7:00 P.M.



Chairman William Syfert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.


MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Darby, Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover, Dave Whitaker and Chairman Syfert.

OTHERS PRESENT: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner



Mr. Galster moved for approval and Mr. Darby seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all except Mr. Syfert who abstained voted aye, and the Minutes were

approved with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster stated most of the terms on this board are up, and anybody who is interested or not interested in continuing should let people know.

      Mr. Syfert commented for whatever it is worth, I hope everyone will consider staying on the board. I think the chemistry is starting to fit pretty well.

    3. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Fall 1999
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė October 10, 1999
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė October 25, 1999


    1. White Castle requests approval of proposed parking lot at corner of West

Kemper & Springfield Pike (former Precision Tune) Ė tabled 10/12/99

Mr. Galster said Mr. Osborn reported to Council that he had some conversation with them and they wouldnít be at this meeting, so I would move that they be removed from the agenda. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the matter was removed from the agenda.

Mr. Darby asked about the neon on the White Castle. Last month we determined we would not discuss it because the applicant was not here. Are we anticipating that they will be here next month? Mr. Syfert indicated that they probably would be.


    1. Service Merchandise, 11444 Princeton Pike requests variance to allow
    2. them to hang three banners on their facility for more than the two weeks allowed under the Zoning Code.





      9 NOVEMBER 1999

      PAGE TWO


      Valerie Spurrr, Co-Manager of Service Merchandise said we would like to hang three banners. We have one that says "Now Hiring". We definitely need that since it is very hard to hire in this area. We also came out with a catalog that is good through December 31st, our Source Book. We recently filed Chapter 11, and this Source Book is our way of getting our customers back. It is a professionally made sign on a frame against the building, and I think this will help us to stay in business and be able to stay in Springdale.

      Mr. McErlane reported we received an application on October 11th as a result of the inspector stopping by because the banners were already up. They had been up since October 4th. Since it came in after the deadline for last monthís Planning Commission, we approved the 14 days permitted under the code. As of this date, they have been up for about five weeks. The total area of the banners is around 242 square feet, about three times what is allowed for banners under the code.

      Mr. Okum asked her time frame. Ms. Spurr answered I would like to keep the source book up until the 31st. It has a lot of great advertised pricing and is the way we are supposed to get our business back. It has been bringing a lot of business back. I need that and the Now Hiring; I am probably 20 people behind in hiring for Christmas. I donít really need the New Low Prices sign, but the Now Hiring and Source Book are.

      Mr. Okum asked how manly times a year banners are allowed, and Mr. McErlane reported it is four times a year, two weeks each. Mr. Okum wondered if they had used any of their banners and Ms. Spurr answered we have an entire new management team that started in March. That is why it has been hard for us, because we donít know the codes around here. Mr. McErlane reported there might have been one other instance when they had banners but it wasnít on a regular basis.

      Mr. Syfert commented I think about every business in Springdale has a Now Hiring or Applications Taken sign up. I am a little apprehensive about leaving a big banner hanging out like this. We might get a lot more requests, and Iím not sure that is what we want to police at Planning Commission. Of course I would like to see Service Merchandise survive.

      Ms. Spurr said we are losing HQ, so we need everything we can do to get through this quarter; this is our crucial quarter.

      Mr. Huddleston said in view of the circumstances in which Service Merchandise finds itself, I would move that the banners be permitted to stay, eliminating the New Low Price banner and leaving the Now Hiring and Source Book banners which would total 146 square feet and leave them up until the end of this month to help them on their road to survival. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

      Ms. Spurr asked if there were any way this could go to December 31st; that is what I meant when I said the 31st.

      Mr. Darby commented I would like to see us consider this until the 31st, considering the circumstances but with the understanding that in the future all banners would be hung as directed by the code.

      Mr. Okum said on the other hand if we allow Service Merchandise the banners that are excessive to what is allowable and additional time, times are tough for hiring for all businesses. We do want to keep Service Merchandise here; we donít want to see two empty corners on that site, but I think we would be setting a pretty strong precedent.


      9 NOVEMBER 1999



      Mr. Okum asked the number of square footage at Service Merchandise and Ms. Spurr answered I donít know, but I do know that HQ is plastered with going out of business banners; they are really bannered out compared to our two banners. Mr. Okum said that is an item on my list for discussion; I object to that as well. Ms. Spurr continued if I could keep "Now Hiring" until November 30th and the other one until December I would appreciate it; whatever we can do.

      Mr. Huddleston said Mr. Darby suggested allowing the catalog banner through the end of the year, and eliminating the Now Hiring banner at the end of this month, and I will move to amend my motion accordingly. Mr. Darby seconded the amended motion.

      Mr. Galster said I believe the catalog banner while it is tastefully done is visible from the right of way, and if we are going to leave it for that period of time, I would like to see that moved to the front of the s tore where it is not visible from Kemper Road but would be visible from the parking area. What we are talking about now is an almost three month period that the sign will be up. I can envision quite a number of businesses that would love to have the same kind of thing.

      Ms. Spurr said I could move the sign if you wish. Mr. Okum added I would tend to agree with that, and if we have a motion to amend from Mr. Galster, I will second it.

      Mr. Galster said I will move to amend the amended motion. To recap, the New Low Prices will be eliminated effective today, the Now Hiring will remain until November 30th and the New Catalog which faces Kemper Road will stay there until November 30th and be moved to the front of the store until December 31st.

      Mr. Okum seconded the amendment to the motion. On the amendment voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Whitaker. Mr. Syfert voted no, and the amendment was passed with six affirmative and one negative votes.

      On the amended motion, voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Whitaker. Mr. Syfert voted no and the amended motion was passed with six affirmative and one negative votes.

    3. Replat of Lot 4, Northwest Business Center (Pictoria Island)
    4. Bill Woodward of Tipton Interests reported we previously came before you and gotten approval of a consolidation plat which took all of the existing lots and made them into two lots, one for the IDI property, 15 acres and the other for the old Pictoria Island property, 23 acres. We also replatted Pictoria Island into two lots one of which is for Bahama Breeze. We are planning the office buildings along I-275, and therefore we are taking the residual property and again splitting the plat for the office parcel.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that this has been reviewed and is consistent with the preliminary plans that were approved earlier and it also is in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations; all the detail items have been addressed.

      Mr. Galster moved to approve the replat as presented and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


      9 NOVEMBER 1999


    5. Shell Oil Company requests approval of renovation of existing car wash at 11595 Princeton Pike

Mark Wiley of Logden Jones & Bills Engineers in Dayton said for the next millenium Shell is adding a sharper image to their stations and they are requesting an upgrade on their car wash which involves removing the fascia and putting a couple of decorative columns on the end of it. I have brought some before and after boards to show you what they want to do. The gray image will be changed to a lighter white or silvery fascia, something a little more up to date. Overall the change will be that the top of the existing fascia will change about 8 inches. And the signage will come down about 5 square feet.

Mr. Syfert wondered if the color he is intending is what is going on the existing canopy now, and Mr. Wiley confirmed that it was.

Mr. McErlane reported the only comment of substance is that there is a sign on the car wash that says "Formula Finish" that projects above the E line of the roof that needs to be lowered. Mr. Wiley responded this should be down a few inches that would put it roughly where you are asking for it to be. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if he would have any trouble complying with this, and Mr. Wiley indicated that it would not be a problem.

Ms. McBride said in addition to the comment regarding the decreasing in the overall sign area, there are removing the wing walls from each end of the car wash building. Right now they have landscaping material up to the ends of those wing walls, so there will be holes where the wing walls are now. We would ask that they add an eight-foot evergreen at each location where they are removing those wing walls. Mr. Wiley agreed.

Mr. Okum asked if they are planning on relighting the facility. Mr. Wiley answered just accent lighting. Mr. Okum wondered if they were going to change the canopy lights and Mr. Wiley indicated that they were not. He added that they were taking off the spandrels above the dispensers and replacing them with something a little smaller.

Mr. Okum commented typically Shell has been relighting their stations with extremely glaring lights; they did that at Fairfield and Northland and Route 4. Mr. Wiley said we are not going to do that. Mr. Okum added if you were, I would object to any changes to your site plan, plain and simple.

Mr. Okum said you say the canopy will have downlighting. Is the canopy transparent? Mr. Wiley indicated that it was not, and that there was no neon included.

Mr. Darby commented on the sign extending above the roofline, you stated that it would roughly comply. Will you tell us that it will comply? Are you saying it will not extend above the roofline? Mr. Wiley answered it will not extend above the roofline.

Mr. Galster asked about the columns. Mr. Wiley confirmed that they were addling them. Mr. Galster continued so aside from painting and changing the colors, the only thing you are doing on the store and car wash is above the pumps; that is the only change.

Mr. Okum asked about the columns and Mr. Wiley answered that is the look; they are white, the same face finish as the building structure, an oval shape.

Mr. Galster commented you are showing a yellow light box existing and you are not changing that so there is no change in the lighting? Mr. Wiley confirmed that.





Mr. Okum moved to approve the requests with the following conditions:

    1. That two evergreens be planted as indicated by the City Planner to replace the wing walls that have been removed;
    2. That the building or site shall not have any relighting with any fixtures that are different from the existing.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

D. Sofa Express requests preliminary plan approval of alterations to 11750 Commons Drive (Champion Windows Building)

Ken Fogg, President and one of the owners of Sofa Express said we are a 40-year-old family owned business headquartered in Columbus Ohio. In the last 10 years is when most of our growth has come, and that is when we changed from being a full line furniture store to Sofa Express, which is a living room and family room specialty type store. We stock 100% of the items we show for next day delivery and we promise custom order delivery of our products within 35 days. We have been in the Cincinnati area since late 1995, and currently have five stores.

We operate under the name Sofa Express, and have two other concepts, Sofa Express Leather and in Columbus we also have one Sofa Express Outlet operation.

Without a location in the Tri-County area, we have always coveted the Champion building site, as a highly visible site to mount a flagship store in the Cincinnati area. One of the things we are most excited about is the size of the building, almost 80,000 square feet. It enables us to take all three of our concepts and put them under one roof. It is our intention to have a Sofa Express Store, a Sofa Express Leather Store and a Sofa Express Outlet Store all under one roof. It is important that you understand that we operate those as separate entities with separate management and sales staffs.

We have made a tentative offer that has been accepted by Champion contingent on our receiving approval from the City of Springdale for our usage, parking and signage within 90 days. I apologize for the rough state of some of the plans we submitted, but it was very important to us to get this process underway. We would love to see final approval this evening; I doubt that will happen, so what I am here to do is keep the discussions going and move towards a conclusion at the next Planning Commission meeting or subsequent meetings.

Ms. McBride reported the property is contained within a Planned Unit Development within the Tri-County Commons PUD. In terms of parking, the building contains 77,840 square feet. The applicant provided a breakdown on the uses of retail versus office spaces versus warehousing. By our current code, 309 parking spaces would be required for this development. They turned in two different site plans. One shows 202 parking spaces, and another one eliminates most of the landscaping and shows 274 parking spaces. In either case, they would need a variance on the number of parking spaces required for the development.

Ms. McBride added for your information, the new zoning code would require about 200 spaces for this proposed use, and specifically breaks out furniture and large appliance retail uses from the traditional retail use, recognizing the floor space that this merchandise takes up.






Ms. McBride stated that the parking the applicant is showing adjacent to Commons Drive has a 0 foot setback and an aisle width of 20 feet, where we require 24 feet, so those are two variances that the Commission needs to consider if that is your pleasure.

We donít have any indication as to the location and screening of the waste receptacle. Their engineer indicates that they are increasing the paved area by 45% so it is important that we see those calculations indicating that the 20% open space that is required is provided.

They are proposing 760 square feet of signage area. That includes a 83.33 square foot pylon sign and does not include the message center. The two wall signs, 368 s.f. facing 275 and one on the south face of the building. They have indicated that the message center would not have any advertising type display, but the Commission would want to make sure that it would be limited to date, time temperature and those types of messages.

The pylon sign is not located on the site plan and we would need that located so we can determine setbacks, and we also need to know the height of the sign.

The two building mounted signs that they are proposing exceed 150 square feet, so they would need to have that approved as well.

They did submit a lighting plan; however, it does not reflect the minimum .5 foot-candles throughout the parking field and access areas so that would have to be revised. We also need to have the pole height and the color of both the poles and fixtures on future submittals.

On landscaping, they did not indicate any of the existing plant material on the site. They did supply a conceptual building elevation, but the landscaping indicated on those did not match the landscaping on the plans.

For future submittals, we will need a full landscape plan with plant schedule. They are showing a number of six-foot high evergreens to be installed on the property, and we would like to see a mix of six and eight foot evergreens to break the monotonous look of all six-foot trees. We also would like to see shrubs planted along Commons Drive and also within the parking islands on the parking field. We also would like to see additional plant material included on both the north and south portions of the site, and shrubs incorporated on the perimeter of the building to try to break up that expanse wherever that is possible.

Ms. McBride continued they did submit conceptual elevations and floor plan. The conceptual elevations depict a false exterior for the building. There would be at least construction around portions of the building. We will need detailed building elevations on future submittals, along with a color pallet and building material sample for the proposed development.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Syfert said in staff meeting we discussed changing the parking on the West Side to angled parking. What would that do to the parking space count? Ms. McBride answered I donít know, but it is something the applicant should look at in the revised submittal. Mr. Fogg commented Iím sure we would lose some spots but I think it is a good suggestion. Mr. Syfert commented it wouldnít work the way it is now, so it might be a good alternative. Mr. Fogg continued one of our concerns with the angled parking is that it might make that drive sort of a one way drive. Probably that is contingent upon the third access question.





Mr. Fogg added we have accounted for a pretty large sidewalk on that side of the building in front of the glass exterior. By going to a parking block three from that front side, we think we can meet the 24-foot requirement. The 10-foot setback would be accommodated and there would be a three-foot median there to put shrubs and greenery along Commons Drive, but we would lose our sidewalk. It sounds like a question of how you feel about the parking spots in general. Our initial parking lot plan shows 202 spaces. My guess is we would lose more than three spaces by going to angled spaces that would put us below your revised code number of 200. I am looking for your direction on that.

The bottom line on that is we donít feel we need that parking. We are a big-ticket purchase with fairly low traffic. There are about 150 existing spaces and we feel that is sufficient for our needs. We understand by expanding the retail size of that building your requirements go up, but anything that can happen to reduce the paved areas of that site, we would be all for.

Mr. Galster wondered who would use the parking at the north side of the site, commenting that it would be the back of the building. Mr. Fogg answered it will be the rear of the building, but there will be an entrance on that side. We are actually facing more west than north, so there will be some access for customers who wish to park there. There is 11,000 square feet of office, and we assume our associates will park there.

Mr. Galster said you are saying that the parking is way over what you anticipate you will need. Mr. Fogg answered yes. The reason we submitted the two parking lot plans was with the hope that you could see a way to accept the 202 spaces instead of the 278. We could expand the parking to 278 if you thought it was necessary, but we would be taking a lot of nice green space.

Mr. Galster commented Iíd go with 60 if that were all you thought you needed. Mr. Fogg answered 60 is probably too few, but I am confident that the 150 is sufficient. Mr. Galster said if you donít need the parking, I would like to see some of that go away, make it green again and plant some more trees out there. I donít see a customer parking in the back of the building and walking all the way back up to the front of the building. Iím sure itís not your desire to have your retail customers walk through your office areas. Mr. Fogg answered yes, that would be an office area training center. Mr. Galster said if you can get some greenspace out to 275, I would like to see that happen.

Mr. Shvegzda said the applicant has indicated that the impervious area would be increased by about 45%. Based on this, approximately 16,500 cubic feet of additional storage would be required. The current requirement is for 54,000 cubic feet, so the detention basin would have to be expanded. Obviously we will need more details and calculations to get the final numbers and what modifications would be required to the existing basin and release structure.

Currently, the detention basin that SKA constructed as part of the Century Boulevard extension is immediately adjacent to the detention basin that exists for Champion Windows. It might be worthwhile to check and see if there could be an agreement with SKA to combine the detention basin. There is just an embankment between the two separating them and if that could be eliminated, you might have your volume right there.

On the site layout, I believe the northernmost drive is the only one that remains pretty much in its existing location. The current drive location on to the south of the building is supposed to be relocated slightly to the north so it will be adjacent to the south face of the building.





Mr. Shvegzda added an additional drive is proposed to be further to the south so it will be opposite what we will call Old Commons Drive.

The Thoroughfare Plan currently limits access points to one, unless the frontage is greater than 600 feet. The frontage on this site is 1100 feet. This combined with the fact that if the parking remains on the west face of the building, you will have an aisleway that comes in immediately adjacent to the driveway so that you will have conflicting traffic in that vicinity, people wanting to come in, queued up and blocking traffic. Therefore it would be our recommendation that the accessway be eliminated from the plan.

On the traffic, the original PUD numbers that were approved for the Tri-County Commons Development and subsequently modified, the Champion Windows site indicated 89 for p.m. weekday traffic. Numbers that were submitted from other Sofa Express sites verify that the total trips for the Sofa Express site on the weekend p.m. peak would be about 61 total trips, which is less than the Champion PUD approved numbers. Based on this, there was an overall figure for the weekday p.m. peak traffic that was 2,680 which was the approved figure for the PUD, so based on this it would be under that number. When Golf Galaxy came through the additional information they supplied showed that actual traffic out there was significantly under the 2,680. We have just completed citywide traffic counts and the counts in this vicinity show that it is about at its maximum at the 2,680 for the p.m. peak traffic.

Mr. Okum said the counts for Golf Galaxy was for a single store, and this is a three store, and I believe the warehouse would be for multiple stores. Mr. Fogg said there is no warehousing of merchandise there as such; it will be a limited staging area. Mr. Okum said for final plan review I would like to see those calculations brought into the mix so that we know that it is less than what the potential Champion was. Mr. Fogg responded in the numbers you were provided, there is a store called Tuttle Crossing, which is the same combination as this without the outlet, and is our single highest traffic store. If you took that traffic number and combined it with the outlet traffic number, you would have the maximum amount of traffic this store should probably generate.

Mr. Okum asked the source of the numbers and Mr. Fogg responded that they are actual store traffic. Mr. Okum said for clarify, I would like to have those numbers extrapolated.

Mr. Darby said for the final plan if we could see a compromise position allowable on the parking, because it seems we have an opportunity to get a lot more green space on the is site. The presenter tells us that based on past experience the number of parking spaces required by our code would be excessive, and I would like to see that worked out.

Mr. Syfert commented I think it becomes a combination of do we want a third drive, which I personally do not which means they may want to adjust that drive some. We also have the parking issue on the side, and I think they all tie together. I agree with you 100%; if they do not need all the parking, letís use green.

Mr. Fogg commented what I would like to say in defense of the third drive is that further south drive was added not to allow additional access to our site but more out of a concern for safety. We will be bringing our delivery trucks onto that site most days, because merchandise that comes back from customerís homes will be dropped off at that facility. It is conceivable that there will be very little semi traffic at that site, but if it does come, we would like to see it separated from pedestrian traffic.





Mr. Syfert said with all your docks on the east side, why couldnít you run your trucks to the north entrance, since youíre not going to have traffic in there. Mr. Fogg answered it is conceivable that could happen. Our experience in Columbus, where we have a similar type of dilemma, has been that the semi traffic winds up ruining your parking curbs and lot. That is a much tighter turning radius on the northern side than what we tried to allow on the south side. What I would love to see happen is an entrance only on that middle site that would allow customers to enter there and park close to the building but have to go to the south exit to exit. Mr. Syfert responded I would like to see it held to two entrances; I believe there may be a better way to handle that, realizing that a lot of this is preliminary and quickly put together.

Mr. Fogg answered there was a comment that we had moved that entrance to make it closer to our building and access the parking. I donít think it shows on any of the site plans, but there is a drive immediately adjacent to that on the Roberds side of the street. When we looked at the current entrance and the exit from the Roberds site, there is potential there for traffic interfacing. We were trying to move ours away from that to stop it from happening. My belief if we will not be able to get semi traffic on the north side of the building. My experience has been that the semi truck driver sees a building and gets to it the fastest way possible. I think they will use that south access point regardless of what sign we might have there.

Mr. Vanover said with the dock on the back side, if you are coming in from the south entrance and trying to back in, that is a tough negotiation for a semi, and it is not ideal for your straight trucks. I think the suggestion to bring them in on the north opening would be the better shot. First you are segregating that from the bulk of your customer parking field on the south side. You could look at some design work and reconfigure that northernmost parking lot which has 275 frontage and negotiate on the northernmost edge of the property, get in and pull into that dock. That way you would segregate the truck traffic from the pedestrian traffic, which is a very good idea. If there is a truck setting in the westernmost lane, all you can get is one vehicle through there, and it is a tight fit. Like the chairman, I do not want to see a third cut to go onto that site.

Mr. Fogg asked if the commission liked the idea of closing the existing entrance and moving it to line up with the old Commons Drive? It is the way we are proposing the south entrance now. It would be a new curb cut, but there would still only be two. Mr. Syfert asked the engineer if that would be his preference, and Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, l think that works very well in that location.

Mr. McErlane said to give you an idea of where we are relative to the PUD plan, the original PUD plan for Tri-County Commons showed this property as well as lots along the interstate as being service type oriented businesses as well as light industrial businesses, which the use currently is in this location. As such within the covenants for the PUD, there is a stipulation that on this property there will be no more than 20% of the building area devoted to wholesale or retail sales. So for this business to go in, that portion of the covenants would need to be modified. The modification should be similar to what was done for Dave & Busterís and Mars Music and those type uses where we clearly define the use so we didnít end up with a straight high volume retailer going into that location and creating a problem from a traffic standpoint.

Also along the lines of the PUD, it is up to the council members on Planning as to whether or not this change constitutes a major deviation from the original PUD and needs to go back to Council for a public hearing.





Mr. McErlane said we received a number of colored elevations that were computer generated but they didnít indicate the materials. It looks like a substantial amount of glass; is that spanner glazing? Mr. Fogg answered above a certain height it is standard glass, clear on the majority of the west side facing the south side. What appears to be glass on the north side is not glass at all; it is a material called Kalwal; it is a translucent Fiberglas type material. You build a steel membrane with this material stretched over it so it gives the illusion of glass and allows a lot of light to pass through it.

Mr. Okum asked if it were non-yellowing and Mr. Fogg answered yes. We never actually used the material before; we have literature on it that IL would be glad to give the commission. Mr. Okum said I would like to see something that has had the material on it for maybe 10 years.

Mr. McErlane reported that the site plan appears as if the exterior finishes are actually a free standing facade in front of the existing building, around three sides of the building. If that is the case, below nine feet is not opaque glass and you will see the existing Champion Window facility behind it.

Mr. Fogg responded we misrepresented it then because the west side and south sides are modifications to the existing building. On the north side Iím not sure myself how it ties in with the existing building, but on that side it does become more of a façade, creating sort of a garden area between the Champion building and the new façade. Mr. Fogg added we will be modifying the poured wall construction and you will be looking through that glass and see our showroom on the other side.

Mr. McErlane said with respect to the corner treatments, are you modifying the existing wall and constructing some drivitt features? Mr. Fogg answered it is an EIFS type material that we have used on a number of our buildings. It looks like block when it is done.

Mr. Galster said when we modify the covenants, do we modify for any particular building or site exclusively or do we encompass them all. Mr. McErlane responded it can be site specific and it has been for the other retail users on the site. Mr. Galster said so this will be specific to this one particular use.

Addressing the council members on Planning, Mr. Syfert asked if they thought this a major change to the PUD and needing to go back to Council for a public hearing. Mr. Galster said I do not consider it a major change when you look at the whole site, but I am still thinking about it. Mr. Vanover said I am trying to weigh this; traffic is a big factor and I question that lower traffic count.

Mr. Galster wondered if there were still one more pole sign that has not been constructed and Mr. McErlane answered no, the prior approved pole signs already have been eliminated. Mr. Galster wondered if there was a pole sign for this site, and Mr. McErlane indicated that there was not. Mr. Galster commented the 275 frontage angles one way. Do we have an idea as to where you propose to mount that pole sign? Mr. Fogg said it is shown on the conceptual site plan

Mr. Galster added there arenít a whole lot of questions left to be debated on the preliminary stage so we need to come to a conclusion on whether this needs to go back to Council for a public hearing.








Mr. Okum said my south elevation tends to show the pole sign to the right by the driveway coming in. Mr. Fogg responded that sign is actually on the north side of the building even though it shows on the south elevation. We would like to get that pole sign out as close to 275 as possible.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if the pole sign would make or break this deal, because I have some reservations about adding another pole sign on 275. I had a hard time agreeing to the other ones that are there now. There are a lot of obstructions that would block your pole sign anyway. Your building signage is pretty significant, and if the pole signage is a make or breaker, this commission needs to know that. If we give Sofa Express a specific pole sign, why not give Dave & Busterís and everybody else?

Mr. Syfert suggested a 10-minute recess for the council members on Planning to decide whether this item needs to go back to Council for a public hearing.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

Mr. Syfert stated we were talking about the pole sign. Mr. Okum said my question was whether the pole sign on the site was a deal breaker for the project or not.

Mr. Fogg answered the total sign package in general is a deal breaker. What concerns us most is the signage we will be able to obtain totally. The importance of the pole sign is intended for the westbound traffic on I-275. Because of the nature of the rendering, we tried to angle our façade towards the Roberds side and eastbound traffic. The way that sign is situated on the building currently we would have no exposure westbound. I understand the desire to have as few pole signs along 275 as possible, but I would like the Commission to take into account that we will be a seven and one-half acre landowner with an awful lot of frontage on I-275.

A lot of those pole signs that you have approved have been for multiple users. I feel as a property owner with that kind of investment in Springdale, a pole sign is not an unusual request for a lot that size a building that size and that many frontages on the expressway. Champion currently has elected to put signage on three sides of their building. We are putting signage on two sides of our building and asking for a pole sign. The signs on the building are good sized, but we do think they are important in the overall architecture of the building. The sign almost becomes part of the building design, and we donít think the signage we are asking for is abnormal for an 80,000 s.f. building, the majority of which is devoted to retail. To directly answer your question, I Ďm not sure that the pole sign itself is a necessity; what is a necessity is achieving maximum visibility for our building. We have conducted studies inside our stores that shows that as many as 1/3 of the pole in the store at any given time came in response to signage. I canít underestimate the importance of that.

What I also can try to convince the Commission of is that the signage we would put on our building would be the extent of our signage. I brought a picture of the existing Champion building with a 40-foot gorilla on top advertising the sale. That is not our method of operation and doing business. We would not put additional signage on our building, but we think it is very important to get proper signage.








Mr. Galster said I donít see that these pole signs serve the purpose of drawing people from the interstate. I donít have a problem with the size of the signs on their building but also keep in mind that there probably will be a monument sign on Kemper Road for all the development on this property Is the pole sign translucent? Mr. Fogg answered they would be individual channel letters. The background will be the same Kalwal material, a translucent background, but the sign itself will be solid letters.

Mr. Galster said in reference to the PUD question and whether this should go back to Council, while I agree this is a change to this particular building, I donít believe it is a major change to the PUD in its entirety, so I would vote for it staying in Planning Commission. Mr. Vanover indicated that he concurred with this.

Mr. Fogg commented I think there is some room for compromise on that pole sign. What we are most interested in is visibility from the westbound traffic on I-275. When you look at our only having signs on two sides, our visibility from westbound traffic on I-275 would be non existent without a pole sign. I am suggesting that rather than a perpendicular pole sign that could be read both east and west, a one sided pole sign, angled and visible from westbound traffic only.

The visibility off 275 is what you are counting on to make your customer take that exit and come down Princeton, turn on Kemper and find your building. Without that signage on 275, the signage on Kemper would never draw traffic down to the building.

Mr. Galster said if that is a concern, maybe your north elevation to 275 should be shifted more around toward the center so you are not pointing toward Roberds. Maybe your desire to angle it more to attract attention would be better served to shift it more toward the westbound 275 traffic.

Mr. Okum said I believe drivers are creatures of habit and if we look at the number of trips that are taken on 275, a large majority of the people who have gone eastbound on 275 have gone westbound as well. I donít have a major problem with the signage on your building. On the other hand, if we are still trying to catch more traffic, the majority of people travelling 275 have seen the Champion Window building, and it has limited signage facing 275. Mr. Fogg answered it also has signage facing east. Mr. Okum responded I understand , but the signage facing east is not what the people are seeing. With that size of signage, I think eastbound and westbound will see that sign. I donít have a problem with the signage on you r building; it does become an architectural feature, but I question the need to add the extra pole sign.

Also, Iím not sure about the visibility of the sign as you have it because of Chesterdale Road and the trees on the east side of the property. If I came underneath Chesterdale Road, I would have to look to the left to see the pole sign. I canít see it from the other side of Chesterdale, because all the vegetation growing along Chesterdale would block your sign.

Mr. Fogg responded the other thing I am asking in consideration of the pole sign is we are operating three separate businesses. If I were a single land owner with three separate tenants, I believe the commission would feel that all three of those businesses were entitled to signage, probably on both sides of those buildings if not three sides. We are counting on that Sofa Express signage to draw those customers in there. We are not putting any signage on the building or windows that say Sofa Express Leather, Sofa Express Outlet or Sofa Express Here.






Mr. Okum responded I can understand that, but our signage is calculated on square footage, and whether you had three or five businesses in there, you are still over your signage limit.

Mr. Huddleston commented I appreciate the council members of Planning Commission seeing this as conforming to the overall PUD in the sense that it is very important to us that we secure businesses there, retail or otherwise that generate low traffic, and I think this generates relatively low traffic, especially for retail application.

That having been said, I would like to compliment the applicant on what I think is a very contemporary and signature building for the site. With what they propose, while there are many details lacking, if it is done with the class exhibited in the renderings and the elevations, I think it will be very nice addition to what is certainly a unique kind of development. I think the applicant has done a good job in trying to adapt the building and create a signature element for not only themselves but for that area of the community. I donít feel as strongly as some of you do relative to the pole signs. I kind of like what they have created and think they give a pleasant break with the time and temperature. I do think what they have created here is an overall architectural package.

Iím not proposing that we give them that pole sign tonight, but I do think that we should give them the opportunity to come back with that and other things that tie in as well as this preliminary presentation has gone tonight. I think there is an opportunity to secure a successful retailer with a good reputation. It is a good opportunity for the city to secure what will soon be a vacant building with a good operator, somebody with a reputation and operates in very high profile areas. I would support the development subject to all of the significant of the staff and members but I feel the applicant has done a very good job to this point and I think we should give him the opportunity to come back and resolve all the outstanding issues.

Mr. Vanover said after the megasign that shines over our nieghborhood, signs on 275 are quite sensitive. On the eastbound traffic, by the time they see your building they will either exit onto 75 and have to come back from Sharon Road or go up to Mosteller and come back from Kemper. Someone new to the area might say I know where it is and will catch it next tune, Champion does a good job of tying their building to their advertising. When they think Champion, they see that building. There are ways that façade could be massaged to readjust the focus from the westbound direction to the eastbound direction. Iím not saying no to a pole sign just yet, but it would be a hard sale for me. However, like Mr. Huddleston I think this is a very nice package for what is there. We decided that this is not a major change to the PUD, but that is with the understanding that we can work out the covenant verbiage. In general I like what I see there.

Mr. Okum added the light poles should be the same as those that are on Roberds for continuity to the entire site. I do have some concerns with the narrow landscape aisle on the west side of the building; I think it will be very difficult to get any vegetation to grow. You wonít get much of a tree to grow in a three-foot width. I agree with the elimination of the third access point. We have not addressed the concealment of mechanical units. We would want representation that the mechanical units are screened from all line of sight and public right of way. You have not presented a landscaping plan yet, and we would want to see the irrigation and maintenance plan for that landscaping. We also need to see documentation regarding the Kalwal material.







Mr. Okum added I tend to agree with Mr. Huddleston almost entirely (except for the pole sign) that this is a good use for the site. I am pleased with the presentation and hopefully when you get further along with the final submission we will be able to carry this forward and make a positive recommendation.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if he had any questions of the Commission. Mr. Fogg responded I do appreciate your giving me so much time this evening. I want to address a few of Ms. McBrideís comments. The most important one involves landscaping. We are pretty confident, with the exception of the median strip along Commons Drive, that we will wow you with our landscaping. We are looking for this site to be a signature site for Sofa Express in Cincinnati. We know traffic along 275 and hope that helps our image in a relatively new market. It is our intention to create a beautiful site, something more community friendly than what is there today.

One of the issues I wanted to speak to is the retention basin. I am not an engineer, but it is my understanding that wet basins as opposed to dry basins are much more capable of handling that volume, in fact it could possibly handle the 45% increase in pavement that we are discussing. I am wondering what the commission would feel about turning that dry retention basin into a wet pond lake that as you come down off Kemper Road on Century Boulevard would take on more of a park like setting. I understand you would need the capacity engineering studies, but I wonder if that wouldnít get us pretty close. Is that a good thing to pursue?

Mr. Shvegzda answered what probably would have to be done to the site would be it would have to be excavated deeper to accommodate the permanent body of water. It is a possibility; there are a lot of issues that would have to be looked at to accommodate that.

Mr. Syfert added to answer your question, I donít think any of us would be opposed to it, if it would work.

Mr. Fogg said we would pursue that in addition to the other landscaping issues, shrubbery in the islands in the parking areas and addition of eight-foot evergreens. We are in agreement with you there. With the possible exception of the parking strip on the west side of the building, (there is some engineering still to be done on the traffic) but other than that, I see no reason why we couldnít meet all of the requests in terms of landscaping.

One of our real goals in hoping to get the parking requirements lowered was to increase the amount of green space. In answer to Ms. McBrideís question on the 20% green space, even if we do all that parking with the 202 parking spaces, approximately 32% would be green space. I think we are well in excess of your 20% requirement even with additional paving.

We now have located the dumpster and the shielding. On the pole sign, I see that as being a big issue. Secondly, could we have a quick consensus in terms of the west side parking strip, whether it is necessary and how you would like to see it handled?

Mr. Syfert commented I believe there is a different way to handle that. Maybe you donít even need it. Iím not hung up on what our code requires for parking. If you feel it will work without it, take it out. I suggested putting it at an angle; maybe that is something you want to do. I donít think anyone is really hung up on that, and if they are, please say so.






Mr. Parham said you indicated that there would be three separate stores and three separate managers. For maintenance of the facility, would there be a single contact? Mr. Fogg answered yes, in our buildings where they share separate stores, there is one facility manager, and you would have a single contact.

Mr. Huddleston said my main point is based on what our new zoning code analysis and the applicant is telling us, if that information could be validated, parking should be kept to a minimum. Keep the green space, and if parking needs to be added later, that is an alternative option we should consider.

Mr. Galster said on the pole sign if I were leaning towards additional signage, I would like to see it changed to a monument type. If we are going to take some of the blacktop out of the front and make it green, maybe we can put a retention type basin and tie your sign into that. I would much rather see that type of a feature than the traditional pole.

Mr. Okum said I would think that the west side of the entrance area would be a better location for the monument sign if you were to have another sign, and I think you should do it in the same vein as you have with the pole sign. That way you could get the westbound exposure and visibility.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said you will be on the agenda next month. I would like to congratulate you on making such a nice presentation. I hope we have given you the direction you need and that we will see you in Springdale.

Mr. Galster moved to grant preliminary plan approval for Sofa Express with the comments of staff and commission taken into consideration. Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and preliminary approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Walker Pontiac Auto Dealership requests approval of alterations to 169 Northland Boulevard (former Recker & Boerger)

Dick Huddleston withdrew from the discussion and left the dais.

John Walker owner of Walker Pontiac said we have purchased the former Recker & Boerger property. We have been doing business in Springdale since 1990, and we intend to relocate our business across the street. We have retained the Miller-Valentine group to manage the project and I will turn this over to David Brown of Miller-Valentine.

Mr. Brown said we intend to increase the paved area in the front. There is a small detention area, and we will take it and move it to the southwest area and relocate our storm drainage as such. We are increasing our landscaping on both sides of the drive. We also will clean up the old fenced in area behind Enterprise. The loading docks will be removed and filled in and that area will be used for washing and detailed area. The Enterprise parking is behind the Enterprise building. Customer parking will be alongside the building and the employee parking will be in the corner.

The existing trench drain will be rebuilt. This whole drive area has a 10% grade and we are increasing that grade considerably. We are proposing to relocate pole signs across the street at each corner of the property.

Mr. Syfert asked if Enterprise were staying there and Mr. Brown confirmed this.







Mr. McErlane reported that the plan shows an additional paved area in front of the lot and some installation of new signs. The layout in particular in the area of Enterprise building where the expansion was done doesnít reflect the parking layout that was accommodated with the expansion of Enterprise. Essentially the one row of parking directly in front of Enterprise has been changed to parallel parking so there is a net loss of 5 spaces in that location.

There are two pole signs shown on the site, one of which is located on the northwest corner and scales about 24 feet from the adjacent property and 25 feet is required. I am sure that can be adjusted. There is a future canopy shown dotted on the site plan. There are no details, and I have spoken with the applicant, and they have indicated that this is something they would like to do in the future. I would point out that this would require a variance because the required setback is 50 feet and it shows to be about 43 feet.

The signs that are shown on the plan are the 241 square foot 47 foot tall pole sign, an additional pole sign that is 77 square feet and 28 feet tall. There is a wall sign that is 2 Ĺí x 20í, another wall sign at 2 Ĺ x 37.4, which totals 461 square feet. The allowable sign area is 265 square feet so the proposed sign area is 74% over code.

The variances that would be required for this application would be for the two pole signs (only one pole sign allowed on a property). Additionally, each of the pole signs exceeds 50 square feet, the maximum permitted, and that the total sign area exceeds the maximum. As I indicated the one pole sign probably could be located 25 feet or more from the property line, so that wouldnít necessarily need a variance.

Mr. Syfert asked if these are the same signs they have now, and Mr. Brown indicated that they were.

Mr. McErlane added I did dig out the variance drawings from across the street and the signs that the variance were granted for are different than the sign request we have tonight. Unfortunately the signs shown on the plan donít have any dimensions on them, so you have to scale them to find the sizes. The sign area of the larger pole sign appears to be correct, it is a 15í x 15í with a 4í x 4í GM Logo, but the variance granted was for a 35 foot high sign, not a 47 foot high sign. The Used Car sign on the existing property is actually a 6í 4" x 6í 4" sign and only 20 feet high, so they do deviate a little bit from what is shown on the plans.

Ms. McBride reported in terms of the parking, the proposed Walker building contains 5,398 s.f., and the Enterprise building is 1,738 s.f. By the current code that would require a total of l77 parking spaces, and they are showing a total of 132 spaces. The Commission should give some consideration to reserving a portion of those spaces so they would not be utilized by either the Enterprise cars for rent, or by the Walker cars for sale. They should be designated for visitors, customers, service call people, employees and those types of spaces that will turn over as opposed to occupying 132 of the spaces with 132 cars that would be for lease or for sale.

The plans showed an expanded pavement area but did not indicate any use. Section 153.083(A)(6)(a) of our code requires that all vehicles for sale over 60 inches in height must be set back 35 feet from the front lot line, and all vehicles and advertising must be located behind the concrete curb or pre-cast barrier at least 10 feet from the front lot line.






Ms. McBride added so we would need to see details for the parking that indicate that they will comply with that regulation in our code, or they would need to get a variance from that section.

They are proposing to relocate six 2-inch caliper trees that were recently put in. Three of those trees will be relocated in a clump on the western portion of the site, and we would rather to see those staggered across the frontage as the street trees have been in almost all the other developments. In addition, the area they are showing to relocate those trees is in the vicinity of the structure for the detention basin so Iím not sure how they would relocate them there anyway.

They are showing the inclusion of three additional planting beds, two at the western access point and one on the eastern access point, and we would ask a fourth bed of similar design be added to the west side of the eastern access point. We would like to see this so there is a balanced plantings on both sides of both access points.

They do not indicate any existing landscape material that is on the site. Inspection of the property indicated that some of the existing landscape material is in rather poor, i.e. dead condition, so that needs to be replaced or maintained in better condition.

They submitted an existing and proposed lighting plan. They are increasing the light levels on the site, but they didnít indicate how they would be doing that. In any case, they are not using the minimum .5 foot-candles and we would ask that the lighting plan be revised to reflect the .5 foot candles required. Mr. Syfert asked if there were a particular area where they were not meeting this and Ms. McBride answered it is to the rear of the building.

Mr. Brown responded the lighting levels in the drawing you have are simply to show the existing pole fixtures as opposed to the minimum .5 foot-candle. We donít plan to make any changes to the building lighting. There is lighting around that entire building; we did not take a foot candle meter to determine the levels because we were not gong to change them. What we are trying to do is show you the current lighting levels from the pole fixtures along Northland Boulevard. Our proposal is to add two pole light fixtures to the very front of the building. What those photometrics were attempting to show you is what that light intensity would do in that particular area. There is an average of 17 to 20 foot candles to the north or eastern parking area, and what we are trying to do is replicate that lighting level there for the front of the building. The building security lighting is existing and we have no intention of changing that.

Ms. McBride said if the applicant is proposing to add new fixtures, we would need to see details of those and in any event they will need to bring the lighting up to .5 foot-candle or go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance.

Mr. Shvegzda said on the southwestern drive that is being reconstructed both to align with the proposed break in the median and to provide a better profile. Consequently the trench drain will have to be replaced with a new trench drailn, and we need the information as to the type of trench drain and analysis to make sure that it will intercept the tributary area in terms of the storm water flow.










Mr. Shvegzda said regarding the additional detention, we have done some very rough calculations based on the indicated additional pavement. It appears it is an additional volume of approximately 1,000 cubic feet. It was indicated that the existing detention and the new detention would be provided in the area south of the south drive. Weíll need information on how it is structured and how it will control the release rate.

There are three proposed headwalls that we will need detailed information on. There is one in particular that has a very extreme angle in terms of the storm sewer, just to the north of the southern drive. There needs to be consideration on how to properly address that, either a specific headwall to accommodate that particular angle, or reducing the angle. This will need to be looked at.

In addition, there is a 12-inch storm sewer that is shown on the southeastern portion of the property behind the Enterprise building. It indicates that it is there and dies out somewhere in the vicinity of the Enterprise building. Some of that information was clarified in on eof the Enterprise submittals, but some additional information is needed. There was some concern that the proposed detention basin might conflict with that.

For your information, currently, the downspouts for the building do outlet onto the parking lot, but there are no proposed storm sewers in that vicinity so it doesnít look like this would be the opportunity to tie those directly into the storm sewer.

The storm sewer in the vicinity of the southern drive is shown with a very excessive bend. We would suggest some sort of manhole or catch basin in the bend to facilitate maintenance of the sewer.

It looks like there still intends to be a ditch in the area in front of the building where additional parking will be provided. Mr. Brown answered that is an open ditch to carry the trench drain water from the northern drive. Mr. Shvegzda said we would suggest to accommodate the landscaping and eliminate some of the steepness of the slope in that area, an additional storm sewer could be constructed and curve in front of the parking so you could slope directly down from the right of way line to the top of the curb. This is something to consider.

As far as the existing parking lot, a portion encroaches on the adjoining property to the north. It is something that needs to be dealt with in a permanent manner. We had noted it to Recker & Boerger and they were in the process of trying to rectify that situation.

It appears that the proposed detention basin is in excess of 2 to 1. That needs to be looked at; we would prefer to have 3 to 1 from a maintenance standpoint.

Mr. Okum asked about the dumpster location and enclosures. Mr. Walker stated it could go anywhere. Mr. Okum responded we would need details on them with the enclosure and gates, and added that if any lighting fixtures are replaced, they should be downlit and nonglare.

Mr. Okum commented it looks like your parking actually goes over into your neighborís property, is that correct? Mr. Williams answered yes, we are trying to resolve that issue; it seems to have occurred in 1972. Mr. Okum responded we need to have that resolved.








Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you realize we are trying to eliminate the massive number of pole signs in the community. You are non-conforming with a variance on your existing site, and you want to move across the street and still be non-conforming on this site. I know that you asphalted in all the grass area in front of the site. Is there any way you could take out a little of the asphalt and do some landscaping with a monument sign in the center instead of having that sign down in the corner?

Mr. Walker responded as far as I know the existing sign has been there since 1978. We inherited that sign, and I wasnít aware until tonight that it was taller than the actual variance. We installed the Used Car sign in 1991. I am on a long-term lease on both those signs and if I break that lease and go with a smaller sign, it will cost the company almost 10 times more than what we are currently paying to put up a new sign across the street. Our request is to move the existing signage that has been on Northland Boulevard 50 feet directly across the street. As far as I know all or our competition has that type of signage. They may have signs taller and bigger as a matter of fact, and I feel it would be unfair to us to limit us. Mr. Okum commented we have been whittling away; Mr. Sweeney has reduced his signage down and eliminated two pole signs on his last redevelopment, so there have been adjustments.

Mr. Walker said the sign is very very important to our existence as far as I am concerned, so we can pull traffic from Kemper Road, which is where 80% of our traffic comes from. That would be the 15í x 15í sign that we currently have and would need to move over to the corner so it is visible from Kemper Road. Mr. Okum commented that is the one originally approved at 35 feet which is now 47 feet. Mr. Walker responded if that 47-foot figure is correct. I have something from General Motors that says it is 37 feet. Mr. Okum said I think that will need to be verified. I personally am not comfortable with taking all that green out of the front of your site and pave it for cars. Our code calls for a 35-foot setback for cars over 60 inches from the right of way, and you are at eight feet. Mr. Walker responded the reason we are adding to the front is so we can have a drive through lane to connect both of the parking lots. Mr. Okum said I donít mind your having a drive through lane; I just donít like it all black asphalt. Mr. Brown said that is why in the amount of green space that was left we added the landscaping beds. We are proposing by regrading this area and moving the detention down here, it is a larger area and a lot flatter to provide more green space. Cars will be parked here and we will have a two way drive because this is the main entrance and exit; we have two way traffic.

Ms. McBride said if there is a drive aisle in the front of the building, are you showing parking between the building and the street? Mr. Brown answered yes. That was addressed by staff, and we have since revised the drawing. Right now the parking stops at the corner of the building on both sides. Ms. McBride wondered if they had made other revisions to the parking, adding that they had not seen any. Mr. Brown added we have eliminated the striping. Ms. McBride asked the number of parking spaces and Mr. Brown answered 82. Ms. McBride responded 77 of the 82 spaces are theoretically blocked out for customers, employees and visitors. Mr. Brown answered yes; it goes back to Mr. Walkerís comment on the number it will be necessary for him to operate. Currently he has about 18 customer parking spaces and 20 parking spaces for his employees. He doesnít anticipate having that many employees and customers there at the same time. We have designated an area for Enterprise in the back corner behind their building for their parking, 14 slots. We feel this is more than ample for the number of customers that will be coming to the site.





Mr. Vanover said the concern would be about the customer cars being dropped off for service or waiting to be picked up for service. That parking would need to be accounted for someplace. Mr. Walker responded I agree with you; we currently have 18 or 20 spaces for our customer parking in our current location, and in addition to that we will have 3.0 acres so there is more than enough parking on that property. As far as actually designating the 77 spaces, I suppose if you want us to designate those many, we can do it, but weíll never have that many customers here at the same time.

Mr. Brown added perhaps if it were a retail use it might be different, but for a car dealership everyone knows there are not that many customers there. As you said there are customers dropping cars off, and there is a ride up area inside the facility and parked in a designated area. We essentially have 48 parking spaces for customers dropping their cars off.

Ms. McBride reported the code would actually require 77 parking spaces. Again, we have not seen that plan and the applicant is representing that they have 82 spaces on that plan.

Mr. Okum commented I hate to have a site plan here that is different from what staff reported on and we are asked to make a decision on it this evening. Mr. Walker is anxious to get his project moving forward, and I would suggest we take a 10-minute recess for the staff to confirm the number of spaces.

Mr. Brown reported what we submitted indicated 132 spaces, and showed the original 132 at the Recker & Boerger site. We knew the requirement was 77; we had a drawing that showed 132. We are still complying with the revised site plan at 82 parking spaces.

Mr. Okum asked if the staff were comfortable with that, and Ms. McBride responded if the Commission wishes to make it a contingency that they have 82 parking spaces that meet the requirements of our code, that is fine. It is very difficult though for the staff to review plans that have been changed as we sit here this evening.

Mr. Galster said I see parking spaces in what he is calling the drive through, so none of this parking makes sense to me. I canít look at it and evaluate it and know what is going on. I have no idea based on the plan that I am looking at of what you are trying to do. I have no problem with looking at this on a preliminary basis, but I would have a hard time with a final approval. There is still the question on the existing height of the sign; so there are a lot of things up in the air that are major issues.

Mr. Walker responded on the sign issue, it is the same sign that we have been looking at since 1978. In terms of the striping on the blacktop, I m sure you would all agree that on three acres there are many more spaces than 77, which is what the city is requiring. I would ask for approval to go forward with the project and be able to turn in exactly where the 77 spaces would be for city approval, rather than table this for 30 days over not having striping on the drawings you have.

Mr. Galster responded if I were approving the drawings with parking spaces in the middle of drive through lanes, I would have a problem with that. If in fact the sign is 47 feet tall, if there is a problem that needs to be corrected, now is the time to do it not after we put it back up again. Those are the issues I am not comfortable with; I donít have enough data to make the decision.






Mr. Darby said Mr. Galster just about covered my concerns, but I see no reason that this commission should approve moving a sign that has been non compliant since regardless of whose dimensions you are taking into consideration and moving it across the street so it can be non compliant in 1999. Mr. Syfert commented they would have to apply for a variance on that; we couldnít approve those signs.

Mr. Okum said you expressed that exactly right Mr. Darby. Just because we allowed a 47-foot sign that was non-conforming across the street doesnít necessarily mean that this site is entitled to that. On the other hand, you are an enterprise in the city, hopefully a thriving one.

One question I had. You currently are on 4+ acres, and you are reducing down to three. On that three-acre site we have another business, Enterprise Rent A Car that is taking 1700 square feet and 15 parking spaces. Are you having any other outbuildings for your used car business on this site? Mr. Walker answered no.

Mr. Brown said if it is possible to at least table the sign variance request and possibly get the site plan approved tonight, I would like to request a 10 minute recess to permit the commission members to take a look at the site plan again. We had 132 spaces; they are still there. We have ample parking for the customers. We more comply with the 77 required. It is simply a designation of where those people will be on the lot. By actually reducing down to 82, we still comply with the 77.

Mr. McErlane commented since it is the Board of Zoning Appealsí responsibility to approve signs, if it is amenable to Planning Commission, they could go ahead and forward the sign issue on to the Board of Zoning Appeals and address the site plan issues.

Mr. Vanover said my only question would be to staff. If we took a 10-15 minute recess, would that give you enough time? Are you comfortable with that? I am not.

Ms. McBride responded if the Commission wants us to look at it, we would be happy to do that.

Mr. Brown said our concern is he has to move his facility by April. With the site improvements we are trying to make here and the asphalt plants closing, we are concerned that we will not get the pavement in in time. So if you would entertain my request, I certainly would appreciate it.

Mr. Okum added I would really appreciate it if Planning would forward some type of direction to the Board of Zoning Appeals on the sign issue. IL think it is unfair to send a planning issue to BZA for a variance when they already have a variance across the street. The variance stays with the land; it doesnít belong to Mr. Walker. I think Planning owes it to BZA to give them some direction as to the two signs on site and if we are talking about pole signs or ground signs

Mr. Galster responded I am not prepared to say to BZA to handle two pole signs on the site; Iím not sure I am ready to handle two pole signs. Our new code says one pole sign or two monument signs. I think if we are going to take a recess to address issues, that is an additional issue that will need to be addressed.

Mr. .Syfert called a 12-minute recess at 9:54 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened at 10:07 p.m.

Mr. Syfert said I hope the applicant appreciates this. It is above and beyond what Planning normally would do.






Mr. McErlane reported that the larger sign is 35 to 37 feet high. Iím not sure about the Used Car sign, whether or not it was installed larger than the variance allowed.

Ms. McBride stated in reviewing what they have done, they have eliminated areas that are existing striped today. They have designated specific areas for specific types of parking. The lower left-hand corner of the site is now designated for Enterprise parking. The right hand side of the site is for employee parking. There is customer parking now on the left side of the building and a small portion of the right side of the building. The area to the right of that will be for the used car sales area. The new car sales area will be in the left portion of the site in front of the Enterprise facility. Based on Enterpriseís 1738 s.f. requires 14 parking spaces, and they are showing 14 spaces. Those cars donít set on the lots very long, so I am not very concerned about that. Our calculations for 5,398 s.f. of the building for office and showroom space only (not including the service area) require 60 parking spaces. They are showing 22 customer spaces and 10 employee spaces for a total of 32.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Galster asked if she were comfortable with their ability to work this out as far as the location of the parking spaces in the general layout of the lot. Ms. McBride indicated that she was.

Mr. Galster wondered if the applicant would be willing to compromise on the signage. I personally donít have a problem with moving the one sign over providing it is 35-37 feet tall, but I would like to see the Used Car pole sign go to a monument sign. I have no problem with the signage that is on the building. I am comfortable saying they need to bring that back in to Planing Commission and allowing them to move on with the project.

Addressing the engineer, Mr. Syfert asked if he had seen anything of concern? Mr. Shvegzda answered nothing that jumped out. Just to clarify that front pavement area will have display vehicles on both sides, the perimeter of the parking area adjacent to Northland Boulevard and the building side with a through highway for customersí vehicles to circulate.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked what he thought of Mr. Galsterís suggestion on the signs. Mr. Walker answered I would like approval to move the existing large sign. I am assuming it is not 47 feet but 37 feet as my information indicates. I wold be willing to do something different with the Used Car sign if that is something you would like to see us do, but I really donít feel that we can exist without a large sign that is visible from Kemper Road.

Mr. Syfert asked if he could adapt the Used Car sign to a monument sign, and Mr. Walker answered I would be willing to do that. Mr. Okum added and maintain current building signage. Mr. Syfert commented I personally would have no problem with recommending to the Board of Zoning Appeals to move that sign over to 35 foot height and go with a monument sign for your Used Car sign.

Mr. Okum asked how they intended to maintain the landscaping and Mr. Walker answered hire a service contract to maintain it. Mr. Okum asked about irrigation, and Mr. Walker answered none proposed.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said 60 spaces are required and 28 are provided. Will we be able to find the 28? Ms. McBride said the variance would have to be to allow the 32 spaces, because they specifically designated what they are to be used for. We canít count spaces that are display area as parking spaces.





Mr. Okum asked Mr. Walker how many employees he had, and Mr. Walker answered 33. Mr. Okum said and you only have 32 spaces. That is BZA business. Mr. Walker said if you are concerned that we donít have enough parking, which would be incorrect, because there is more than enough parking on the three acres. The confusion is the fact that we originally submitted plans with all the current striping on it that we are not planning on utilizing. This drawing has a total of 82 spaces designated and only about 35 of them are for our customers and our employees. Mr. Okum said you have told us that you have 33 employees and 32 spaces. Mr. Walker answered I agree that on this drawing there are not enough spaces designated for employee parking.

Mr. Brown reported we have 19 for customers, 10 for employees designated right now and 38 additional, and 15 for Enterprise. Ms. McBride reported the plan we looked at during he break has 10 parking spaces designated for employee use and 22 for customer use. Mr. Brown said 38 additional.

Mr. Okum said I am having a hard time when our consultants are telling us that there are 32 spaces provided on the plan and 60 spaces are required, and those spaces are for employees, customers and visitors. You are agreeing that there are 32 on this plan, so where are we going to get these spaces?
Mr. Brown responded the confusion on the layout was 15 for Enterprise, 19 for customers,10 for employees and 38 in this area. Mr. Okum asked if that werenít the used car area, and Mr. Brown answered the used car area will have to go back in this area over here. Mr. Okum commented I donít see that a used car area in the back of a site would potentially be a good plan for the site.

Addressing the applicant, Ms. McBride said so what we discussed at the recess is not what we are going to do? Mr. Brown responded the problem is the number of customers that we are anticipating. He currently has 18 for his current customers and 20 for his employees for a total of 38. Mr. Okum said we donít know that is correct. I donít want to give up green to put parking spaces. I want Mr. Walker to have a successful enterprise and be able to present the vehicles he is displaying, but I as the customer need to have a place to be able to park and not sit in the middle of an aisleway.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Walker clearly stated he has 33 employees. The numbers are not working to show that the site is capable of handling the amount of parking and display vehicles that are necessary. I think the code is probably right. To say we have 32 there I think we probably are cutting Mr. Walkerís business short by trying to squeeze it onto the site, and unfortunately it is not working.

Addressing Mr. Walker, Mr. McErlane said you indicated you had 33 employees; are they on the site all at one time? Mr. Walker indicated that they were not. Mr. McErlane asked what his maximum would be, and Mr. Walker answered l7 would be sales people who work shifts, and service technicians do not work Saturdays or Sundays.

Mr. McErlane continued the other question relates to the vehicles your sales people might drive to and from work, are they offered for sale? Mr. Walker indicated that they were, and they would not be parked in customer parking or employee parking







Mr. Galster said so the largest number of employees that you need to park in a designated spot at any one time is how many? Mr. Walker responded I canít give you an honest answer; it would be less than 20. Mr. Galster continued if for some reason we canít come up with a number that meet the minimum requirements, would you be willing to take that retaining wall out and rebuild a wall across the back? On that slope, isnít there a retaining wall? Mr. Shvegzda answered I believe the retaining wall is on the adjoining property; there is a slope that exists. Mr. Galster said on the bottom of your drawing, the gray that is shown there, can a retaining wall be put in there for parking spots if you canít find some anywhere else?

Mr. Walker said I am very confused about the fact that we have 3 acres here that will hold 250 vehicles and there is so much confusion over whether we have designated 20 30 or 60 spaces. I know my operation, and I know this is big enough to hold all our customers and all of our displays. The confusion is the way it was submitted to the city, and I do apologize for that. At this point if we need to table it for 30 days, that is what we need to do. I donít want to argue with anybody about it.

Mr. Okum responded I donít want to argue either; I just want the numbers to work, and it is very difficult for me when I am getting different numbers coming from different areas. You could put your employees back in hat sloped area and justify parking area for them. Dealing with the dealerships in the city, we tend not to have enough parking, because they fill them up with display. I think we need to get these issues re solved. I donít think we got a good resolve from the recess when the staff reviewed the materials. It has to go to BZA, and if it is going to BZA they are not going to know where they are coming from if they get numbers like this. I would really encourage you to make the request to table. If you donít, I will.

Mr. Walker asked if there were anyway to start on the project without resolving all these issues? Are you saying we cannot go forward with the project at all? Mr. Okum responded I would hate to give you preliminary approval when it has to go through Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals; I donít think it would be fair to you. If you feel comfortable with the decision that the Board of Zoning Appeals will approve the variance on the parking issue, and you feel comfortable that Planning Commission is going to approve the parking facilities issue, fine, but I certainly would not be comfortable approving it on a contingency basis. I donít know the right number anymore; does anybody on this board know?

Mr. Walker responded I do apologize for the confusion, but I donít think it is fair to make me wait for another 30 days before I can start developing the property, when we have three acres, 250 spaces, and it is simply a question of where we designate various parking spaces. I could easily draw in there enough spaces to work. There has been an error made here and I do apologize, and I am asking you to give me a direction so I can start the project and not let the property set 30 more days with bad weather coming; I donít think it is fair.

Mr. Galster said if we ask him to designate 60 spots and he agrees to do that, the worst thing that could happen is his room for display would have gotten down to where he wouldnít have enough cars to be able to sell. It is the applicant taking that risk, not us. Mr. Williams said I totally understand that.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Galster asked if we were comfortable with the number 60 for parking spots.





Ms. McBride responded the 60 parking spaces are based on the fact that there is 5,398 s.f. in the Walker Building only that is designated for office and showroom space. There are additional 14 spaces that are required for Enterprise Rent A Car. Mr. Galster said so there are 74 spaces required.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked him if he were comfortable with designating 74 spaces and using whatever display area is left. You will have to provide us documentation for that, but at least I am more inclined to give you what you are looking for. If you will designate the 74 spaces, and everything else is up to you, I am okay with that and would be able to allow you to move ahead.

Mr. McErlane reported that in Ms. McBrideís initial comments, she indicated that 74 spaces were required by code, but whether or not 74 is an appropriate number based on how you use the showroom is a question. Obviously you are not packing people in like you would in an office building or a normal retail user. Seventy-four may be an extreme; I think it is probably more reasonable to take a look at what we were trying to do as far as employees, an adequate number of customer parking spaces and the additional issue of Enterprise Rent A Car. I donít know if everybody was comfortable with 19 or 20 spaces for customers, and I donít know if Mr. Walker gave us a maximium number of employees he would see at any particular time on the site. I think that was the one thing that we were not clear on. Mr. Walker said 20 would be the maximum number of vehicles owned by the employees, because all of our salespeople and managers drive our cars.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Walker if he would be willing to dedicate those parking spaces and mark them on your site so they are always available? Mr. Walker answered that he would, adding that they would need to be in the back because I need the display area. Mr. Okum responded but you also have to have area in front for the customers. Mr. Walker said the customers would park on each side of the building. Mr. Okum asked if those would be so designated, and Mr. Walker confirmed that they would, adding that area is on the drawing.

Mr. Brown said right now if we had 20 for employees and 19 for customers that would total 39. Mr. Okum added plus 14 for the Enterprise Rent A Car.

Ms. McBride reported that the plan they looked at in the recess provides 22 parking spaces for the customers at the front with easy access to the showroom. I feel comfortable that those are 22 prime spots. They have the 14 spots designated for Enterprise in the lower left-hand corner, and that is fine. They have 10 parking spaces designated for employees on the right hand side of the rear portion of the lot, and basically what we are looking at is finding another 10 employee spaces. Then in my opinion everything else is fine; leave the used cars where they are, leave the new car area where it is. Iím sure you have enough area in the back of that building that you can stripe 10 spaces and mark them for employee parking. Mr. Walker indicated that was true.

Mr. Brown said then my question is if we are at 60 and you indicated 74, do we still have to go forward with the variance?

Mr. McErlane reported as far as I am concerned it is a matter of semantics, because they could come in and stripe an additional 14 parking spaces whether they put stock in there or not. Mr. Brown commented it doesnít make a lot of difference; there is enough paved area to accommodate 74 parking spaces.






Mr. Parham said we seem to be sitting here trying to figure out what the number of parking spaces is and where we can find those parking spaces. The question I have is if Mr. Walker identified where these parking spaces can be found, is it the intent of the Commission to give him the ability to go forth and start his project? If that is not your intent, as he has indicated, it is not the fault of the Commission that you are sitting here now trying to design a parking diagram for this piece of property. That is his and his consultantsí issue. If that is not your intent and you are not going to give him the ability to move forward with the process, then I would suggest that you simply send him back and that he come back to the Commission with the proper information, that you not sit here and have your consultants look at a plan in a 10 minute period and try to design this project for him.

Mr. Syfert responded to answer your question, I think since Mr. Walker is already a businessman in Springdale, this Commission is trying to do everything possible to send him out of here favorably tonight. I realize and you realize and staff realizes that we were working with half a deck, but I believe in all fairness to Mr. Walker, we are trying to make him continue to be a good Springdale citizen and businessman. Whether we got to that point or not I donít know, but we certainly tried.

Mr. Parham commented I can appreciate that, because we all would like to continue to see our businesses thrive and do well in our community, but right now it is not fair to this Commission even with that. I have seen this Commission sitting here going over and over and over the same issue. As I said, if you are not going to give him the ability to go forward with this project tonight, what good is it to sit here and try to find his parking spaces right now when he can come back in later and show you where they are.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the request for the Walker Pontiac site at 169 Northland Boulevard with the following conditions:

    1. Approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the necessary variances.
    2. Dumpster detail to be provided with enclosures and gates as required by Code.
    3. Any additional lighting or replacement lighting be non-glare and downlit;;
    4. Applicant provide a tree and landscape plan layout that is acceptable to our city planner;
    5. That the site be accommodated with a 35í high pole sign 15í x 15í (contingent upon Board of Zoning Appealís approval) and one ground mounted sign within Code;
    6. That the site have 22 dedicated parking spaces for customers, 14 for Enterprise Rent A Car and 20 for employees.

Mr. Galster said my only concern is you have designated 35í as the pole sign height. If in fact that sign is 37í will that be okay?

Mr. Okum said I will modify my motion to indicate up to 37í, and if a new pole is placed it must be 35í. Also I will add that a minimum .5 foot candle be verified for the site.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.






Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said the Board of Zoning Appeals meets next Tuesday night and we will place you on the agenda, but we will need some accurate representation of your signs, including your ground sign because you are getting a variance for the total square footage of all signs.


Mr. Okum said having the opportunity to visit the Gold Star Chili after our decision at the last meeting, I looked at those corners that had been painted out to bring it into the color that it was for the rest of the building. I would like to bring it back on the floor for discussion. Mr. Galster is holding the sample board up showing the result of the repaint.

Mr. Galster added this is the regular stucco look on the bottom and the top part is what happens to that look once it is painted. I think that is a little bit of a different issue than we debated last month. Last month our discussion was he didnít paint the color that we had approved and we determined that he should repaint it. Repainting changes the look of the building and the style of the architectural features. I think it is a dramatic enough change that we should reconsider that. Instead of having the stucco look, in my opinion we end up with a painted concrete wall look.

Mr. Darby commented as I recall our discussion was about a color, not about a look.

Mr. Galster said right, but once he does what we are asking him to do, we will get that different textured look. We wonít have the stucco look and now the question would be now that we have seen that material painted, is it a different architectural look than stucco? To me, it is a painted wall. If he follows through and does what we have asked him to do, Iím concerned that we have lost the appearance of stucco.

Mr. Darby responded are you more concerned about the stucco look or the color. Mr. Galster answered I am more concerned about the stucco look because my personal opinion is if he had brought in that color originally, we would have approved it. I understand the argument that he did not paint the correct color, but I hate to compound the problem by ending up with the right color but not the stucco.

Mr. Huddleston said I believe he had to repaint the corners of the building. Mr. Galster said yes, and it does not have the stucco look any more. Right now itís those two spots, but if he repaints the whole building, we will have a concrete block building look.

Mr. Huddleston said now we have something in between, and we have neither fish nor fowl; we have a partially painted and partially stucco.

Mr. Galster said in the one area, we do have the painted look, and I would hate to see that over the whole building in order to achieve a color that was agreed upon. I understand the need to enforce what they present to us. But having him repaint it will create a look that I would not have approved.

Mr. Darby responded I think it is more than enforcing what he presented. It is we enforcing what the Corridor Study calls for. Mr. Galster responded the Corridor Study calls for an earthtone color, which he did paint. He just didnít paint the earthtone color he presented to us.







Mr. Darby commented I do not know if it is earthtone or not, but it sticks out like a sore thumb. From the highway, I donít know if the finish would be noticeable.

Mr. Galster said these are the same colors, and if you set it at the end of this building, you can see the change. Mr. Syfert said it doesnít change that much to me. Mr. Darby added itís not far back enough; it doesnít change.

Mr. Okum said I have a problem with how the repaint comes out, losing the muted look and having a shiny appearance. If he does the whole building with the same glisteny look, it will look really bad compared to what it looks like now. I donít like it now, but when I saw the repaint of those corners, I donít want that. Unfortunately when you apply a finish to that material, you infill all the light absorbency and softness and it becomes somewhat reflective. I was the first to object to it; I objected when it went up, but on the other hand if it were repainted it would have shininess to it that I donít think we would be happy with.

Mr. Darby said when the building needs to be repainted, will we try to take action again and say you cannot repaint it because we are not happy with it?

Mr. Okum responded that is one of the reasons why you try to eliminate the total use of EIFS on exterior buildings. We have EIFS on the entire face of this building, and we will have to live with it. As it gets older, the gloss will become muted and get darker.

Mr. Galster suggested that a condition of allowing it not to be repainted that if he ever needs to repaint it he has to restucco it.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree; I had second thoughts; the corners are really obnoxious and I strongly objected to that. For some reason the greenish cast of the building kind of glows. I have reservations about asking him to paint the building. There is a EIFS is a manufactured system, and there is a coating system that goes with that that is more durable than a painted surface can be. I donít know what type paint he has used there; is that the right texture and type? Does he have options on that? If it looks as bad where he has covered over the corners as that sample does, I think he ought to repaint the whole thing with something consistent. I do have reservations about making him paint the whole building because I donít think it will wear and look as nice and fresh over time as it would with its natural EIFS finish.

Mr. Whitaker commented for him to get the texture that you want him to get he would have to restucco the entire building; you canít get it with paint. Mr. Huddleston wondered if he couldnít retexture over it and Mr. Whitaker indicated that he could. Any type of paint would show up. If he wants the texture and color he has, he has to get more of the sto material and reapply it, which would be very costly for him.

Mr. Huddleston asked if the applicant had requested this and Mr. Galster answered he has not made any formal request. He also owns the building that he used to be in and thatís not a very attractive building either. There might be the possibility of a compromise and get rid of the red and redo that building. That would be a better use of paint than doing this building in my opinion. I would rather see him take that beige paint and put it on the red stripe of the other building than repaint what he has right now.







Mr. Darby commented I think we are treading close to dangerous ground. My first concern was that the applicant was not here, and members of this board are presenting his case. Now we are talking about quid pro quo; I donít think that is what we should be doing; I really donít.

Mr. Okum responded I donít disagree with you. The fact is that if it is going to be reconsidered, it has to be brought forward and he has to be put on notice that it will be reconsidered. There is no motion here by anyone; I brought it back on the floor for discussion. Now that we have had discussion, if there are feelings either way, I would suggest that we bring the applicant back in for discussion.

Mr. Syfert suggested bringing him back in next month. Mr. Huddleston said if we put him on the agenda, should the applicant be advised to come back with alternative solutions? Mr. Okum responded yes. He obviously canít do anything with the system right now; itís too cold. To put any surface on, it should be above 50 degrees at night. There is not an urgency to this. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion that he be brought in next month. By voice vote, all present voted aye, except Mr. Darby who voted no.

Mr. McErlane said as you recall on the off premise sign for Springdale Kemper Associates for Dave & Busterís, one of the conditions was that there be six inches of separation between the sign panels. I talked to Jeff Snider of the Bergman Group, and apparently Larry Bergman did not relate all the details of the sign to him. This is a sketch of what the six-inch space would look like and he is asking that it be reduced to a three-inch space. He is suggesting that the six-inch spacing is a little disproportionate for the sign face.

Mr. Okum commented since Mr. Bergman is not here, I donít think you would notices the three-inch gap between the sign. Six-inch is close; you might as well make it a solid panel if you go down to three inches. I would not support that. Mr. Galster agreed.

Mr. Huddelston commented I think he would need to bring more evidence than the sketch that is here. Mr. McErlane said I will inform him; we can leave it up to him if he wants to pursue it.

.Mr. McErlane reported I received yesterday a request from Homeplace to have four storage trailers behind their building. This is a reaction to our property maintenance code inspector issuing them an order on October 13th to remove them by October 27th. Unfortunately he didnít cite them before they got this a application in, or they would be in court right now.

You have turned down two other applicants in the past. My question is would it be worth bringing it back in? I can tell them that they have the opportunity to bring it back in, but I would rather tell them to remove the trailers until they get a variance. Unfortunately, they are going to think this would be adequate enough to allow them to keep it here until the December meeting. They already have had them there since October 13th at least. I want to know if you would like to consider this tonight or if you want to tell them they can come back in. Either way Iím probably going to tell Ron Smith to cite them tomorrow and have them remove the trailers and then come in for a variance.

Mr. Vanover said I have a problem with these trailers. My feeling would be to cite them and if they want to come in for a variance, thatís fine, but the trailers had better disappear.








Mr. McErlane responded from past history, you turned down Wal-Mart and Target for the same application. To let them continue to do it until the December meeting when they can come in and officially ask for it and then be turned down doesnít make a lot of sense. Iíll still offer them the opportunity to come in to the December meeting, but in the meantime they have to remove the trailers.

Mr. Okum said the representative of Service Merchandise mentioned the signs at HQ. Are they exempt from our banner regulations?

Mr. McErlane reported we actually had cited them to Mayorís Court and were told by the law director that we could be in contempt of court for the bankruptcy judgeís ruling that says that we canít interfere with their sale for bankruptcy. It could be that Service Merchandise has the same ability to do that, but weíre not giving anybody that until they give us the documentation that says they have the right to do that.

Mr. Okum wondered if Mr. McErlane could deputize commission members to cite people to Mayorís Court, adding that Roberds used two tractor trailers and a box truck for their advertisement. Mr. McErlane responded we do not have anything in our Zoning Code as it presently stands that doesnít allow them to park those trailers there. The fact that they have advertising as part of the trailer doesnít make any difference. It is in the new Zoning Code.

Mr. Okum asked about the status of the new Code and when the public hearing would be and Mr. Galster answered I donít know; it is probably one or two months away. It takes 30 days to advertise for it and it wonít go into effect until 30 days after passage.

Mr. Syfert commented Iíd ask if everyone were going to be here in December, but Iím not sure that is appropriate. I do hope we all see each other again in December. If not, I think the chemistry is starting to work and I hope we all are back as Planning Commission members next month. If not, thanks for all your input.



Mr. Vanover moved for adjournment and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,1999 _____________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



___________________,1999 _____________________________

Dave Whitaker, Secretary