PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 JANUARY 1995

7:00 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Peggy Manis, Tim Sullivan

Barry Tiffany, Robert Wilson and Chairman William Syfert.

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

James Harrison, Legal Counsel (arrived at 7:25 P.M.)

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 13 DECEMBER 1994

Mr. Syfert reported Mr. Wilson had a couple of corrections. On page 1, where it

said Mr. Syfert was elected vice chairman, that should read Mr. Tiffany, and on

page 11 Hookers should be Cookers. Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr.

Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the corrected Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

Eric Novicki approached the commission, stating we really want to be

Mr. Tiffany stated this has gone before Council for their approval. I

guess the councilmembers here have to decide if this is a large change.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Wilson and Ms. Manis if they feel this is a major

change that needs to go back to Council or if we can handle it here.

Mr. McErlane reported to clarify something, there were no covenants

available at the time Council reviewed this, although I think there was an

understanding that there would be six employees.

Ms. Manis said I don’t think it is a major change. Mr. Wilson added

put it on a trial basis. I have a concern about the people on Valley View

Drive going up towards Rose Lane. Mr. Novicki added what I could do

when we have the meeting I could go during that time to the homes if

anybody is there and see if they have a concern with us being there.

Those are the ones that would be affected; the others would be at work.

I could let you know the results of that. Mr. Wilson responded yes, I am

most concerned about Valley View from Cloverdale to Rose Lane, that

curve there, because those individuals would be most affected, coming

around that curve. I do have a safety concern for your vehicle, because

it comes down the hill and around the curve, and if we have inclement

weather and someone not used to seeing cars parked there might hit your car. Mr. Novicki responded since we’ll be there, that is something

we can look at and see if it is a problem and move to a safer location.

One of our other options was parking on this side of the street and

shuttling people back and forth. We thought this was the best scenario.

Mr. Wilson stated I don’t have a problem at this point; if residents start

complaining, then we would have to make some changes. Mr. Novicki added then we would have a problem with it too.

Mr. Galster commented I was wondering if this would be on the school

bus route. Noon would be the kindergarten let out and 3:00 would catch

the elementary. Mr. Syfert said good point.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there is enough space there for six vehicles; that is a

very short street. Mr. Novicki reported this was measured. Mr. Tiffany

asked Mr. McErlane how long the street is. Mr. McErlane responded

typically the lot’s depth is around 125 feet apiece, although Cloverdale

kicks in that direction. I would say with a 25’ length for a parking space,

you are probably okay.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve with the covenants amended to state no

more than six additional cars from 12:00 to 3:30 p.m. once a month to

be parked as shown in Exhibit A.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Four

V A FINAL APPROVAL OF OFFICE USE IN R-1-B-T DISTRICT ZONING-cont.

Mr. Novicki asked if they wanted a trial period, like six months? Mr.

Tiffany answered I don’t know if we can set a time limit for the transi-

tional use. Mr. Novicki added I don’t think one month would be a fair

enough trial period. Mr. Tiffany commented I would like to see a change

of seasons in there too, but can we assess a time limit to it, and does it

have to be in the covenants? How do we legislate that? Mr. Syfert

responded I believe that will have to be addressed between Mr. Novicki

and us. I don’t believe that would be part of the covenants.

Mr. Wilson said I want to make an addendum to that and state that if

we begin to hear complaints; I don’t know that a time period would be

as fair as if we start having a problem then we will make a change, and

the change will be to remove the vehicles. That would be an under-

standing. Maybe no one will complain and we will have had a trial period for no reason.

Ms. Manis seconded the motion.

Mr. Blake commented being an administrator myself with staff meetings, sometimes the meetings run over or we start early. I have a problem

with restricting a business. You say one day a month, fine, but I have a

problem with the time limit. That’s almost like dictating to the business

how long they can hold their meeting.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Novicki if he had a problem with that time. Mr.

Novicki said no, but if what we are saying is if there are complaints that we will change it, then the time frame doesn’t really matter. I didn’t think

about it and we are stopping at 3:30; by the time they get out to the cars

it is 3:35. That is a good point. Those are the time frames; I can see

12:25 or 3:35 might come up.

Mr. Harrison arrived at 7:25 P.M.

tough to set a time schedule wilth this. The reason I used that time

frame was because that was what Mr. Novicki represented to the

residents that he received no complaints on.

Ms. Manis said I would not have a problem if we said 4 or 4:30 or

5, when residents start coming home and want to park on the street

themselves. Mr. Novicki said it would never be two hours over because

we schedule patients afterwards. If it ran over, it would be five minutes,

or some one stayed a little longer to ask a question.

Mr. Syfert commented since 12 to 3:30 was represented by Mr. Novicki,

I would suggest that we let it go that way. We will have to keep looking

at it anyway. Mr. Blake said so if for some rare event they may start late or be there until four, we don’t have to discuss this.

Mr. Syfert stated the motion is that the transitional zoning be approved

as rendered with the change in the covenants to reflect the six addi-

tional vehicles and the 12 to 3:30 time, and the parking plan as per

the exhibit.. Upon submission of the final covenants, it would go into effect

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr.

Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. The final approval was granted

with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Five

Mr. Syfert reported for the information of the board Item C, the concept

approval for proposed restaurants at the northwest corner of Princeton

Pike & Merchant Street was tabled. We have a work session with them this Thursday.

B. IDI Requests Approval of Off-Premise real estate signs (V-Shaped

fronting on I-275 and 4’ x 5’ double sided sign fronting on

Crescentville Road) for Northwest Business Center

(tabled 13 December 1994)

Bruce McConnell of CB Commercial stated we are going to represent

IDI in the leasing efforts of the facility they plan to build there. Meyer

Sign Company has submitted a drawing of the signs we want to place

on the property. The two signs we want to place on that site are not on

the property they own; however, they are on 5th/3rd’s property and also

the Cincinnati Advertising property at the corner of Crescentville and

Northwest Boulevard.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane for his input. Mr. McErlane reported I

think the intent is that since IDI has no frontage on a major street,

they would like to have some off premise signs. Sizewise, they fit

within the parameters for real estate signs, a maximum of 100 square

feet on an interstate and a maximum of 50 square feet on Crescentville.

The only input I have is if 5th/3rd is considering putting up a permanent

project sign for the development, you might consider talking with them

about where the specific location on Crescentville might be, just so you

don’t have to move your sign to accommodate theirs.

Mr. Tiffany stated it is confusing on your picture. On I-275 there is a

Duke sign. This is in addition to that? Mr. McConnell answered yes it

is. Mr. Tiffany continued and it is to go to the east side of that? Mr.

McConnell answered we didn’t designate; they said where do you want it

and we said that would be fine. Mr. Tiffany commented the only thing I

would ask is that they are not too close together; I don’t think we want to

create billboards across there.

Ms. Manis said it is a V on I-275, and Cincinnati Advertising does not have a problem with double sided? Mr. McConnell said no. Ms. Manis said the only thing would be depending on the size and so it doesn’t obstruct the view.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane the sign height requirement. Mr.

McErlane answered it is a maximum of 10 feet on the interstate and

a maximum of seven feet on Crescentville Road. Mr. Tiffany continued

so we will be within these, and Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

Mr. Galster said how long will this sign stay up? Does it stay up

until it is 100% occupied, or do we have another percentage? Mr.

McConnell answered until it is fully occupied. Mr. Syfert commented

so that means there will not be cheap signs that will deteriorate. Mr. McConnell said they will be 4’ x 4’ driven into the ground, painted metal.

Mr. Tiffany said it seems like in the last year or two we have passed

something regarding percentage of lease space. Mr. McErlane stated

in commercial districts once the leasable space is less than 10% of the building you have to reduce the size of the sign. I don’t know that any

of the tenants will be that small in this building and also if they were

reduced to the size of a residential real estate sign, it would be nearly

invisible on that frontage.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Six

V B IDI REQUESTS APPROVAL OF OFF-PREMISE REAL ESTATE SIGNS-cont.

Mr. Tiffany continued does that affect these folks? Mr. McErlane

answered that code applies to general business and commercial

districts.

Mr. Wilson said don’t we have a time frame in which real estate signs

can stay there? I don’t like the idea of it staying there indefinitely. It

may take years. Mr. McErlane reported we have a limitation of six

months, but there is nothing that says they can’t come in and reapply

for it. The property maintenance code would cover if they become

deteriorated, but I don’t know if it makes any sense to tell someone that

they can’t try to market their property just because they have had their

sign up for more than six months.

Ms. Manis moved to approve the request for signage and Mr. Tiffany

seconded the motion. Voting aye were Ms. Manis, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Blake

Mr. Galster, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Request was

approved with seven affirmative votes.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

Perkins Family Restaurants 370 Glensprings Drive requests approval of

exterior building changes

Wes Noble, HAV Tech Incorporated reported we are the contractor

working on the project with Mr. Perkins. We do quite a lot of Perkins

alterations in the Tri-State area. We are in the process of updating

quite a few of their facilities on the exterior and the interior by adding

a bakery into the operation. It is the general plan to update the stores

throughout the area. This building was the 1976 design, and they have

the 1992-93 design. We are trying to adapt the ‘76 to be a compromise

between the new design and the old design buildings.

What you have before you is the basic plans. We tend to update the

building depending on the funding. In this case, we feel we are making

` quite an improvement to the looks of the exterior of the building. By

reworking the entry into the building, where the curbing was being altered in the front, will make it more handicap accessible.

Mr. Noble continued the materials are durable in terms of exterior

surfaces. A lot of the building structuring will not be changed as much

as the entry area and the north elevation and the south elevation. The

other elevations are primarily getting a new color scheme applied to them

to make them blend into the overall project.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were a Perkins in this area that already has been converted. Mr. Noble answered we just finished several in the

Englewood area and one in Sidney, but there is not one in this immediate area. Mr. Syfert continued so this will be the first in this

market area; tell me about the colors.

Mr. Noble reported we are going with earth tones and also retain the

green that is used by Perkins. This particular building has wood

shakes on it; quite a few of the buildings have standing seam metal

roofing, and that is where we are trying to tie the green together to

tie in with the standing seam that they use on the newer style buildings.

The surface is set up as a cream or mild beige, and the darker brown

rose type color is for accent panels on the building, which is a stucco

drivitt type exterior on the building.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Seven

VI A PERKINS 370 GLENSPRINGS DRIVE EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES-cont.

Mr. Syfert asked if they still would have the yellow canopies and Mr.

Noble answered yes, the same shade of yellow.

Mr. Sullivan asked the time period of when you start and when it is

completed? Mr. Noble answered we are wanting to start as soon as

we are given the okay. We try to keep the restaurant functioning as

long as we possibly can with no health or safety hazards. It is taking

us five to six weeks to put these exteriors on buildings and then we

would put the bakery in, so we are looking at probably eight to 10 weeks.

Mr. Sullivan continued would you be receptive to having some kind of

parking arrangement for bicycles? We are looking at a bicycle plan for

the region, and as we are talking to businesses coming in or making

renovations, we are asking them if they would be receptive to putting in

a bicycle rack for people to park their bikes.

Mr. Noble responded I would say based on my past experience with

Perkins, if it generates business they normally would entertain that, so

I would say yes. Mr. Mike Perkins from the audience said no problem

at all.

Mr. Wilson commented I am trying to determine the lighting for the sign

on the west elevation. That would be the first t thing would see coming

down Glensprings Drive heading east. Being Perkins is open 24 hours

a day, how much light are we talking? Am I going to come around that

bend and get blinded? Mr. Noble said no, and showed a photograph of

the sign. The neon lettering is 15 millimeter, which is not excessively bright; it just adds the color to it.

Mr. Tiffany said in other words, the lighting is back lit, so there are no

exterior lights being cast on the building. Mr. Noble said no, or coming

off the building.

Mr. Tiffany continued I don’t see anything in the plans for the pole sign.

Are there plans to change the pole sign, update it? Mr. Noble answered

no, it will be the same. Mr. Perkins added the bakery strip will be

detailed on the panel. It would not change; "And Bakery" would be

added in small letters on the existing panel.

Mr. Blake asked if anything were going to be done with landscaping,

any improvements? Mr. Noble answered Mr. Perkins has assured me

that the landscaping will be cleaned up and maintained in that area

because of the fact that we will be doing alteration with the curbing,

and there would be upgrading done in reference to it. There is some

dead material in there right now that would be replaced with the same

caliper type of material. Mr. Blake responded I hope they do a better

job with the upkeep of the land. I am a regular customer, and my wife

and I have bought bikes, so please put in the bike rack.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. McErlane our ratio of handicapped spots to

regular, and are we in compliance with four? Mr. McErlane reported

it is in the ADA requirements, not the zoning code, and it is four per

100 parking spaces. It would be dependent upon the number of

parking spaces in the parking lot. Mike Perkins stated we have 96

parking spaces; we checked the ADA code before we had it striped.

Ms. Manis commented I think it looks much better; it’s about time.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Eight

VI A PERKINS 370 GLENSPRINGS DRIVE EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES-cont.

Mr. Tiffany stated on the landscaping, are there plans for the east

side near that beautiful ditch? Mr. Perkins answered yes, but I don’t

know what we can do with the ditch because of the water level. Mr.

Tiffany commented I do not know who came in and cleaned it out,

and it does look a lot better, but the east side of the building looks

almost naked. Mr. Perkins added we will be putting bushes along there.

Mr. Blake said what about the maintenance of the parking lot? I notice

in the front there is a lot of sinkage, and to the north of the building; what

are you going to do about straightening up the parking lot? Mr. Noble

answered Mr. Perkins with his maintenance people has been doing work

on that lot for the past two months trying to correct some of the decay

problems in the lot. I personally do not get involved with that end of it;

I’m involved with building alterations and bakery installation, exterior

alterations to the building and the general walkways and things that need

to be reworked in that area. I do not get involved in the landscaping or

parking lots, except to see that they do have the handicapped spots.

Right now he has sealed the lot and done repair work to some of the

areas in the lot. I think he is trying to get another year out of the lot,

and then possibly look at resurfacing.

Mr. Galster commented on the east side of the lot, you are doing some

work on that side of the building; could you add something so when the

Now Hiring sign goes up it could be hung a little bit nicer? Could you

clean that up?

Mr. McErlane commented generally it complies with the corridor

standards as far as exterior materials are concerned. As it exists

there is brick and stone; stone in the corners and brick in between,

so it meets the corridor standards as far as finishes go.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda for his comments. Mr. Shvegzda

reported I have no specific comments. At one point, the driveway

is being narrowed a little bit, but it is far in excess of what is

required.

Mr. Wilson said the request is for approval of exterior building changes,

but you are putting a bakery in. It will follow the fire codes, etc.? Mr.

Noble responded Perkins refers to it as a bakery, but it is primarily

a display area for bakery products. They still do the preparation of the

foods in the kitchen; it is display cases in the front area.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the plans and Mr. Blake seconded the

motion.

Mr. Wilson commented I am a veteran, and you have a flag up there

24 hours a day seven days a week. Sometimes that flag looks pretty

raggedy. Can we include that as part of the maintenance so we don’t

drive by and see a tattered flag? I would think once every nine months

or so you might want to pull it down and check it out. Mr. Perkins

reported that is always included. . We look at it once every three months.

On a 75 foot pole, it gets whipped pretty good.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Blake, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr.

Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. The approval was granted with

seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Nine

B. Anchor Associates requests final plan approval for retail development at

Anne McBride of Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum stated we are repre-

senting Anchor Associates in their request for final development

plan approval. There are a number of representatives from Anchor

here, also a civil engineer Bob Trenkamp is present if you have

questions regarding engineering issues.

Ms. McBride continued this was a zone change that was reviewed by

Planning and recommended for approval in September of last year.

It was formally approved by Council in November of last year. The

preliminary development plan that was approved was for 150,000

square feet of retail use and three outlots fronting on East Kemper.

This plan is consistent with the preliminary development plan that

was approved. Phase I is for 150,000 square feet of retail stores; a

total of 763 parking spaces are proposed as part of the development.

Ms. McBride stated I would like to review the staff report and some of

the comments they had and this might be a compromise of all the

different issues outstanding. Mr. McErlane suggested we needed to

add two additional parking spaces, and that is not a problem. We

will be obtaining the necessary storm water drainage permits. The

` 35’ setback on Century Boulevard we believe is sufficient; we are

providing quite a bit of landscaping along that area, and I also believe

that meets the requirements of your code. Thirty-five feet is required

from a collector street and 25 feet from a local street. I’m not sure how

you classify Century, but in either case it meets your code.

Ms. McBride reported we will be providing screening for the compactor

to the rear of the building. We will be reconfiguring the landscaping

plan. We will be increasing by 50-80% the number of trees on the

front of the property by going with the street trees planted every 40 feet

along East Kemper. Also we will look at providing additional land-

scaping in the western most corner of the property adjacent to the

access point. We also will be providing protection for the trees that will

remain on the south property line. I think that addresses the majority

of the comments that Mr. McErlane had.

Ms. McBride stated with regard to the second part of his report, we

are requesting a seven foot parking setback on Century; we believe,

giving the landscaping that we are proposing, the type of street that

Century Boulevard is, that this is sufficient, seven feet from your required

10 feet.

Ms. McBride continued the ground sign that we are showing in the

westernmost portion of the site will be located 10 feet from the right of

way as required by your code. There is a little bit of confusion in terms

of the height permitted on that sign. In the one section of the code I

found that 12 feet was permitted and I found another section that

required a seven foot high sign. The sign itself is only seven feet 10

inches and there is a two and one-half foot base that makes it 10 and

one half feet high. We would ask that the Commission approve this

as proposed.

Ms. McBride reported the proposed free standing sign for the center,

the center identification and all the major tenants, is 400 square feet

of area, and that was on the preliminary development plan approved

by both the Planning Commission and Council, so that is not a change.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Ten

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Ms. McBride stated with regards to the additional on-building

signage, we require signage over and above what is normally

permitted in your code. These buildings are over 600 feet back

off Kemper Road which is a significant distance. In addition to

that, they are what we call regional retailers, in that they are draw

retailers; customers may or may not be familiar with where the

store is located. It wouldn’t be like shopping a grocery store that

you use everyday, so it is important to be able to safely direct the

traffic into the center. Additionally, we believe the type of this center

is complementary with the one on the north side of Kemper, and the

signage we are proposing is typical of what is across the street from us.

The Wal-Mart has 576 square feet of signage, the Sam’s 969 square

feet, and Marshalls, which is largely comparable in terms of building

frontage with any the tenants we are looking at, has 437 square feet of

sign area.

Ms. McBride reported we also have had the opportunity to review the

comments of your engineer, and we believe we will not have any prob-

lem with complying with all of their requirements, in terms of engineering

storm water etc.

Ms. McBride continued we did submit a striping plan that was prepared

by our firm. We meant that would supersede the site plan in terms of

striping details and roadway details. They were not omitted from the site

plan; they were referenced on the striping plan itself.

Mr. Tiffany asked how they proposed to screen the compactor? Ms.

McBride said a solid wood fence. Mr. Tiffany asked if we typically

allowed fences for screening or do we prefer the block to match the

building?

Mr. McErlane reported the zoning code provides for either block brick

or wood fence. Mr. Tiffany said but it has to be gated? Mr. McErlane

answered no, the zoning code does not require that it be gated. It

was discussed at the time that portion of the code was adopted, and

it was determined that in a number of cases the gates would be in

pretty poor shape after a period of time or gone so Planning felt it

wasn’t necessary to put the gates on. Mr. Tiffany commented it seems

to me in a lot of Planning Commission meetings we have asked that of

a lot of applicants. Mr. McErlane responded I don’t doubt that, but when

the portion of the code was adopted for screening, it indicated the gates

were not necessarily required. Mr. Tiffany said so it is not required by

code, but we can ask that of the applicant. Mr. McErlane said right.

Ms. McBride commented I do not disagree that sometimes the gates

are appropriate, in cases where it is a restaurant and it is located in the

middle of the parking lot; I agree with you 100%. The location of this

compactor to the rear of the building where it is not going to see much

traffic, I don’t know that the gates are necessary. Mr. Tiffany responded

so you are not proposing to gate it.

Mr. Tiffany continued as far as the signage for the buildings and the

Best Buy and the total square footage, you had made some comparison

to the buildings across the street at Kemper Commons. With PUDs

we consider each project on an individual basis as to what works. There

really is no precedent set by what is across the street; what is across

the street your site is approximately 40% of what your site is as far as

development is concerned.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Eleven

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Ms. McBride commented the only comparison I was making is that

they are similar distances back from the road and contain similar

types of retailers. They are regional type retailers, and it is important

to be able to properly direct those people to the stores. Mr. Tiffany said I don’t know that this is set as far back as Wal-Mart is. Ms. McBride said this one is over 600 square feet back, and I am not sure of the exact distance of Wal-Mart. Doug Hynden added it is further back then Sam’s Club. Mr. Tiffany responded I would agree with that, but the comparison was made with the entire development across the street, and I don’t think it is anywhere close to what Wal-Mart and Dress Barn are.

Mr. Tiffany stated as far as the signage on the street, the 400 square

feet on the pylon, if you consider the signage across the street at

Kemper Commons, and we’re comparing apples to oranges, they are

about two and one-half times their allowable signage on the pylon.

You are proposing eight times what was there. I know you are saying

it was approved on the preliminary plan and in Council. I don’t think

it was objected to in preliminary plan and Council, but those are pre-

liminary plans. That’s why it has to come back here for final plans.

It’s very tough to have total foresight on a preliminary plan as to

everything that will go on with this.

Mr. Wilson said on page 2 item 7, points c d and e. Item c the pylon

sign exceeds 50 square feet in area and IL have a problem with that.

The front building sign for Best Buy exceeds 150 square feet, and

thirdly, we are looking at what is permitted, 382, and you are looking at

640. True it is not twice as much, but it is pretty good size. I agree with

Mr. Tiffany in that we cannot compare what is on one side of Kemper

vs. the other side because definitely we are not talking about the same

size buildings. I would like to see some consideration on your part in

adjusting these three items to be more in compliance.

Mr. Wilson continued essentially I don’t have a real problem with the

setback of three feet; maybe we could deal with that if it is okay with the engineer. The ground sign - maybe we could have some flexibility there,

but items c d and e I have a big problem with because they are clearly

way out of line. In the preliminary discussions we had, I think you

knew the sizes of the buildings that you were going to have, and you should have known that these would not work so why bring them to us?

Ms. McBride responded on the Best Buy issue, the 640 square feet

that is shown there will be on two sides of the building. There would

be some signage on the western side and some on the front of the

building. Technically the other end of the building would be allowed

signage because it has frontage on Century Boulevard, but we are

going to heavily landscape that area. The side of the Best Buy has

more visibility, so we chose to put that signage over there. That may

answer the question as to why so much signage for Best Buy.

Ms. McBride continued on the free standing sign, I thought we were

very up front in terms of the need for the 400 square feet of sign area.

This center is competing with other centers in the area in terms of retail

business. Four hundred square feet sounds like a lot of sign area, but

when you talk about identifying the center itself, and four possible

anchor tenants, that does not come out to a lot of sign area per tenant.

The Commission may disagree with that, but if you are going out and

trying to sell it to retailers, they will tell you that something under 100

square feet in terms of sign area really doesn’t do them much good.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twelve

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. Wilson commented I can appreciate your being up front with us,

but you were aware of the guidelines, and if you knew the type of

retailers that would be in this area, there might have been something

else that could have been done so this problem would not come up.

No being an expert in this area, I’ll have to defer to Mr. McErlane and

ask him what he thinks.

Mr. McErlane stated normally in cases where we have had regional

type stores we have allowed them to go beyond the code, especially

when we have substantial setbacks. As far as the magnitude, I think

that is something Planning Commission needs to determine.

Mr. McErlane continued after the discussion came up relative to the 400 square foot pylon sign being previously approved, I pulled the minutes out. We had never seen the 400 square foot sign previously; it was brought up verbally in the meeting, and there was some discussion on it. The last comment was that we need some detail on it before we could approve it. The original plans that were submitted to Planning Commission only showed the location of sign. Ms. McBride added and there also was a note on the left hand side of the plan that showed the sign area. Mr. McErlane asked if that was the plan that was submitted at the time of the meeting Ms. McBride responded throughout the whole process that note has been on the plan. Mr. McErlane asked if it were on there now, and Ms. McBride said it was. Mr. Tiffany commented the end result was Mr. McErlane said we needed more detail, correct? Mr. McErlane stated there was a plan presented to Planning Commission that did not have prior review and at that time we had indicated that we had no details. Even at that point, during discussion at Planning Commission it was indicated that we needed more detail before we could make a decision on that. Mr. McErlane continued it compares pretty evenly with the pylon sign at Tri-County Commons, which is just shy of 400 square feet, and is approximately 44 feet in height. So you are looking at the same basic configuration of sign. Mr. Wilson responded but we are also looking at different size buildings. They are considerably smaller.

Ms. Manis said in the covenants on page 509 Miscellaneous it says that

all waste and refuse for the project shall be containerized and fully

screened from view. I would think fully screened would include a gate.

Ms. Manis continued on the sign, I know we would never approve a

sign on the top of a hill that looks gaudy in this picture. I know at

Wal-Mart we have a big sign, but there are also a lot more tenants.

You have big panels for each of your four tenants; I think it could be

reduced. I do not have a problem with the signs on the building if the

sign out front is reduced.

Mr. Galster commented I drove around the site and because it is up on

the hill and by the time you add that 45 foot pole sign, it will be over-

powering the whole area. I can see the hill from Kerry Ford and to think

of a 45 foot sign up there seems excessive to me. He asked if there would be a tree line between your property and the adjoining property? I was looking at the landscaping plan and down that side it seems kind of sparse. Ms. McBride responded a few of these trees will remain, but we are going to save trees on the southern property line. Mr. Galster continued right next door, are there additional trees just beyond your property line? Ms. McBride it is mostly scrub.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Thirteen

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. Tiffany commented 50 feet for a pole sign for this size project

not workable; I agree with you totally. What is the height requirement

for a ground sign? Mr. McErlane reported seven feet. Mr. Tiffany

continued so they are in excess on that also.

Mr. Tiffany stated we talked about setbacks on parking, seven feet

versus 10 feet. One of the reasons we require 10 feet, and a perfect

example is how your lot has worked out. You have in parking towards

Century Boulevard, and I would not imagine you are going more than a

four inch curb there, and cars will infringe upon that setback by another

approximately three feet so now we are down to a four foot setback.

That’s why we require 10, so we end up with about six to seven feet

across there. I’m not saying we have to change the setback. Another

option might be to use stop blocks to keep the cars from infringing upon

that space.

Mr. Tiffany continued we do not have anything in here in terms of

screening the headlights from traffic. I don’t have a grade plan in

front of me as far as the height of Century Boulevard versus the

parking lot. Are we talking about basically the same grade? Ms.

McBride indicated yes. Mr. Tiffany stated I would leave that to Mr.

Shvegzda’s discretion in terms of traffic counts as to whether or

not it would be recommended. I know we have required it on other

projects with more heavily traveled streets.

Mr. Shvegzda reported insofar as the internal traffic, we do not have

anything specific to that. We do have traffic projections for Century

Boulevard itself. Mr. Tiffany responded that’s what I am talking about,

whether the traffic on Century Boulevard might be affected by the head-

lights. Mr. Shvegzda answered I don’t know if there is going to be that

much impact on the side of the vehicle coming in as opposed to directly

head on. It does not appear to be that severe a problem at the side

angle.

Mr. Hynden reported the right of way for Century Boulevard is

exceedingly wide. There is approximately 20 feet between the pavement

and our parking lot, even though there is a seven foot setback, so in essence there is really 20 feet of setback. In addition, the elevation is

slightly below Century Boulevard’s so I do not believe the headlights

would be a factor set that far back from Century Boulevard. It is

deceiving, because we are showing the actual property line; it is not

the pavement line of Century Boulevard.

Mr. Blake said as you know some of us are sensitized to this bicycle

plan, and I am trying to imagine how anybody would ride a bicycle up

there, but in case, could you put something in your plan for bicycle parking? Ms. McBride responded I am sure we can find a suitable location on the development for a bicycle rack or bicycle parking.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane to address the commission on some

of his concerns. Mr. McErlane stated I think the applicant addressed

a commitment to do something with the landscaping; that was one of

the major concerns that I had. To clarify a point, the plan that does show

the 400 square foot sign came in four days before the Planning Commis-

sion meeting (preliminary plan) and it wasn’t picked up until the meeting

that there was a note placed on there. It was discussed, and there were

some questions asked as to whether or not anyone had a problem with a

400 square foot sign, and there was no response in the minutes.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Fourteen

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL - cont.

Mr. McErlane continued later on in the meeting, Ms. Manis suggested that we didn’t have very much detail on it and that we would review it at final plan stage. So it was questionable whether or not this was approved at Planning Commission stage.

Mr. McErlane continued I also looked at the pylon sign that was

approved for Cassinelli Square. it is approximately 240 square feet.

Granted they have two pylon signs, but they are on two different

street frontages. The other comment that hasn’t been discussed was

relative to the Best Buy sign, and I don’t know if it is a signature type thing but it does project above the parapet line on the building and that

is considered a roof sign by our zoning code. That is something that

Planning needs to consider - whether or not they will allow that. And

again, it has been pretty common practice to allow signs to exceed

the 150 square foot maximum for large tenants as well as at times

permitting them to exceed the total per tenant based on the size of

the tenant and distance from the right of way.

Mr. Syfert said to give the Commission a reference, you gave the

square footage of Cassinelli Square. What height are they? Mr.

McErlane answered they are 40 feet high.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Shvegzda reported the

applicants pretty much addressed all items. There are just a couple

of things to highlight. We suggested that they include the sidewalk

On the driveway from Kemper Road there is quite a bit of pedestrian

traffic on the sidewalk on Kemper. They would cross at the signal

at Commons Drive and Kemper Road. As the plan exists right now,

they would have to use the driveway itself to enter the site. We propose

the sidewalk to go from Kemper Road to the first driveway on Century

Boulevard.

Mr. Shvegzda continued another item is right of way considerations

In its program of upgrading the roadways in the city, the city will reconstruct that section of Century Boulevard on the southern end.

It jogs down and that road will be continued at the same width. What

that will do is you will have a narrow point within the right of way

between the back of the proposed curve and the right of way. What we

are requesting is that the owner dedicate an additional approximate 10

foot width there to maintain a constant right of way width. In conjunc-

tion with this work, we will be vacating a section of the right of way that

is back in the cul de sac area where you turn from Century Circle North

to Century Circle West. It would be a little more area that would be

given to the developer as opposed to the dedicated area. Another

concern was for the improvements being done on Kemper Road by

the driveway. There is a 100 foot lane being constructed in that area.

When it is constructed, the right of way width would be about 10 feet,

so we need additional right of way there for any street signs that would

need to be placed in that area.

Mr. Hynden reported we are amenable to the dedication of the addi-

tional right of way at the request of the engineer.

Mr. Syfert said as far as the vegetation in the southernmost tip, that

doesn’t reflect this? Mr. Hynden answered it doesn’t, but it would not

be impacted by it. Also, we would be amenable to the addition of the

sidewalk per the engineer’s request on the west side of the outlots as

well.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Fifteen

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Ms. Manis commented we are having trouble with the access points

on Century Boulevard. Is there a new one now at the back of the

building on Century Circle? Mr. Shvegzda reported there always

have been three access points out to Century Boulevard. Through

the investigation of the grading, the one furthest to the south, the

access point for loading vehicles and deliveries comes essentially

out to Century Circle North. Ms. Manis said then the covenants need

to be changed, because it says access will be provided at three

points on Century Boulevard.

Mr. Hynden commented we didn’t want to change the covenants to

reflect the plan to say Century Circle for the truck access. We thought

it was better to have the truck access be towards the rear of the center,

toward the industrial part. We removed one and added one.

Mr. Blake said I have been trying to visualize this 40 foot sign up on

this hill. Would that throw that off compared to Tri-County Commons?

Mr. McErlane answered the grade is not as high as it might seem to

be right now. If you look at the grading plan, I don’t believe it climbs

as steeply as it does further down the site. A lot of the grade change

that occurs is within the right of way right now. Due to the elevations on the site, there is approximately a five foot difference between the base of the sign and the pavement at that location.

Mr. Galster stated in the covenants, Item 3 has screening on the roof

of the building and visible from adjacent buildings to the west would be

adequately screened. I think we would like to change that to all sides.

I know the west side is the lower side, but the east side is where the

office buildings are, so if we can change it to all sides.

Mr. Galster continued I had a question in the landscaping as well. On

the proposed change from Wood & Lamping, the owner of each lot

shall maintain and replace as necessary all landscaping and trees in

good condition. Each individual lot is going to be responsible for a

certain number of trees, just inside that lot area? What about the

common parts of the lot, that will be the owner I assume? Mr. Hynden

answered the covenants impact all the property, so the covenants would

be impacting every owner of the shopping center, and include the

shopping center and the outlots. Mr. Galster said on the pole sign, it

states that it is steel tubes for the main structure of the sign. Would

that be an architectural type panel, or will it just be a steel frame? Mr.

Hynden answered that is an architectural feature that matches the

facade of the of the building itself.

Mr. Galster said I was looking at the front elevation, and it seems like we

have almost four different looks to the front of the mall. I don’t know what anybody else thinks but I wonder if it doesn’t get too confusing.

Mr. Hynden said this center is unique. Instead of having a shopping center with a lot of small tenants, we have what is equivalent to three to four Marshalls coming together. What we have tried to do is allow each tenant a sign similar in relationship to square footage. Marshalls for example has over 400 square feet in signage and it is a 35,000 square foot tenant. Best Buy in this situation is about 58,000 square feet which is about 60% larger than the Marshalls and we are asking for 375 square feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Sixteen

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. Hynden continued In proportion to the center across the street, it is similar in setback to Kemper Road, and the stores are similar in size to the larger stores such as Sam’s, Marshalls and Wal-Mart. Those size signs may sound very large if it was very close to the road, but being 600 feet back from Kemper Road, you can see from the facade that those signs look very much in proportion to the shopping center. We do not have a myriad of signs along the whole facade. It is basically three anchor tenants, no B shops that you might see in the shopping center across the street or at Cassinelli Square.

Mr. Syfert commented Mr. McErlane pointed out that the Best Buy is

technically a roof sign. Can something be done to shape that up? Mr.

Hynden responded we would be willing if we can get the size that is

required to bring that within the code to make it so it is not necessarily

extending above the parapet. That is their signature; they try to insist

upon that with all the jurisdictions that they deal with, but I feel we can

deal with that if we can get the majority of the size issue dealt with.

Ms. Manis stated my feeling on the sign is because you have such large

anchors, they are more noticeable from the street whereas at Wal-Mart

since they are a lot smaller people, they have to have their names on a

big sign. Mr. Hynden responded the sign like Marshalls is 435 square

feet for 35,000 square feet. It is set back approximately equivalent to

what we are here. All of these tenants deal with jurisdictions, and in

situations where they are back as far as they are, it is not uncommon. In

fact, in certain jurisdictions where signage is incredibly restricted, it

almost looks out of proportion architecturally if all you have is four signs

along the frontage of the stores that you have. I really think what is

critical to look at is if it is in proportion to the actual size of the linear

frontage of the center. Ms. Manis commented I look at how it looks from

the street. Mr. Hynden said that is true; basically it is farther back than

Sam’s and almost as far back as the Marshalls is. One of the members

asked why we did not bring this forward at the Planning Commission

level. We addressed the sign facade at the staff meetings and were advised that the time to bring it in is at the final development plan

level. With regard to the pylon sign, I feel like the Commission feels that

we are trying to pull something here, and frankly, we really tried to bring

to you today a plan that conforms exactly to what we thought was

approved in previous meetings. If we misunderstood that, I apologize,

but we certainly didn’t come here expecting the opposition we are

getting, especially in light of the fact that the sign is almost identical to

the Wal-Mart sign and meets the square footage that is shown on the

preliminary development plan. Ms. Manis responded I don’t feel like

you are trying to pull something, but I don’t like the way you said that

we already approved this sign, and we did not. Mr. Hynden answered

you did not approve the sign, but we asked our sign company to design

a sign that conforms with what we thought was approved at the Planning

Commission meeting. Actually what we showed at the previous

Planning Commission meeting was 400 square feet, not to exceed 30

feet in height. When we did an analysis of that, a 30-foot high sign that

was 400 square feet was actually too obtrusive because it was very very

wide, almost like a billboard. We felt that in talking with the staff about

how high the sign was across the street, we tried to become more in

conformance with the other signs in this same area. In fact, at the

earlier Planning Commission meeting, 30 feet high was as high as we

we were allowed to go, but the caveat was made that it was 400 square

feet . That became much too high, and we felt this was more tasteful.

In addition, the sign is not on top of the hill.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Seventeen

VII B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. Hynden continued it is on the west end of the site and is at the lowest portion of the site, and in fact could be located slightly further to the west if Planning felt that would be a better option. He showed where

the pylon sign would be. It is the lowest elevation in the center, almost

directly across the street from the Wal-Mart sign. I do not believe it

would stick out like a sore thumb or be obtrusive in any way. We

would be more than happy to move it down if you wish.

Mr. Tiffany said on the landscaping plan, the property to the south that

is not shown with the access road that is going out onto Century Circle,

if we go straight out the access road, your property ends there and you

are on easement from that point on, is that correct? Mr. Hynden

answered this is a public street right here, Century Circle. We are being

required under the covenants to extend the access drive to what will

be the improved Century Circle. The City of Springdale is in the process

of redoing that road and we have to extend our drive out to meet the

newly created curb line of that circle. Mr. Tiffany commented propor-

tionately it looked a little different here than what you had there, but now

I see what you are talking about.

Mr. Tiffany continued on the sign issue, you made the statement that you

were not trying to pull anything, and you apologized, and I do not feel

that there is any apology needed. I don’t know if it was miscommuni-

cation or what, but obviously we have some difference here, and I think

we need to work from that point forward and find some direction as to

where this needs to go. Fifty feet is not sufficient for a pole sign and

personally I feel 400 feet is in excess. There has to be some middle

ground obviously.

Mr. Tiffany stated as far as the location of the sign, I know you are

putting it at the lowest point, but it is still on top of the hill as you are

coming towards the plaza from the west to the east it still sets on top

of the hill. What is the grade difference from one end of the lot to the

other, finished? I can’t read it on my copy. Mr. Hynden answered

we are approximately 704 feet at the location of the pylon sign, and

the road in front and as we go up towards Century Boulevard,

Century Boulevard at the top is 716 feet. It is approximately the

same elevation as the Wal-Mart sign across the street at the

very lowest point, and as you go up the hill, all along the outlots

you are increasing in grade and our lot goes up from there. So our

site falls from east to west in la length of 700 feet. Mr. Tiffany

commented a 12 foot rise over 700 feet is pretty gradual. I do not

see a big difference as to moving the sign to give it the appearance

of being lower. I appreciate it, because it does line up better with

the project across the street; I would think it would be beneficial for

you at that point.

Mr. Hynden commented today that lot sets up much higher than it

will be post-grading. Today it is a huge hill and the extreme eastern

portion of the property at Century Boulevard will be cut down to the

extreme and will fall back toward the southwest. In essence, the

grade at the Wal-Mart is approximately 700 to 702 feet. When you

come into our drive on the west side, you will drive back virtually

level.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Eighteen

VII B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. Tiffany continued where can we go with this tonight? It will have

no effect on how I vote on this, but to downsize these signs, to change

the Best Buy sign on the front of the building, to change the square

footage of the signs - will this adversely affect your proposed tenants and

the agreements you have made with them? Is it something you can

come to a decision on tonight, or do we need to go back for more

discussion?

Mr. Hynden answered I feel Planning Commission has extreme latitude

with the pylon sign, given that the initial pylon sign was shown at

400 square feet and 30 feet high, and given the fact that we have given the preliminary plan as approved by City Council to our tenants in

reliance with those parameters. Mr. Tiffany interjected you also have

to understand and it is in the Minutes that we stated that we need

further detail on that sign before we can approve it. Mr. Hynden

responded I am not proposing that the pylon sign as submitted has

been approved. Mr. Tiffany said that is what you took to your proposed

tenants. Mr. Hynden answered right, and what we submitted today was

something different than that. It is the same square footage as what we

had believed to have been approved, but it is higher. I think there is

some latitude with regard to the pylon sign. With regard to the tenant

identification sign, I feel we are wholly within the scope and general

parameters that has been generally approved for centers of this nature

with tenants of this size, because they all will be 25,000 square feet and

larger, they all set back 600 square feet and they all are very tastefully

done with individual letters. If you are asking if you reduce that to 150

square feet would that impact the project, the answer is yes.

Mr. Tiffany commented the code is not going to work here; that is why

it is a PUD. That gives us some lateral motion in which we can go with

this, but personally at 30 feet in height and 400 square feet on the pylon

sign, I’m not going t o approve it personally. The square footage on the

front of the buildings rubs me the wrong way. I’m not going to go for

that either, personally. Where can we go from here? I don’t want to

waste your time tonight if not necessary. If this is not something we can

rectify and you have to go back to have further discussion...I don’t want

to change your whole project, and I don’t want to delay this. You have

a schedule you want to stay on I’m sure, and I would like to see you get

in here as quickly as possible.

Mr. Syfert commented I want to clarify; I believe you just said 30 feet

high and 400 square feet you couldn’t go for? Mr. Tiffany responded

correct. He made the statement that the original proposal was for

30 feet in height and 400 square feet in size and what they brought

in tonight was 45 feet in height and still the 400 square feet and that

was the difference. What I am stating is regardless of the height, I’m

not for eight times the allowable size on this site.

Mr. Syfert said what size sign are we talking about? Mr. Hynden

answered the height we have shown in the package you have is 45

feet high and 400 square feet.

Mr. Hynden said I want to have the ultimate flexibility in dealing with

the Commission, so with regard to the pylon sign, if we could have a

pylon sign similar in design to that proposed, not to exceed 30 feet

high, that restricts our square footage by code, because I believe we

cannot start a panel until we are eight to 10 feet above grade.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Nineteen

VII B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL - cont.

Mr. McErlane reported within the definition of a pole sign, it specifically

indicates that it is to be 10 feet, but the purpose of that is to be able

to have sight distances, and we could refer to the city engineer as to

whether or not that is a problem in this specific location. I think we

have allowed less than that in the past on other projects based on

sight distance issues.

Mr. Hynden commented that dimension is what is driving the height

of the sign. Mr. Tiffany stated it still doesn’t help us out in terms of

numbers. Mr. Hynden added at this stage, if it would be amenable to

the Commission, I would agree that we maintain that eight foot minimum

height and the 30 foot high requirement today, and if we can come up

with another design, we can bring in a potential variance down the road.

That would at least establish a minimum size sign. We would be

restricted to that size sign at this point in time and could move forward

with the project.

Mr. Tiffany commented so the width is 12’9" and we are down to 280

square feet. We have to consider the tubing on the outside? Mr.

McErlane said no, just the panel. Mr. Tiffany said just the panel on

the width, but the decorative on the height. Mr. McErlane reported for

the height, you go to the top of the sign, and in terms of area, you go

by the panel. Mr. Hynden added and that is essentially half the signage

that Cassinelli Square has, and we are farther back. I would like the

Commission to understand that we had understood coming into this

meeting that we had this sign approved, so this is hitting us a little bit

broadside. Mr. Tiffany responded again, I can appreciate your position

here and I want to make sure that we can either resolve this tonight or

move in a direction where we can get it resolved.

Mr. Hynden commented the design of the sign is intended to tie into the

design of the center. I understand the Commission’s position with

regard to the overall height, and I think we can live with that compromise

and at least be moving forward.

Mr. Tiffany stated I personally do not have a problem with the looks of the

sign. It is an attractive piece. The square footage and height were my

problems. As far as the monument sign, can we get down on the

height?

Mr. Hynden responded we have found conflicting sections of the code

regarding the monument sign. We found one section of the code that

said 12 feet high; that may be a misunderstanding. We are happy if

we get the square footage we have to lower that to seven feet; that is

not a problem. Whatever the code requires.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were a stipulation in terms of the width of the

monument sign. Mr. McErlane responded only the total square footage

and height. Mr. Tiffany continued so if you had to widen the panels a

little bit to get that square footage, you are okay. Mr. Hynden stated

we are amenable to that as well.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if the ground sign was okay in terms of

square footage. Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany continued as

an individual, but not as the total package, with the entire project,

correct?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. McErlane reported at this point I don’t think there are any

definite plans for what signs will be required for the other tenants.

So now we are not over in terms of total signage but it is pretty

obvious that we will be.

Mr. Hynden stated I would like to make another compromise.

With regards to signage for the center itself, we don’t anticipate

more than four tenants. Best Buy signage is 375 square feet,

which is 65 square feet less than the Marshalls across the street,

and Marshalls has only half the square footage. If we could have

each tenant limited to 375 square feet, I would think we would have

made a significant concession vis a vis a competitive advantage for

the other tenants across the street. One of the issues we deal with

on a constant basis is we are dealing with direct competitors, and

sometimes similar lines of goods in other centers. It is healthy for

the market, but to have one significantly less than another immediately

adjacent seems to me to be unfair. Three hundred seventy-five feet

for Best Buy, which is almost 60,000 square feet. Sam’s, which is

115,000 square feet is 969 square feet, and it is immediately across

the street. I would propose that each tenant have a limitation of 375

square feet or a maximum of four signs.

Mr. Hynden continued what we propose in terms of allowable signage

versus shown signage is approximately equivalent in ratio to that across

the street. I’m suggesting that we reduce it significantly across the

board for the frontage signs, so there are four total frontage signs of

375 square feet. We would still show the signage on the side of the

building of no greater than 150 square feet, and we would agree to

lower the Best Buy sign so it does not go above the parapet and there

would be no need for a variance with regard to a roof sign situation.

Mr. Tiffany said to Mr. McErlane in your review, under 7, the permitted

total signage for 150,000 square foot building is 190 square feet. Is

that inclusive of the signage on the ground sign, pylon sign front of

the building and side of the building, correct? Mr. McErlane responded

that is total. Mr. Tiffany continued and you are proposing an additional

150 square feet on the side of the building?

Mr. McErlane reported the total shown for Best Buy is 640 square feet

as it exists on the plan currently. As it stands, there is 375 on the front,

150 on the side, 100 square feet on the pylon sign and 25 feet on the

ground sign. Each tenant is slated for 100 square feet on the pylon sign. Mr. Hynden added prior to the compromise we discussed here.

Mr. Tiffany continued on your notes, the pylon sign, ground sign and Best Buy building signs total 1,015; is that Best Buy only? Mr.

McErlane reported I was trying to total up what we knew as far as

signage currently. Although there are things shown for tenants, I

don’t think they are specifically the signs you want to put up there.

Mr. Tiffany asked if that included 400 feet for the pylon, 100 for the

ground sign and 640 for the building, front and side. So he is

proposing 375 square feet for the three additional tenants, and if we

accept and reduce the pylon sign to 280.5 square feet, we come up to 2,020.5 square feet of total signage, which is almost double what they are allowed by code. I bring this up because he is proposing we go

375 square feet for each of these additional tenants. Proportionately

it may be correct with what is there for Best Buy.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-One

VI B ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL - cont.

Mr. Hynden commented I think it is misleading to take the retail code

sign requirements and add the pylon sign as a component for the

total vis a vis the center across the street. The center across the

street has 4,000 square feet of signage.

Mr. Tiffany responded I understand your position and again, we

consider PUDs on an individual basis. If it wasn’t a PUD we would

go by the code, and we wouldn’t have any mobility to go any direction

with this and you would have to get variances. I am bringing up the

total; we have a number we are working with and that is the easiest

way to do this, to figure out where we are and work from there.

Mr. Hynden added if we could break it down into components, it is

easier for me to understand as well. What I proposed was 375 square

feet per tenant, which is a total of 1500 square feet for the side of the

center facing to the north. So that is 1500 square feet for our frontage

along Kemper, vis a vis 3500 square feet across the street facing

Kemper. In addition to that, we are asking for what is already allowed in the code, which is 150 square feet facing to the west, plus the signs as

we have discussed, which is 100 square feet for a ground sign and the

reduced 282 square feet for the pylon sign.

Mr. Tiffany responded please understand that if you were coming in

and saying we are putting up this building and are putting up 150

square feet on the side of this, and it is the only sign, then the argument

that 150 square feet is allowed by code would wash with me. We are

talking about a total package, and that is why I keep coming back to

2,020 feet. We have to look at it individually and what works from the

road; I understand that. Mr. Hynden added how it relates to the size of

the site. What we are showing on the facade in front of you is 400

square feet per tenant plus the Best Buy. The signs you see in front of

you would be reduced by 25 square feet per tenant.

Mr. Tiffany said as you have said, the building sets back 600 square feet, so we do need some larger signs on the building. Wouldn’t it make sense to use the numbers that are available on the front of the building

and downsize the pylon sign? We need the exposure on Kemper Road

also. It’s a Catch-22.

Mr. Hynden said it is, and we are trying to keep it in the character of what

already exists in the city without hurting the competitive advantage of our

tenants. With Marshalls at 35,000 square feet having almost 500

square feet across the street, it’s hard for me to go to a tenant who has

a net worth three times the size of Marshalls and 10 times as many

stores and is twice as large to say Springdale Planning Commission felt

we should have only 375 square feet versus their 460 square feet. But

that is something I am willing to do because I feel like it is a concern and

it is one that has been very adequately stated and we are very sensitive

to it. All the issues that this Commission has brought up to date I feel

have been addressed and we have tried to comply with every request

that has been made. This situation is one where we are truly at a

competitive disadvantage if our signage for our 60,0000 square foot

tenant is at this stage almost one-third of the Sam’s sign. Personally

I don’t understand the difference, when Sam’s sets closer to the road.

It is straight across the street and was approved by this Commission last

year.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-Two

VI B. ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL - cont.

Ms. Manis asked how big the other tenants will be. Mr. Hynden

answered what we are showing on the plan is 58,000 square feet

for the extreme western tenant. The plan shows 35,000 to 40,000

square feet for the center tenant and about 58,000 to 60,000 square

feet for the end tenant. The tenants that go from Best Buy towards

the east have not yet been designated, and that is why we feel that

the flexibility should be there to be able to deal with the three or four

tenants. We have shown the maximum situation on the facade that

is before you. Ms. Manis continued because I think you are hurting

yourself with this signage proposal. Here you have your 600,000

square foot tenant with 375 square feet and you’re going to give your

other tenants the same amount of signage as your large tenant. Mr.

Hynden responded I am not saying we are necessarily going to give

them exactly the same square footage, but I feel in order to move

forward in good faith in negotiating with those tenants, we need to have

the flexibility in dealing with them. Even if a tenant is 35,000 or 40,000

square feet, as Marshalls is and has 450 square feet of signage, it

doesn’t look good architecturally to take one and shrink it to half the

size just because it happens to be slightly smaller than the other. These

are all the same distance back from Kemper Road, and we hope this

will be a cohesive look when it is complete. The total project is

150,000 square feet.

Mr. Wilson commented I have a couple of concerns. Your tenants knew

when they were contracted that they would have a competitor across the

street. I have a problem with the new kid on the block wanting the

biggest toy, or in this case the biggest sign. If we used that analogy, if

there is another development, they’ll want a bigger sign than you. When

you talk about a competitive edge, as a businessman I can appreciate

that, but what we are looking at here is every new kid on the block wants

a bigger sign. If there is a problem with the signage as it is, maybe they

need to move someplace else; maybe they need their business some-

place else where they are less competitive. I don’t want you to say

because this person has a 10 foot sign in order for me to be competitive

I have to have a 20 foot sign and I feel it is justified because of the

competitiveness. And as Mr. Tiffany stated again and again, it is a

PUD, so there is a flexibility there. I would like to work with you. I

encourage new businesses; I like the competition but we do not want

to be another Colerain Avenue, and we have a concern about that.

Planning is here to set some kind of conformity. I’m in agreement with

Mr. Tiffany that we should have some flexibility but I have a concern with

the idea that if this person did it, I should have the same flexibility. I

understand that you are proposing something half the size of what is

across the street, but again we are comparing two different things.

There is flexibility, but there has to be some justification for what we are

doing. We take it on a case by case basis. You keep bringing up

Sam’s and Wal-Mart; that is a dead issue. I’m concerned about what

we can do to help you and to help your businesses be successful and

stay within the guidelines and constraints that we have, so let’s work

with that and not keep bringing up what someone else did.

Mr. Hynden responded maybe there is a misunderstanding there,

because what I hear you saying is we want a bigger sign than what

was allowed any particular tenant across the street. All I am saying

is with the compromise position I proposed, with 375 square feet per

tenant, we are in fact compromising and requesting this Commission

grant to us signage which is in fact less on a per square foot basis

than anyone across the street.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-Three

VI B. ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont.

Mr. Wilson said let’s not even deal with across the street. Mr.

Hynden responded it’s not an issue, but I am concerned because

you said we are the new kid on the block and we want a bigger and

better sign. In fact, we aren’t even asking for the same sign; we are

requesting only that we have a sign that is in proportion and less

than what has been granted in similar situations in Springdale. I

don’t mean to drag that out, but it seems to me that there was some

misunderstanding that we are asking for something greater than

anybody else; I don’t believe that is the case.

Mr. Syfert said we are saying the same thing over and over. I believe

the Commission has to keep in mind that (1) this is a PUD and I don’t

think this sign issue is a new one; we knew it would be coming down

the block. We have a good benchmark across the street to at least work with. You keep saying don’t even talk about it, but I think we have to.

We have a PUD across the street and a PUD here, so I think we have

to give that a certain amount of credence. I think the applicant at this

point has tried to work with us more than we are on this issue, and I

think we should take a 10-minute recess and come back and approach

it.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at

9:40 P.M.

Mr. Blake stated on your statement before our recess, I think the

applicant has a lot of legitimacy with comparisons are being made, and

I think they have the right to make that comparison. I am also pleased

with the fact that the gentleman stood and said let’s compromise, and I

feel bad because we have not tried to horn in on the compromise.

It goes two ways, and I would like for us to wrap this up so we can move

on. We have spent almost 40 minutes talking about signage. Let’s see

if we can agree with this compromise, because I think it is a good one.

Mr. Tiffany commented personally if we go on the pylon sign with 30 feet

in height and a total square footage of 280 square feet, I do not have a

problem with it. If we meet the height requirement on the ground sign,

and maintain your 100 square feet, I do not have a problem with it. As

far as the signage on the front and side of the building, he is asking for

375 square feet per additional tenant (four) or a total of 2,020 square

feet. In relation to other projects in the area and other PUDs that have

come through here, I would like to throw out the number of 1800 square

feet. That would give him for his other two larger tenants approximately

375 feet apiece. I don’t know if that is acceptable to you, but that is

where I would like to see it go. I think that is a very good compromise

for everybody. It gives you considerably more than what the code

allows, and it is an attractive package for you from the street.

Mr. Hynden asked for clarification of the 1800 square foot calculation.

Mr. Tiffany responded it is total square footage for all signs. Mr. Hynden

continued is that then with the maximum we agreed to on the pylon

and the maximum as shown on the ground sign and the balance with

the 375 square feet per tenant. Mr. Tiffany said I would agree with that,

for a project total of 1800 square feet. Mr. Hynden added excluding the

outparcels, and Mr. Tiffany confirmed this, adding those would be

considered individually at a later time.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-Four

VI B. ANCHOR ASSOCIATES REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL - continued

Mr. Tiffany continued again, we are saying the pylon sign would be a total of 280 square feet, 30 feet height and 12’ 9" width. You have 100 feet on your ground sign, not to exceed seven feet in height and the balance addling up to 1800 square feet on the front of the building, with no one tenant to exceed 375 square feet on the front of the building.

Mr. Hynden responded in the interest of compromise and trying to get

the matter resolved, we would be amenable to that. Mr. Syfert said can you work with that; are you comfortable with that? Mr. Hynden answered

to the extent that if I run into difficulty with a tenant, you’ll see me back

here. But at this point of time, I think we can move forward on that

basis.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else has a problem with that figure?

Mr. Sullivan stated I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, but I want

one more clarification. Are we going to take care of the Best Buy sign as

far as extending it beyond the parapet? Mr. Hynden confirmed that they

were.

Mr. Syfert reported the covenants take care of a lot of the things. The

lighting on Century Boulevard is covered in there. Mr. Shvegzda said

he had no problem with any of the covenants. We might have to dress

them up a little bit with the agreement to the additional sidewalk. Other than that, are there any other major issues?

Mr. Tiffany said Ms. McBride had stated that with the ADA restrictions

for the parking, that you had added two additional spaces. He has

15 as necessary, and you are showing 12. Mr. Hynden reported we

will add the spaces necessary to comply with the ADA requirements.

We have far more than what is required by code.

Mr. Galster asked Mr. McErlane if he was satisfied with the landscaping

as far as moving some of the trees up to the front corner? Have you seen the layout? Mr. McErlane responded no, all we have received and what they commented on tonight was they would increase it to approximately 40 foot spacing on street trees.

Mr. Galster moved to approve based on the conversations we have had

tonight, including (1) modifying all the signs as discussed; (2) moving

the pole sign as far west as possible; (3) modify covenants as we have

discussed; (4) subject to the approval of Mr. McErlane of a revised

landscape plan; (5) modification of the handicap spaces; (6) storm water

discharge permit to be filed (7) screening around the compactor; (7)

protection of existing trees; (8) parking blocks on the east side at Century Boulevard; and (9) sign being lowered below the parapet.

Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Blake, Ms. Manis, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

C. Oil Express 165 West Kemper Road requests final plan approval for

new building

Bill Craig, Architect stated we received approval on the Car-X site, and

received conditional approval on the oil lube shop. We now have

construction documents on the oil lube shop, and are submitting a

request for final approval.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-Five

VI C OIL EXPRESS 165 WEST KEMPER REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont

Mr. Craig continued I have construction drawings showing the site

fully developed, and I think you have copies of that. For clarity I left

this like it is to show these two buildings.

The building will be vertical groove with concrete block, the same as

the Car-X, except a different color. Car-X will be dark brown, and this

will be more beige with a glass tower there. He showed the elevation

as drawn.

Mr. Craig stated the only comment Mr. Shvegzda had was about our

decreasing the width of the entrance from 33 feet to 25 feet . One

parking lot light is not shown that we showed before. None of this was

developed. We had paving to this point here, and now we will have

paving all the way around.

Mr. Craig showed the site plan, and the entrance which is 25 feet wide.

The landscaping is in front and the pylon sign is here. We have 42

total parking spaces, three more than required. Dumpsters are here

and here. I think we have conformed to all requirements, and we would

be glad to answer questions.

Ms. Manis asked how big is the pole sign? Mr. Craig answered it is

their standard pole sign, which is eight feet across and four feet high.

Mr. McErlane said per the code, you are only allowed one pole sign

per property, and there already is one approved for the Car-X.

Mr. Craig said we have a current pole sign, and we can add this

property below that as part of that sign. Mr. McErlane said combine

the two in one sign? That would be no problem, except you still

have a limitation of 50 square feet total for the sign. I can’t recall the

size of the sign you have was; it wasn’t a large one. Mr. Craig said

it is about 50 square feet. In view of their being two signs, you could

not allow us to increase that somewhat? Mr. McErlane responded no,

the basic requirement is 50 square feet total for pole sign. Anything

beyond that would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The code does permit a pole sign and a ground sign to be placed, so

you might want to look at that alternative. The ground sign maximum is

seven feet high and 100 square feet. Mr. Craig asked if they could

submit that later, and Mr. McErlane answered yes, as long as Planning

Commission does not have a problem with it. It is not uncommon for

Planning Commission to review signs separate from development plans.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda for his comments in addition to his written report. Mr. Shvegzda reported that was just in regards to the

revision of the driveway width from the previously approved Car-X site

plan. Also there was a discrepancy between the originally submitted

photometric and what it showed as far as parking lot lights, and what

is shown on the current drawing. It was indicated that this is being

revised.

Mr. Craig asked which light. Mr. Shvegzda showed him, and Mr. Craig

commented we will probably want to put another light there where you

are talking about to keep up to a .5 foot-candle. Mr. Shvegzda said so what you are saying is that the new lighting arrangement is being

developed right now; it has not been finalized.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-Six

VI C OIL EXPRESS 165 WEST KEMPER REQUESTS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL-cont

Mr. Syfert asked if he had any problem with the drive being reduced?

Mr. Shvegzda answered it is at 25’ and that is sufficient, certainly for

two lanes.

Mr. Tiffany said in light of all these objections, I would make a motion

to approve pending a photometric plan acceptable to the city engineer

and a approved sign plan. Mr. Blake seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson commented my question was the effect of the lighting on the surrounding residential area, the condos and apartments and across

the street with the single family residences, but when you come with

your lighting plan, we can address that question.

On the motion to approve, voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Blake,

Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert.

Approval was granted subject to revised sign and photometric with

seven affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane about the memo from Cecil Osborn

regarding recreational vehicles in the front yards. Has this gone

anywhere yet? Mr. McErlane reported he recommended that Bill

Syfert and he and I sit down and try to hash out what the problems are

and where they need to go. Based on the amount of discussion that

occurred that generated the ordinance in the first place, he is hesitant

to make arbitrary changes.

Mr. Blake commented I want to put this as delicately as possible, and I

don’t know how the Commission looks at this. Maybe we need to get

some rules, but I wonder if we could somehow work at limiting our

questions. I’ll be frank; we sit and wait and everybody has questions,

and we have one member take up 30 minutes. That’s a long time.

Maybe we need to look at a 10-minute question period for each member

so it gives everybody a chance.

Mr. Syfert commented I think Mr. Tiffany had some good points; I’m sure

that’s who you are talking about. It is a good point.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. McErlane how the question of recreational vehicle

parking was resurrected. The last time we had discussion was in the

‘80’s and I thought everything was resolved; now we get a letter in 1995.

Mr. McErlane reported the Board of Zoning Appeals chairman brought it

up relative to the way we were enforcing rv’s parked in the front yard. Mr.

Wilson said he brought it up as something we should review again.

Mr. Tiffany added Ralph and I had some discussion about it; on his

street there are people with single width driveway, and the code states

that you have to have a double width driveway plus room for two addi-

tional cars to be parked in the driveway in order to store an rv in the

front drive. Mr. Wilson asked what we mean when we speak of rvs. Mr. Tiffany responded boats, motor homes, campers. Mr. Tiffany added there are limitations in size, as to total length. There are people that store their boats in the front drive, and they set there continuously and don’t look very good and they park on the street as a result of this. The

concern was it hasn’t been enforced and he wanted to see it enforced

and if it is not enforceable, he wanted it changed.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 January 1995

Page Twenty-Seven

VII. DISCUSSION - PARKING OF RVs IN FRONT YARD - continued

Mr. Syfert reported we intend to have some sort of a discussion on

it, and perhaps it might be important to have Mr. Nadaud in on it.

Mr. Tiffany commented that’s a good idea, because he will be the one

that will see the people coming in for variances on it.

Mr. McErlane stated Mr. Nadaud’s point was he didn’t like to see them

in the front yards at all and his recommendation to Planning Commission

was to not permit them to be parked in the front yard.

Mr. Blake reported being the Planning Commission representative on

Board of Zoning Appeals, it did come up at our last meeting, and there

were some concerns expressed, that there were those strictly ignoring

it and they are storing them year round. The ordinance as stated now

would not be evenly enforced, and the issue should be across the board.

I felt the same way being an RV owner. We have to pay storage so we

can comply with the law and others disregard it.

Mr. McErlane added there are two different issues involved in this.

One is providing for additional parking spaces, and the other is as in

Mr. Blake’s case where it is too long of an RV to begin with, then he can

only have it there for 72 hours while he services and loads it up. He

can’t store it anywhere on the lot, much less in the front yard. In the

cases that we are talking about, as a matter of policy which doesn’t

comply with the code we allow it on a double wide driveway, where in

most cases it doesn’t meet the requirement for two parking spaces.

Mr. Tiffany commented when you talk about The Terrace, there may

be 15 or 20 houses that have double wide driveways; they are pretty

much singles.

Mr. Sullivan said regarding Reverend Blake’s comment about restricting

the amount of time taken by an individual in discussion, from my stand-

point being a relatively patient person and also a newcomer to the

Commission, sometimes it helps when someone who has been on the

Commission for a while and has BZA experience on top of that to start

asking questions that can stimulate others on the Board to think about

things they might not ordinarily have thought of. I think restricting the

time limit on individual questions is probably something that is not

appropriate for us. Mr. Syfert commented that is a good point. Ms.

Manis added maybe we could just be more considerate of others.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be here at the next meeting,

February 14th. Everyone plans to be here.

Planning Commission adjourned at 10:10 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________1995 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

____________________1995 ________________________

Steve Galster, Secretary