all four directions.

The parking blocks are important; my truck would be in your landscaping as I back it in.

You are showing 24 feet curb to curb and part of that is the gutter area for drainage. Additionally, your parking stalls would have a two inch sheet of ice during the winter if that was your drainage area. There are a number of those on the site.

On landscaping, the building elevations without any break are extremely long. If you scale off the buildings, they are different in length so that 20% may be accomplished by looking at the amount of expanse.

I don’t have a problem with the east elevation being your access gate area. I think it should be to the southeast and not the northeast section. That could be accommodated, and you have to have that. Properly treated and landscaped, you can accommodate that.

I am disappointed in the north elevation. I think it would look like a monolith of drivitt and masonry material with some awnings but it still would be very stark. Again I would like to see it here in the Pictoria development, but at this point I can’t support it..

Mr. Vanover said the parking spaces are a 19 foot minimum, and on DP 2.1, there is a range of 18 to 20 feet and that creates a problem. I see big problems with traffic backing into and out of the corner coming off Pictoria Drive, as well as the other corner.

Has the fire department looked at this in terms of emergency equipment. Mr. McErlane responded that the only question they raised was the detail they showed on the utilities and the fire department connection, which was more of a technical issue than anything else..

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned PUD and is a part of the Pictoria Island/Northwest Business Center PUD. The area shown is the parking lot area dashed indicating the future hotel location. The councilmembers on Planning Commission need to determine whether or not this is a major departure, but the base drawings did show four restaurant sites.

There is a preexisting tree replanting requirement that was developed as part of the original development of the subdivision, which requires approximately 60 caliper inches of trees, the majority of which are to be hardwoods.





Mr. McErlane added that the landscape plan shows 45 inches of hardwoods and 18 inches of ornamentals for 63 inches total. Planning needs to decide whether to allow ornamentals to replace hardwoods.

It was difficult to determine where the property lines were. Part of the confusion was setbacks that were drawn on the west side of the property were not drawn to the property lines. They were drawn to some other easement line.

The fire department comment deals with the detail they show with respect to the fire department connection. The location is acceptable; it is just the way it was shown piped, an engineering detail.

Mr. Cox said I agree that the elevation does not give the size of the building. The main reason is the extension of the service court. The building shown on that plan is the same size as the restaurant, and we will provide new color elevations.

Mr. McErlane said before you get to your service court, there is another vertical wall, which is considerably different from what you show on the lower elevation. Mr. Cox added that we will get you new color elevations. Mr. McErlane said so on the rendered elevation, the step-down portion of the roof is your kitchen.

Mr. Okum said part of the confusion is if you look at that drawing, you have three doorways going out into the seating area and the other drawing is different.

Mr. Vanover said the agenda says you are looking for final plan approval, and we have two concepts and a different plan laying here in front of us. What plan are we giving final approval to? I can’t give a final approval to t his concept or that concept. When I approve a final plan, I want to know that the building is gong to be there.

Mr. Syfert commented I think they would like to have final approval, but they aren’t going to get it tonight. It’s not all put together yet; do you understand that?

Mr. Harden responded we recognize that from the comments. I would propose that we continue this to the next meeting and respond to all staff comments. On the lighting we can put a residential shield on there to insure we don’t have lighting out onto the public right of way.

On the curb and gutter versus straight curb, we will take a look at that and probably go to straight curb except at the entrances or work that out. Even if you use curb and gutter, there is a way to reverse the gutter plate so it drains away from the gutter plate. In most cases the way we have the parking lot designed it does drain away from the curb line.

On the parking blocks, I hear that we are being told that we will put in curb blocks so we’ll update the plan accordingly.





Mr. Harden said I do know that the key question that we have and we have been talking to the developer’s representative tonight concerns the 1 ½ acre requirement. That is something that the developer needs to add4ress before you an make your real decision on this, and because of that, we would like to ask for a continuance.

Mr. Okum said the trees that the developer is placing on the site and your trees should blend with each other. I think you will need to have the placement of the street trees identified on your plan so we know where those are located.

Mr. Harden said the big question is in our tree caliper requirement, we were including the ornamental trees as part of the hardwoods. Bill is asking if that is acceptable to the commission.

Mr. Okum said I agree with those comments; the only thing I want to make sure of is that the trees you are identifying along Pictoria are not the street trees that we are seeing from the developer’s point. There are two sets of trees there.

Ms. McBride added that the covenants provide that the developer will put in one set of street trees, and we have trees that are going in on Karlo’s side of the sidewalk.

Mr. Huddleston said Ms. McBride requested an indication of whether there is outdoor seating and how much. Mr. Cox answered that there is outdoor seating and our revised plans will delineate it. Mr. Huddleston added that it will affect the parking ratio.

Mr. Huddleston added I have a concern with the way we have addressed the various restaurant entities going in in conjunction with the office and parking structure development. Is it a necessity, perhaps, that staff look into this PUD on the basis of the office/restaurant occupancies versus the total parking available for both the garage and surface area? We are saying this restaurant will use this many; this restaurant will use that many. We had an analysis for the office structure. Will that ultimately be a problem? I don’t know the answer, but I can pose the question.

Ms. McBride responded staff has had some of those same concerns. I would suggest we have a running total, whether we create it or the developer’s representatives create it. That applies to more than just the parking. There is an issue on tree replacement. Setting aside the covenant requirement for 20% open space, it goes to the 20% open space requirement for the entire PUD. We don’t want to get to the last lot and discover that as where everybody’s open space will be and you would have to plaint the heck out of it for compensation. I would suggest that it is more appropriate for the developer to put that together and staff could review that and work with them.

Mr. Galster moved tot able and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the item was tabled to October 9th,.




D. Final Plan Approval of Pappadeaux Restaurant – Pictoria Island

Lanie Wess of Woolpert said because of the tragic events today and the airlines canceling their flights, Dave Richards with Pappas Restaurants was not able to make it. However, we will use a conference call, so he can hear all the comments. Mr. McErlane made the connection.

Ms. Wess said I would like to do a brief overview of the site and go to staff comments.

We have moved the drive on the Northwest Boulevard to adjoin the Bahama Breeze property as requested. We have 196 spaces and214 are required. The employees will be using the garage for Pictoria Tower I.

We are encroaching a little bit on the lake. We had moved this proposed wall out along the parking field on the west side five feet so we could put in some landscaped area along the parking field and wall. You see the wall exposed four foot on the west end and seven feet as you approach the building.

There is a patio dining area overlooking the lake. Although we encroach on the lake, we are still over the capacity for the required detention basin.

We have modified the landscaping from the comments of staff. On the hardwoods with the evergreens, we are over the required planting.

Ms. Wess showed the monument sign, 6’-8" high and 7’-3" across, with little sayings for the day on the sign.

Ms. Wess showed the building elevation, adding that the cage was eliminated on the west of the dock area as requested.

Mr. Shvegzda said the building now encroaches further out into the lake. The total volume it takes up of the detention volume is 2,502 cubic feet. That still allows enough detention to satisfy the requirements of the overall site. The retention basin will be pumped out to a 4 foot depth so the construction can take place in that area. It is presumed that the proper sediment and erosion control measures will be taken at that elevation.

On the retaining wall located to the east and west, on the west what is indicated as a vehicle barrier has been constructed. I don’t know if it is a combination of a guard rail hand rail type situation. We’re not sure if it is used solely for the retaining wall area or for the retaining wall area and around the deck area. If it is to be used as a vehicle barrier, we need some kind of versification as to its ability to withstand a vehicle impact.

Apparently part of the retaining wall is going to be submerged. If that is the case, we have a copy of the specs that it will be a segmental type retaining wall system. The concern is that the type utilized there will be constructed and withstand being submerged.





Mr. Shvegzda added that on the retaining wall specifications, as this is integral not only to the structural part of the building but also to the aesthetics, we are asking that the specifications be included on the drawing so it is clear throughout what is to be required.

There are several colors available on the segmental type walls and we would suggest that Ms. McBride approve the color selection.

The applicant via both accesses, the common drive alongside Bahama Breeze and also from Northwest Boulevard has verified fire truck accessibility.

This lot is to be concrete and what is denoted as a gutter plate is to have an inverted slope on it so it won’t be conveying any flow. Essentially it is an extension of the concrete parking lot with a joint out two feet from the face of curb. So we don’t have the same situation as with Karlo’s.

On storm water management, detention volume is alrelady provided. We will need a summary of the impervious area to make sure it is within the confines of the design parameters.

The storm sewer design has been submitted and is acceptable. A portion of the 500-year flood routing is overland, and parts of it are on each of the adjoining properties. There needs to be some kind of permanent record, via either an easement or note in the covenants that this is the route, and that additional improvements can’t be made that would impede this flow.

Mr. Galster said I thought we had talked about splitting that lake up between the two restaurant sites. I don’t see that. I still see a lake settling out in the middle by itself.

Mr. McErlane said that is a question to direct to the developer, because that is the way it has come into us.

David Tipton said we tried very very hard to get Pappadeaux and/or Pappacitas to take all of the lake. We convinced their general counsel in Houston that it was probably a workable solution. They hired a local counsel here who turned it down flat. It is a liability issue, and we couldn’t get them over the hurdle.

I have talked to Cecil and Bill, and I think we have come up with two possible solutions. One is that we put up a performance bond, because Bill says he can’t find this faceless entity called an association. He would have a performances bond in case he couldn’t find the association and needed something done. The other possibility would be to leave it in the title of Northking, the entity that is the developer for the project. We also will put a covenant with it that says it can never be deeded to anyone other than a property owner of Pictoria.

Mr. Galster asked if this was done and recorded with the new plat. Mr. Tipton said that would be a condition of the recording of the new plat. Mr. Galster said so it hasn’t happened yet, and you haven’t gotten final approval from the city at this point?





Mr. Tipton answered Cecil wanted to talk to Derrick and he is here this evening. Mr. Galster said so this item is still trying to be worked out. Mr. Tipton added that they will never find somebody we can deed the lake to. MEPT will not take title to the lake; Pappadeaux will not take title to the lake; Pappacitas will not take title to the lake. It was a good idea if we could have found somebody to do it. There is no leverage that we have to force somebody to take on that liability, even though the association is responsible for and will put up the liability insurance.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. Parham if he were comfortable with this proposal. .Mr. Parham said Cecil and I have had a number of discussions but this is one that apparently escaped his recollection so we have not discussed this issue. I can talk to him about it tomorrow.

Addressing Mr. Tipton, Mr. Parham said am I to assume that your discussion with Mr. Osborn was that the city would take ownership? Mr. Tipton said no. I met with Cecil Friday in his office. I had run out of ideas on how to try to handle this. One of the ideas that he came up with was the performance bond, putting up the bond so that if anything would go wrong, if Bill or whomever couldn’t find anybody to correct it, you would have the performance bond to fall back on. What he wanted to see was if it was okay with the City to use that as an acceptable standard.

Mr. Parham wondered if the performance bond were based on maintenance, and not liability. Mr. Tipton answered that the city would be an additional insurer for the liability side of it. Title to it would stay in the name of Northking. Northking would put up a performance bond and also give an easement to the city for the TIF, so that is where the city would take on the liability. Northking also would give an easement to the association, where the title to this really should be; it should be in the name of the association.

The city would be protected in two ways, under a liability as an additional insured and also as a performance bond for Bill.

Mr. Parham said the performance bond handles the maintenance issue to a degree. On the liability, you said that the city would be an additional insured, but then you later on said that the city would take on the liability through the easement. Mr. Tipton responded any liability that the city would have would be by virtue of the easement that we would give to the city for the TIF.

Mr. Galster commented that it sounds like we have a little way to go to talk and work this out. Even though we might be making progress, my question would be are we comfortable with this approval because we don’t have it figured out yet?

Mr. Parham said the ideal situation for the city is that some entity outside the city has the responsibility for the coverage for the body of water, The city is then listed as an additional insured in that vein, so that if something happens, the first person they come to is that entity.






Mr. Parham added I don’t know what that entity is, and my concern would be if we are talking about an entity that is out there and they then go under, who is then held responsible, and what protection does the city have?

Mr. Tipton responded this will be a very active association. We have had an association similar to this at Wards Corner for 12 years. There are officers elected, annual meetings and records kept. I am sure that Mr. Huddleston and other directors have had the same thing.

This will be a large budget. As you recall, this association is taking care of the right of way for the interstate, the upkeep of the lake, the fountains, all of the common areas, and the brick pavers. It is a rather large budget, and it will be a rather large association. The association will also be buying the liability insurance.

Mr. Shvegzda said in relationship to the discussion that Mr. Tipton had with Mr. Osborn, I received a voice mail message from Mr. Osborn indicating that his interpretation would be that the association would have ownership of that particular lake lot and that he was looking to us to put together a reasonable amount that would cover major maintenance issues with the lake. That would be put forward as the guarantee bond in perpetuity. I have not had a chance to get back to Mr. Osborn to discuss that in any additional detail.

Mr. McErlane said to address Mr. Galster’s comments, on how this impacts this development plan, the configuration of this development plan probably won’t change dependent on where that property line falls, with the exception of the percentage of open space. Ms. McBride and I both feel it should meet the 20%, which means shifting the lot line a little further into the lake to accomplish it.

With respect to the development plan, the location lot line really only impacts the setbacks we have outlined and that open space requirement. It really won’t physically change the layout of the development plan.

Mr. Tipton said I have no problem with moving the lot line a little further south and giving them more of the lake. I wanted to give them the whole lake, but if they want to do that, that would be perfectly okay with the developer. If we can’t get them to do that, the purpose of the lake was so that we could spread all of that area pro rata over all of the lots, rather than having to have the 20% greenspace on the lot.

Mr. Okum said I have to agree that if it is necessary to move the property line further into the lake for the Pappadeaux facility and use, it would be an appropriate use. You could tie the lake with the greenbelt into the big building, the Pictoria Tower if you had to. Right now the site for Pappacitas has not been approved so that site could ultimately be forced to absorb the lake into it too.






Mr. Okum added I don’t think we want to see that; I think we want to get a compromise and have it comes to a conclusion. Either a greenbelt to tie it together or some type of deeding and insurance. I always have insurance; when it lapses who takes on the responsibility, are there exclusions in the policy, etc." I would be very conservative with how you handle that, especially with no direct ownership.

Ms. Wess said responding to Don’s report, when you talk about the guard rail and whether it would be an ODOT type guard rail, the way it is now, and it is not. If you want any type of decorative railing, it is not,. That is why we pulled the wall out from the parking area 5 feet, and there is a lot of landscaping proposed in that area and around beyond it. From 275 you can see the railing, but it is more decorative, not to restrict cars.

The proposed runoff coverage for the site is 0.79, which is below what was proposed for the preliminary development, so the retention pond is still designed adequately.

On the 500 year overland easement or covenant, that is something I will have to talk about with the developer and owners of the property.

For the 100 year storm, all the water is actually contained within the storm pipe on the site. It is only with the 500 year storm and because of the elevations of the Bahama Breeze that there is some spillover. On this part of the site it actually overflows and goes into the lake, and Pappas Restaurants would own this. Karlo’s would need an easement not only through Pappadeaux and Pappacitas and Bahama Breeze. I understand that it has to happen for a 500-year storm. Can it be placed in the covenants or is it just a general statement in the covenants?

Mr. Shvegzda said it is written in that particular pond would be designed for that particular intensity storm in order for that to work. Unless the whole 500 year storm would be conveyed via the storm sewer, it has to be done in combination with the storm sewer and over land. Therefore that over land routing has to be protected from anything that would inhibit the flow of that storm path.

Mr. Wess responded I am sure we can work it out. It is just something that we have to discuss with the owners.

Mr. Shvegzda added that on the guardrail issue, we do have a guardrail that is ODOT that is basically designed for vehicular impact and it is a decorative type guardrail. It has recently been installed on Kemper Road, and we can get that to you. Ms. Wess asked what it was made of and Mr. Shvegzda answered that it is the one at Princeton Plaza.

On the phone connection, Mr. Richards stated that the guardrail on their plan is not a vehicular guardrail. It is more of a guardrail for people to make sure that they don’t jump over it.






Mr. Richards added that we do have a landscape buffer, and if you want to see another one of those guardrails like at Bahama Breeze, we can put it in the landscaping and hide it. Mr. Okum said no thank you.

Mr. Richards continued that what we typically do is raise the curb heights so that if a car comes up there the curb is nine to 12 inches and if the car tries to run over it, they have to run over the curb first and then the guardrail is mounted in the top of the curb. It is two fold; the car is not going to drive through there and it also keeps the liability down from people climbing over it.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that this was an alternative; we have done that in other locations where a sufficient height in the curb is made, but I don’t think that was indicated on the plans.

Mr. Richards said I don’t think it was either, but we can submit a detail to you for that. Mr. Shvegzda answered that would deal with the vehicular part of it; I don’t know about the aesthetics of the rail system. Ms. McBride would have to deal with that.

Mr. Okum said we had a 1.41-acre site before us a few minutes ago that had two cuts on the public right of way. Now we have a site that is 2.45 acres and we have one cut on the public right of way. I mentioned earlier that I felt Karlo's or the other site possibly should share a common access point on North Commerce Way near the northern portion of the site. That would give you a 24-foot wide cross flow portion for water flow to travel between the sites at that northeast corner, as long as an easement is arranged. So we would accomplish two things; give a place for the water to flow if it needs to and give a common entrance for that corner site. I don’t understand how we have a 1.41 acres site with two access points and a 2.45-acre site with much more parking with one access point.

Mr. Shvegzda responded that each has one access to a public right of way and one access to a private common drive. Mr. Okum said couldn’t Pappadeaux and Karlo’s utilize a common driveway on that north point?

Mr. Richards responded we would not want it. Our drainage will be internally drained into the detention pond, and we could have pipes that they could tie into. Mr. Okum answered the discussion earlier was that your drainage would meet the 100 year storm but you would not meet the 500 year storm which is part of the covenants. Your pipes would have to be oversized to accommodate that. Is there any reason that you would not want to see a common access point between the other site and your site?

Mr. Richards said when we originally talked about having the access drive over to Bahama Breeze, we run our restaurant as an independent entity from everything around it, and we would like to maintain it. We really don’t want to be tied to any of the surrounding properties.






Mr. Okum responded I understand that, but if those were the conditions of your placement on the site and it was a good engineering decision, would you be that negative to it?

Mr. Richards answered we don’t want it. If there is any way to get out of it, we will try that. As far as an engineering decision we can’t see the advantage of having it. We have a new access. We have accommodated you on the Bahama Breeze side. We just do not need another access to our property. If it becomes an issue of getting water from one parking lot to the other, we can leave an open area or a swale, but it would become a drainage area.

Mr. Okum responded I understand, but that would eat into your greenspace as well. We are trying to come up with something of a benefit to everyone here.

Mr. Richards answered I understand that, but if we have to maintain the 20% open area and we are shifting our lot line two feet into the lake, we should be able to maintain the additional green space that would take up.

Mr. Okum said on the easements, Pappacitas site is a separate one and would probably require the same water treatment or easements for water conveyance as your site, because at any time you could sell off and split your parcels. We do have two lots and two independent sites, and those requirements would apply to both.

Mr. Richards answered because it is a separate site, wouldn’t it be able to drain directly into the detention pond? Ms. Wess reported that during the 500-year storm the water run over land. If you look at the perimeter of the site, that is what controls where it runs off. We are talking about the Pappadeaux site here. The low spot is near the curb cut on the cul de sac where your sidewalk is. There is a catch basin to the east of your parking area and it runs along that storm line down that catch basin on the east side of your property. We are talking about Pappadeaux giving an easement to Pappacitas.

Mr. Richards answered we have no problem giving ourselves an easement in case we would sell one off at a later date.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if this wouldn’t affect the Karlo’s lot. Mr. Shvegzda answered that the Pappadeaux site would have to have that easement on those particular locations to accommodate the cul de sac.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned PUD and is a part of the Pictoria Island/Northwest Business Center PUD. The applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan to construct a 3,332 s.f. restaurant building. The front yard, rear yard and north side yard setbacks for the building all meet the code requirements. The south side yard setback adjacent to the lake is a foot short of the requirement. The front yard for parking meets code; the rear yard for parking is only one foot, and it is required to be 10 feet.





Mr. McErlane added that the north parking side yard setback is five feet and is required to be 10 feet, and the south side yard parking setback meets code.

Two wall signs are shown, one at 149.5 square feet which is the same size we saw last month. The north sign has been reduced to 120 s.f. and I believe there was a sign on the east side that was removed last time.

The ground sign is shown at 6’-8" high with panels that total 34.4 s.f. The total sign area proposed is 303.9 s.f. + a previously approved 100 s.f. panel on the pylon sign. The allowable sign area is 216.5 s.f.

Required parking is 214 spaces and they are providing 196 on the property.

The preexisting tree replacement requirement requires a total of 119 caliper inches, most of which are hardwoods. The landscaping plan has a variety of trees, but not all of them are indicated with caliper inches so we can’t do an adequate comparison. The total number of hardwoods indicated is 95 ½ inches, but there are a numbers of ornamentals and excess evergreens. If we permit them to be used as an alternate for hardwoods, that would take them above the 119 inches required. We do need documentation to verify that.

The other question raised earlier was that the pre existing tree replacement also applies to the acreage that is now part of the association’s portion of the pond. That area also requires replacement of trees, so we need to comes to some agreement as to where that tree replacement will come from.

Ms. McBride said at staff’s request the applicant provided directional signage to be located in the parking lot so that when somebody cruises through there, there is a sign saying additional parking available in the Pictoria Island parking garage. We will need to have a signed parking agreement, and since it is to be shared it will have to be signed by both the applicant and the owner of the Pictoria Island parking garage. That also would apply to Karlo’s or anybody else who will be using the garage.

In terms of the signage, my only other comment would be that the commission just saw Karlo’s with 43.5 s.f. of sign area for the whole project, and they do not have any interstate visibility. I would ask the commission to keep that in mind when you review the signage for this.

The applicant did remove the expanded metal security cage on the west side of the building at staff’s request, and we thank you. Additionally they are proposing to add some 10-foot blue spruce trees on the Bahama Breeze property, which would further screen that waste area, a nice suggestion.







Ms. McBride said that the material board indicates that some of the wood looks like it is partially painted, a pickled kind of appearances. We have asked the applicant to bring in some photographs, and I don’t know if they are still in Texas. We can work with them on that.

They are proposing the block retaining wall but we have not seen any information on the material or color of that wall and we would like to review that before any permits are issued.

We talked about the guardrail adjacent to the lake, wand we do not have any information what that will look like and we would want to see that.

They are proposing a neon band on part of the bulilding. Staff doesn’t have a problem with that, but if a part of the neon goes out, then all must be shut off.

On the gates they are proposing for their dumpster enclosure, staff has some concerns that at the top they are a little too open. We would ask that the venting area be reduced so that the waste receptacle isn’t visible from the parking area.

They are proposing a railing for the deck and patio and some other areas. It is not indicated, but we would ask that that be hot dipped galvanized after fabrication.

Mr. Richards said it is a painted rail; it is not galvanized. Ms. McBride responded that would be staff’s recommendation.

In terms of the photometric lighting plan, they are using the Pictoria Island fixture and staff doesn’t have any additional comments.

They have made a number of revisions on the landscape plan that staff requested. The only other items would be that the mulch beds need to be defined on the landscape plan. The parking blocks need to be installed in the parking spaces that head into the landscape planting or those that are adjacent to and head into sidewalks . We would ask that some additional plantings be required around the perimeter of the parking areas, the west, north and east corners of the site. Also, if they could add a north arrow to the landscape plan that would be helpful.

Mr. Okum wondered what they did when the partially painted wood ages and needs to be repainted.

Mr. Richards responded that we have a maintenance crew in Atlanta, and it gets repainted that day. It is brand new material that has been painted to look that way. It is a three part process where we stain it first, paint one color underneath it, lightly stain it and varnish it over. It is a technique we use to give our building the aged appearance. We want the building to look like it has been there 30 years. It is not difficult to repaint.







Mr. Okum said so if someone were to look at that wood, they would assume that it is a weathered piece of wood but it is actually fully coated. It just happens that part of the coating is a stained or translucent color. Mr. Richards answered yes; that piece of wood has more paint on it than most houses. It has three or four coats on it.

Mr. Okum asked what process they used to retouch, and Mr. Richards answered that it would be the same process. The only thing it wouldn’t get is the stain, because it is already there. If it would become rotted, it would be torn off and replaced.

Mr. Okum commented I don’t know that I like that much of it when it comes to the wood fencing you have going up that handicap access way. Mr. Richards answered with as much landscaping as we have, it shouldn’t be a problem. I took some pictures to show you all this, and I’m very sorry I couldn’t make it. When I went to take the pictures at our other restaurant, I was surprised to find that you can’t see that much of it because of the landscaping.

Mr. Okum asked if that system was being used for all the other restaurants, and Mr. Richards answered that they have, adding that the railing has been on that building since the first one we built. Mr. Okum asked how many restaurants they operate and Mr. Richards answered that it is Style 22 and the restaurants have been in existence since 1967.

Because we are a family owned business and because we do everything in house, we have maintained our restaurants impeccably. We do all maintenance ourselves. We have learned in the past that when it comes to a profit margin, the manager won’t spend money on certain things, and your building looks terrible. So we have taken that away from the restaurant itself and it becomes an independent issue to have covered. We have no problem with replacing the wood or repainting it the minute it becomes old. We have a painting maintenance crew that goes through our restaurants four times a year or as needed. It is not something that will ever get to the point where it looks like it is rotted or falling off. I can understand your concern, because everybody haw the same concern. If you look at the finished product, it fits with the total design of the building and you will be amazed at our maintenance ability.

Mr. Okum said the lighting packet showed external building light packs. Are those directed toward the building and not toward the open area? Mr. Richards answered yes, we don’t want any lights pointing out to the open area. In fact most of our parking lot lighting will be shielded so there is not a glaring fixture as you drive up the street.

Mr. Okum said so if we make a condition that parking lot lighting and building lights shall be shielded or downlit, you don’t have a problem with that at all. Mr. Richards indicated that he didn’t all of our building light is downlit.






Mr. Okum said I would like to revisit the potential of tying the sites in together. I know Mr. Richards doesn’t want it, but it would help to have a common entrance at the corner.

Mr. Whitaker asked about the exterior pole lights, saying he has a diagram stating that the pole lights are 30 feet high. Are we going with 30 feet or are we staying with 24 feet as recommended? Ms. Wess answered said they are 30 feet high which was used at Bahama Breeze. We are just keeping it consistent. Mr. Whitaker said this says 30 feet and what was submitted for Karlo’s was 26 feet. Mr. Richards added that we are going with whatever the Pictoria Island standard is.

Mr. Okum said that there was a discrepancy between Ms. McBride’s recommendation for hot dipped galvanized and the applicant’s intention to have that all painted. Does that mean that the square latticing in that rail system is painted as well? Mr. Richards indicated that it is all painted; there isn’t anything that is bare. Mr. Okum asked if that wire material is similar to construction mesh for concrete? Mr. Richards answered it is a larger version of it, 4’ x 4’, The wood top cap is solid mahogany that is stained.

Ms. Wess added that on the lighting plan, there are four decorative lights proposed in this island and if you are going to make the motion conditional on down lighting, they are not downlilt. Mr. Richards added that those four lights would have 60-watt bulbs. We want to create an atmosphere, nothing glaring.

Mr. Okum said considering that you are getting 100 s.f. on I-275, it is a pretty significant exposure, and your building is an icon in itself, and I don’t see the need to have such an extensive amount of signage. Is there anyway we can bring these signage levels down some?

Mr. Richards responded that the signage is not only a part of the location of the building, but it also adds to the atmosphere of the building. We have upped the quality of the ground sign because of the concerns of the last discussion. The building sign on the freeway sign has not been changed, but the opposite side sign has been drooped a percentage. If we keep dropping it to a certain point, it will look strange on the building.

Mr. Okum said you are referring to the south building elevation sign? Mr. Richards answered that the size of the south building sign was no problem last time. They liked the way the north elevation looked, but it seemed a little big and we were asked to reduce the size. It was 149 s.f.

Mr. Okum said so your feeling is that the balance of signage for the size of the building is proportional. Mr. Richards confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else shared Mr. Okum’s concern about the signs, or do you feel as you did last month?







Mr. Galster said I am okay with the building signs, but I am not real thrilled about the reader board on the ground-mounted sign. Mr. Richards said I had pictures for you to see. I think you would like the reader board if you could see it, and I will overnight this. I can appreciate your concerns because in that picture it looks like a reader board, but because we have dressed it up, in my opinion it will look beautiful. I think you will be impressed with the way we handle our signage.

Mr. Galster added that he also had a concern with the common driveway issue. As a patron of your site, it makes it more convenient for me to be able to go between the different sites. It seems like we are creating a flow nightmare between the four restaurants, and I would hate to see that happen.

Mr. Richards said actually you have access to all the restaurants either via public street or a private drive. We have made the circulation appropriate for all the restaurants combined. Also, the combination entrance on the northwest takes away from our main entrances to our property. You have taken away our entrance, the place where everybody is coming to our restaurant. The combination detracts from the entrance to our property that with all the islands and landscaping, we are trying to maintain.

Mr. Okum said we mentioned the tree replacement issue, and with the lake being a lot in itself, we have to get some balance. Mr. McErlane indicated that we need documentation to meet the 119 caliper inches.

Mr. McErlane reported I think the landscape plan probably has enough trees to do that. They are not expressed in caliper inches. Mr. Okum said they may be over 119 inches and that might go to balance some of this inequity that we might have on the entire development. I think all of these parcels are responsible for that requirement. I don’t want to see another contribution to the Tree Preservation Fund. If we can blend this into all the sites, we can make that an accomplishment.

Mr. Tipton stated I agree with your comments. After hearing the comments on Karlo’s and Pappadeaux, I would propose that we

Meet with Bill and try to do an overall tree plan for the streets and the other common areas, and have those to go along with both the restaurants. I think that is a good idea.

Mr. Okum said so your proposal is so as not to add to Pappadeaux tree replacement but before you come back in with another development, have a resolve to the tree issue. Mr. Tipton replied you said earlier that there should be some trees planted along what was Northwest Boulevard and is now Pictoria Drive. What I think we should do is meet with Bill and figure out how many and what size and where those should be, and blend that with Karlo’s. If there are additional trees needed around the lake, we the developer should take care of that.







Mr. Tipton added I have heard a lot of comments on the parking garage. That is a TIF parking garage that will in the month of November be deeded to the City of Springdale. The City of Springdale will be the owner of that parking garage. As I think Derrick can attest to, the conditions of that TIF are that we must leave that parking garage open 24 hours a day 365 days a year with free parking for anyone. The City of Springdale will sign an operating agreement, a maintenance agreement with MEPT who will be responsible for totally taking care of the garage. They can never charge for it, nor can they shut it down.

Mr. Vanover asked if there is any adverse feelings on your part that we have a complete survey of the site in terms of parking? This is not uncommon with shared parking, and I would like to see that and make sure we haven’t created any headaches.

Mr. Tipton responded we don’t want to create any headaches either. I believe the parking requirements for an office building is 4 per thousand and we have roughly 250,000 s.f. of net rentable space which would require 1,000 spaces. The parking garage is 1,132 cars, so we start off with a surplus of 132 cars. We built an awful lot of office buildings in the city, and at four per thousand, we have never had one over 75% filled. Even four per thousand for us is an overkill, but we would be happy to work with staff on that.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Galster mentioned the northeast corner common access, but if there is no sentiment on the board, I won’t tie it into the motion. He asked Mr. Shvegzda if it were good planning and engineering to tie the two parcels together with a common drive?

Mr. Shvegzda answered that there are two parts to that question. There is a common access point via the common drive that runs to the west of the site, for Bahama Breeze, Karlo’s and Pappadeaux. It was originally envisioned that way. The common access point does affect parking somewhat. The question then becomes would it be preferable to eliminate the Karlo’s driveway to Northwest Boulevard, as it is very close to the area you are looking at, at the northeast. There are a lot of issues to take into consideration to define whether it is good sense planning to do that.

Mr. Okum said if I am hearing what you are saying that if common access is given on the common driveway, if we did not give the Karlo’s site an access to Northwest Boulevard, they really wouldn’t have access to a public right of way. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed that.

Mr. Huddleston said I share the concerns that I expressed last month. In an attempt to get common drives but better alignments, I suggested a shared drive easement across both this lot and the Karlo’s lot from the existing Bahama Breeze through to Northwest Boulevard. I still think that is a good idea, and I think it is worth looking at. We are a little late in the process, even though it was suggested early on, but I would defer to our traffic engineer’s expertise as to whether we have a safe and viable situation with all the various entrances and exits.





Mr. Huddleston added that as far as Pappadeaux itself goes, he does need that second entrance onto the public right of way anyway, so I don’t buy that shouldn’t be there, regardless of where the focal point of the site is intended to be, but I would again question our city engineer as to whether there is a sound basis for trying to work out some agreement on the common driveway.

Mr. Shvegzda responded if I remember correctly, your comments were that the parking lot should be reconfigured such that there would be a common parking field. At this point, I don’t know if the applicant can arrange his parking field, because in order to get that to work with the Karlo’s site, it would affect the sequence of parking on one or the other sites. I’m not sure how that can be done.

Mr. Huddleston responded I had suggested this the last time Pappadeaux application was before us. I don’t know if it ever had been responded to, and now, at least on a concept basis, have acted on the Karlo’s Restaurant site.

Mr. Richards stated that they adjusted their entrances per the comments from the last meeting. We deleted one of our entrances on Northwest Boulevard, and added one to the public drive between Bahama Breeze and our restaurant. We did take your comments and adjust our site according to the discussion we had.

Mr. Huddleston responded on the one hand I recognize that you are looking for independence in terms of your site parking. On the other hand, we have a common development here with a lot of common usages and a lot of variances being granted based on the commonality of the overall development. In this case, we are ignoring that commonality in dealing strictly with the individual sites.

Mr. Richards commented I have not had a chance to see the Karlo’s site plan, but in discussion it seems that there is cross access from Bahama Breeze to our property. There is cross access from Northwest Boulevard to Bahama Breeze across our parking lot, and I’m not sure how a common drive would help the development to make it flow more.

Mr. Huddleston said I’ll leave it up to the other members of the commission to voice any concerns. If I’m the lone wolf here, I can understand that and accept that. My point was to gain a common somewhat straight through access which I felt would serve all the sites better and perhaps give us a better public safety circulation. If the engineer and other members don’t agree with that concept, I’ll accept it.

Mr. Okum said I don’t disagree with you at all; that was my exact consideration when we were looking at this postage stamp approach to these parcels. This is a blended development of a unique group of businesses, some of which have something very much in common, restaurant use. When you postage stamp these eventually one outlot will not conform or blend.







Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I can understand your position if you are a developer and want to run a Pappadeaux and not have any connection with your parking fields tying together, but on the other hand, we have created four postage stamp parcels that all have unique common entranceways and no sharing of parking fields. When I go to a restaurant, if one of the fields is full, I’m going to be parking someplace closer, and 350 feet from your building to the garage will not be my choice. I probably would park in Karlo’s lot if it is available. I don’t care if it is a public access garage, there is no way I will walk 350 feet to the entrances of a restaurant, when I can find a spot 150 feet away in another parking field.

Mr. Richards said I have a question. Is it just that you want an access from our parking lot to Karlo’s, because we can take out three parking spaces and create and create an independent drive between the same property without adjusting the entrances to each property.

Mr. Okum said that would satisfy my position on it. It would give access, but I still would like to see what Mr. Huddleston has referred to as a crossover between the sites to allow that blending of choices.

Mr. Richards commented that the big issue that we would have with a straight shot from the parking garage over to Bahama Breeze through our parking lot is the pedestrian danger. We would end up having someone get hit in that parking lot.

Mr. Okum responded it wouldn’t be a straight over because the exit out of the garage is further north than that. It would give the people an access point to get around. I certainly think that Karlo’s parking field and the way everything sets there is an odd lot out and it ended up being Karlo’s. That is not your problem, but everybody is grabbing the amount of space they need and we end up with a 1.41-acre site instead of our 1.5 because of that. Somehow we need to get these sites to blend with each other and Karlo’s ends up odd man out. Your site is the predominant site, the icon site of the development.

Mr. Richards answered I have no problem with deleting three parking spaces and having a drive through to Karlo’s, if that is what it takes to get it approved. Keep in mind that there is nothing in our ownership agreement that says we have cross parking agreement. There is no cross parking agreement for this whole development.

Mr. Okum commented that is probably where we erred and it should have been for the whole site.

Mr. Richards said I have no problem, but I really would like to maintain my entrance to my property without sharing it with anybody.







Mr. Okum said the one in the cul de sac is a great entrance and if you have valet parking it probably will work extremely well. My suggestion never was to eliminate that key entrance to your site. To have a 24-foot wide cut further up on Northwest Boulevard that could benefit Karlo’s and you right on the property line splitting that access would be a major improvement to the development. You only would lose three or four parking spaces, and the garage will make up that difference but it at least would blend the two parcels together in an entrance. Sure, Karlo’s would use it.

Mr. Richards said in looking at Karlo’s plan, they have an entrance across from the parking garage. Mr. Okum said they are reworking their plan, and I am not looking for that entrance to be there when they return. I think that entrance creates some problems in their parking field where cars will be backing out into that entrance, which creates a traffic issue. If we could get a common entrance, giving you two points of entrance off the public right of way, I know your key entrance is the big entrances at the cul de sac, but certainly I don’ necessarily agree with where Karlo’s entrance is either.

I am saying move Karlo’s entrance further south, give you half an entrance on that further south entrance and everybody is happy.

Ms. Wess said they actually would lose six spaces. Mr. Richards said do I get to delete my entrance to Bahama Breeze? Mr. Okum answered that wasn’t what I was thinking. We are trying to make everything blend and have a group of happy businesses working together. Mr. Richards said if it becomes a sticking point tonight, I will put the half of the drive in, my half. Mr. Okum said I think you wold want to confer with your engineer and it will take some planning. We put this on the floor of a situation with a previous restaurant in Springdale a number of years ago. One restaurant took it as an option and the other refused it, and we ended up with a parking nightmare.

You have Mr. Tipton here who is putting this package together and there are two developments that could come into this site and we have to make it work for everybody. We need to get this to a happy resolve, and moving Karlo’s further south and giving you an extra access point eliminates that, but everybody has to be in agreement.

Mr. Richards responded for my part I’ll agree with it, but Karlo’s needs to look at this and agree as well.

Mr. Huddleston said Karlo’s only has concept approval. Mr. Okum said so you would allow a cross easement for purposes of vehicular traffic between the two parcels at one location in the northeast corner. Mr. Richards confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said you also would allow an additional cut in the Northwest Boulevard, and you would pay for half the cost of that access point. It would be a shared cost. Mr. Richards added that it would be an access between the two properties and the drive would be a combination thing.





Addressing Ms. Wess, Mr. Okum asked if she could handle the easements to make it work. Mr. Syfert said Karlo’s won’t like it. Ms. Wess added that they will have to check their turning radiuses.

Mr. Syfert said now you are creating a nightmare; that is their service side. Mr. Okum said that is their service side that had eight parking spaces that our engineer felt were a hazard. I’m not trying go create a nightmare; I’m trying to get some shared space, instead of postage stamping these sites.

Mr. Bill Woodward of Tipton Industries said I want to be clear what the suggestion was. Are we saying a common drive here on the property line? Is the concern that it would create a major drive through between the Bahama Breeze and Northwest Boulevard? Is it a concern for the pedestrian?

Mr. Richards answered that it would have to be centered on that piece of property. That was my original point, that you now have a straight shot from that parking garage to Bahama Breeze. Either way they go, onto Karlo’s property or our property, you have a car doing 30 miles per hour across that parking lot. The way Karlo’s and our property are set up at this point, the car has to make a few turns within the parking lot and therefore be forced to slow down. We have had that issue and have had to end up putting in stop signs and speed bumps.

Mr. Woodward commented the other reason I don’t particularly like this is that when people come in looking for Karlo’s they will look directly into the parking garage.

Mr. Okum said that also will allow the cars that come out of the parking garage to go directly into Karlo’s lot at the most significant area of traffic hazard for cars backing out as our engineer indicated.

By shifting that drive access on Karlo’s further south, you are eliminating that straight through out of the parking garage into the parking field, of either restaurant. They will have to turn and turn again in order to go into both sites.

Mr. Richards suggested shifting that drift to the north to align with the drive in front of the restaurant. That would kill the direct in and out of the garage, and also would create an entrance for the restaurant.

Mr. Okum asked how far to the north, adding that there has to be a certain distance of the cut between that and the intersection.

Ms. Wess said the curb cut on Karlo’s is in line and since all of these will be using that garage as an overflow, it makes sense to have that access directly there so they won’t have to go back out on the public street to access the garage.

When you were first talking about a curb cut onto Karlo’s to ease the flow through the sites, I was thinking you were eliminating these three spaces so theses people can come out this way. Mr. Okum said that would be my second position provided our engineer didn’t support a second cut on a dividing property line coming off the northwest for both sites.





Ms. Wess added that the overflow for Pappadeaux could have a direct out to the garage, and Bahama Breeze and Karlo’s would have the same direct access. It makes sense.

Mr. Galster said it will be tough to try to work this out when we don’t have all of the layouts and parties together to see how it would affect each others sites. If we have an agreement with this applicant that he will be amicable to looking at either a shared curb cut and/or an interconnection losing three parking spaces drive between the two properties, and then allow the developer, the two applicants, our city engineer to get together and work out the flow of the traffic, isn’t that sufficient?

Mr. Syfert said that wouldn’t affect anything else. Mr. Galster said right, and granted it leaves the final design of his parking field a little up in the air until this meeting can happen, but I hate to place it until everyone can meet and see what works best for the applicants and the developer.

Mr. Shvegzda said probably the least disruptive to the individual sites would be the direct cross connection between the two parking fields, as opposed to the common drive out to Northwest Boulevard. That creates turning movements that would have to come right off the drive. However, if that drive is still left on Karlo’s original location, we have the common access point between the two parking fields. That still leaves that problem with the parking spaces that are parked into the east spaces of the building. Maybe the only option would be the elimination of that parking field.

Mr. Galster said if we left it where we have the option from this option, the worst thing would be we would come back tow hat he has right now. As long as we have an agreement from this applicant to look at whatever options; as long as we have this understanding, if we can’t make it work better, then we are where we are.

Mr. Okum said so the applicant shall allow a cross easement for purposes of vehicular traffic in the northeast corner and/or shared cost of access at Northwest Boulevard, driveway access to be discussed and resolved between the applicants and our city engineer. Addressing the applicant, he asked if that sounded okay, and Mr. Richards said that is fine.

Mr. Okum moved for final approval of the Pappadeaux Restaurant with the following conditions:

    1. All staff, engineer and city planner recommendations with the following exceptions:

That the railing wire fencing for deck and patio areas shall be maintained and painted in the color presented;

That the applicant shall have a high curb and rail system that shall be acceptable to our city engineer on the southwest corner;

That the mechanical units shall be in staff and Planning Commission’s approved enclosures;





That all lighting shall be less than .5 fall at all property lines;

Wall mounted light packs if used shall be shielded and downlit only and shall not affect adjoining property owners and/or the public right of way;

All lighting fixtures, except for LCF-1, carriage light, shall be approved;

That all lighting fixtures shall be as submitted;

Accent lighting such as neon translucent shall be all lit at all times or turned off;

That the tree preservation conditions shall include documentation to meet the 119 caliper inch requirement;

That the easements allowing cross easements for purposes of 500-year storm for overland conveyance shall be applied;

That site lines shall be adjusted for meeting the 20% open space;

That allowance of cross easement for purpose of vehicular traffic in the northeast corner and/or shared cost of access at Northwest Boulevard, driveway access, to be discussed and re solved between applicants and city engineer.

Ms. .Wess said there are four LCF-1 fixtures, three in the island and one near the emergency walkway. Mr. Okum amended it to say LCF-1 fixtures as submitted.

Mr. Woodward asked if that included signage, and Mr. Okum indicated that it did, as submitted

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 10:00 p.m.

    1. Approval of Proposed Exterior Color Change, Famous Dave’s 11823 Springfield Pike (former Remington’s Roadhouse)

Dan Egan, Managing Partner said we are proposing to change the existing green seamed aluminum roof to red. WE need approval for that. Mr. Syfert asked why they wanted to do that, and Mr. Egan answered that it fits the concept color. It is a roadside shack barbecue concept, a 1950’s roadside shack with red and white checked tablecloths, pinewood floors and a lot of artifacts in the restaurant.

Ms. McBride that the applicant is belatedly requesting that they be allowed to keep the roof and trim of the building bright red. It is staff’s opinion that this is blatantly in the face of the requirements of the Corridor Review District. If the commission were to approve that, I guarantee you that we would have everybody else up and down the corridor in here saying you held me to these standards, why not them? Specifically we refer to the roof color. In my opinion, there is no discretion for you.






Ms. McBride said that when I visited the site, I noticed that they have rooftop and ground mounted equipment that is not screened from view, and it needs to be under out standards, both the existing and any proposed.

The dumpster location is falling apart and it needs to be rebuilt or repaired and it also needs to have gates added to the front side that faces the public street. If they are going to be removing the green and orange neon, which they indicated on their submittal to us, it cannot be removed and replaced with another color because the Corridor District does not allow building accent lighting.

The only other comment is that on the day I went out there, there was a catering trailer that had the Famous Dave’s logo on it parked on the site and a steel cooking trailer to the rear of the building. Particularly the one that has the advertising on it, nothing more than a portable sign, can’t stay on the property either.

Mr. Egan said the trailer that was there the day of your visit won’t be kept there and is no longer there. That is our 1400 smoker and it will be mounted in the restaurant and enclosed in a gated structure.

We want to create a whole new dumpster area. That is Hooters and we didn’t want to go near it, so we would propose to have our own separate waste removal area or enlarge the area and make it convenient so we could have our own eight yard dumpster. What is there now belongs to Hooters.

We are not proposing to put orange neon in there. Ms. McBride responded it was my understanding that you were proposing to take down the neon and put up new neon. Mr. Egan responded there is existing neon there, which is Hooters. Remington’s and Hooters used to be together; we are completely separate from Hooters.

Ms. McBride stated you understand that you are in a district that requires site plan review, so if you would want to do a dumpster enclosure, we would have to review that, the location, type of screening and access. Mr. Egan said so we have to compensate for what Hooters is already allowed to do. Ms. McBride said that dumpster is falling down and it doesn't have gates on it. You are in before the commission with request for changes so we need to get that dumpster area cleaned up so it is in conformance with the code.

Mr. Egan said my question is that is Hooters. We are not talking about that dumpster, because it doesn’t belong to us. Ms. McBride said you aren’t going to have a dumpster? Mr. Egan said we will have a dumpster. Ms. McBride responded what I am saying is if that is not your dumpster, and the City will take up that issue with Hooters, if you want a new dumpster location we will need to review that location and the enclosure.








Mr. McErlane said in reality, you are here representing the owner, who owns the property that Hooters is located on as well. If it means that the owner has to upgrade some things that will look poor on his property, he may have to do that as a part of your approval. Just because Hooters is a different entity from a business standpoint, the building is one building and the property is all one property owner. If the property owner needs to do something to his property to accommodate your application, he may need to do that.

Mr. Syfert asked why the owner wasn’t here. Mr. McErlane responded that we have an affidavit indicating that he is aware of the application.

Ms. McBride said where I got confused was on the south elevation. It says "replace existing neon with Famous Dave’s corporate red". So you are just going to remove that neon and you are proposing to paint that red? Mr. Egan answered it would be red neon. We weren’t going to add any new neon; it would just be changing the color to red. Ms. McBride responded and what I am telling the commission is that we cannot do that. Either the existing neon stays up or the existing neon comes down and no neon goes up.

Mr. Darby said could we get to the issue of the roof? Were you familiar with our corridor study? Mr. Egan said no. Mr. Darby continued there are many examples of franchisees that have come in with their corporate red and it has turned into something else. This would have to turn into something else.

Mr. Okum said this is the image that Famous Dave’s wants (showing photograph). Is this the prototypical restaurant? Mr. Egan said there is not a prototypical restaurant, but that is one of them. I l think what you are trying to do is make this look something like this, but I think we are going about it the wrong way.

Mr. Okum said I am a little confused because these section drawings says new metal roof. I saw guys out there with rollers and paint.

Mr. Egan said there is no new metal roof. Mr. McErlane said I included original copies of the roof because what was submitted didn’t accurately represent the construction of the building. If you look at the rendering submitted, it looks like it has metal roofing on the rear end of the building, and they actually painted the shingles red.

Mr. Egan said it is a beige kind of shingle, and we painted the seamed roof red. Mr. McErlane showed the photograph of the shingles. Mr. Okum said those are asphalt shingles on the slope back there. Mr. Egan agreed that they were shingles, but then there are brown back this way that are not painted and are not gong to be.







Mr. Okum said for identity purposes, from Route 4 you really don’t see these. On your drawing there is a FD logo sign, is that an additional sign? Mr. Egan responded no. That is an idea but it is not what we are submitting to put in there. We want to put Famous Dave’s flush mounted on the wall similar to what Hooters has here on the wall, Then we will have a sign on the tin roof. Mr. Okum commented there is a limitation on signage.

Ms. McBride reported that they are proposing a total of 216.4 square feet and they are entitled to 177 s.f. Mr. Okum said if that were a little smaller, and without the silly arrow, that probably wouldn’t be a bad idea for that elevation. I don’t have a big problem with something on that facing that says Famous Dave’s.

Mr. Egan said what we are trying to achieve with the arrow is that there is confusion on where the entrance to Hooters is and where the entrance to Remington’s is. Mr. Okum commented I certainly wouldn’t want to see it above the façade. Mr. Egan said that rendering was the result of a discussion on ideas we could come up with.

Mr. Egan said we just want to do the signage within the allotted square footage and our sign company felt the numbers he came up with was in accordance with what was allowed. We’ll drop the 216 s.f. down to the 177 s.f. allowed. I think he had spoken with Mr. McErlane on what was allowed, and I took his calculations.

Mr. McErlane reported that the sign contractor actually didn’t

Mr. Egan said I would love to have the red roof; it fits with our concept and décor. If it doesn’t fit with the Route 4 Corridor of Springdale, we will adjust and have to go back to the drawing board. The sign contractor didn’t box the signs properly to calculate the square footage. Also the Dave’s Barbecue with the arrow is a new sign that arrived Friday and he didn’t have a square footage on that. It is actually 88.4 s.f. Even though it wasn’t calculated correctly, the previous one was considerably less than that.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if you were no given the opportunity to allow this to keep this color, what would you do? Mr. Egan responded we were going to discuss the proposed three signs to be flush mounted on the brick wall opposite the Hooters owl. This was going to be on the tin roof, and this was our monument sign. That is what Ray Meyer Sign told me would fall within the square footage allowed. If this adds up to 216, I’ll go back and tell them to take it down to 177.

Mr. Okum said I don’t have a problem with sign square footage adjustments on that elevation if you are permitted to, and it seems to be your part of the building. I don’t have a major problem with your signage on the roof system. My question is what do you plan to do if the commission says that the red roof is out?








Mr. Egan responded I would figure out what the right thing to do is. I would love to have the rd roof. It fits with our concept and our décor. If it doesn’t fit with the Corridor in Springdale, we’ll adjust and have to go back to the drawing boards.

Mr. Okum this image probably fits some places; it just doesn’t fit in the Corridor Review District. Obviously the red roof isn’t going to make it. We would have to have something from you in regards to accent colors that are permissible in the Corridor District.

Mr. Egan said it is earthtones only? Mr. Syfert confirmed this, adding that no one on the commission will go along with a red roof, and you’ll have to come in with something in earthtones that you would like. Mr. Egan said I will go back to them and come in with something suitable for your concept. Mr. Syfert asked their timetable, and Mr. Egan answered that they were hoping for a mid-October opening.

Mr. Syfert said the only issue that the commission is not amenable to is the color of the roof. Maybe we can work out the signage now. Mr. Egan said that would be fine; we can paint the roof last. You are saying absolutely no red, even window trims.

Mr. Huddleston said this is the second instance on paint colors and we have had some incidents along the Corridor Review District. Is our recourse always to the building owner? Mr. McErlane responded typically it is. Mr. Huddleston said my advice to the applicant is that it is your problem, but your owner should have been aware of it in the lease arrangement and I think they have some culpability here also. We are sympathetic to your problem, but it is not our problem, and it is the commission’s problem in trying to work something out.

Mr. Galster said these are two separate restaurants trying to operate out of the same building, so the trim colors are already established, unless you can get Hooters to come in and try to change the trim color to something you want. Right now the roofs are light gray and the trim color is a darker gray. It seems to me we can’t allow separate trim colors even. We do allow trim colors on the buildings.

Mr. Egan said you allowed them to be different until now, because they are green and beige and gray. Now you are saying they have to be all gray unless I get Hooters to change. Hooters is gray on the front façade and they are green and cream on the Remington’s side.

Mr. Galster said I wasn’t on the commission when that was approved, but it is possible that the creams and greens are more earthtone and therefore more acceptable. Earthtones might have been different, but I would have a hard time accepting red as an accent color even, only because it is different from the rest of the building as well, which is the same issue as the neon lights. I understand you have two restaurants in that building, but it still has to have one common flow to the building.





Mr. Galster said I am a little uncomfortable with bringing the roof back later and getting sign approval tonight. I would like to see the roof go back to what it was to match the other roof that is there.

Mr. McErlane said Hooters and Remington’s went in prior to the Route 4 Corridor District standards, even though it was a PUD and still required exterior finish approval by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum said the PUD approval did take into consideration a common color on the building. I recall that we did approve a color pallet and they submitted brick samples and showed how the grays were brought out in the brick. I think the green roof was later.

Mr. McErlane added that the roof on Hooters is more of a gray galvanized type, but the majority of the trim was green around the tops of the vertical walls.

Mr. Huddleston said I am in agreement with Steve regarding giving approvals, but perhaps we could look at this on the signage issue and put some sort of time clauses on the existing roof with a reverted clause at the end of that time. This would permit the applicant tog et his signs up and get in business with the provision that by November 1st he either find an acceptable solution to the commission or revert the roof to its original color.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said you would be ordering signs at your own risk, or would you like us to table the whole thing? Mr. Egan answered I need to get the approval, at least on the sign. As far as the painting of the roof is concerned, I can have an acceptable color scheme to be presented by the next meeting so it can be painted by late October.

I can go back to Famous Dave’s of America and tell them we are looking for an earthtone color to meet the requirements for the city. It is a matter of protecting their brand and image and I am sure there is something there. If I can get the signage okayed and manufactured, that has a longer lead-time and I need to get that started.

Mr. Okum asked if the railings were going to be painted red also. Mr. Egan responded that we were going to change the window accents from green to red, and there are green railings that come down the front staircase that we were going to paint red.

Mr. Okum said I don’t see any problem with the signage. You are taking a risk that you may have an identity of signage without any red on it.

Mr. Egan asked if the red neon was out, and Mr. Syfert indicated that it was. Mr. Egan said so anything red is completely out. Ms. McBride responded the existing neon could stay there. If you take the existing neon down, no neon goes up. Mr. Egan asked about red flex neon in any of the front signage down at the monument sign? Where they have green scripted Remington’s, we wanted to go in with Famous Dave’s Barbecue. Mr. Okum said your lettering could be any color you want. Mr. Egan said so it can be red.





Mr. Egan said we can remove the other neon and be done with it and not put any up. The sign company said that as long as we were not putting any new areas, we could change the existing to any color.

Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride if a new building was going into the Route 4 Corridor District, would we allow two different color roofs? Ms. McBride answered in all likelihood, no. Mr. Galster continued that even though I understand you need to go back to your corporate people, I don’t understand why we are putting that decision off until a month from now. I wouldn’t approve two different roof colors on a single building. It seems to me that part of the approval is that the roof go back to match the exiting roof, and that should be a part of the approval here tonight.

Mr. Egan commented that the way you look at the building from the front side you don’t even see the roof. Mr. Galster said granted you are around the corner, but that doesn’t make sense to me. Mr. Egan said when you look at it, you don’t see a roof, other than a

Galvanized tin that is down low on the patio section. Mr. Galster added and also over the corner. I see three of them, two are one color right now and three should be the same color.

Mr. Egan said the galvanized would fit and I think they would like. Mr. Galster said that would be fine; you match the roof up there, and I would have no problem with it. Mr. Egan said that would fit our shack concept.

Mr. Galster said my point is that we would not approve a building with different color roofs, so why not make this approval contingent on matching the rest of the roof system. Mr. Egan said so if we match those other two roofs, we are fine. Mr. Galster answered I would have no problem with that, and I would have no problem approving signage.

Mr. Vanover said I am sympathetic to your plight, but we also have the screening of the rooftop mechanicals that needs to be dealt with.

Mr. Okum said as long as it matches the entry roof of Hooters, I that is one thing, but I recall that the roof that you don’t see the top of on the porch area is a corrugated galvanized tin roof. As long as it matches the entryway roof of Hooters, I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m a little hesitant to carry it further north.

Mr. Eagen said so it needs to match the entryway at Hooters, just where their door is. I believe that at least their patio section is galvanized. There is a shingled section that is painted red, and the rest is brown going back toward the dumpster area.. Do we need to reshingle that, or can we paint it a beige color to get that section back, or paint it all the same color as the tin roof we are going to change?

Mr. Galster said I am concerned about how long it would stand up if they are painted shingles.





Mr. Galster said so it can be replaced to match the shingles on the backside of the roof and/or the color to match the roof. Is that okay?

Mr. McErlane said if you paint it to match the color of the roof, when you turn the corner you would end up with brown..

Mr. Galster said so it needs to be reshingled to match the existing back roofline Mr. Okum said that would be worse than awful from a color standpoint. If you are going with gray with metal, that section should be gray. The whole back roof should be reshingled anyway.

Mr. Galster said so the preference is to have the gray shingles on the one side of the roof. You can’t see the backside Mr. Okum said coming down the hill you can see the back roof and that slope. Mr. Galster said so you can see a brown turning to gray, but it will blend with the roofs so maybe you won’t notice it.

Mr. Egan said from out standpoint we would want it to be gray shingled.

Mr. Okum said right now you see red and brown. Mr. Galster said if he replaces the red painted shingles with a gray shingle to match the roof, it will blend in enough.

Mr. Galster moved that the color of the roof be painted to match the color of the entrance of Hooters Restaurant, that the now painted red shingles be replaced with a gray shingle to match that same roof. I also move that the signage package be approved once the dimensions are reduced to the allowable square footage.

Mr. Egan said as far as the gray roof is concerned, the shingled part, are we going all the way back along the back side too, or are you allowing the brown that is existing and just changing that corner section?

Mr. Galster responded we need to have all of it done. Also, we need to have the additional screening for the rooftop units and the dumpster facility needs to be upgraded to meet the existing code.

Ms. McBride added that the commission might want to echo want the applicant said, that there will not be any trailers stored on the property. Mr. Galster added that to his motion.

Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the exterior color changes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

F. Variance from Time Limit for Temporary Banners, Bed Bath & Beyond, 485 East Kemper Road

Laura Berjon, Advance Sign Group and representing Bed Bath and Beyond said we are asking that you allow the installation of a temporary banner from September 12th to the 28th. We would like to install the Coming Soon temporary banner from the 12th to the 17th and flip it over and from the 18th to the 28th have it say Grand Opening. I am sure you will agree that the plaza looks beautiful.





Ms. Berjon added that a lot of changes are taking place, and we need the extra help to convey to the prospective customers that the store is about to open. Most importantly, the store opens the 18th and that is when we have the grand opening.

Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the variance was granted.


A. Name of Former Commons Drive and Connector Street

Mr. McErlane stated that at this point we don’t need to make any decisions, but we should be thinking about naming those streets.

The streets are the former Commons Drive that runs behind Sam’s and the little connector stub that runs behind Donato’s. We actually have one business that is accessed off the old Commons Drive that is the back portion of the old candy plant; there is a warehousing operation. Also from the safety services standpoint, when they do accident reports, they don’t know what to call it. It is Planning’s responsibility to do that.

We would like to consider extending the time line for temporary banners for new businesses to a 30-day period just for their opening period. It would be a zoning code change.

Mr. Syfert asked that some wording be put together on this so it can be considered next month.

    1. Regional Planning Commission Workshop

Mr. Whitaker reported that he was invited to a ½ day workshop on October 10th, the day after the next Planning Commission meeting. They are taking 10 commission members from different municipalities to obtain their in put on what is done in the various cities. What they are trying to do is get a sense of an overall planning scheme to go by. If any of you have any other ideas or input, let me know so I can bring that up at the workshop.

Mr. Syfert said this is something we can think about and give Dave some things to take with him.

Mr. Huddleston added that one of the underlying reasons for this kind of a workshop is to get the input of planning commissioners. There will be 10 representatives, and then attempt to go forward with some sort of certified planning commission program. It would not b unlike some of the seminars sponsored by the planning groups or the city of Springdale. They want to get some commonality of understanding of various issues. It is not an effort to do an overlay to Springdale’s plan.

Mr. Galster said if we are looking at zoning code and buffer zones for day care facilities, I know in our comprehensive plan we talked about buffer areas to residential areas, but based on what has happened, we seriously have to look at the buffer requirements and/or the conditional use permits for day care facilities.





Mr. Galster said if this comes up again, we need to look at that. We cannot just let it happen again because we have created a pretty tough situation to try to work our way out of.

Mr. McErlane added that some of the conditions already set in place for Planning Commission to review on a conditional use permit basis include noise. Now we have hindsight where we didn’t have it before. Mr. Galster said noise sounds like a thing that would be a key topic, but it’s got to be almost impossible to monitor and police. Even 65 decibels is not a comfortable level in a residential back yard. I think we should look at the setback requirements in a residential area for allowing those type conditional uses.

Mr. Huddleston asked if his intent was a heads up for future considerations? Mr. Galster said yes, because I honestly believe in the next couple of years we will have at least one more if not two more similar applications. When we look at the redevelopment we are talking about in comprehensive planning, the most likely places to have that happen are abutting residential areas now. This situation went on for a long time; it was very tough for us to monitor and very difficult on the residents and the tenant. We should look at it ahead of time.

Mr. Okum said it was very expensive, and we won’t recover the cost. Mr. Galster added we were trying to tell them that it is noise and gave them recommendations that we don’t know will fix the problem. We created an absolute policing and monitoring nightmare there.

Mr. Huddleston said it gives us a different perspective, but I am not sure with that experience the commission with some reasonable turnover in membership over the years wouldn’t look differently at another conditional use application. My point is that I don’t know that we need another major code upgrade, but I appreciate what you are saying.

Mr. Galster asked if day care centers were allowed as conditional use in every zone, and Ms. McBride answered not in a residential district. Mr. Galster commented that maybe we need to create a transitional zone when we leave residential zoning that doesn’t permit it there either. There have to be other type uses that we wouldn’t want to see that close to a residential district.

Ms. McBride said there are schools who have children out at recess and you would have the exact same situation.

Mr. Vanover commented that this has been a discussion within the Princeton School District and a new facility could be located in Springdale.

Mr. Galster said it is something to think about; I would like to look at it. Mr. Syfert said the main thing is not to forget it.







Mr. Okum said we didn’t forget it; we turned down a day care center eight to 10 years ago in Olde Gate based on the impact it would have on the residential units behind them.


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,2001 _______________________

William Syfert, Chairman



______________________,2001 ________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary