PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
8 APRIL 2008
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Tony Butrum.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Richard Bauer, Tony Butrum, David Okum, Carolyn Ghantous, Lawrence
Hawkins III, and Tom Vanover
Members Absent: Steve Galster
Others Present: Don Shvegzda, City Engineer, Ann McBride, City Planner, and
Bill McErlane, Building Official
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 11 MARCH 2008
Chairman Butrum moved to adopt the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting from11
March 2008. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion; all present voted aye, and the Minutes were
adopted.
IV. REPORT ON COUNCIL
Mr. Vanover: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The updates on the ordinances; new definitions,
building code, that was passed. The new rental program all the legislation was passed. And
that is pretty much it.
Chairman Butrum: Thank you, Mr. Vanover.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Zoning Bulletin – March 10, 2008
b. Zoning Bulletin – March 25, 2008
c. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – 10 February 2008
VI. OLD BUSINESS
(Mr. Chairman stated no old business to report.)
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. APPROVAL OF FAÇADE RENOVATIONS FOR GUITAR CENTER, 644 KEMPER COMMONS CIRCLE
Justin Gene from with K-4 Architecture representing Pat McKewen with Kimko. What is
proposed is a 15,000 s.f. renovation to an existing tenant space in the Kemper Commons.
Mr. Gene described the site plan inside the Kemper Commons Development: The plan will
basically be affecting the front and the rear exterior of the building. The rendering of
the front of the tenant space, it is bound on the left side by another tenant and on the
right side by HHGregg. What we are proposing to do on the front is to extend the parapet,
adding a curved element at the top. The only other major elements that we are changing are
these two columns; we are going to remove those and put two non-structural round columns
in. The color scheme will basically match what is existing in the center. The only
different color would be the columns in this stamped grey (shown on a color board). The
other colors are beige to cream, very similar to what is existing on HH Gregg.
Mr. Gene showed the Planning Commission a site plan/floor plan, showing the 15,000 s.f.
space. The only changes to the rear would be the loading dock, a stair in the corner and
the dumpster enclosure.
Chairman Butrum requested the staff comments.
APPROVAL OF FAÇADE RENOVATIONS FOR GUITAR CENTER, 644 KEMPER COMMONS CIRCLE (CONTINUED)
Mr. McErlane: The property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is part of the
Tri-County Commons PUD. The applicant is requesting approval to renovate the façade for a
proposed tenant and some changes in the rear of the building.
The renovation will include constructing a higher curved parapet at the center of the
storefront, modifying the sidewalk and pavement in front of the store and constructing a
dock on the rear of the store. The proposed parapet will be 39’-8” at its
highest point which is approximately 18” lower than the HHGregg existing parapet.
No sign information was submitted.
Ms. McBride: We talked what the changes are going to be to the façade; personally I think
it is going to be an improvement giving it that arched look. As Bill mentioned we
didn’t get any details on the sign. Their first submittal shown on the color board
that was sent in has their logo sign. But because we did not get the details of that we
can’t recommend approval of that this evening and the applicant understands that.
When staff went out to look at the site and if some of you had the opportunity to do the
same, when you went in the parking lot, if you could have found a parking space out there
– good luck because they are worn away. We pointed that out in our initial report to
the applicant and they have agreed, I guess Kimco has agreed to re-stripe those spaces
that are in front of the Guitar Center. Similarly, there is a situation in the rear where
the spaces are basically non existent and they have agreed to re-stripe those spaces. In
doing so they are going to enclose the waste enclosure that needs to be in compliance with
our Zoning Code. And the details that they provide to date do indicate that. So those are
really the only comments we have. It is going to mean the loss of about six parking
spaces, but there is plenty of parking at that center as the Commission knows,
particularly to the rear.
Mr. Shvegzda: Just a few items in the rear loading dock area; we just need some additional
information in regards to some of the modifications to the drainage that is taking place
back there including the trench drain that is being added to the proposed loading dock
area. In that loading dock area there is a gas main and three water service lines that run
in that vicinity and they need to verify what effect on those particular utilities will
take place as a part of construction of the loading dock. There is a light in that area,
it is fairly close to where the path the trucks will access the loading dock; the
suggestion would be to add pipe protection to that vicinity to protect the light.
Regarding the front entryway, because of the modification to the front entrance, in order
to provide the ramp to the driveway area, in front there is an asphalt ramp that is being
constructed; we just need additional information to verify in what distance that
transition is coming up to and going back down just so we can make sure that is reasonable
in drivability. So far as materials for that, currently they just generically noted it as
asphalt. We need the ODOT designation of particular materials that comprise the ramp. And
the only other thing was just some clarification as to during the construction of that
area, what features will be utilized to route traffic around that particular area; w hat
constraints, barricades or time periods where the construction is going to be.
Chairman Butrum opened the floor for comments and/or questions.
Mr. Okum: I just had one question, what is the purpose of the repaving and the change in
slope across the roadway?
Mr. Gene: The existing sidewalk area in front of the Guitar Center is 12” below the
existing floor level inside the space so to make for a better transition they are going to
raise the sidewalk in front of the space 6” and then ramp up interior 6”. So we
are raising up the sidewalk in front of the Guitar Center 6’.
Mr. Okum: Does that change your floor level, as well, inside?
Mr. Gene: No. That will remain where it is.
Mr. McErlane: The space that is being utilized used to part of the HomePlace space before
HH Gregg took that space. HH Gregg did not take the entire space that HomePlace had, that
floor level was at a higher elevation than the adjacent spaces so they APPROVAL OF FAÇADE
RENOVATIONS FOR GUITAR CENTER, 644 KEMPER COMMONS CIRCLE (CONTINUED)
are accommodating that by raising the parking lot to a certain degree and also ramping up
inside.
Mr. Okum: I guess when you are driving across the parking lot you will notice the increase
in height, it will taper?
Mr. McErlane: It is fairly gradual; I don’t know how much you will notice it.
Mr. Okum: It won’t be like a speed hump in the parking lot?
Mr. McErlane: I don’t know what the distance your raising it 6” over a certain
distance; I don’t know what that distance is.
Mr. Gene: We did look at that. I had our engineer look at that. The slope is just over 2%
from the top of pavement and the sidewalk, and the water is made to drain to the catch
basin.
Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like the look of the new façade. It gives you
your own identity yet it still blends in nicely with the rest of the center. What is the
estimated time to do the renovation?
Mr. McKewen: My name is Pat McKewen and I’m with Kimco Realty. We anticipate 60 days
of construction after lease execution. We expect lease execution in the next 5 to 10 days.
Mr. Vanover: I take it that is your transformer pad, is that interior of the leasing
space?
Mr. Gene: Yes. That is an existing interior transformer.
Mr. Vanover: The other one is buried between the two - the neighboring tenant which is
probably a good place for it.
Mr. Bauer: I just have one question; as far as the loading dock and the turning radius,
has that been looked at because it looks kind of tight for a delivery truck to that
loading dock?
Mr. Gene: We did look at that and what we did show on the site plan was a 60’ semi
turning radius through here; and that works. That seemed to be the best path of travel
coming through there. It does look tight.
Mr. Bauer: But that is a 60’ truck there that you are depicting?
Mr. Gene: Yes.
Mr. Okum: Is there any issues where the change to the dock area in the back would impact
the approval that we made for the Walmart property; loading area or anything of that
nature?
(Staff responded that there were no issues concerning the approval for the Walmart
property.)
Mr. Okum: The only other thing is I would hate to hold one applicant responsible for
landscaping, are there any landscaping issues in the area specific to this business that
need to be addressed by Kimco?
Ms. McBride: The center overall does not meet our current landscape requirements,
obviously it was developed prior to the new code being adopted. It is a tenant change and
it has not necessarily our policy for what percentage of landscaping; if they were
redeveloping or adding on that would be a different situation but not for simply
re-tenanting. The landscaping that is there does not meet, I do not believe, the approved
PUD landscaping plan.
APPROVAL OF FAÇADE RENOVATIONS FOR GUITAR CENTER, 644 KEMPER COMMONS CIRCLE (CONTINUED)
Chairman Butrum: I would entertain a motion.
Mr. Okum: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that the Guitar Center at 644 Kemper
Commons Circle be approved with the following condition that it shall include all Staff,
City Engineer and City Planner’s recommendation in review and approval, that the
color palette submitted shall be approved excluding the signage that was indicated on the
color palette.
Mr. Vanover: Second the motion.
Mr. Hawkins polled the Planning Commission Members and with a unanimous vote of six
members present the motion was approved.
B. APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE AT PICTORIA TOWER 1, 225 PICTORIA DRIVE
Rusty Myers from Cincinnati Capital Properties came forward to represent MEPT Pictoria,
LLC the owner of Pictoria Towers. I am thrilled to be before you this evening to request
building signage as a result of the significant lease that we have signed at Pictoria
Tower with Prexus Health Partners bringing a new tenant into the City of Springdale. I
believe in everybody’s package you received some elevation and renderings of the
building that identify the signage that we are requesting this evening. I will reference a
drawing included in your packet; on the south side of the building we are requesting two
signs, one for Prexus specifically and it is about
219 s.f. Basically, it is a sign that is about 4’ high and about 43 – almost
44’ long, identified as Prexus Health on the building. I am not sure that you
received specific detail on the sign itself which I do have and I will pass out. The
Prexus sign basically will be affixed to the building over the parapet, so we’re not
going to be drilling into the side of the building. It will be a raceway with individual
letters for Prexus Health. In addition to the Prexus sign we are requesting one additional
sign panel on the south façade of the building toward the west end and then two
additional sign panels, one on the east façade and one on west façade for future
tenants. As you know the Pictoria development is a PUD, so we thought we would bring all
the requested building signage in as one package to you.
Chairman Butrum: I know we have some staff comments; we will start with Mr. McErlane.
Mr. McErlane: Once again zoning on this property is Planned Unit Development, and it is
part of the Northwest Business Center PUD. The applicant is requesting approval for 4 wall
signs at the top of the Pictoria Tower building. Some of you may remember back in 2001
that there were some signs shown on the building at the time the office building was
brought in for approval. At that time there was a lot of discussion about signs, including
free-standing signs. More discussion on the free- standing signs than there were on the
wall signs and that portion of the approval was withheld when the office building was
approved. At a later date the free standing signs came in for approval, Planning
Commission approved those, but there was no package for the building signage and that is
what you have in front of you tonight.
The plans that we were given show the total of 819 square feet, 219 s.f. for the Prexus
Health sign, 200 for each of the other three signs. The plan that you were given tonight
show 175 s.f. for the Prexus Health sign.
Is the 175 what we are proposing tonight?
Ms. Sally Land: It is a total of 219.
Mr. McErlane: The way they have calculated it on this is they have calculated
“Prexus” separate from “Health” and added them all together when we
calculate the entire length times the height. Zoning Code only permits a maximum of an
individual wall sign to be 150 s.f., so obviously any of these are larger than that. The
area permitted for an office building is based on the frontage of the building on a public
street. Within the Zoning
APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE AT PICTORIA
TOWER 1, 225 PICTORIA DRIVE (CONTINUED)
Code it does allow additional frontage if it is a corner lot. This isn’t really a
corner lot,
but it does have two frontages; actually it kind of has three frontages. If we give them
the 40% on the freeway frontage side which is really the side of the building we end up
with 318.24 s.f. and based on what they had presented initially we were looking at a total
of 819 vs. Prior to the submittal tonight we didn’t know if they were going to be
illuminated, didn’t know if they were going to be individual letters and we would
like to have some clarification if the other three signs will be individual letters and
illuminated, as well.
Ms. McBride: The only thing that I would add to that is a lot of times when we look at
sign area, in terms of what percentage of the building façade it is actually going to
occupy, if it is a big box retailer or if it is a very large office tower; we try to give
the Commission some kind of idea, and we are looking at one to two percent of the
elevation of the building. The only other thing that I would point out is that more and
more these kind of office buildings are having their signature tenants names on there and
for these guys to remain competitive I think we really need to allow that.
Mr. McErlane: The sign that was just recently presented is 230.32 s.f., so it is larger
than what was presented previously and that would make the total 830.32 s.f.
Chairman Butrum: It appears visually to look like the drawing that was passed out, only
larger?
Mr. McErlane: The letter size is the same, but the stroke of the letter that causes it to
be, instead of being 43.9 s.f. it is 57.7 s.f. long. It could be more gap or the stroke of
the letters.
Ms. McBride: Bill and I did not know that the 219 s.f. wasn’t the whole “Prexus
Health”, that they were breaking out the “Prexus” and the
“Health”. But how it looks is how it was submitted in your packet, but how they
calculated it was not correct. The only other comment that I forgot to make when I was
addressing the Commission was that as Mr. McErlane indicated we didn’t know what type
of signage this was going to be and we would make the suggestion, and my bet is it is
probably the applicant’s intent that all of these signs be channel cut letters
internally illuminated for consistency.
Mr. Okum: I am very comfortable with this personally; I think it is very important and
just for the record I want to make sure I understand what portion of the building is
Prexus Health taking.
Mr. Myers: We are taking about two-thirds of the eighth floor.
Mr. Okum: So they would be considered a major tenant?
Mr. Myers: They are a major tenant.
Mr. Okum: Can you conform to the individual channel letters?
Mr. Myers: Our intent would be on future signs to have the individual channel letters.
Obviously, we don’t know specifically, if a new tenant comes in and they for some
reason have some different standard. We would obviously be comfortable with you approving
only channel letters in this approval.
Mr. Okum: Sure. They may have a medallion or something that needs to attach to it. As long
as we have a perimeter and a square footage that staff is comfortable with. I guess the
question for staff is, proportionally Ms. McBride is this similar to the proportional
sizes that you are seeing on other developments.
Ms. McBride: Proportionally, maybe a little bit less.
Mr. Vanover: Are you depending upon the weight to hold that sign in place; compression
grip?
APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE AT PICTORIA
TOWER 1, 225 PICTORIA DRIVE (CONTINUED)
Ms. Land: Yes.
Mr. Vanover: With the wind going through there; I will trust my engineers, but that is
kind of amazing that that is all that is holding it in place.
Mr. Bauer: I just have one question, illumination levels, what would they be on that sign?
Ms. Land: We are using energy efficient LED lights.
Mr. Bauer: I think about the residents across the road, that we are not causing any impact
to them.
Ms. Land: No.
Mr. Okum: I would like to make a motion that Pictoria Tower I, PUD modification regarding
building signage be approved to include Staff’s recommendations and comments and also
to allow that the sign’s space total to be 830.32 square feet total.
Mr. Vanover: Second the motion.
Mr. Hawkins polled the Planning Commission Members and with a unanimous vote with six
members present the motion was approved.
VIII. DISCUSSION
There were no items of discussion.
IX. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Chairman Butrum: There were no new signs or any other items, so there will be no
Chairman’s report.
So, with that, I’ll accept a motion for adjournment.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and the Planning Commission adjourned at
7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________,2008 ___________________________________
Chairman Tony Butrum
________________________,2008 ___________________________________
Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION
8 APRIL 2008
PAGE 2