14 OCTOBER 2003

7:00 P.M.


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

  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Robert Sherry, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert.

    Members Absent: Steve Galster (arrived at 7:07 p.m.)

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

  6. Mr. Coleman moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council Ė No report
    2. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė August 19, 2003
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė September 25, 2003
    1. Approval of Placement of Trailer in /Rear of the Building at Best Western, 11911 Sheraton Lane
    2. No one from Best Western was present, and the item was moved to the end of the agenda.

    3. Approval of Christmas Tree Lot at Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike

Dianna Canter of Dianna Canter Promotions reported that everything is the same as it was last year. It is on the corner of Princeton Pike and West Kemper Road. This is Stephanie from Tri-County Mall, and I have our signed contract with our in-line space for the sale of greenery and Christmas decorations. This is an extension of that space.

Mr. McErlane reported that the zoning is Planned Unit Development, the primary reason they are before you this evening. The Zoning Code allows for seasonal retail sales on commercial properties, but the sales have to be an extension of an existing owner or tenantís retail activity, and incidental to the main use on the lot.



14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. McErlane stated that the applicant has indicated that the operation will be the same arrangement and operation as was on the lot last year. Last year, we did not receive any complaints or concerns about the operation from Planning Commission, the public or the administration.

Mr. Okum said I had a question about their temporary power tripod for utility service. It appeared to be in the public right of way area. Of all the nice things that they did, that was the ugliest thing that they had there. They probably felt the same way.

Ms. Canter responded it is not a pretty picture when you do the temporary electric, and unfortunately we do not make that choice. Cinergy does that. Mr. Okum responded that the placement of that might be treated a little differently by you. I would have liked for you to have put some trees around it. You had a nice display, I think the community appreciated it being there and I didnít have a problem with it, but that detracted from the use. Ms. Canter responded we can do that.

Mr. Vanover moved to approve and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Mr. Galster asked if Planning was approving a change to the PUD, a temporary change to the PUD, a temporary use, or a conditional use. Mr. McErlane reported that because we donít consider them to be variances in a PUD, it was a temporary use for the property. Mr. Galster said so this motion is for a temporary use the same as last year.

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

C. Approval of Landscape Plan and Building Colors, Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike

Holly Todd of EmKenn Homes stated that we inherited this project. What was requested was an updated color board plus the actual sheets which specify where each color is going. We have a picture showing the brick color, which matches the existing brick color, and the landscape plan.

Mayor Webster arrived at 7:12 p.m.

Mr. McErlane reported that in July Planning Commission approved the site development plan with the exception of the landscaping and the exterior materials and colors, and this approval would be for those two items. The variances required for the development, were granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on July 15th.

Ms. McBride stated there are a number of minor comments on the revised landscape plan, and rather than go through all of those this evening, I would like to suggest that if the commission wishes to approve this tonight, you allow staff to work out these minor details with the applicant. Rather than have people come back another month, we could do that. They have been in contact with our landscape architect, and I feel very confident that we can get that done.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Sherry asked if there was a brick sample and if it matched. He looked at the sample and the picture, and it does match very well.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the proposed landscape easement should be conveyed by the property owner. That was not shown on the landscape plan and should be taken into consideration. The MSD easement is through that area, and construction is approaching.

Mr. Huddleston said you mentioned that MSD is constructing the sanitary sewer. What coordination has to be done? Mr. Shvegzda answered that the initial issue would be their time frame for the installation of any of the landscaping versus MSDís upcoming time frame for the construction of their sanitary sewer. Mr. Huddleston said so are you saying that the applicant is at risk for anything that they might place there now? Mr. Shvegzda answered yes. Since there is an easement there if they do place any plant materials in that area, they would be disturbed and there wouldnít be any liability on the part of MSD to compensate for it.

Mr. Huddleston asked if the MSD project would start in the immediate future and how long would it last. Mr. Shvegzda answered that it is under construction right now; they will be crossing Kemper Road starting October 27th. Mr. Huddleston asked if he saw any conflict at this point, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that is the question; we donít know what their time frame is. Mr. Huddleston commented I donít want to make an issue of it, I just donít want them to put the landscaping in and have it torn up; maybe we can give them some relief on that issue.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if their timetable was set up, and Ms. Todd responded that they did. MSD has already staked it, so we know exactly where they are coming through, and we may hold out that plant material until they are complete. It depends on their time frame and the weather, and it is something that we will work around.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if she were in agreement with staff to work out the details of the landscaping. Ms. Todd responded that they would. I talked to them yesterday, and they are helping with what we need to have. Mr. Okum asked if she were the legal representative for the owner and Ms. Todd confirmed this.

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

    1. To include staff, city planner and city engineerís comments;
    2. Landscaping is conditional upon final review and approval by staff;
    3. Colors and elevation colors shall be based on those items submitted and on file with the City.


14 OCTOBER 2003



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

D. Final Approval of Redevelopment Plan of Kentucky Fried Chicken, 11707 Princeton Pike

Chris Chrzanowski of Food Folks and Fun reported we purchased the Cincinnati restaurants in 1999. Tonightís project began in 2002 with discussions with Mr. Gilhart the owner of Princeton Plaza. We began to develop an opportunity to rebuild the KFC in coordination with the widening of Francis Lane and extending our lease agreement.

This has gone through 20 different concepts and four different sized buildings. With comments and recommendations from staff, we would like to present what we think is the best scenario in an unideal situation. We realize it compromises some of your guidelines, and it compromises some of our business guidelines, but we are confident that it will meet our financial profile and have a safe environment on the site and surrounding properties. We feel the patrons of the current location, which opened in 1968, are deserving of a new facility.

I brought along our engineer, the contractor and Mr. Gilhart to answer any questions. There was a color board requested, and I brought those samples for you to see. We also have taken staffís recommendation on the angled parking for our site, and see that there will be a benefit to dropping to the eight spaces and still be able to meet our financial package there.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is part of the Princeton Plaza PUD and is currently used as a KFC Restaurant with just drive in and carry out service. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new one with a dine in carry out and drive through service.

Tonight the applicant brought in a color board with color samples for the project which is one of the things we were missing.

Parking is required to be 21 spaces. On the plan we had on file, the applicant showed 11 90-degree spaces. They have indicated that they are amenable to one of the engineerís recommendations, to change to angled parking which would take them down to eight parking spaces. They have provided a letter from the property owner, Mr. Gilhart, saying that they will have access to eight parking spaces that are not on their site for employee parking.





14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. McErlane stated that the existing impervious surface ratio is almost 100% and the proposed is 86%, which is still greater than what is permitted by code but is an improvement over the existing. Currently there is very little buffer yard or landscaping on the site, and what is being proposed is a 5 Ĺ foot buffer yard on the east, 2.8 feet on the west and 0 in one section on the north, the back of the lot. Buffer yards are required to be 10 feet.

Mr. McErlane reported that there is a PUD requirement for a 75 foot peripheral setback to adjacent properties for the entire PUD. The current KFC site doesnít meet this requirement. The existing setbacks are 45 feet to the north and 68 feet to the west. The proposed setbacks will be 27.1 feet to the north and 24.8 feet to the west.

Pavement setbacks to adjacent properties are shown at less than one foot to the north property line and 2.8 feet to the west property line. The existing setbacks are less than one foot to the north and1 Ĺ foot from the west property line. The required setback is 10 feet.

Dumpster enclosure is proposed to be 0 feet from the north property line and the Zoning Code requires 5 feet.

The allowable sign area is 85 s.f. and the sign area shown is one pole sign at 112 s.f. and a graphic of The Colonel on the front of the building at 35.8 s.f. for a total of 147.8, which is still considerably less than what was shown at the concept level.

The main building material is a brick finish with a darker color at a wainscoting height and a lighter brown above that. The accent band that goes around toward the top of the building is an EIFS material that is white. The tower face is EIFS and is white. There is a blue trim cap at the parapet and red bands above and below what would typically be the sign board, but there are no signs proposed for it. The awnings over the windows and the tower roof are red and white striped and are backlit and the walk in coolers are surrounded by brick to match the building.

Ms. McBride reported that we have been working with this applicant for a period of time, and they have tried to cooperate and address staff comments.

They have proposed to accept the angled parking. The reason that staff was suggesting that was because if the five stacking spaces required for the drive through window were occupied, our concern was that people couldnít get out of the 11 parking spaces proposed on this site. They have a commitment from the property owner that the employees can park off site so that will be entirely customer parking.




14 OCTOBER 2003



Ms. McBride added as Mr. McErlane indicated there are a number of modifications needed to approve this site dealing with setbacks and impervious surface area, but they are all steps in the right direction in terms of what is out there today and the fact that it is an exceptionally small site and the business is trying to redevelop on the existing property. .

There is a chain link fence up there now, and staff had suggested a wrought iron fence in its place. They are willing to do that and have supplied the detail and are showing it on the plan.

We suggested that they switch the location of the handicap parking space to the south end to increase that area where they would be backing out onto the access drive, and they have done that. We had a comment about adding a stop sign from the drive through access for safety.

They are over what is allotted on signage for that site, but it is a very small building, and staff is very comfortable with 147.8 s.f. They are going with one on-building sign and relocating the existing pylon sign.

They have indicated that all of the HVAC equipment is to be screened. At staffís request, they have added additional detailing to the rear (north) building elevation because that will be visible. They have treated that to as great an extent as possible as another elevation of the building.

They have revised their lighting plan to meet staffís requirements and suggestions. They now have three 20-foot poles, each of which would have one fixture, 400 watts, clear metal halide. In the last submission we asked them to do flat lens fixtures, and they have done that. Fixtures would be bronze; they are not going to have a decal stripe.

The average illumination on the site is 2.08. We recommend 3.0 so they are well within the recommended illumination for the property. They are a little bit over at the property line. We recommend 0.5, and they are at 2.8, but this is a commercial area. It is not going out onto a public right of way, so staff has no concerns with that.

There are small issues left with their landscape plan, some additional perennials and a couple of additional parking blocks need to be added, but they are very minor issues.

Mr. Okum asked how the applicant treated the back side of the BP Procare building. Mr. Chrrzanowski reported that they have added the requested landscaping to screen along there, and I have a revised landscape plan. I have a site plan which shows the plantings.





14 OCTOBER 2003



Ms. McBride added that they have a total of four Cleveland pears proposed along there at two inches, and a series of burning bush to be planted three feet on center, 18 to 24 inches at planting height. It also was my understanding that there is something in the leases that says that if the back of the BP building would become exposed, it needs to be painted to match the rest of the BP. So you are not going to see the back of the building as it exists today. This applicant has done an adequate job of putting landscaping in what is a very limited site adjacent to the back of that building.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Gilhart about the conditions of the BP exposure. Is it just a painted block wall? Mr. Gilhart reported that it is more than that. We asked them to put split face block on the back side. The contractor is aware of it and has the bid. He gave it to BP Procare and they approved it, so all they are waiting for is to see if this goes through and it will be done.

Mr. Okum commented since it is a part of the PUD, the requirement could be part of the project, because it is a modification to the PUD.

Mr. Gilhart commented I donít know that I would do it that way. I donít recall if that was included with the approval of the BP Procare. I know it was in my agreement; I addressed it, but I donít know if the City did, so I am just raising the question. I think we have you covered, because there is no way that I was going to have the back exposed to KFC. I feel comfortable, and I have it locked into our lease agreement. I donít know that I would put a burden on KFC to address that issue.

Mr. Okum commented that this is a modification to the PUD, and KFC just happens to be one part of that PUD. Mr. Gilhart said I have no problems either way. I just want you to know that I feel comfortable with the façade either way you go. Mr. Chrzanowski added we will screen it with the plantings.

Mr. Sherry asked if the burning bushes keep their leaves year round. Ms. McBride answered that they did not; they turn bright red at this time of the year, and the majority of them will fall off. Mr. Sherry commented so in the wintertime, that wall will be fully exposed.

Ms. McBride added that the back of that building will only be visible to eight angled parking spaces, and those coming out from dining in at the KFC. It will not be visible from the public right of way. If they are painting it, they may be changing the texture of it. The applicant is working in a pretty tight area in terms of what he can plant. I think this is the best that we can do given the situation. Mr. Sherry said I donít have a problem; I was just curious about the burning bush.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Shvegzda reported that we need clarification on how the curb will be utilized on the site. We need another clarification on where the heavy and standard paving sections are to be utilized.

On storm water management, there is no proposed detention for the site. If the entire area of the site was taken into account for detention, 2600 cubic feet of volume for detention would be required. If we just looked at the footprint of the building, it would be 500 cubic feet. We have looked at our information on the existing underground distention that is in the area of the out lot building south of Wendyís. There is approximately 150 cubic feet of additional volume available in that detention basin.

The applicant had sent a letter from his consultant stating that if you take a look at the existing impervious area versus

what is being proposed, there is less impervious area. However, there was no finite analysis as to how that affected the runoff from the site.

In terms of the collection of the storm water, there are no catch basins proposed for the site. It is basically sheet flow over to the west side to a point where it would go along the north edge of pavement where you see the row of parking off Francis Lane, and continue down into the stream. The concern we have here is to make sure that the curving is in that area so it does not flow off the site and back onto the adjoining property.

It was expressed at a meeting that there would be an attempt made to contact the adjoining property owner to see if there would be any possibility to tie it into their existing system. We didnít have any feedback on that.

On the shared access drive reconfiguration, most of the existing information was shown on it. The only thing that wasnít really shown was the new driveway configuration from the BP Procare, and that needs to be added on. We marked it up in terms of how we foresaw the pavement markings and signage to be. It removes the two parking spaces at the very corner of the TCBY Store. That would take care of two problems, the fact that the two angled parking spaces would have to back out into the middle of the intersection, and it makes a better transition for the exiting traffic from the drive through at KFC wanting to go south. It makes it a little longer transition.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any physical reason why the applicant couldnít provide detention on this site for its runoff. Mr. Shvegzda answered in order to get an outlet point, they would have to take that further to the west so they could daylight some type of opening from an underground storm sewer type system. I donít think there was an issue about their not putting that in. They would like to comment further on that.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Chrzanowski reported that he has the calculations on the reduction, and we did investigate several areas on the site to move the water underground but there was a problem with the economic feasibility of it.

Jeff Van Atta of Van Atta Engineering reported we tried to find different storm sewers on the site that we could discharge an underground detention system to. The only problem is that we donít have any storm sewer of sufficient depth that we could put an underground system in and get a positive discharge to it.

The only way to really do it would be to run all the way down Francis Lane considerably to the west at an incredible cost. I didnít take the exact measurements, but I am sure we are talking hundreds of feet of storm sewer. There is the bowling alley down there that we would have to go past to try to find some point of positive discharge for this.

There is another storm sewer to the south of us out in the parking lot, but its elevation is not deep enough. By the time you put an underground storage system in, you are down three, four or five feet underneath the ground, and all the storm sewers out in the parking lot are higher than that. We just cannot get the storm sewer over to it. So, we did look at it in quite a bit of detail, and just cannot find an economic way to provide any detention for this site.

Mr. Okum said if you sheet fall off that site, you will sheet fall down towards the bowling alley anyway. If our city engineer says that you need to only take it to a point of daylight, I am envisioning maybe 10 parking spaces to the west behind those cars that you would have to carry it. I am not thinking of an enclosed system.

Mr. Okum asked how much detention is on that site, for all the PUD. Mr. Shvegzda answered that he didnítí know the exact figures for the volume, but the only detention on site is for the old Pier I building.

Mr. Van Atta reported that they met with Mr. McErlane and Mr. Shvegzda on site, and we discussed the problem with trying to daylight. As the pipe comes out from underground typically when a pipe discharges from a system like that, you have some form of a drop off or some elevation differential where the pipe ca\n come out of the side of an embankment or something like that and have a point of discharge. Francis Lane and the parking lot is just a gradual slope away, and the problem would be that as the pipe came out, it would start to be exposed to the top of the pavement. You need to have that elevation differential to really allow it to discharge properly. We just donít have that situation as we move down Francis Lane.




14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Okum responded so you are saying that you would have to go all the way down to the big catch basin in the center of the parking field down there or at that transition into the bowling alley.

Mr. Van Atta answered we would have to go down to where we had an elevation differential. Mr. Okum said unless you could get something next door or something else. Mr. Van Atta responded, right, and I did try to contact the Petsmart manager, and when I finally got in touch with her, she was not amenable to the concept of tying in. She said she would have to pass it to the higher ups, but it doesnít look promising.

Mr. Okum commented that with all the concerns that we have had with that site and with dams and walls that have to go around the bowling alley to keep it from getting flooded, it seems almost ridiculous for us not to look at this particular site , that sheet falling the water directly down that roadway into what virtually is the main area of the problem.

Mr. Van Atta responded per staffís request, I did generate some calculations with regards to what the existing runoff for the site is now with 100% impervious area compared to what it will be with our finished product which takes it down to approximately 86% impervious. The actual amount of runoff due to this site, the cubic feet per second discharge from the site is really very minute in comparison to what the whole shopping center does in that area. You are right; it will go down Francis Lane, and I brought my calculations along if you would like to look at them. The actual flow from the site is quite small in comparison with the whole shopping center.

Mr. Huddleston asked if there were any current underground detention on the Princeton Plaza site. Mr. Gilhart answered yes. Mr. Huddleston added that in a similar situation on the other side of Kemper Road we asked the applicant to add to that upstream detention, rather than trying to implement on the site. I donít know how much additional area this site sheet flows to the lower elevation of the bowling alley, but that might be some way that we could mitigate this.

In regard to Mr. Van Attaís comment, yes, you are somewhat reducing the impervious surface area, and you have done a class job of trying to redevelop this property. On the other hand you are asking for the moon and stars here in terms of how we accommodate that. I think we with our responsibility have to look to mitigate whatever we can with that downstream flow and we might ask you to bend relative to that.

That having been said, I would like to see you look the possibility of adding additional retention upstream even from this site, that would further mitigate the overall site condition and the outflow from there. I would defer to Mr. Shvegzda as to how we might do that.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Gilhart reported that they did address that with Mr. Shvegzda and I think he and I both came to the conclusion that the retention for the site right now works quite well, and I hesitate to touch it at all. If you are saying add to it, that would be far more costly than anything I could figure for KFC on their existing site. It doesnít matter who spends the money; this project is getting a little out of hand.

Mr. Huddleston responded I can understand that, but they built a substantial financial model which, while that is not normally in our purvey of what we have to review, they represented this to say that it will work on the site, even though it is very tight. You come to us and ask us for all these variances, which we are attempting to work with you to give.

My biggest concern is the floodway condition in that area, and I think we have the responsibility to your development and others to mitigate that.

Mr. Gilhart responded our concern is far more than yours. We do own the Princeton Bowl and we are the ones that are receiving the water. We receive it from the City of Springdale, from Forest Park, etc. Incrementally speaking and as an owner of the Princeton Bowl, I am less concerned about the KFC. They are going from 100% down to 86% and I am happy as a lark, relatively speaking, because that is such a small incremental impact on our flooding problem in the flood plain area.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. Shvegzda if there would be any relief or additional retention that we could get on this site relative to this development.

Mr. Shvegzda answered if the question concerns adding on to what is currently there in terms of underground detention, at the site, we had talked about the possibility of their being additional volume that could be restricted further and utilized. There is a little bit there, but we did not talk about the possibility of extending that underground system to accommodate additional volume, but yes it could be done.

Mr. Huddleston commented I am not going to make an issue of this if the other members arenít concerned. I do have a concern because of all the problems in that area, whether it is Princeton Bowl or this site that we do whatever we can with this redevelopment to add reasonable mitigation to that site and the 86% impervious surface.

Mr. Okum said I have to agree with Mr. Huddlestonís comments completely. We are trying to grant an enormous number of variances to fit 10 pounds of sugar into a five pound sack. To forget about doing anything that we can do to control the upstream flow of water that ultimately goes through Heritage Hill and the Sharonville area, is ridiculous.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Okum added I donít think we should say that it is okay since it is only 86% of the site versus 100%, and it is only an acre site versus 10 acres. We have a PUD which is for the entire site and only has detention on the Kids R Us and Pier I facility. I think there has been a lot of leeway given on the site. I am not holding it upon KFC. If the applicant, Princeton Plaza came to me for any other development on that site, I would take the same position. It is not just KFC, it is the entire site.

When Mr. Gilhart came to us with changes to the Pier I, I had no problem with it. It is an existing structure within the same building. All they did was a face change. Here we are talking taking a building down, moving it over and making a complete change to the site. There will be major excavation work, an entirely new paved surface and I canít see any reason why we canít address that now, determine what the needs are and get it done.

Mr. Sherry asked Mr. Shvegzda if they are allowed to flood the parking lot as a means of retention. Mr. Shvegzda responded that way back it was an allowable method, but we have prohibited that because of the difficulty we have had in making sure that the on lot detention is maintained because of resurfacing and slight modifications to the parking lot that can eliminate the volume. So at this point on lot detention is not permitted.

Mr. Sherry wondered if that option could be considered here, given the circumstance. Mr. Shvegzda responded I suppose it could be considered. It is always the concern about setting a precedent for other areas where we currently donít allow it. Mr. Sherry commented I was just curious since there are some unique circumstances here.

Mr. Shvegzda added that the other issue with this site is that it has a continuous slope to the west and it may be difficult to get detention in anywhere, to create a dish in the parking lot to be able to do that. That may be more of an issue than anything else. Mr. Sherry said I am just asking; I havenít looked at it too much.

Mr. Huddleston said I would put the onus on Mr. Shvegzda to come up with something that would be reasonable for the City to expect to increase the amount of retention on this site in conjunction with this development.

Mr. Okum commented I would like to at least poll the commission regarding this. Are we talking 2600 cubic feet for the whole site? I would like to hear from the rest of the commission. If Mr. Huddleston and I are the only ones with the concern, itís not worth bringing this forward. I need to understand where the rest of the commission is coming from.



14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Galster asked if this particular building creates a 500 cubic foot requirement for detention. Mr. Shvegzda said yes, and these are ballpark numbers. Mr. Galster added that there is 146 available in the existing detention, so we are talking about 350 cubic feet. Mr. Shvegzda reported that would be the differential of what would need to be extended onto the existing underground. Mr. Galster asked how many cubic feet the old site discharged in the peak runoff? Mr. Huddleston said to clarify, 2600 cubic feet is what is required for this lot, and not the entire site.

Mr. Van Atta reported that the present condition 10-year storm has approximately 1.85 cfs being discharged. In the post development 10-year storm we have approximately 1.58 cfs on the site.

Mr. Galster asked the amount of decrease from the existing site to what is proposed. Mr. Van Atta reported that the differential looks to be about a .23 cfs reduction. Mr. Galster said so it is about a 10% reduction.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said you originally were talking about how much it would cost to run it all the way to the other end. Mr. Van Atta reported with the design of an underground system, we would have to do a routing system. Could it be an eight-inch pipe? Mr. Shvegzda indicated that it could. Mr. Van Atta reported I am hearing 500 cubic feet for the building itself, and we originally were told 2600 cubic feet for the entire site. You donít get a lot of storage in a pipe. Surface pipe is the best way to go because you get a lot of volume in with it. We are not allowed to have the surface area, so you would end up with multiple pipes buried under the ground with some form of manifold system connecting them, so as the pipe filled up the water could backflow into the different chambers of the underground storage. As the rain subsided, the water would drain through the different chambers and back out a discharge pipe. Roughly speaking, 2600 cubic feet would cost in the neighborhood of $30,000.

Mr. Galster said so it would cost about $7,500 just to discharge it all the way down. Mr. Van Atta responded that would be just getting the outlet pipe and getting down there. We still would have to do the underground storage.

Mr. Vanover said in prior sessions, I had voiced my opinion and request for some sort of relief from this site. I live downstream from this development, and in the 23 years I have been there, I have seen two 500-year storms. So, anything done upstream is a big help. Something needs to be done.






14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Sherry asked the significance of the 2600 cubic feet versus the 500 cubic feet for the building? Why are we talking about the building when we should be talking about the entire site?

Mr. Shvegzda reported first of all, you are talking about the entire site of what we are reviewing today, the .3 of an acre. In this redevelopment situation, sometimes we utilize the footprint of the building as being a minimum criterion for what volume of detention would be required. In this situation it is a maximum representation of what volumes would be required.

Mr. Sherry said I am also involved in one of these underground storage facilities right now. Mine is 2800 cubic feet, and it takes a whole lot of pipe to get that, and my material costs alone for that is almost $10,000.

Mr. Okum said if this were a bigger site, we would be talking the cost of pavement for 20 parking spaces and the cost of landscaping for a bigger site. This is a key element, and my position is that when you are totally taking a site down and totally redeveloping it, and we are giving every latitude on setbacks parking area, and the number of parking spaces they have to have. We are working with the applicant to try to make this site continue to work for this facility.

I am not saying this to Kentucky Fried Chicken and the people who are investing in it. I am talking to the PUD itself, because this is one element of the PUD, and the PUD site has an obligation to the community. You are sharing parking to accommodate the parking numbers and handle your employees. If I had to consider 1.85 cfs per second, that is about a bucket of water every second down a 10j-year storm. That doesnít sound like a whole lot, but you can take a 100-year storm or a 50-year storm, and there are a whole lot more buckets going downstream. I think Mr. Sherry is right. He is putting in two 48 inch pipes to accommodate 2800 cubic feet of detention. I donít know if that is designed for a 10-year storm or a 100-year storm, but I certainly see a value to what we are going to gain with that if this is pushed to where it should be.

Mr. Vanover said for clarification, our typical basis of retention is a 25-year storm and we are looking at figures on a 10-year storm.

Mr. Van Atta said the figures I gave you were to give you an idea of the runoff. I also calculated for a 100-year storm, if you are interested in those. Don came up with the volumes as a rough estimate. My figures were not meant necessarily to reflect what the detention basin was going to do, as much as to get an order of magnitude of what the site is actually discharging.



14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Van Atta reported that the predevelopment for the 10-year storm is actually 1.85 and on a 100-year storm it is 2.65. I understand that downstream, any amount of water makes a difference but in the whole realm of things, that is not a huge increase.

Gary Schneider owner of Jonah Development reported that at the last Planning Commission meeting we were asked to investigate 2600 cubic feet of detention. I said I thought we could do that; we could hold that water and tie it into the nearest catch basin. I made three site visits and the nearest catch basin for the current underground system for Pier I Imports is in front of La Rosaís. There are 125 feet from the front door of LaRosaís to that catch basin. I canít get that water to go uphill.

So we looked at the possibility of putting a fairly large receptacle down in the parking lot at the bowling alley, and let the water sheet drain down Francis Lane, pick it up before it goes into the creek and discharge it. Unfortunately, that doesnít work with the overall plans that may happen on Francis Lane. The whole reason why we are pushing KFC back is to allow for future development in the back part of the lot. SO if we put something in now, three years from now it might be torn up.

The cost of the fence going across the back of the property and down near the side is $6,000. Thatís a lot of money for a fence. In my opinion, maybe what we need to do at our end is rework the budget and not use the money on the fence but put it in detention. If that is the most important thing, we need to rework it and keep the chain link fence the way it is, or put up a new chain link fence, and put that money towards detention.

The other possibility would be to see if there is a possibility for compromise. Instead of 2,600 cubic feet, we retain 1,300 cubic feet, so instead of a $30,000 detention system, we are down to $15,000.

There has been a lot of effort on your part and a lot of effort on our part. I donít work unless the project goes forward, and I am here on behalf of the owner just to help out.

To be honest with you, at the last meeting when I spoke up and said I thought we could do it, I made a mistake, because we canít do it feasibly. We canít do it for $10,000 or $15,000. It will be at least $30,000, because the proper way to do it is to take it all the way down the creek. Why spill it back out on the pavement; it doesnít make any sense. The proper way to do it is to detain it on site and take it down the creek. Unfortunately, it doesnít allow the project to move forward, and weíre back to leaving the KFC the way it is. Think about a compromise; there has been a whole lot of effort already put forth and it would be a shame to let it go by.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Huddleston commented I donít know what other issues we have with this project. I think it has been well done and well represented. Having said that, I am going to put the onus back on the applicant and the developer of the PUD to say that you come up with 2600 cubic feet of retention on the site, or I wonít vote for it. Itís that simple, and Iím not trying to be difficult. There has been compromise on both sides. That is my position, and I donít think we need to beat it to death a whole lot longer.

Mr. Syfert said the chair will entertain a motion or if the applicant wants to restudy the issue, I would entertain your request to table it for another month.

Mr. Chrzanowski responded I am not at liberty to make a decision on that kind of spending without my other partners involved. I need to let it go through as it is, and then confer with my partners afterwards and see if we can come back with something different if that is the way it plays out.

Mr. Okum said then you want us to bring a motion forward on this. Mr. Chranowski answered I think so, but I donít know what that means a month from now. Mr. Okum responded that considering that you the applicant have not agreed to any detention for the site whatsoever, the motion. would not include that I will be voting in opposition to the motion, and voting no against the improvement.

Mr. Chrzanowski stated I have talked to my contractor and we are willing to detain 1300 cubic feet. I can do that, absolutely. To go the full program as it has been discussed, I canít commit to $30,000 here tonight. I can pay for half of that.

Mr. Okum responded frankly we are splitting hairs on 1300 cubic feet versus 2600 cubic feet. At this point, I canít see approving it unless it is 2600 cubic feet, but that is up to the rest of the commission. If they want the motion to come forward with 1300 cubic feet, I can phrase the motion that way.

Mr. Chrzanowski asked the ramifications if it gets voted down. Mr. McErlane reported that if it is voted down, it would require a new application. Obviously the review by staff would be fairly similar to what it already is, unless things change considerably.

Mr. Galster said for clarity, if the motion includes the 2,600 cubic feet and it is approved at 2,600 and you decide you canít do it, you have every right to not build the project as it has been approved. So, if I were on the other side of the table, I might want to know what I can get approved and what I canít. Having the 2,600 in the motion might not be a bad idea, and you would have to figure out whether you can make the project work or not.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Galster added my additional comment would be to Mr. Okum. We cut the number of parking spaces way down because of the volume of the drive through and those things that are unique to this franchise and location, and I would like to try to tie that down as well. There are going to be only eight on site parking spots now, and if a sit down restaurant with the same square footage came in, that wouldnít stand at eight and would need to be reviewed again in the overall parking for the project.

Mr. Chrzanowski added that I have heard all of your comments, and I would like for you to vote on this with the 2,600 cubic feet of detention included in the project. That gives me the opportunity to have the approval and decide whether we will move forward or not.

Mr. Van Atta said I donít want to be beating the subject to death, but hasnít there been a previous compromise where you just use the square footage of the building? I am looking for a compromise. I heard you mention 500 cubic feet as if that might be a compromise that has been utilized in the city before.

Mr. Shvegzda reported as there have been various different types of redevelopment that has been used. However, in some instances that footprint might have been considerably bigger than this.

Mr. Van Atta added that if it does go down with the 2,600 cubic feet, could you put in the motion about the surface storage? When we met in the parking lot, we did discuss some form of surface storage. Again, the more water we can keep on surface, the less expensive that design will be. I know Don said that the city has gone away from it, but maybe in the motion it could indicate that we could do some underground storage and some surface storage to help alleviate the costs as well.

Mr. Huddleston responded my position on surface storage is that it works fine in a truck dock; it doesnít work in a commercial zone. I also would further make the point that when we give relief, it is based on a particular situation. I donít know what specifics that Mr. Shvegzda is referring to, but that might be a small particular free-standing site. In this case we are talking about a site on the PUD, and the PUD has a responsibility to the community the same as the specific site does and we have a responsibility to the community. That is strictly where I am coming from. I am not trying to penalize anybody. I want your project to go forward if at all possible.

Mr. Van Atta responded I would agree. I have done the truck dock detention as well and I typically donít like parking lot detention, because you donít want people to get out of their cars and have to walk through water to get into a store.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Van Atta added as Don said, the site does slope from the east to the west and on the west side we haves our drive through. So on the west side is probably where the barrier would be to hold the water back, and the water would probably pool in the pass through lane. So the cars leaving the site would be driving through standing water in the parking lot.

Mr. Huddleston commented my reference to on site is the PUD site not this site, when I say that I want retention on site. Where you get it is up to you.

Mr. Galster added when we may have very well used the 500 foot for his footprint in the past, but this site already has a water flow and a flooding issue.

Mr. Okum said you take a slushy icy snow and add a good rainfall; imagine driving through that drive through areas. I think surface detention on a commercial site just does not work, and I couldnít support that.

I think I am hearing from the commission that anywhere on the Princeton Plaza PUD is acceptable for the 2,600 cubic feet. It doesnít matter where it is. It is the PUD that we are looking at; it is not your site in particular.

Addressing Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum said that you want parking drive and site plan conditions for this specific type of use for this location is what you want in the motion. Addressing the staff, he asked if that would be a problem.

Mr. McErlane responded I donít believe there is a problem with that. We have granted relief from some of the parking requirements for other type uses in the past where we have seen that their actual use is less than what the code requires. Ms. McBride added particularly when there is off location parking for the employees, and they have documented drive through sales and they have limited the number of seats in the restaurant.

Mr. Okum asked how they would keep the gates closed on the dumpster area because that is a parking space now. Will staff keep the gates closed? Mr. Chrzanowski reported that they core drilled the concrete and there will be push rods that go down into that. We will see that is taken care of; we donít want any liability on customer cars.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the final site plan modification of KFC to include specifications and drawings and exhibits A-4, A-4.1, K-1, 309 1 of 6, 2 of 6, 3 of 6, 5 of 6 and 6 of 6 dated 10/3/2003, and the lighting plan dated 9/30/2003. This motion shall include all staff, engineer and city planner recommendations The dumpster container gate shall remain closed at all times. Parking, drive and site plan conditions shall be for this specific type of use and for this specific site.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Okum said the engineerís traffic and street improvements shall include the engineerís model of October 10, 2003 in his report. Detention for the site shall treat downstream flow with additional onsite storage. Definition of onsite storage refers to the entire PUD and shall be equal to 2,600 cubic feet.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

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

Planning Commission recessed at 89:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:34 p.m.

E. Approval of Drive-Through Addition for Kemba, 211 Northland Boulevard

Walt Nuckols, Construction Manager and Bill Hub, Architect for Kemba approached the commission. Mr. Nuckols said we are trying to alleviate some of the congestion problems that Kemba has experienced from years of growth. That site is very limited in terms of expansion, and parking is non-existent, so the only way that we can move more traffic through there is to increase that capability through the drive in area. What we are proposing to do is add two more lanes of drive in on there to help speed traffic flow through there.

To help facilitate that, we also will move the inside drive in tellers from the main floor where they have dual responsibilities (lobby traffic and drive in traffic) and move them upstairs. So we will terminate the four lanes of drive in pneumatic tube system to the second floor out of the flow of traffic of the main walk in customers. This way they will be able to move traffic through much much faster.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business, and currently is a financial institution office use which is a permitted use in this zoning district. The applicant is proposing to add two additional drive through lanes (there are two there currently). This will include the reconfiguration of the parking layout and moving the driveway location on Tri-County Parkway, in addition to constructing a canopy over those drive through lanes.

We did not receive an ownerís affidavit, and their application was signed by the architect. If Planning Commission chooses to approve this tonight, it needs to be conditioned on obtaining an ownerís affidavit and an application signed by the actual owner of the property.

The additional drive through canopy does not increase the parking requirement, but due to the reconfiguration of the parking layout, there is a net loss of two parking spaces and a total of 41 spaces are shown on the property.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. McErlane reported that we donít have the building area to determine where they stand where they stand with respect to the Zoning Code requirements for the site. One consideration that staff discussed is if it turns out that the 41 that are proposed are not necessary, maybe some of the ones that are being relocated may not have to be built. We donít have the information to verify that.

The impervious surface ratio is not indicated. However, we donít believe that it is being impacted to any great degree. If you look at the last page of my report, I tried to highlight by the diagonal cross hatching what new pavement is going in, as opposed to the double cross hatching where the pavement is being removed. It is pretty much of a wash in terms of hard surface, and there is existing detention on the site.

The setbacks that are proposed are 36í-6" from Tri-County Parkway and the code requires 50 feet. The parking for Tri-county Parkway is required to be 10 feet, and they are showing 13. The building setback to the south is required to be 12 feet and they show 25, which is the existing setback.

So a variance will be required from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the building setback from Tri-County Parkway.

We did not receive any material samples. The drawings indicate that the columns will be a concrete finish. The pre finished aluminum fascia on the canopy itself will match the existing dark bronze. Mr. Nuckols said I have a sample of that here if you would like to see it. Mr. McErlane stated that there are no proposed grading or utility plans submitted. No new signs are indicated.

Although not indicated on the plan, there is a single twelve-inch diameter Bradford pear (indicated as a crabapple on the plans) that will be removed when the driveway is shifted to the south on Tri-County Parkway. That will require 12 caliper inches of trees to be planted in accordance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

The landscape plan shows a single two inch aristocrat pear and a six-foot sweet bay magnolia. Together they are about four inches, so there would be an additional eight inches of trees that would need to be planted.

Mr. Sherry asked if the ATM would stay where it is. Mr. Nuckols indicated that it was. Mr. Sherry wondered how the queuing would work. Mr. Nuckols reported that we plan to have traffic control at the end of the building prior to entering the drive in area. With that traffic control, we will allow one car to go through at a time as each lane opens up, rather than letting them spill into each lane, which would cut off some of those additional lanes if it werenít done properly.



14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Sherry asked the form of the traffic control and Mr. Nuckols answered signage. It is commonly used in the banking industry.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said you are aware of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and you are short right now so we will have to deal with that.

Ms. McBride reported that we didnít receive the square footage of the building so we couldnít determine the exact number of parking spaces required. The code requires spaces at 1 per 200. Right now they have 42 spaces on the site, and six will be lost. The applicant is proposing four new spaces, but staff wonders whether or not Planning Commission may choose to modify the parking requirements and allow those four spaces to be land banked, rather then having them paved now with the addition of the two drive through lanes and the push from the banking industry to keep people in their cars, in their homes on their computers or phones as opposed to parking and going in. We wonder if it wouldnít make more sense to reserve that area for parking in the future, but not to pave it at this time unless it is needed. I would ask the commission to consider that.

We noted that the five stacking spaces per drive through lane were not indicated on the site plan. We didnít get a full site plan, so we canít determine whether or not they are able to meet that requirement, but they will have to demonstrate that to us or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

We also did not receive information on the impervious surface area ratio. There is 70% permitted in this district. If the four proposed spaces are land banked, staff thinks they may be under the ratio that they are at today. We donít have a big concern about that, but we do need that information on the site plan submitted to the city.

They will need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow the 36í-6" setback from Tri-County Parkway for the proposed addition onto the canopy.

The proposed parking area should it ever be constructed meets our setback requirement. It is set back approximately 13 feet and a 10 foot setback is required from Tri-County Parkway.

They are not proposing any changes to the site lighting or the site signage. They have submitted elevations for the proposed drive through stations. The only comment was that the concrete sonotube columns should be a color compatible with the rest of the building rather than just plain concrete.




14 OCTOBER 2003



The property owner has not signed the application or the ownerís affidavit and the commission will want to consider that.

We have some minor comments on the landscaping plan. I think they dovetail with the additional eight inches that are needed so that can sort itself out.

Because of that one-way status of the drive now going through the rear of the building, that needs to be very clearly signed, both signage wise and markings on the pavement that it is drive through only because there is no escape lane.

Mr. Shvegzda said the addition of the drive through bays causes the entrance to Tri-County Parkway to be moved approximately 25 feet further away from the intersection. As Mr. McErlane indicated, there are no details regarding geometrics grading and those would have to be included as part of the final plan preparation.

In addition we need to have the information as to where the driveways on the adjacent properties are to make sure there is no conflict with that.

With the addition of the drive throughs, they are losing some existing parking spaces but they are adding the four additional. There was some concern about vehicles backing out of this location. Not only do they have the east-west traffic to contend with, but they also have the traffic coming away from the drive through lane. That goes back to the question if they are truly needed. If not, it probably would be better not to do it at this point of time.

On the overall impervious area, it appears to be a wash in terms of additional versus what is being removed, so there is no modification to the existing detention basin required.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant if he was willing to put off the construction of the four parking spaces until a later date if they are needed. We would rather have the green space unless you really need the spaces.

Mr. Nuckols answered that parking is one of the big problems they have now. If one of the conditions of this expansion is to hold that off until the future, I would say that they would be willing to do that. The future for Kemba is now. They need as many parking spaces as they can get.

Mr. Syfert wondered if that requirement wouldnít be reduced when they get three or four drive ins. Mr. Hub answered that is the theory, but these spaces are right at the main entrance and are more valuable than others. Mr. Nuckols added that is the only theory available to us to help alleviate the problem.



14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Hub said that it sounds like that is the only way they can stay, to put these drive through lanes in there. They just do not have enough ability to get their customers in there.

Mr. Nuckols added that the whole second floor of that building is currently unoccupied. Except for the small area that we plan to utilize for the drive in teller area, it will continue to be unoccupied.

Mr. Hub reported that the gross area of the first floor is 4,924 s.f. The second floor is 4,908 s.f. for a total of 9,832 s.f. which requires 49 spaces. It doesnít have it now. With the second floor not used and with no intention of using it except for the remote tellers, we certainly exceed that but it is evident that they need everything that they have.

We hope that these drive through lanes reduce the inside traffic. They do everywhere else; there is no reason why it wonít here. It is just a question of to what degree.

Mr. Hub added that it is easy for us to say that we will put these parking spaces in later, and if they donít need them, that would be a good thing.

Mr. Okum commented I would rather not see them in the front but some place else. Mr. Hub responded I would agree. The only penalty would be a minor surcharge for putting in paving later rather than putting it in now. I think the bank would certainly be wiling to cooperate with you on that. Mr. Okum added if they are not having a problem with not building, I would support not. They can always come back in later and ask for additional parking and we can deal with it at that time.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the Kemba Credit Union Drive Through Addition according to Plans A101, 9203 and L912203, to include staff comments and the additional parking on those drawings to be set aside as land banked instead of building them now.

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

F. Approval of Exterior Elevation Modifications for Poster Service Incorporated, 225 Northland Boulevard (former NAPA building)

Dan Regenold, owner of the building said we are excited about coming back to Springdale. Our companies were here in 1990 and we occupied the building at 255-257 Northland and also had the space at 285 Northland.

We are looking forward to doing a nice renovation of the building and hope to move in as soon as possible. We hope to get it painted as soon as possible.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Regenold stated that he received staff comments from Mr. McErlane and I have some answers that I can start with.

There were questions about what we were looking to do. One of the first was the asphalt curb and water possibly draining off the property onto Northland Boulevard. What we can do is repair that to be four to five inches in height across the 300 feet of curbing on Northland Boulevard.

The square footage total, which we might have left off the application, is 50,000 s.f. It is referred to on the sign as 57,000 s.f., but there is a 7,000 s.f. office on the mezzanine.

We are looking to put a wholesale/retail showroom in the building of about 4,000 s.f. That is reduced from 7,000 s.f. which is what NAPA had there previously.

Right now there are 82 parking spaces. With the front renovation, we will lose five of those spaces for a total of 77. We have tons of room for more parking spots if necessary. WE will plan on bringing 45 employees with us. Using the 1.5 per space rule, we would need 67 spaces, so we have more than enough parking.

In terms of signage, I do have a plan for signage. We are not looking for any big signs. It is not that important to what we are doing, so I donít anticipate a problem there.

We would like to put the waste receptacles behind the building. It is heavily wooded and I donít think any of our neighbors would ever see the trash receptacles.

The landscape plan was a little rough, and we have changed it to show 12 foot maple trees. We have replaced the decorative gravel with mulch beds. I donít have exact sizes on plants and bushes, and I donít know how in depth I need to get for you.

On the color samples, we ran out of chips, but I included some color samples on about 10 of the prints I sent over. He passed around the color samples.

There was a comment about having a picture of the building as it exists, and I have some color photos of the outside of the building.

Ms. McBride reported that the property is located in the SS Support Services District which provides for warehousing distribution and office uses that are being proposed. It also allows for retail sales as long as they donít exceed 10j% of the building area or 500 s.f.

A variance was obtained for this property to permit retail sales to a maximum of 7,000 s.f. of the building.




14 OCTOBER 2003



Ms. McBride added we had not received the building square footage or the part that was to be devoted to retail sales, but you have heard the applicant indicate that there will be 4,000 s.f. devoted to retail sales in the overall building.

The applicant is not proposing any structural changes to the building or the parking lot. We did not receive information on parking, and the applicant just touched on that and we will want to double check, but his numbers appear to be correct and there is sufficient parking on the site.

They are not proposing any changes to the site lighting or any free-standing signage per se, other than the incorporation of a sign on the landscaped wall. We did not receive details on that, so we will need to get those from the applicant.

We also did not receive any details on the location of the screening of the waste receptacle that will have to conform to the regulations of our zoning code. No outdoor storage is proposed for the building. We also did not receive any details on the on building signage, and information in terms of size, illumination and materials will have to be submitted.

They did supply a landscape plan. We indicated that the decorative gravel needed to be replaced with mulch or a similar material, and the applicant has indicated that they would be doing that. We do need to know the size of the plant material, and we can work with them to come up with that information.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the plan needs to be delineated in terms of what is existing and what is proposed. In terms of the existing curb height across the frontage, in certain areas it is 0 inches in height, and there may be a concern about where some of the water sheet flows out into the right of way. Replacement of the curb would be the way to go there.

Mr. McErlane reported on the front face of the building, there are some entry frames that are being constructed with an EIFS type material. I assume that is new storefront glazing, because it looks like a lot more than what is currently there. Also there are additional windows on the mezzanine level across a portion of the front of the building.

We did not receive details on building signage. However, it appears that based on the width of the building the applicant is permitted up to 355 square feet of signs, keeping in mind that any one particular sign cannot exceed 150 s.f. Unless Planning Commission wants to see them come back with the signs, I would recommend approving signs that comply with the Zoning Code, and allowing them to go through the permitting process and be approved by the chairman as is typically done. .


14 OCTOBER 2003




Mr. Galster said concerning allowing the signage to be approved, is there a pole sign permitted on this site? Mr. McErlane answered for support service districts, yes. Mr. Galster commented I would be okay with that as long as it was a ground mounted sign rather than a pole sign, because a pole sign would still be within code but we would like to see it go the other way.

Ms. McBride added that the applicant wasnít proposing necessarily a free standing sign, but was looking to incorporate some type of signage into a landscape wall, which staff thought a great idea. WE just needed the dimensions to make sure it didnít exceed what was permitted by code.

Mr. Galster added if your drawing is representative of what you think it is going to be, I have no problem with the signage as you propose.

Mr. Okum said for clarity, would it be inappropriate to bring into the motion Mr. Galsterís comment regarding no pole sign, since pole signs are permissible. The applicant clearly doesnít intend to do that, and this is based on what he has. Would that be okay with you? Mr. Regenold answered I donít have a problem with that; I do have pictures of the sign here.

Mr. Syfert asked what the company does, and Mr. Regenold answered we have two businesses. We have a poster distributing company we sell to colleges all around the United States, and we also sell art over the Internet. Our primary business has become the manufacturing of picture frames. We have become probably the largest seller of picture frames over the Internet; we have four web sites that have become very successful. We sell to the wholesale trade and retail trade. Almost 40% of our business is over the internet. We are looking forward to being able to say that all those frames are manufactured in Springdale.

Mr. Sherry asked the applicant if he had considered extending the landscape bed on the left hand side of the building further to the east to do a better job of screening that loading dock area.

Mr. Regenold answered we had a design company look at it, and we can look at it again. My recollection is that when you are coming westbound on Northland, at that angle it is really difficult to not see that. I know what you are looking for. I can look and see if we can do it any further. Mr. Sherry commented I would like to see if it can be screened a little better. I see it every time I drive by. Mr. Syfert commented I see what you are saying. If you are going to dress up the front of the building so nice, it would be nice to wrap that a little further, maybes with tall pines or a decorative tree of some sort.


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Okum asked about the condition of the asphalt surface of the front parking area. Do you intend to redo that; it is pretty bad. Mr. Regenold answered it has been redone within the last 30 days. It was bad.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the exterior elevation modifications to include staff comments and recommendations and to include the color pallet that the applicant has submitted and signage conditions are not to exceed code and no pole signs shall be approved. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

G. Approval of Loading Dock and Exterior Alteration for Ashley Furniture, 11755 Commons Drive (part of former Roberds Grande)

Mr. McErlane reported I had a meeting with representative of Muha Construction, the applicant for Ashley Furniture and went over the details that need to be provided for this application. He has chosen to ask to be tabled until next month. Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye and the item was tabled to November 11, 2003.

Mr. Syfert said we will move back up to Item A, the placement of the trailer in the rear of the building at Best Western, 11911 Sheraton Lane. There still was no representation present.

Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mr. Okum said that trailer is already in place and by tabling it we are giving them another month. Mr. Galster wondered if this should be discussed without a representative present.

Mr. McErlane said you have an application before you, and there is nothing that says you canít discuss it as long as the meeting is still open. Certainly if it is tabled for a month and the applicant doesnít show next month, I donít know that it would be appropriate to keep tabling it. It could be acted on if he decides not to show.


Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present November 11th, and all would be.


    1. Halloween Express, 650 Kemper Commons Ė Wall Sign
    2. Free Apartment Locator, 11806-B Springfield Pk Ė Wall Sign
    3. Springdale Cleaners, 365 W. Kemper Rd. Ė Window Sign
    4. Deals, 11350 Princeton (former Just for Feet)ĖSign Package
    5. Bargos, 1240 Springfield Pike Ė Wall Signs
    6. Checksmart, 11435 Princeton Pike Ė Wall Sign


14 OCTOBER 2003



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________, 2003 ____________________

William Syfert, Chairman



______________,2003 ____________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary