PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 10, 2012
7:00 P.M.


I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Don Darby.


II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Carolyn Ghantous, David Okum, Richard Bauer, Tom Vanover, Robert Diehl, Marge Boice, and Don Darby
   
Others Present: Don Shvegzda, City Engineer; Anne McBride, City Planner; William McErlane, Building Official

   
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011

(Mrs. Boice moved to accept the minutes of the December 13, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting; Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and with 7 “aye” votes from the Planning Commission Members, the minutes were accepted.)


IV. REPORT ON COUNCIL

(No report presented at this meeting.)


V. CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Darby: There is no correspondence to report.


VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Chairman Darby: We will move on to Old Business; Item A, a Minor Revision to the PUD Plan, signage and exterior elevation modification for Hobby Lobby at 11711 Princeton Pike.

Mr. McErlane: Mr. Chairman, we received an email from Mr. John Gilhart asking to be tabled until the February meeting.

Chairman Darby: This is the third delay.

Mr. Okum: This is a revision and an update to the existing PUD; these things evolve so projects like that can change. I think that we need to give them time to get their stuff together.

(Mr. Vanover moved to table the item; Mr. Okum seconded and with a unanimous “aye” vote from the Planning Commission Members the request to table was approved.)


B. Chairman Darby: Final PUD Plan for the Outdoor Advertising Device at 11752 Commons Drive.

Mr. Tom Fahey: I have with me Mike Shrayer from Lamar. We are in front of you today to ask you to consider revisions that we have made to our previous plan. It has been a long process and we hope we can look for your support tonight. We took the changes from the last meeting that we were at, to heart and we feel like we have made a new design that fits the request that we felt we received from you. We added a top and the “City of Springdale” to the top and have made the column wider and flared it at the base as well as at the top.

    (At this time Mr. McErlane and Ms. McBride read their comments.)

Mr. Okum: I compliment you on making the adjustments and sort of reading the vision that the Planning Commission was trying to convey to you. I have a question regarding the illumination issue; the top box with the “City of Springdale” I thought reverse laser-cut type of channel, with the “City of Springdale” would be better suited to that instead of plastic letters sitting on top of a metal panel. I am thinking different than Staff but that is at yours and this Commission’s pleasure. I’m very pleased with the changes. Will the base of the unit be seen from the roadway?

Mr. Fahey: I believe it will be; yes.

Mr. Okum: Typically we require landscaping, an architectural landscape treatment be applied to the base surrounding any monument sign or pole sign in the City, so I think that would be appropriate. Staff would review that landscaping plan and that would be something that you would need to maintain as you keep up with the sign maintenance. What is your feeling about the illuminated letters?

Mr. Fahey: I agree with Staff; I felt like having it non-illuminated best serves the sign.

Mr. Okum: One of the things that came up in the past year that seems to have been an item that has never been addressed before; we had a sign on the interstate very similar, a reverse-lit sign, and you could not read it. It came to mind that illegible information is also a concern. I don’t know if you have a standard for the size of lettering that you put into your signs but for the motoring traffic, I think that is something that we need to be concerned with.

Mr. Fahey: Right; o.k.

Mr. Bauer: I echo Mr. Okum’s comments and I think you have come a long way from where we were the last time with the sign on a pole; I think you made some great changes and I endorse what you have. I would agree with Staff’s comments on illumination.

Mr. Vanover: I am very pleased; I like my Mohawk on the top. This is definitely much more aesthetic and I appreciate the extra effort.

Mr. Okum: One of the things that I was promoting at the last meeting was the architectural content and the purpose of that and establishing a standard that is consistent with what we require on all businesses in the City of Springdale. I just want to place in the record that I believe that this is an architectural feature that definitely ties to the architectural character of the development that is there and therefore I will be supporting the request. I think it is important because anything that we put out there it would be hard for us as a Commission to say to other businesses in the community that what was originally presented would be a reasonable architectural feature when we weren’t even requiring it on probably the biggest sign in the City of Springdale’s history.

Mrs. Boice: I want to say that what has gone on here with our ideas, your ideas and the back and forth, and coming to a nice conclusion like this where we are both on different sides of the table does encourage me to believe that still in America two opposing units can get together and work together and accomplish something. Thank you for working with us so nicely, we truly appreciate that.

Chairman Darby: I want to congratulate you on what I think is a very good job. You listened to the comments that came from this Board and you implemented them. Since we had the initial discussion about this project I have become a lot keener as I drive around looking at signs. I think this will stand out; you have done a good job.

Mr. Fahey: My colleague Mike brought to my attention the fact that your request on the landscaping had been addressed in a previous meeting and it was decided that landscaping wouldn’t be required and I think one of the reasons we flared the bottom was to address that.

Ms. McBride: Yes, I had that in some of my initial comments and I think the Commission decided that it didn’t need to be landscaped.

Mr. Okum: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the Outdoor Advertising Device, Tri-County Commons PUD Final Development Plan at 11752 Commons Drive to include Staff’s comments and recommendations in that motion and to be approved based upon the exhibits presented and provided to us this evening.
(Mrs. Boice seconded the motion and with seven affirmative votes from the Planning Commission Members the request was approved.)

Chairman Darby: When can we expect to see this?

Mr. Fahey: They are moving forward as quickly as possible; ninety to one hundred and twenty days or quicker, if possible.

Mr. Larry Bergman: I want to thank you, because it not only adds value to us as the developer of that project but also for the community, we need that signage for the retailers in the area and also to be able to sustain the people we have.

   
VII. NEW BUSINESS

(No New Business presented.)


VIII. DISCUSSION CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
   
    (No items for discussion presented at this meeting.)


IX. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Chairman Darby: The Chairman approved wall signage, as listed on the agenda. The next meeting will be on February 14, 2012.

   
X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Okum moved to adjourn; Mr. Vanover seconded and with seven affirmative
votes from the Planning Commission Members present, the meeting adjourned at
7:18 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________, 2012 ___________________________________
            Don Darby, Chairman


________________________, 2012 ___________________________________
                Richard Bauer, Secretary