12 DECEMBER 1995

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Acting Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Councilmember Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, William Syfert, Barry Tiffany, Councilmember Robert Wilson and James Young.

Others Present: Mayor Doyle H. Webster

Asst. City Administrator Derrick Parham

Legal Director Ken Schneider

City Engineer Wayne Shuler

Asst. City Engineer Don Shvegzda

Building Official William K. McErlane

Mr. Syfert welcomed the new members, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston and Mr.



Mr. Galster said I had a couple of comments before we got into the election, because I think there was some confusion in the past regarding the term of office. The Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary are elected every year, so these are one-year terms. The representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals’ term runs with your Planning Commission term, so if you are appointed tonight, it would be for four years. It is not an issue that is revoted on every year. The only people that cannot be the liaison are the Chairman and the Council representatives. I wanted to clarify the term on the BZA liaison. Mr. Wilson commented if that is the case, we had a switch during my four year term. Mr. Galster responded we did it wrong according to the Charter.

A. Chairman

Mr. Wilson nominated William Syfert. He is one of the senior members on our board, and has done an outstanding job. I feel we need his leadership for at least the first year or two until our new people get their feet wet and we can look for new blood after that. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Mr. Syfert was elected unanimously.

B. Vice Chairman

Mr. Tiffany nominated David Okum, adding he has served on this board for six years and is familiar with the way that the meetings are run. In the event that you are not here, he can do a fine job for us. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson commented I assume since Mr. Tiffany nominated someone, he doesn’t want to be considered for this, so I’ll back down. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Mr. Okum was elected unanimously.

C. Secretary

Mr. Wilson commented I think it is time for new blood, and I would like to nominate Mr. Huddleston. He comes with a wealth of experience, and being an administrator, he knows who to take notes, read notes and sign papers. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Mr. Huddleston was elected unanimously.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Two


D. Representative to Board of Zoning Appeals

Mr. Galster nominated Barry Tiffany and Mr. Syfert seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Mr. Tiffany was elected unanimously.



Mr. Tiffany moved for adoption and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, except New Members Mr. Young, Mr. Okum and Mr. Huddleston who abstained, and the Minutes were approved with four affirmative votes.


A. Regional Currents (OKI) - October-November 1995

Mr. Huddleston commented they were talking on the cover page about the regional land use planning effort being strengthened and a new commission created. I thought it might be appropriate at some time in the future for the staff to look into that. I know there is a Speakers Bureau connected with OKI, and it may not be inappropriate to have them address this Commission especially on transportation issues.


A. Concept Discussion for Proposed Ethan Allen Facility at Princeton Pike and Merchant Street

Mr. Syfert asked if there were a representative from Ethan Allen present, and there was not. Mr. Syfert stated this is the second month this has been on the agenda. Mr. McErlane reported there had been no contact, and Mr. Syfert suggested this be dropped from the agenda. Mr. Wilson so moved and Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion, and by voice vote all voted aye, and the matter was dropped from the agenda.


A. Minor Modifications (Parking Lot Change) to Final Development Plan O’Charley’s, 11315 Princeton Pike

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone were here from O’Charley’s and no one was present. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if he had spoken with anyone, and Mr. McErlane reported that he had not, but the cover letter indicated that Mr. Hershner would be here tonight. Mr. Syfert suggested this be set back to the last item under New Business.

Mr. Okum commented my understanding is there is some discussion between Cookers and this property as to cross easements and common usage of the driveway. I would encourage Planning to address a letter to them encouraging their cooperation with each other to eliminate that stumbling block and work together to bring about the unification of the parking areas so we don’t have a situation similar to what we have at Princeton Plaza and what used to be Swallen’s. Maybe a letter of encouragement prior to them coming before us again would be helpful. Mr. Syfert said let’s hold that until we actually see if they show up. Otherwise, your point is well taken.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Three

VII. NEW BUSINESS - continued

B. Douglas & Arlene Eades Request Final Plan Approval - Phase 8 of Charing Cross Estates, Springfield Pike (Landominiums)

Mr. McErlane reported after our staff meeting, I called Mr. Eades and notified him of the numerous items we still needed from him, and suggested that he ask this to be tabled until next month, and he agreed to that. Mr. Syfert stated for the benefit of the new members, the city people and the chairman have a meeting the week prior to this meeting, and we review what is in hand. In this case, it looked like there were a lot of open items and things that should have been in the packet, so that is why Mr. McErlane made that contact. We were trying to prevent them coming in with half of their guns.

C. Final Plan Approval - Roberds Furniture, Lot 7 Tri-County Commons

Mr. Huddleston said I would like the record to note that I will disengage myself, because they are a client of my company. I will neither discuss nor vote on this.

Mike Flannery of Woolpert, Steve Lensch and Tony Williams of Miller-Valentine and Bob Wilson of Roberds Furniture approached the Commission.

Mr. Flannery said I would like to give you an overview of the site and the project in general, and I will ask Mr. Lensch to discuss the building renovation. We are here to request final PUD approval.

Mr. Flannery reported Roberds is a Dayton-based furniture, appliances and electronics store. The store is approximately 250,000 square feet and will be a showroom type of building. By that, we mean that primarily deliveries will be made from a Dayton warehouse, so very few items will be purchased from this store. Because of that we anticipate very little truck traffic, about two trucks per day and they are not semis.

Mr. Flannery continued this is the proposed renovation of the existing Kroger building. Access into the site is through an extension of Commons Drive 450 feet north which will terminate at the northern drive of Champion Window. Customer parking is in front of the store primarily, 783 parking spaces. Employee parking would be in the rear and 150 spaces are proposed. The main entrance will be off the north side of the building, an elevated entrance five feet above the floor elevation so you will step down into the building and into a showroom.

Mr. Flannery reported storm water detention is being provided at the northwest corner of the site. This is a little different from what you saw in the preliminary. At that time it was being provided as part of the Exel project, which is no longer with us. So it is our responsibility to construct that storm water detention basin. It has not changed in any way from the Exel project; it is the same basin; it is a matter of being constructed as part of the Roberds project. There is approximately six acre feet of storage being provided with that basin; it is being provided not only for this project but also for future development what was the Exel project.

Mr. Flannery reported the traffic study has been submitted and approved by your city engineer. This project will not have a negative impact on the traffic in the area. The existing left turn lane on Kemper Road is 179 feet in length, and 150 feet is required, so we are still under what is being provided there.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Four


Mr. Steve Lensch reported this building has been there for 30 years. As it exists, there are 22 dock doors with a large canopy over that. All those openings will be removed, and we are going to try to brick those up and blend them in so as we repaint the building they don’t become obvious previous openings. There also is a series of windows across the top of this elevation, and they will be removed, bricked up and blended into the remainder of the face of the structure. We will be repainting all sides of this structure, and we have agreed to repaint the remaining portion of the north face of the building all the way down to the corner, so the entire north face will be repainted as part of the project..

Mr. Lensch continued the color scheme will look approximately like this, with the majority of the building being a taupe color. Mike had mentioned the raised entry portion, so when you enter the store, you will have a nice view of the big store. WE also will be doing a three and one-half foot black band around the top of the building, and on each side of that will be a back lit yellow band. There will be a translucent type material there.

Mr. Lensch stated at the back of the building we will be installing five new dock doors, four of which will be for servicing the facility with furniture and keeping stock there. The last one will be a dumpster door and we will be building a screen wall out from the corner of that building to conceal that dumpster as you approach from the south side.

Mr. Lensch reported we will be installing one main entrance on the front. It is a 40 foot wide, 67 foot long glass dome. There will be a standing seam metal roof behind that which extends about 14 feet above the existing roof line. There also will be new columns and a covered walkway close to the entrance. This area of the building, from column to column will be in a drivitt finish and the rest will be painted. There will be a similar type entrance on the east face which will be for the customer pickup. People can park under that canopy, give their order to the attendant and get their merchandise.

Mr. Lensch stated at the last meeting we talked about the rooftop equipment which will be on this building. We have since changed our design on that. We will be removing everything up there today. The building will be heated and cooled with a chiller and boiler system. The chillers will be inside the building as will the boiler. There will be a couple of cooling towers on the ground around the corner so they aren’t so obvious as you drive up to the building. The only thing that should be on the roof would be air intake and air exhaust vents. Those are not small vents; it takes a lot of air to cool a building this size, but they will be approximately five feet high and about eight feet wide and 10 to 12 feet long. We will paint them black and they should blend in nicely with the roof. Mr. Lensch passed out pictures.

Mr. Tiffany said you talked about drivitt around the front door. It seems like the last time you were talking about redoing the exterior, covering the exterior down to the breaking point, but now you are talking about painting the exterior with the exception of the area by the door. I do like the idea of painting to the corner, but I want to make sure we are just painting with the exception of around the door. Mr. Lensch confirmed this.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Five


Mr. Wilson (Roberds) added there would be painting around the south side of the wall so it will appear as you drive in on Kemper Commons Drive that the entire building has been repainted. Mr. Tiffany said where Choice Lumber was, you’re not talking about painting that section on that side of the building, correct? Mr. Wilson confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany continued you are going to paint that indentation at the back and all the way down. Will the yellow band be on this side also? Mr. Lensch answered I am sure the intent is for the lights to go at least to that point. Mr. Tiffany asked if the cooling units would be attached to the building or free standing, and Mr. Lensch answered they would be free standing and would need to have 10 feet clearance from the building. Mr. Tiffany asked the building height at that point, and Mr. Lensch reported that the wall height would be about 21 feet. Mr. Tiffany asked if the basin is permanent and Mr. Lensch said that it was.

Mr. Okum commented in regards to the black band, you aid it is three feet high? Is black significant, is that Roberds colors? Mr. Lensch reported it is a new color scheme for this super store. Their smaller stores are taupe with blue and red accents. Mr. Okum asked if he had a sample of the yellow. Mr. Lensch commented he didn’t have very good samples but passed the drawing around to the members. It is nine inches wide. Mr. Okum asked if it would be back lit, and Mr. Lensch said that it was, adding it would have a channel fluorescent lamp inside shining through. Mr. Okum asked if there would be lettering on it, and Mr. Lensch indicated that there would not be lettering. Mr. Okum asked the height on the building, and Mr. Lensch reported it is 22 feet to the top. Mr. Okum asked how it would be maintenance so the lights don’t flicker, blink or have sections of it out. Mr. Lensch responded we will build it so it can be maintained. I’m sure Roberds will take care of that. Mr. Okum added typically when we end up with band lighting on buildings, we end up with one section in and one out, and that concerns me.

Mr. Okum continued on the rooftop air vent units that you will be painting black, how many will be on the roof? Mr. Lensch answered there are 11 units, and each unit will require two of them, one for air intake and one for exhaust, so the total would be 22 boxes on the roof. Mr. Okum asked the number of rooftop units presently on the building and Mr. Lensch answered there are a bunch of exhaust fans, and I haven’t tried to count them. Mr. Okum wondered if it would be more than 22, and Mr. Lensch answered probably. Mr. Okum said from the elevation coming down Commons Drive nearing the top of that building, there is a big chiller unit there now that will be gone. How far back will those exhaust units be placed on top of the building from that corner? Mr. Lensch answered this part of the building will be warehouse area, and it is not air conditioned, so there will be none closer than that. Mr. Okum said so they will be moved towards the interstate. What will be on the rooftop area towards Commons Drive. Mr. Lensch reported we are planning three exhaust fans, which will be similar to what you see there today. Mr. Okum continued and the maximum height is five feet? Mr. Lensch answered for the big intakes yes; these others should only be about three feet high. Mr. Okum said on the standing metal roof on the north facing elevation, what is that painted? Mr. Lensch answered black, adding this is not just the base, it is actually four sided at a 45 degree angle. As you come down the hill, you will see the back side of the finished product. It is 14 feet above the existing wall. Mr. Okum said so that brings it up to 36 feet, and if you look from the interstate you may see it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Six


Mr. Wilson on the backlights, what amount of illumination are we talking about? Will this be something glaring from the expressway? Mr. Lensch answered we have not designed them entirely; I expect they want them to be fairly bright. The intent is for them to be seen obviously. Mr. Wilson continued so you using that as an identification in lieu of the name Roberds, as opposed to a sign on that north side. Mr. Lensch responded eventually we want to come back with some signage proposals for the elevations as well as for the whole development. Mr. Wilson stated my concern is that the yellow band is not so bright that it becomes a distraction to drivers on the expressway. Before you install those lights, you might want tog et with us and get some kind of approval on that, because if it’s too bright, it’s got to go.

Mr. Wilson said you indicated 783 parking spaces. How did you arrive at that? Mr. Flannery responded a site layout was prepared based on the restrictions that surround the project, Commons Drive and I-275, with the perimeter road proposed as part of the Exel project. Based on that, our perimeter was set, and parking fell in place around that. Mr. Wilson continued in Council, our concern was Levitz, and the amount of parking spaces they have relative to the actual usage. I wonder if you will actually need 783 parking spaces, and if you don’t , I would like to see more green space. That will help with water detention and I would think it would be cheaper for you to landscape than to put concrete in. Are you assuming you will have 783 cars in that lot? Mr. Lensch responded that would be very unusual.

Mr. Flannery added we did hear this at Council, and anticipating you might discuss this, we investigated an alternative that would eliminate 90 spaces. We would take out the bay on the east side. Mr. Wilson responded I personally would like to see this, but I would like to hear from the engineer on the advantage of that from a detention standpoint. Mr. Flannery said this has been submitted to the engineer.

Mr. Okum said you have this boulevard entrance coming in off Commons Drive on your north point. If that grass median were widened off the entryway, could you not get some plantings in there? Instead of sticking it on the outside edge, create a boulevard effect up that center. Right now it is five feet of curb and mulch. It seems to me that typically ends up being poorly maintained and nothing but an accumulation of dirt and debris that comes of the road anyway. You could make that a boulevard entrance and give it some pizzazz that you could see from the interstate as well.

Mr. Wilson (Roberds) commented on the one hand, please understand that this is a much larger concept than our typical store, and we are in a new market, so it is difficult for us to project exactly what our parking needs would be. Based on our experience with 23 other stores, we think this number is adequate. You have to have parking for the biggest day of the year and large portions of it do set empty much of the time, but you have to have space when you need it. We think this number will be comfortable for us on the heaviest days of the year. and it has been designed accordingly. To be perfectly honest with you, I can’t tell you that this is the case. If things go extremely well, we want to be sure that we are in a position to expand the parking . We can eliminate 90 spaces, but I would like to reserve those for future expansion. We can come back to you, but before I deal away too much parking, I would like a little more experience with what is actually going to happen out there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Wilson continued I understand the point on the boulevard; I think it is a good one. On the other hand, I may be coming back and saying we are out of space and have to plow it under. We are trying to achieve as much flexibility as we can here.

Mr. Wilson (Planning) responded when we talked before, you mentioned the square footage of your other stores, between 50 and 80,000 square feet. How many parking spaces do you have for those locations? Mr. Wilson of Roberds answered 120 to 200. What we use including employee parking, tends to be about 150 to 170. Mr. Wilson responded I don’t think either of us would have a problem about expansion. I would think that would be something we would be receptive to, assuming we do not have a problem with detention. I like Dave’s idea of the boulevard; I think it adds class to your operation.

Mr. Wilson (Roberds) stated I appreciate those points, but our opportunities for future expansion are fairly limited here. This is all the ground that we control. Expansion for customer parking really has to fall in these two areas in order to meet the detention requirements. Mr. Wilson (Planning) responded I would think if you wanted to expand, you would want to buy another part of the building and expand in that way. Mr. Wilson (Roberds) responded remember we are leasing the building. Mr. Wilson said true, but then you would lease additional space. Mr. Wilson (Roberds) commented if it were available; it is under long term lease today.

Mr. Tiffany said I abstained at the vote for preliminary plan approval, and the reason I abstained is I wasn’t sure of the way to go with it. The thing that concerns me is a couple of years ago we came in with a PUD plan that we spent a lot of time putting together. It was something that worked. With Champion coming in, we deviated from that PUD. Now this is another deviation, and, in my opinion, it almost creates spot zoning, which is pretty much taboo. I’d like to know from Woolpert where we go from here. When we create this thing to retail, I can almost guarantee that you have eliminated that other lot as far as office space. It concerns me, because this was all supposed to be nice office space across the front with a good appearance from the highway. Now we are talking retail here, and I don’t know what will go to the west of that, and I think it really is going to limit the options of decent appearance. If we go retail with this, retail would fit nicely next door, but I don’t know that we need any more retail next door. I’m still up in the air; this is tough for me. To me it creates a spot zoning issue.

Mr. Flannery commented I would like to point out that with this use, the traffic is a less intensive use than what was proposed there.

Mr. Tiffany responded I understand the traffic was a big issue for some of your competitors at the Council meeting. If the traffic works, that is great, but if the use and zoning doesn’t work, then traffic is a secondary issue. You look at the zoning fit and then at the secondary issues, the traffic, appearances of the building and things like that. I am having trouble with the use of this site and what it creates as far as zoning is concerned.

Mr. Wilson (Roberds) asked the area targeted for offices. Mr. Tiffany said the green area; everything, including Champion, that was not developed with the Wal-Mart and Sam’s. Mr. Wilson said and the existing building was to stay warehouse.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Wilson commented I’m not here to speak on behalf of the owners, but we have had a lot of discussion of what will go here in light of Exel’s withdrawal. Their view is that the most viable use for this green space is still office, and that is what they intend to try to work in there. They feel it should fit fine. Their concern at this point is what happens to the balance of the warehouse space.

Mr. Tiffany responded if you look at it from my standpoint, you have to have some continuity with things. We have created light industry, retail, warehouse and office space, all in one PUD. That doesn’t work; it is not a good mix. As far as the building goes and for Roberds, it is a great place for you to be, good exposure, good use of the building. As far as Roberds goes, I welcome you to Springdale. It’s a zoning issue for me. Everything else I’m fine with.

Mr. Galster said on this back lit yellow panel, is that considered signage? Mr. McErlane answered not unless it has words. Mr. Galster continued that stripe stops at the break of the building in the front. Coming down the interstate the other way, can you see the side of the Kroger building, the left side? Mr. Wilson answered no, it is down below. Mr. Galster said in looking at the parking diagram, if the boulevard goes down the middle, if you took one lane on each side you’d end up with a pretty wide boulevard and only lose maybe 50 parking spaces. I think that would have a nice effect as well.

Mr. Shvegzda reported we had concern regarding the way Commons Drive, terminates into the private roadway. We have been working with the engineer, and they are looking at modifying that. It is a detail that is being resolved. What we have right now is the normal crowned roadway section, the public roadway position to a center drainage arrangement on the private drive. There were a couple of areas of gaps in the minimum lighting in the parking area, the north portion of the private drive. We have spoken with the engineer and they are working on that also. There was a concern on the grading of the parking lot to allow the major storm to flow over land into the detention basin, and we received some revised grading plans, and that seems to be corrected.

Mr. Shvegzda continued there was a comment regarding the detention in terms of reducing the parking lot. Part of that detention is being provided for the existing roof area too, so you can see the elimination of some of that parking lot surface is minor, and would not bring volume down appreciably.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there was a concern initially when Exel was proposing an ingress egress easement along the private drive to terminus of Commons Drive. We were concerned that still be provided. Also on the parking, we had a concern about the numbers, and Mr. Shuler will elaborate further on that.

Mr. Okum asked about the private drive section going across I-275. Will that be constructed under city standards? Mr. Shvegzda answered no, that it would be a private drive and maintained by the property owner. Mr. Okum continued that cuts off access to the other area. Mr. Shvegzda responded insofar as being a public roadway. That was our concern for providing an easement across that same driveway to allow access to the adjoining property, even though it technically is a private drive.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Shuler reported that he would address two issues that have been discussed at some length at Council, traffic and parking. This review is a little different than what we are used to dealing with, in that it is a modification of an existing approved plan. In 1992, when the original master plan was approved, the traffic study dealt with the entire development and it was estimated the average daily traffic generated by the site would be 25,000 vehicles per day, and the peak hour traffic would be about 2650 vehicles. As part of that plan and traffic study, the area you are reviewing the 312,000 square feet that was to be in warehousing operation and an additional office/warehouse building of about 60,500 square feet was estimated to contribute as part of the overall traffic an a.d.t. of 1895 vehicles and a peak hour traffic generation of 331 vehicles. We felt whether it was this proposal or any other proposal to modify a plan that had already been approved, the most important element is to compare what this change would do to the overall development.

Mr. Shuler continued the first thing we did was go to the ITE Manual, trip generation manual to look at the specific uses. The applicant had told us that the approximately 312,000 square feet of space would be broken down into 23,500 square feet electronics, 22,500 square feet, large appliances, 193,273 square feet furniture and 72,500 square feet of storage to support those retail areas. Going to the manual, in a mixed use type project like this, you cannot find any specific documentation of exactly the same type of use, so the only way we can approximate the traffic is to break it down into different specialty uses and look at each one separately. We did that and the ITE manual told us that we should expect from this site an average daily traffic of 1634 and peak hour traffic of 174 vehicles. Again, we are comparing this to the 331 peak hour vehicles that was approved in the original plan.

Mr. Shuler reported we then talked to the engineer for the applicant to get a better feel for this specific development and the traffic it might generate in comparison with some of their other facilities. They prepared and submitted their estimate of customers they would expect to see on the site. In year four, they estimated they would have an average daily customer visits of 1,086, and they gave us a distribution of what they felt the traffic would be during the day and parking that would be necessary The peak hour parking requirement was 250. If we use the 1,086 customer visits and double that to get average trips per day going in and out, we would be at 2172 and the peak hour traffic would be 208. Knowing that all of these methods are estimates, we felt both their estimate of use and converting that into estimated traffic plus comparison to the ITE manual using both methods we found this use of this space would generate less peak hour traffic than what was approved the original development.

The second issue was parking. looking at it from a realistic standpoint, if our peak hour traffic is 1208, they estimated their peak hour parking would be 250. We tried to estimate again what might be the peak parking demand. We went to the ITE manual which also deals with parking. Looking at the different individual uses and taking each separately and adding them together would indicate we should have a minimum parking of 600 and with the employee count of 150 it would be somewhere around 750.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Shuler stated we do feel there is some flexibility from the proposed parking, but we would not feel comfortable going below the 750 number. We also believe it is important to reserve that space if there is a need in the future to put it to other use, but we would not recommend reducing the amount of storm water detention if you reduce the parking lot with the understanding that it might be necessary to put it back in some day. By reducing the amount of asphalt now, it gives some additional protection to those downstream landowners.

Mr. Shuler reported the bottom line to our analysis review is that we do not feel that this proposed development will have an adverse effect on traffic that was originally approved. It certainly will be more than is there now because there is no use there now. However, with regards to the plan approved four years ago, this falls within the limits.

Mr. Okum said I understand you have done an analysis on their lighting proposal. It calls for a 30 foot high mast with box lights My concern is at the elevation of that parking lot, with 30 foot mast lights, will we be impacting travelers on I-275 with fall out from those light fixtures and the way your eye catches the light. Mr. Shvegzda responded I really don’t know; we haven’t looked at it from that perspective. Mr. Okum stated I would be concerned about that for travelers on the interstate because of the angle. If we can look at that, I would like to make it part of the conditions.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane, who reported that the first items covered in my report were the items not submitted. Since the 11/30 submittal date, we have received seven copies of the building elevations. We also did not receive a color palette until Friday. The initial plans did not show existing trees. There are a few existing trees on the site. There is a grouping in this area, and one at this corner. They total 65 caliper inches, and they are required to replace 26 1/2 caliper inches. They are showing 40 caliper inches of hardwoods to be replaced, so they meet code requirements. The only one that looks like it may be able to be saved is the one in the corner, all cottonwoods, and I would leave it up to the Commission to decide if it is worth saving.

Mr. McErlane continued the parking stalls are nine and one-half feet wide rather than the nine feet required by our code. I don’t know if that is because of larger purchases, but most purchases are delivered to the homes, and reducing the parking stalls to nine feet might reduce the amount of paved hard surface on the site. At 933 spaces shown, we are looking at 8,000 square feet of pavement that could be eliminated by reducing the stalls to nine feet.

Mr. McErlane stated my comment number five was to preclude requiring them to put in the 1492 parking spaces required by code. I think all of us recognize that we’d rather see fewer parking spaces if they are not going to be used. The 18 handicap parking spaces are based on 933 spaces, so if we reduce that, it would also reduce handicap spaces to 15 parking spaces. The dumpster screen wall is shown on the south side of the dumpster. There is a dumpster and compactor in this location. As proposed there is only a screen wall shown on the south side and we would recommend they build a wall on the north side. Although this will hide visibility coming north on Commons Drive, you would be able to see it coming south and we have required that on compactors at the Tri-County Commons Center.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Eleven


Mr. McErlane reported the covenants needed to be changed, because in the original covenants this was considered Lot 13, and it specifically said this building would be used for a GI type use. We recommended that the covenants be changed to allow this type of use and we need to have it tied down specifically because of the issues of traffic and parking. Today we received a fax from Mr. Wilson of Roberds that ties it down to specific square footage they have proposed for electronic sales, appliance sales and home furnishing sales. If we can tie it down that tightly, we shouldn’t have concerns about traffic and parking numbers. It also states that any changes have to be approved by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Tiffany asked about the water supply. With this project, there will have to be some change to the water connection. Mr. McErlane reported I think the Fire Department has an issue with the current property owner about pressures and flows in that building. Mr. Tiffany said if something has to be done, are we able to tie up something like we were with Exel with that tower? Mr. McErlane responded the tower is at the west end of the site. The reason we thought we would be able to eliminate the tower was because we were going to provide a loop through the Exel project. Since that development is not occurring, it is quite a bit of expense to tie that in. Mr. Tiffany commented I am talking about the owners, not with these guys. Mr. McErlane reported the owners still haven’t resolved the problems with the Fire Department. Individually, Roberds will have to justify their sprinkler flows for their space. Mr. Tiffany said as of now, we’re going to use what is there if the pressure is sufficient. Mr. McErlane stated what will happen in Roberds case is they will have to upsize their sprinkler lines in their part of the space, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the west end of the building being served by this end. The problem is you have pressure losses as you go further in the building. The problem is that the underground lines were reconnected when Champion went in, they downsized the piping and caused higher pressure losses. The original building was designed for pretty high flow requirements.

Mr. Tiffany stated on the dumpster enclosure, you are suggesting that it is enclosed on both sides like Wal-Mart and Sam’s. Are we requiring a gate also? Mr. McErlane answered no, we do not require a gate for dumpster enclosures.

Mr. Wilson (Planning) asked where the handicap spaces are in the employee parking area, and Mr. Wilson answered they have not yet been identified.

Mr. Syfert called on Law Director Schneider concerning the covenants. Mr. Schneider reported we have worked with Mr. Wilson and reworked the covenants to accommodate what I understood Planning Commission and Council wish. We have incorporated the location of the retail space and I will read them to make sure we have all the points that you wanted:

"The retail space, with approximately 23,500 square feet allocation for consumer electronic products, 72,500 square feet for appliances, 193,273 square feet for furniture and bedding, 132,900 square feet for warehouse space inclusive of miscellaneous office meetings and general public areas. Any material change in the square footage set forth in the preceding sentence shall require approval by the City of Springdale."


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Schneider continued reading Paragraph B.

"As of December 31, 1996 the tenant succeeding Kroger in the eastern portion of the real estate will paint all the exterior walls surrounding the tenant space and the exterior of the north wall to its termination at the northwest corner of the real estate. Said tenant shall also fill in all of the existing dock doors on the east wall of the space in a professional workmanlike manner such that the infill material will match as nearly as practicable the surface and material on the existing wall that after painting will appear to be part of a continuous unbroken wall."

Mr. Schneider stated if that meets the requirement, we have our amendment to the Tri-County Covenants accommodating that issue. If there are any others, we can approve this matter subject to the final wording.

Mr. Galster asked the meaning of material change in the first paragraph, any material change in square footage? Mr. Schneider answered any material change in square footage or any percentage change at all.

Mr. Tiffany after the description of the use as far as square footage, you had a sentence stating that any variation would require approval from the City of Springdale. What body would give that approval? Mr. Schneider responded that would be the determination of the two members from Council on the Planning Commission. If it were a minor change, Planning would handle it. If significant, it would go back to Council. Mr. Tiffany said but it would come before this body first, and Mr. Schneider confirmed this.

Mr. Okum asked who enforced the covenants, and Mr. Schneider answered it is the city’s hands in terms of enforcement of covenants by contract with the PUD participants. We would have the right to enforce. Mr. Okum said on the maintenance of the property, that was preexisting in the existing covenants. Mr. Schneider confirmed that this was taken care of in the original covenants. Mr. Okum continued obviously we are painting a glazed brick surface with a masonry paint on a pretty massive sized building. I would hate to see the paint peel and be in disrepair; is that covered in the building upkeep? Mr. Schneider said I would have to go back and check. Mr. Okum said I want to make sure that whatever is done to it will be maintained adequately, not only for Roberds benefit but for the additional northern exposure that belongs to whoever it belongs to now.

Mr. Wilson (Roberds) said I cannot comment on the PUD requirement as to maintenance, but I can tell you that our agreement with the landlord, Springdale Kemper Associates, is clear that the maintenance obligation of our space falls on us. So, if the exterior needs to be repainted, it is our obligation. In addition, the PUD may place some requirements on the owner, but they are going to turn to us.

Mr. Tiffany said regarding the covenants, because we are changing the existing covenants, do the other tenants and property owners have to agree to these new covenants also? Is it something that has to go back to them? Mr. Schneider answered no, I do not believe we do. These were approved in segments and phases. This is for use of this occupancy by this tenant, and theirs is the only approval we need. As far as the owner of the property is concerned, they will have to sign off on it. Mr. Wilson (Roberds) added we have their consent.


Planning Commission Meeting Minute

12 December 1995

Page Thirteen


Mr. Galster said you were saying that it is in your lease to take care of the building maintenance. Your lease would not cover another part of the building, so how do we address that long stretch of wall on the north face that could chip and peel?

Mr. Wilson answered you are right; our lease obligation does not cover that because it is not our space. That will be the landlord’s obligation. We have already spoken with them about that, and it will go into the common area maintenance charge, of which half falls back on us anyway. Their half will fall on the tenant on the other side, and they seem to feel that is adequate. Mr. Schneider added the maintenance will fall back on the owners primarily, to the extent we have it covered. Mr. Galster commented so there is an additional clause that ultimately holds the owner responsible. Mr. Schneider responded I want to check that specifically, but that’s generally the way they are drawn.

Mr. Okum said the color palette does not have a masonry brick paint color. Is that to be taupe? Mr. Wilson showed the taupe color, adding the light color drivitt will be on these columns.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any driveway access or cart access near those columns? Mr. Wilson answered we don’t use carts; more than 80% of our merchandise is delivered, and to the extent that someone picks it up, they pull around to the loading area. Mr. Okum commented drivitt tends to fray when bumped. Mr. Wilson added you can’t walk out of the front of our store with any merchandise, other than something like compact discs.

Mr. Okum said on Mr. Shuler’s comments regarding parking and my comments concerning a greenspace in the middle of your parking area, have you had time to think that out? Mr. Wilson answered I am not sure where it leads us. I am happy to go back to the store designers and engineers and run those comments by them. I don’t know what the impact would be in terms of spaces, so it is difficult for me to react. I am not opposed to the concept.

Mr. Okum commented I am very concerned about the yellow band of lighting and how it will be handled and maintained and lit. How do you plan on handling that? Mr. Wilson stated I have heard a couple of concerns. One is the intensity of the light level, and our engineers can come to an agreement on the appropriate level. The concept our store designers had here was simply a wash of the building. Essentially it is no different than if we had planted spotlights along the building and flashed them on the sign. In terms of maintenance, it is our obligation and as Steve has indicated our stores are very well maintained. Obviously it will be a high visibility store and it is in our interests to keep it right. In the end if we have sections of lights that are flickering or missing, we will fix it. We will not permit that to occur over any period of time. Mr. Okum commented I would rather see them off than partially on. On the black band, it is standing seamed metal panel? Mr. Lensch answered no it will be a black paint on masonry. The standing seam is the roof structure. Mr. Okum added it appeared on this sketch that they carried the same panels down. Mr. Okum asked if the light band would be recessed into the masonry or extended out on the masonry. Mr. Lensch answered it will project out from the wall at least eight inches.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. Syfert said to the applicant that he had heard the talk about the second wall screening of the dumpster and compactor. What are your comments about that. Mr. Wilson answered there is no problem with that. Mr. Lensch added that was also the intent of some of the pines right here. Mr. Syfert added I personally feel it would dress it up a little more. We have seen that in another place, and it enhanced it quite a little bit.

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

1. Final approval from the engineer and staff on conditions of

parking lot lighting and that impact on I-275 and adjacent


2. Yellow trim band on the building have final approval of

Planning Commission along with the signage submission

and approval for signage on the building;

3. Parking reduction as discussed, bringing parking down to

approximately 800 parking spaces.

4. Boulevard effect on the main entry area creating more green

space in the center of the asphalt;

5. Final water retention and storm water retention approval;

6. Second wall to screen the dumpster area.

Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Tiffany voted no, and Mr. Huddleston abstained. Final approval was granted with five affirmative votes, one negative vote and one abstention.

Mr. Huddleston rejoined the Commission on the dais.

A. Minor Modification (Parking Lot Change) to Final Development Plan, O’Charley’s, 11315 Princeton Pike

Tim Hershner, Land Planner representing O’Charley’s stated we are here for a minor modification which was precipitated by a change in a lease that the adjacent property owner did not continue on the property. The existing Cooker Restaurant, north of the subject property in 1993 came in and received some type of approval on extending their parking lot to the south. I believe they gave the city the impression that they were buying the property when in fact it was only a lease. In the original site plan for O’Charley’s/Tumbleweed we incorporated their parking needs so they could continue leasing that extra overflow parking. I understand that it is extra parking that is not necessary or required under the Code, but is something they wanted to add to their facility. Since construction has started on the O’Charley’s and Tumbleweed site, Cooker decided not to renew their lease which precipitated this move to make a change in the O’Charley’s parking lot layout along their northern property line which divides them from Cooker. The difficulty they have had is that Cooker has not been receptive, and breaking the lease is part of the whole notion that they are not cooperating and trying to make this overall a site plan that flows between the two different restaurants.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Fifteen


Mr. Hershner stated the site plan we are proposing for minor modification does have a landscaped berm or grass island that separates the two properties down the property. It is very difficult, maybe impossible for O’Charley’s to require Cooker to make any changes. I would venture to say that they will be required to make some change just out of necessity that under this new plan, they will have to restripe and do things to modify their parking plan so their customers aren’t running off their pavement. O’Charley’s has been forced into this since they only have the right to go up to their property line. The very minimum of what Cooker has been willing to do for O’Charley’s is to provide the necessary storm water easements back and forth. Because of an existing storm water detention pipe that Cooker had installed for their additional parking area, we had incorporated it into the new site plan so it all worked. There is only a small portion at Cooker’s southeast corner where they have a secondary access point, their only access point along Princeton Pike does that storm pipe cross over back into Cooker’s property. I do have correspondence from O’Charley’s legal counsel confirming that they have an easement agreement that is now setting in Cooker’s counsel’s hands, and they expect to have it approved fairly soon. Outside of that, I have been told by the district manager of Cooker that both CEOs from Cooker and O’Charley’s have met, and Cooker’s CEO does not want necessarily to tie these two developments together.

Mr. Hershner the original layout that was approved allowed Cooker to the north their parking lot to maintain the flow that it has had into this area and that they would have access to park virtually anywhere as well as O’Charley’s being able to park on the Cooker’s site. That is the concern that Cooker had, did they want the effect of that parking coming over. Possibly in the last couple of years they felt the additional parking wasn’t as needed as they thought. I’ve been told that at peak times there are concerns of it loading up.

Mr. Hershner continued what we are proposing is to realign the interior private driveway area so that there is a green space between both properties. What we have is a net gain for O’Charley’s in parking spaces; we’re adding 13 additional parking spaces. There always has been a concern, given the site where we pull back to maintain the vegetation out front, and that there wasn’t a tremendous amount of parking immediately around the restaurants We think this is an improvement over the original site plan; it better defines where each clientele should be parking. Trafficwise it has restricted the entrance for people coming from the Tri-County area; they are now forced to use the main entrance to O’Charley’s and Tumbleweed rather than Cooker’s access along Princeton Pike, which is not highly desirable. There are no parking lot easements that go back and forth, and none that Cooker is allowing O’Charley’s to anticipate would ever occur. So, O’Charley’s is somewhat forced to come up with this site plan and move forward.

Mr. Hershner reported the easements we are proposing would be one from Cooker for a small area in the southeast corner, a storm pipe easement back to O’Charley’s as well as O’Charley’s is giving Cooker an easement to allow storm water to run into an existing inlet. That way if Cooker wants to use that, if the City requires it, they have an easement to do so. Given that Cooker received approval on a site plan that showed this other parking, and now by their actions they have changed that site plan, there should be some way for the City to compel them to come back in and make those modifications.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Sixteen


Mr. Hershner stated we’ve shown what could happen, but it is up to Cooker to make that decision. I have had some talks with Bill McErlane about whether or not they could be compelled to come in with a different site plan and he was going to check with your legal counsel to see how to move forward on that. We believe all the legal requirements of the code have been met. We made changes to the landscape plan to accommodate this new layout, and it does offer a little bit more green area.

Mr. Hershner continued one of the comments from your engineer was to possibly incorporate additional landscaping along the five foot lawn area between the two properties, and O’Charley’s has authorized me to approve additional landscaping for that area. I would suggest it be in keeping with some of the deciduous trees that are on the site already planned, which I believe are honey locust trees. Those would still permit parking on either side where cars access whereas if we are limited to our five feet of area and the proposed planting of evergreen trees, those could grow twelve feet around and could encroach on the parking area. That is why I would propose a deciduous tree, and we are looking at an area that could hold more than 15 additional trees. That is in addition to the tree requirements that have already been met.

Mr. Hershner reported there were concerns raised by Don Shvegzda, and we have touched on most of those. One was the fact that Cooker parking lot only has approximately two feet of setback. That is out of our control, but I would hope that is in your control because it is to the benefit of both properties that they correct that. The second item is that there is no vehicular cross connection. I thought originally there was a concern that we were going to use that access that Cookers owned. I was happy you had approved it that way, but O’Charley’s says they don’t need it or want it and it probably is better not to have it because it muddies the waters of who is doing what to either property, and that is why they directed us to come up with this particular site plan. I know that O’Charley’s doesn’t like the notion, but if there is a strong reason from a traffic standpoint that Cookers comes in and revises their site plan, and there is a need for some type of access through O’Charley’s, a liability or safety concern, they have said they would work with the city on that. Right now they can’t require Cookers to give them access. They only held the lease before as a tool to use for access. Both parties have a 30 day period where they could withdraw that lease, and that is why Cookers has withdrawn it. Before we did have leverage and now we don’t have any to compel Cookers to do something.

Mr. Hershner reported the third issue is who will be responsible for making improvements on Cookers’ property. Cookers is the only one who can answer that; O’Charley’s has no right to go onto their property. We wanted to do a site plan for them, so it could be incorporated with this, and they did not want to entertain that. I hope the city can help.

Mr. Hershner stated the fourth item was the concern over providing additional landscaping, and we are open to doing that. We don’t want to overcrowd the trees, but we would commit to planting hybrid honey locust along that property line or we are open to input on that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Galster said so you are not going to use that lot through that entrance on Cookers. You will have a curb there so if you come into that lot, you can’t get to O’Charley’s. I think we need to do whatever we can to retain the ability to move between the lots. It is very important to keep the old flow that we had prior; I don’t think this works.

Mr. Hershner responded they are scheduled to open at a certain time, and that is why in order to keep with their schedule, they have to put access there. O’Charley’s concern is that Cookers could throw a wrench into it, and we were hoping that the City might have some leverage to open that back up. We are compelled to come in and have a site plan review, and since Cookers is changing their site plan, I would hope they would be required to come in and live up to certain standards as well.

Mr. Tiffany commented it is unfortunate Cookers is not here, because I am not comfortable with them not here. Whether they leased or purchased the property, they had access to the property at the time they got approval of the plans and we took them in good faith on this and gave them the approval. I do not know legally what we bound to do as far as what we have approved for them. Unfortunately there wasn’t a cross easement on that; it was just a lease of the property; a cross easement would have taken care of that. I appreciate you position in terms of time schedules; maybe we can put pressure on Cookers to get in here and get it resolved, but I don’t see how we can create a problem on your property without knowing the resolution of the problem and who is going to pay for it. I wouldn’t want Cookers to come in here and say you told O’Charley’s they could do this and look what they’ve done to my property; I’m going to sue the City.

Mr. Hershner commented they were aware that this was coming up. I would think they would be in some violation of not having curbing at the end of their parking lot. Even if O’Charley’s was not here, and Findlay still owned this, I would think the property owner would have the right to go in and remove those improvements if they so desired. Unfortunately all we can do is remove it right to the property line. Mr. Tiffany said I don’t know the legal aspects, and I don’t know that the city has any obligation as far as making them do something at this point, because it is intact as it is. Once it is broken, we would have an obligation to have it corrected.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Tiffany said the pavement is through the property line at this point. If Mr. Hershner terminates the pavement at the property line, because he has no right to enter the Cooker property, they will have no setback whatsoever. Can we dictate to them that they have to come back another five feet. Mr. McErlane responded yes, I believe we can. For one, when their plan was approved, they represented they would purchase that property and never went through with it and secondly, we can cause them to comply with the Zoning Code. Not only that, it’s not going to function properly drainage wise until the Code is put in place. I talked Friday with the Regional Manager for Cooker, and he was aware that this issue was coming up and knew he would have to restripe the parking lot. I told him that he probably have to remove some pavement and install some curbing and he said whatever they had to do, they’d have to do it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Eighteen


Mr. Hershner commented if there was a requirement to have a cross access incorporated with a revised Cooker plan, you could make that a condition. O’Charley’s doesn’t want to jeopardize not moving forward at this point. Until that access became available, it really would be a minor change for them to do that.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Shvegzda when it says the south edge of Cookers’ parking lot will have approximately a two foot setback, five is required. That is set; we don’t want to deviate from that, right?. Mr. Shvegzda responded that would require a variance on the part of Cookers to have a two foot rather than the five foot setback required in the Zoning Code. Mr. Wilson said so it’s a major change. Mr. Shvegzda answered I don’t know if it is a major change, but it is something that has been held to in the past. Mr. Wilson added and we would be setting a precedent. Mr. Shvegzda reported if I recall, an amount less than five feet has been allowed in certain instances, mainly in a PUD situation.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Hershner about leaving one establishment and having to enter the public right of way, is that Princeton Pike? Mr. Hershner confirmed that was the main access point here; you still have the access point in the aback and on Tri-County Parkway. Mr. Wilson commented I liked it the way it was originally with the lane going through. I think they are cutting their own throats, and I cannot accept it.

Mr. Huddleston said if the Tumbleweed ownership is acting in good faith, I would be hard pressed to restrict them from beneficial use of that property by a non cooperating adjacent owner, who represented something to the city which is now changed materially. I would say as long as they are meeting the requirements of the zoning and the site plan approvals, and there is not a significant safety hazard by the loss of the second accessway, I would be hard pressed to deprive these gentlemen from moving forward based on what I see here tonight.

Mr. Okum commented I agree with you, and if we can get Cookers back to the table, we should. Let’s say Cooker three months from now comes about. What would you have to do to your plan to reconfigure your lot again? You may not want to; after three months, you might feel you don’t need it, and we in the City feel that you need it. We approved it originally and I agree we don’t want to hold you ransom to doing what you originally proposed, but your site was approved with that. Is there something you can do that would leave a future cross easement location instead of parking spaces, so it is blueprinted there? Once we approve yours, we certainly can force Cooker into meeting the standards. The question is can you take the plan so the cross easement can go in without any problem and make it work when and if we can get Cooker back to the table to make this thing happen? Once we approve yours, you are done.

Mr. Hershner responded I think if you approved this with the condition that we revise our plan to show an easement area and that O’Charley’s would be obligated to improve once the plan from Cookers can incorporate a common accessway between the two properties. Once we cut right on the property line on that paving, Cookers would be in violation and could be cited and given a letter. Mr. Okum commented they actually are in violation right now because they don’t have a lease on the land where the parking lot is, and their setbacks are not five feet, so they are totally in violation.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Nineteen


Mr. Hershner commented I think there are ways to compel both parties, if an access point were needed it would be relatively simple, rather than curb this driveway up around the corner, for us to bring it straight through and we would lose two or three parking spaces, but we have gained 13 parking spaces that we are not required to have. We could afford to lose that, and O’Charley’s would much prefer moving forward and knowing that at any given time as soon as a plan for Cookers is approved, they would come in simultaneously and make sure that the exact plan would work for both of us. Mr. Okum asked if the location you are indicating would be the right location for them, and Mr. Hershner answered I would think it would be the most appropriate, because for those people who turn in early into the existing Cookers driveway, it gives them access, and doesn’t cause them to go back through Cookers property parking lot to go through here. This retains this flexibility. Mr. Okum said so you would block out three or four spaces and design it. Mr. Hershner responded we would cut out that paving area and reconfigure it. It is a relatively simple process with blacktop. Cookers has some timing that they can come in between now and when the asphalt companies open back up in the spring. O’Charley’s does not want to jeopardize the opportunity to move forward. They were not sure if they could compel Cookers to provide that access point.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Hershner if all the easements were in place for the storm water. Mr. Hershner responded everything else is in place. I have a letter from O’Charley’s counsel; what we are going forward with is an easement to confirm that we have an easement from them, and Cookers has an easement from O’Charley’s. It is possible that they do not need this, but as long as it is there, it will benefit to allow water to run into that, because there is a trench drain at the bottom of the driveway. This will deflect water before it goes down that driveway. Mr. Syfert said if they wouldn’t agree to this, what would that do to your plans? Mr. Hershner answered there is a strong argument legally that since it is an existing structure put in place by Cookers, we are just following an improvement that they as a property owner put in place. It is already there, and Cookers acknowledged that it serves that property. As much as Cookers has not been willing to work with us on site planning, they seem to see eye to eye on giving the easements back and forth. Cookers will get an easement to use that storm pipe and will not have to maintain it. O’Charley’s will carry the maintenance costs of this.

Mr. Tiffany commented going by the comments I have heard tonight, I

really do not have a problem with this and I would move to approve with the understanding that at a later time should it be possible if it is possible we would like to see a connector there, and that O’Charley’s is open to that. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum asked if O’Charley’s can be held to this and Mr. Tiffany answered if it works out with Cookers, yes. Mr. Hershner added I would say that is a condition of the zoning permit. Mr. Huddleston commented I don’t know if these are recorded easements; I’m not sure we have that clearly defined. Mr. Hershner reported those are not recorded easements yet, but legal counsel has indicated that there have not been any ojections to them. Mr. Wilson commented we are voting and hoping that the parties will comply, right? Mr. Syfert responded we are approving what he has laid out here. Mr. Galster added with the condition that if possible if Cookers will agree, but if they will not, this is what you get.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 December 1995

Page Twenty


Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Wilson voted no, and the approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative votes.


A. Brendamour’s Warehouse, 500 Kemper Commons Circle

(Paint 3’ x 40" wall sign)



Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be here at the next meeting on January 9th, and everyone indicated they would be present. Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________1996 __________________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman



_____________________,1996 ___________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary